Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-09-05 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Tuesday, September 5, 2017 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS This Item has Been Removed and Will be Heard at a Later Date Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs 5:00-5:30 PM 1A. Declaration of Support for SB 797 (Hill), a Bill Allowing Regional Entities and Residents of Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties to Vote to Increase the Sales Tax by 1/8 Cent for Caltrain Operations and Capital Purposes Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 5:30-5:40 PM REVISED 2 September 5, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Oral Communications 5:40-5:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 5:55-6:00 PM 2.Approval of Action Minutes for the August 21, 2017 Council Meeting Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:00-8:00 PM 3.PUBLIC HEARING. Adoption of an Ordinance for an Extension of Interim Ordinance Number 5357 Imposing an Annual Limit of 50,000 net new Square Feet of Office/R&D Uses in Designated Areas of the City to June 30, 2018 as Recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 26, 2017; and Direction Regarding a Replacement Ordinance. The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) 8:00-10:00 PM 4.Adoption of the Community Engagement Plan, Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade Separation Alternatives Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 3 September 5, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Additional Council Meetings Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation September 5, 2017 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting September 6, 2017 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting September 6, 2017 (Closed Session) Sp. City Council Meeting-Closed Session September 6, 2017 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8415) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Meeting Date: 8/28/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Support for SB 797 (Hill), increasing regional sales tax by 1/8 cent to partially fund Caltrain Title: Declaration of Support for SB 797 (Hill), a Bill Allowing Regional Entities and Residents of Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties to Vote to Increase the Sales Tax by 1/8 Cent for Caltrain Operations and Capital Purposes From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council declare its support for SB 797 (Hill), a bill allowing the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to petition regional entities and the voters of Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, to increase the sales tax by 1/8 cent to fund Caltrain operations and capital expenditures, and direct the City Manager to advocate for its adoption, including submitting letters of support to the legislature, contacting the author to offer support, and directing the City’s lobbyist to testify on behalf of the bill in committee hearings and meet with the legislative offices to advocate for the bill on behalf of the City. Background SB 797 is a bill primarily seeking to alleviate the gridlock on Highway 101 and reduce regional traffic congestion by expanding Caltrain service. Caltrain is owned and operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, comprised of representatives from the City and County of San Francisco, the San Mateo County Transit District and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. In support of the bill, Caltrain notes that its Fiscal Year 2017 operating budget is fully balanced, without cutting services or increasing fares. However, a balanced budget depends on one-time-only funds, which in turns depends on ridership. Ridership fluctuates and is not a dependable source of revenue year over year. Additionally, Caltrain still must address a structural deficit that leaves the agency vulnerable in years of ridership decline or economic downturn. To address these budget impacts as well as capital improvements, SB 797 seeks to create an additional revenue City of Palo Alto Page 2 source for Caltrain from the citizens of the region in which it operates through a sales tax increase. The increase would not exceed 0.125 percent, or 1/8 cent. Discussion This recommendation meets two of the City’s 2017 legislative priorities: promoting local rail and other local and regional transportation programs that reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, and supporting the regional improvement of air quality. Caltrain is a local rail service that reduces single occupancy vehicle trips; ridership reduces the number of autos and auto emissions on our roads, which positively affects air quality. If the bill becomes law, it must be approved by a majority vote of the Supervisors of Santa Clara, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the San Mateo County Transit District, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. It must also receive approval of 2/3 of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board before going to the voters for their approval by a 2/3 vote. Timeline, Resource Impact, Policy Implications, Environmental Review (If Applicable) SB 797 has passed Senate and Assembly committees, and is returning to the Senate for final votes. If it passes the legislature by a majority vote, the Governor must sign the bill within twelve days of receiving it for the bill to become law on January 1, 2018. At that time, the County Supervisors and entities above may vote on the measure before sending it to regional voters. There is no resource impact or policy implication associated with this action. This is not a “project” under CEQA requiring environmental review as it will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 5, 2017 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the August 21, 2017 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 08-21-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 6 Regular Meeting August 21, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth arrived at 6:02 P.M., Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach arrived at 6:15 P.M. Absent: Scharff Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Lalo Perez, Eric Nickel, Rumi Portillo, Molly Stump) Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a). CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant) – Palo Alto-Stanford Fire Protection Agreement. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Filseth, Scharff, Wolbach absent Council went into Closed Session at 6:02 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 7:52 P.M. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/21/17 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve Agenda Item Numbers 1-8. 1. Resolution 9702 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining That a Target for the City of Palo Alto Utilities to Procure Energy Storage Systems is not Appropriate due to the Lack of Cost-effective Options.” 2. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement With Electrical Consultants, Inc. in the Amount of $196,330 for the Maybell Electric Substation Protection/Control Upgrade Project Design, and Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate and Approve Additional Related Services in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $39,266. 3. Resolution 9703 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Standard Form Verified Emission Reduction (VER) (Carbon Offset) Purchase and Sale Agreement;” and Resolution 9704 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Approve VER Master Agreements With 3Degrees Group, Inc. and Element Markets, LLC.; and Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase VERs From 3Degrees Group, Inc. and Element Markets, LLC. Under Specified Terms and Conditions During Calendar Years 2017 Through 2026, Inclusive, Subject to Limitations.” 4. Accept the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and Find the SUMC Parties in Compliance With the Development Agreement. 5. Approval to Name the new Printmaking Studio at Cubberley Community Center as the Paula Kirkeby Press. 6. 3972, 3980, and 3990 El Camino Real [17PLN-00265]: Approval of a Final Map for a 6.19-acre Site That Includes the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Site (3980 El Camino Real) and two Adjacent Commercial Properties (3972 and 3990 El Camino Real), for Lot Reconfiguration and Lot Line Removals to Reduce Five Parcels to Three Parcels and Provide Access and Utilities Easements, Subject to Conditions of a Tentative Map Considered by the City Council on August 14, 2017. 7. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement With The Shalleck Collaborative, Inc. for Design Services to Upgrade the City of Palo Alto Council Chambers for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $123,708. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/21/17 8. Resolution 9705 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Establish a Sister City Relationship Between Heidelberg, Germany and Palo Alto, California, United States.” MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Action Items 9. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and Approval of a Site and Design Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square-foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated Between March 6, 2017 and April 7, 2017. Both the Planning & Transportation Commission (March 8, 2017) and Architectural Review Board (May 18, 2017) Have Recommended Approval of the Project. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30 (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 28, 2017). 10. Approval of a Letter of Intent With Pets In Need to Develop a Financing Study Including Public and Private Financing for a new Animal Shelter Facility and Commit up to $60,000 for the Study, and Outline a Process and Timeline for Negotiating an Operating Agreement and Interim Improvements for the Current Animal Shelter. MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign a Letter of Intent to Pets In Need to commit up to $60,000 for a Capital Campaign Planning Study for a new Animal Shelter and outline a process and timeline, subject to subsequent Council approval, for making interim improvements to the current Animal Shelter, negotiating an operating agreement for the new shelter, and planning for construction and operation of a new shelter. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to prioritize as conditions of an agreement, not limiting animal intake and make spay and neuter services free or at a low cost.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/21/17 AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “consider asking the Mayor to appoint a City Council ad hoc committee to oversee this effort and potentially be involved in possible fundraising efforts.” AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “consider asking the Mayor to appoint a City Council ad hoc committee to support this effort and potentially be involved in possible fundraising efforts.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to authorize the City Manager or designee to sign a Letter of Intent to Pets In Need to commit up to $60,000 for a Capital Campaign Planning Study for a new Animal Shelter and outline a process and timeline, subject to subsequent Council approval, for making interim improvements to the current Animal Shelter, negotiating an operating agreement for the new shelter, and planning for construction and operation of a new shelter and consider asking the Mayor to appoint a City Council ad hoc committee to support this effort and potentially be involved in possible fundraising efforts. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Wolbach no, Scharff absent 11. Staff, Utilities Advisory Commission, and Policy and Services Committee Recommendation That Council Direct Staff to: (1) Pursue a Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node Network (FTTN) for Fiber and Broadband Expansion; and (2) Expand Wi-Fi to Unserved City Facilities and Discontinue Consideration of City-Provided Wi-Fi in Commercial Areas. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to: A. Develop a business case for a municipal-provided Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) network for fiber and broadband expansion (“Option 2”); engage a management consultant to develop the business case, funding plans, identify potential partners and/or service providers, and high level network design; and engage an engineering firm to design a FTTN network including an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber- to-the-Premises (FTTP) network; and B. Expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities and discontinue consideration of City provided Wi-Fi in commercial areas; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/21/17 C. Expediently return to Council with Ordinances that will lower the City’s FTTN construction costs such as a Dig Once, String Once Ordinance; a Multi-unit housing Ordinance; and a Microtrenching Ordinance. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion Part A, “and develop a business case including subsidies for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), requiring open access” after “expansion (“Option 2”).” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to: A. Develop a business case using the Fiber Fund and existing fiber to subsidize Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide “last mile” connections providing open access, engage a management consultant to develop the business case, funding plans, identify potential partners and/or service providers, and high level network design; and engage an engineering firm to design a Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) network including an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network; and B. Expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities and discontinue consideration of City provided Wi-Fi in commercial areas; and C. Expediently return to Council with Ordinances that will lower the City’s FTTN construction costs such as a Dig Once, String Once Ordinance; a Multi-unit housing Ordinance; and a Microtrenching Ordinance. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion Part A, “Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN)” and remove from the Motion Part C, “the City’s FTTN.” SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to: A. Develop a business case using the Fiber Fund and existing Fiber to subsidize Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide “last mile” connections providing open access, engage a management consultant to develop the business case, funding plans, identify potential partners and/or service providers, and high level network design; and engage an engineering firm to design a network including an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/21/17 B. Expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities and discontinue consideration of City provided Wi-Fi in commercial areas; and C. Expediently return to Council with Ordinances that will lower construction costs such as a Dig Once, String Once Ordinance; a Multi- unit housing Ordinance; and a Microtrenching Ordinance. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED: 2-6 Holman, Tanaka yes, Scharff absent MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Holman, Tanaka no, Scharff absent Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Kniss reported recent changes to cap and trade greenhouse gas reduction regulations were not favorable to air boards, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). She is the chairperson of BAAQMD. Council Member Wolbach requested Staff return with additional information regarding transportation funding options including a potential tax. He requested this take place with sufficient time to allow for a potential measure on the November 2018 ballot. He requested Staff schedule additional Town Hall meetings with greater notice and community outreach. Council Member DuBois reported his attendance along with Council Members Kou, Tanaka, and Assembly Member Marc Berman at a multi-denominational assembly for peace potluck on Sunday evening at the Jewish Community Center. Vice Mayor Kniss reported the Mitchell Park Library held a solar eclipse viewing party Monday morning. Council Member Holman reported watching the solar eclipse at the Baylands. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:13 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8234) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/5/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Office Limit Ord Extension & Discussion for Replacement Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING. Adoption of an Ordinance for an Extension of Interim Ordinance 5357 Imposing an Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet of Office/R&D Uses in Designated Areas of City to June 30, 2018 as Recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 26, 2017 and Direction on a Replacement Ordinance. The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1. Find the proposed ordinance exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3); 2. Adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) to extend the existing interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance #5357 for an additional seven months to expire on June 30, 2018, allowing time for development and adoption of a replacement ordinance, as recommended by the Planning & Transportation Commission on July 26, 2017; and 3. Provide direction to staff regarding contents of a replacement ordinance for consideration at a future public hearing. At a minimum, City Council direction is needed to address the following issues and choices: A. Boundaries of the area that should be subject to the annual limit 1. Use the boundaries in the existing ordinance; 2. Make the ordinance apply citywide; or 3. Make the ordinance apply citywide, with the exception of the Stanford Research Park. City of Palo Alto Page 2 B. The quantitative annual limit 1. Continue to use 50,000 gross square feet (gsf) as the annual limit; or 2. Identify some other number of square feet as the annual limit. C. The fate of unused annual allocations 1. Do not roll-over unused allocations to future years; 2. Roll-over unused allocations for up to three years before they expire (or some other timeframe); 3. Roll-over unused allocations up to a numeric limit, such as 100,000 gsf per year; or 4. Allow allocations to roll over indefinitely. D. Uses that are exempt from the annual limit 1. Maintain the current list of exemptions for (a) office/R&D development less than 2,000 gsf; (b) medical office development less than 5,000 gsf; and (c) self-mitigating projects that propose sufficient housing to meet the housing demand of additional employment; or 2. Modify the current list of exemptions. E. The process for reviewing projects subject to the annual limit 1. Continue the current competitive process; 2. Use a first-come first-served process; or 3. Use some alternate or modified process. Executive Summary On September 21, 2015, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance establishing an annual limit on the amount of net new office/research and development (R&D) space that can be approved each fiscal year in specified areas of the City including Downtown, the California Avenue area, and the El Camino Real Corridor; this interim ordinance will expire on November 26, 2017. To allow sufficient time for staff to prepare the replacement ordinance and to assure no lapse in the regulations, an extension of the existing interim ordinance is proposed. In addition to the extension of the interim ordinance, staff also seeks direction from Council regarding the replacement ordinance for regulating office/R&D development. As indicated in the Recommendation above, items identified for Council’s comment and direction include the boundaries and quantitative size of the annual limit, as well as the fate of unused annual allocations, exempt uses, and the process for reviewing projects subject to the annual limit. More explanation is provided in the Discussion section below. Background The current City’s Comprehensive Plan contains an overall cap of 3.2 million square feet on the amount of non-residential development that can occur in Downtown and in “monitored areas” City of Palo Alto Page 3 of the City, but does not currently limit the pace of development.1 In the summer of 2014, conversations with the community, associated with early Comprehensive Plan update workshops, identified some frustration that the current Comprehensive Plan’s approach to growth management (i.e. an overall “cap” on non-residential development) has not been effective at moderating the pace of growth and development in the robust economic recovery following the recession. Based on these early communications, a growth management policy that moderated or metered the rate of development rather than the overall amount became the focus of discussions. This emphasis on the rate of development had its genesis in the impacts associated with increased employment in the City as experienced by Palo Alto residents. Impacts include traffic congestion/delay, parking demand, increased housing costs, and more. The objective of the annual limit is to moderate the pace of change by metering the rate of office/R&D development, thereby also reducing the rate of employment growth and related impacts. Over the course of six meetings from January through June of 2015, the City Council discussed the concept of limiting the pace of new office/R&D development, a discussion that resulted in the adoption of the Annual Office Limit (AOL) interim ordinance in September 2015. During the January 30, 2017 City Council hearing on the draft Land Use Element, Council directed staff to bring forward a replacement annual office limit ordinance separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, affirming that the development limitations were to remain in effect on a continuing basis beyond the interim ordinance’s sunset date. Additional background information is available in earlier staff reports on this subject, including the Planning and Transportation Commission study session staff report dated March 29, 2017 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56641) and a City Council report for the approval of the original interim ordinance, dated September 21, 2015 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48971). Interim Ordinance (2015) In September 2015, Council adopted an ordinance to establish an annual limit on new office/R&D development in areas of the City experiencing the most rapid change. The ordinance applied to office development in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, established applicable land uses, designated areas affected, identified exemptions, and outlined other procedural items. The City Council also approved a process for proposals once the 50,000 sq. ft. limit is 1 The cap that applies to “monitored areas” of the City was established by Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 and addresses all non-residential development, not just office/R&D. “Monitored areas” are illustrated in Comprehensive Plan Map L-6. The ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update is proposing to change this policy so it would place a cumulative cap on office/R&D uses citywide except at the Stanford University Medical Center (i.e. not just in “monitored areas”). The Comprehensive Plan Update does not contain a policy regarding an office/R&D annual limit, which the Council indicated it wished to adopt as a standalone ordinance. City of Palo Alto Page 4 reached. The ordinance was to be in effect for a limited duration to pilot the new, interim procedures and then determine future measures. As described later in this report, the 50,000 sq. ft. limit has not been exceeded during this pilot period. Below is a summary of the key elements of the ordinance. Please refer to Attachment B for additional details. Affected Area The interim ordinance applies to three primary commercial areas in Palo Alto: Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real. These areas are delineated on the map (Attachment B, Exhibit A) included with the ordinance. Applicable Land Uses The following land uses, which are defined in Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, are limited by the AOL Ordinance: Research and Development Administrative Office Services General Business Office Medical Office over 5,000 sq. ft. Professional Office Exempt Projects There are three types of projects that qualify for an exemption from the limitations: Small projects less than 2,000 sq. ft. and accessory office space that is incidental to principal use. Small medical office less than or equal to 5,000 sq. ft. Self-mitigating projects that provide rental housing to accommodate more workers than would be employed by the project and includes substantial transportation demand management strategies that improve current parking and traffic conditions. Process and Selection Criteria The interim ordinance requires the City to hold all approval-ready or “qualified” applications that are subject to the ordinance until March 31st each fiscal year. At that time, if the sum total of the applications does not exceed the 50,000 sq. ft. annual limit, the applications can be approved and the unused portion of the 50,000 sq. ft. limit expires at the end of the fiscal year. When the 50,000 sq. ft. limit is exceeded by the qualified projects pending on March 31st, the following criteria are to be analyzed and used by Council to evaluate and rank projects for approval or disapproval (projects that are identified for disapproval can be deferred to the next year at the request of the applicant): City of Palo Alto Page 5 Impacts: appropriate density of development; avoidance/mitigation of traffic and parking impacts. Design: quality design and compatible with surrounding context. Environmental Quality: degree of environmental impacts as determined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. Public Benefit: meaningful public benefits included. Uses: inclusion of mixed-use with substantial housing, retail, and cultural amenities. As shown in Figure 1, there are three primary steps that apply to office development. The first step in determining if the AOL thresholds apply is to inventory all qualifying projects on March 30 that are ready for action. Then, the second step is to calculate whether the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold has been triggered. If it has, then the projects would be evaluated based on the criteria listed above (e.g. impacts, design, public benefit, etc.) and ranked for Council review and action. If the threshold is not triggered, then the qualifying projects would follow the standard steps for review and action. Action on both categories of projects must be completed prior to the end of the fiscal year, June 30. Figure 1: Primary Decision Points in AOL Review Process Administrative Guidelines The administrative guidelines (Attachment C) were reviewed and approved by Council on February 8, 2016 and outline the procedural steps in more detail to streamline implementation. Additionally, the scoring process and “scorecard” for evaluation of projects are explained in finer detail. When qualifying projects exceed the 50,000 sq. ft. limit, each project will be City of Palo Alto Page 6 assigned points (based on criteria above) and then ranked; the Planning Director will provide Council with a recommended ranking for consideration. The guidelines also clarify that all Council approved entitlements would follow the standard review timelines (i.e. entitlement expiration, extensions, etc.) and if the applicant allowed the entitlement to expire, the approved square footage allocation associated with the project could not be rolled-over to another project; the approved project must use it or lose it. AOL Activity FY16-FY17 The first round of analysis for qualifying AOL projects was last year in March 2016 and the 50,000 sq. ft. limit was not exceeded; there were three projects proposed totaling 40,863 sq. ft. In March 2017, the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold was again not exceeded since there were no qualifying office projects ready for approval. For March 2018, there is one project on file so far with 11,164 sq. ft. of office that may potentially be ready for approval; it is not likely that another large office project, if submitted soon, would be ready for approval by March 2018. Staff’s observation is that projects proposed in the ordinance-affected areas of the City are either limiting their office use to less than 2,000 sq. ft. (to be exempt) or choosing to pursue other commercial and housing uses. Subsequent to the implementation of the AOL ordinance, there has not been any significant office development proposed in the ordinance-affected areas. Although the time period has been relatively short, it appears that the interim ordinance has reduced the amount of applications for net new office projects. A list of the AOL applicable projects referred to above is provided in Attachment F. Planning and Transportation Commission Review of Extension On July 26, 2017 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the proposed extension of the AOL ordinance and unanimously recommended approval. No changes were recommended for the extension ordinance. The PTC comments provided regarding the future replacement ordinance are discussed later in this report. The PTC meeting minutes are included as Attachment D, and the staff report is available online (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58763 ). Planning and Transportation Commission Comments for Replacement Ordinance On March 29, 2017, the PTC discussed and provided a range of comments for the preparation of the replacement ordinance. The highlights of the comments are below: AOL Intent: Several PTC members voiced strong concerns that the AOL was not the appropriate approach to address the concerns focused on traffic congestion and single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips. One alternative approach that was suggested by one City of Palo Alto Page 7 commissioner included using both the AOL and traffic mitigation, and the AOL would sunset when effective mitigation measures were put in place (or the cap increased or restrictions lessened, etc.). Competitive Process: The majority of the PTC expressed a preference for maintaining a competition; only two spoke against a competitive process and encouraged a first-come first-served approach. Additionally, it was suggested by one commissioner that for the formal evaluation process, the Architectural Review Board should be the judging panel and not a political body (i.e. City Council), so as to maintain a greater sense of impartiality. FAR Exemptions: Two PTC members specifically mentioned that smaller office proposals should not be exempt from the regulations because cumulatively these smaller offices do add to the congestion impacts since these small businesses may be less likely to have a robust TDM program in place. Boundary: Two PTC members specifically mentioned including Stanford Research Park (SRP) within the applicable boundary because the uses there generate the highest volume of SOV trips when compared to the other commercial areas in the City. It was also suggested that office development should be allowed or encouraged in areas that are most accessible by transit (i.e. Downtown and Cal Ave) and be more regulated in areas not well serviced by transit. FAR Rollover: The majority of the PTC supported some type of rollover allowance but did not suggest specific criteria. 50,000 Square Foot Limit: It was suggested by one commissioner that the limit be reduced, but the majority of the PTC did not raise any concerns about the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold. Self-Mitigating Projects: Several PTC members asked for information on examples of these types of projects. At the July 26, 2017 PTC meeting, two members of the public made comments directed towards the future replacement ordinance, not the interim ordinance extension. Both speakers stated that the 50,000 sq. ft. limit was too high; raised the concern about the jobs/housing imbalance; and thought the regulations should apply to the City as a whole, although one speaker specifically stated citywide minus the Stanford Research Park. The PTC minutes for March 29 are included in Attachment E; and the associated staff report is available online at (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp). City of Palo Alto Page 8 Discussion The discussion items below are separated into those applicable to the existing interim ordinance extension and those focused on the replacement ordinance. A. Interim Ordinance Extension With the direction from Council in January 2017 to proceed in preparing on-going office limit regulations and with the interim ordinance due to expire in November 2017, staff is proposing an extension to the existing interim ordinance to provide staff sufficient time to complete the necessary preparation work; no changes are proposed. The interim ordinance extension would expire on June 30, 2018, which coincides with the end of the fiscal year. It is staff’s intent to have the replacement ordinance in place by this time so there is no lapse in the requirements. B. Future Replacement Ordinance In order to prepare an AOL ordinance to replace the interim ordinance, staff seeks direction from Council on any additions or modifications to the existing interim regulations. The discussion below is provided to facilitate focused feedback. At the time of the adoption of the interim ordinance in 2015 and in the recent January 2017 Council discussion, it was clear that Council intended to establish code changes to continue the development restrictions of the interim ordinance. On January 30, 2017, individual councilmembers commented on the AOL during their discussion of related Comprehensive Plan policies and indicated their support for expanding the affected area of the City (to the whole city minus the Stanford Research Park) and potentially dispensing with the competitive process (and transitioning to a first-come first-served system). The issues and options below have been highlighted to help guide the discussion for direction on the replacement ordinance. These issues reflect similar topics that the PTC commented on that are noted above. 1. Boundary The affected geographic boundary under the current interim ordinance includes areas in the City that have experienced the most rapid growth. Although the boundary does not precisely follow established business districts, it generally follows the Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real commercial areas. The three suggested options include maintaining the current boundary or modifying it to apply the ordinance citywide, either including or excluding the Stanford Research Park (SRP). A map that indicates the areas within the entire City where office use is allowed is provided for reference as Attachment H. Option 1: Maintain the existing boundary, which is limited to Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real corridor. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Option 2: Apply Regulations Citywide. This option would encompass the SRP as well as all other parts of the city. The AOL regulations, if extended citywide, would apply only to new square footage not covered under the Mayfield Development Agreement (DA), an exception that could add some complexity to the program. Applying the AOL citywide would recognize there is additional development potential for office/R&D throughout the areas shown in Attachment H. Option 3: Apply Regulations Citywide Excluding the SRP. This approach would apply the regulations to office development throughout the City with an exception for SRP. A potential reason to exclude the SRP is that it is a discrete geographic area with a development agreement in effect governing development. Also, with a single property owner, the City has a greater opportunity to negotiate agreements regarding development and the impacts of development. 2. Square Footage Limit On March 23, 2015, Council directed staff to use a 50,000 sq. ft. threshold for the annual limit for office development, based upon review of the VTA’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) office/R&D development data spanning 2001 through 2015. From 2001 through 2017, the CMP data shows there were six years when office/R&D development in the commercial districts affected by the interim ordinance exceeded 50,000 sq. ft. (FY2006, FY2007, FY2010, FY2012, FY2014, and FY2015). Within the three ordinance-affected areas, the average annual development over the 17 years was approximately 39,459 sq. ft., with a range from 0-106,829 sq. ft. A table summarizing this development activity is provided as Attachment G.2 Option 1: Maintain the existing 50,000 sq. ft. annual limit. Option 2: Identify a new annual limit. 3. Unused Square Footage Allocations A related issue to the annual limit number is consideration of allowing the roll-over of unused floor area. The majority of the PTC supported the concept of rolling over unused floor area, but did not have any suggestions on how this should be managed. An indefinite roll-over (i.e. allocations roll over without restriction until they are used) could be seen as inconsistent with 2 The CMP data includes all office and R&D development, including projects that are exempt from the AOL ordinance. This explains the square footage difference in the CMP data (Attachment G) and the approved AOL projects (Attachment F) for FY2016. City of Palo Alto Page 10 the purposes of the AOL because it would defeat the goal of pacing the development and allow spikes to occur. Below are some options for consideration. Option 1: Continue with no-rollover allowance. Option 2: Allow floor area that is not allocated to a development project to carry over to subsequent years, but make it expire after three years (or another timeframe). Option 3: Allow the roll-over of floor area that is not approved with a development project to carry over without expiration, but include a cap (e.g. 100,000 sq. ft.). Option 4: Allow the roll-over of floor area that is not approved with a development project to carry over without expiration and continually add on to the yearly limit. 4. Exemptions As mentioned earlier, small office projects up to 2,000 sq. ft. and medical office up to 5,000 sq. ft. are exempt from the AOL under the interim ordinance. Several PTC members stated that all new office should count towards the 50,000 sq. ft. because, cumulatively, many smaller offices could have the same or more impacts as larger offices. The PTC discussion suggested that since these businesses are small, they potentially are less likely to have the resources or impetus to actively manage a Transportation Demand Management program for their individual businesses. Option 1: Continue to exempt small projects (office/R&D development less than 2,000 gsf and medical office development less than 5,000 gsf) and self-mitigating projects that propose sufficient housing to meet the housing demand of additional employment. Option 2: Modify the current list of exemptions. 5. Review Process The current process under the interim ordinance requires a competitive approach when the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold is exceeded. There is a subjective evaluation that must occur for each of the projects to rank them and forward to Council for consideration. This process is untested because thus far the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold has not been exceeded. Staff anticipates that this process may be challenging to implement because of its subjective nature. This process is also time-intensive for the applicant and staff, and does not provide any assurances to the developer that their project will be approved now or in the future. The natural side effect of this ambiguity is the reluctance of developers to propose office projects in the City. City of Palo Alto Page 11 An alternative to the competitive process is to approve projects on a first-come first-served basis. This approach would approve projects in order, based on the date the application is ready for approval. Any number of projects could be approved, depending on their size, up to and until the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold is reached. This approach would obviate the need for approvable projects to wait until March 30. This approach likely can be done in various iterations. Options for consideration are: Option 1: Retain the existing competitive process. Option 2: First-Come First-Served All projects follow the standard review steps as applicable to the project type (i.e. Architectural Review, Site & Design), but instead of sending projects to Council for action when the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold is exceeded, as required now, the applications would complete the applicable review, on first-come first-served basis3. Projects that cannot be approved for that fiscal year would be in the queue for approval in the following year. Option 3: Consider an alternative or modified process. Staff would encourage the use of a first-come first-served process because it will be more straightforward to implement for both staff and property owners, while still achieving the purpose of metering office growth in designated areas of the City. Administrative Guidelines The current administrative guidelines will need to be modified based on the revised AOL ordinance. After receiving direction from Council, staff will prepare the revised guidelines and present then in tandem with a draft ordinance. Public Outreach In order to inform the community about the efforts to prepare the replacement Annual Office Limit ordinance, staff informed various known developers, property owners, architects, and resident groups about this meeting. Staff would welcome City Council input on the desired level of public outreach for the adoption of the replacement ordinance. At a minimum, staff will use electronic notification for interested parties and will maintain a project information page on the City’s website to keep the public up-to-date on meeting dates and staff reports. Policy Implications 3 The “first-come first-served” determination uses to the date a project is deemed complete according to the Permit Streamlining Act and not the date an application is filed with the City. Using the deemed complete date deters applicants from submitting incomplete application packages to simply secure an earlier filing date. City of Palo Alto Page 12 The proposed ordinance would seek to moderate the pace of development without changing the zoning regulations that affect land uses and densities. The annual limit program would complement and not replace growth management stategies in the current Comprehensive Plan, which consists of a cumulative cap on non-residential development Downtown and in “monitored areas” Citywide. In this way, the proposal would implement Comprehensive Plan Policy B-1 to “use a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure that business change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods.” Timeline The AOL interim ordinance (#5357), adopted on September 21, 2015, will expire on November 26, 2017. The approval of the attached extension ordinance would make the annual office limit effective for seven additional months, expiring on June 30, 2018. For the replacement AOL ordinance, staff anticipates returning to the PTC and City Council for review and final action in Spring 2018. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is considered exempt under Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is a temporary measure designed to slow the rate of change in some commercial areas of the City. Attachments: Attachment A: Annual Office Limit Extension Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: Interim Ordinance #5357 Annual Office Limit (PDF) Attachment C: Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Guideline (PDF) Attachment D: PTC Meeting Excerpt Minutes, July 26, 2017 (Ordinance Extension) (DOC) Attachment E: PTC Meeting Excerpt Minutes, March 29, 2017 (Comments on Permanent Ordinance) (PDF) Attachment F: Approved and Pending Office Projects Subject to the AOL Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment G: Office Development Summary FY 2001 to FY 2017 (PDF) Attachment H: Map Showing Where Office Use is Allowed in Palo Alto (PDF) Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 170818 jb Lee/PLANNING 1 Ordinance No.__________ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending Interim Ordinance No. 5357 that Added Sections 18.85.200 through 18.85.208 to Chapter 18.85 of Title 18 Imposing an Office Annual Limit of 50,000 Square Feet in Designated Areas of City The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. On October 26, 2015, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5357, and related findings, establishing an annual limit of 50,000 square feet of net new office/R&D development in specified areas of the City including Downtown, the California Avenue area, and the El Camino Real Corridor. By its terms, Ordinance No. 5357 will expire within two years of its effective date of November 26, 2015 or upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update, whichever occurs earlier. B. On January 30, 2017, during consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City Council directed staff to prepare and bring forward, separate from the Comprehensive Plan, an ordinance establishing the annual office limit on a continuing basis without a specified sunset date. C. A limited extension of the interim ordinance through June 30, 2018 will allow time for the City to complete the necessary work and analysis to prepare the annual office limit ordinance. D. The findings adopted in Ordinance No. 5357 are incorporated herein by reference and reaffirmed. SECTION 2. Extension. The City Council hereby extends Interim Ordinance No. 5357 through June 30, 2018. SECTION 3. Supersede. This Ordinance supersedes any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Interim Ordinance No. 5357 inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. 170613 jb Lee/PLANNING 2 SECTION 5. Effective Period. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance shall expire on the earlier of June 30, 2018 or upon Council adoption of an ordinance replacing the interim ordinance and establishing an annual office limit on a continuing basis. SECTION 6. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is a temporary measure designed to slow the rate of change in some commercial areas of the City. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment DocuSign Envelope ID: 058EA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084 711 CF4A49 Ordinance No. 5357 Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 18.85.200 (Annual Office Limit) to Chapter 18.85 entitled "Interim Zoning Ordinances" Imposing an Office Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet in Designated Areas of City FINDINGS A. The City of Palo Alto has long been considered the birth place of Silicon Valley. With its proximity to Stanford University, its international reputation, its deep ties to technology firms, its highly rated public school system and its ample public parks, open space and community centers, Palo Alto continues to serve as a hub for technology-based business. B. Palo Alto is considered one of Silicon Valley's most desirable office market~_,_ _________ _ According to one study Class A office rates have climbed 49 percent since the start of 2010. The same study reported Class B office space increasing by 114.4% since 2010. C. In particular, average commercial rental rates have gone up significantly from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 the average monthly rental rate citywide for office was $4.57 per square foot. That rate increased to $5.12 in 2015. D. As a result, the City has seen a steady increase of new Office and Research and Development (R&D) projects. According to data submitted by the City to support the Valley Transportation Authority's Congestion Management Plan (CMP), since 2001, the City has added 234,002 of net new square feet of office/R& D development in the California Avenue area; 315,586 in the downtown area, and 46,210 in the El Camino Real corridor. E. While this new development is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan, the rate of change has been faster than anticipated, resulting in changes in the character of the City's commercial districts. The changes have also resulted in additional parking demand, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions, and negatively impact the City's jobs/housing ratio. F. Based on the CMP data, there have been six years since 2001 in which more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office/R&D development have been entitled in these districts combined, and these six years include the last two (fiscal years 2014 and 2015). G. Record high monthly rental rates for office space and low vacancy rates suggest that the rapid pace of development is likely to continue, putting pressure on sites that are not currently developed to their maximum potential, and contributing to a feeling in the community that the character of the City's commercial districts are changing too fast. 151001 cs 0131471 1 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope 10: 05BEA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084 711 CF4A49 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. A new Section 18.85.200 {Annual Office Limit) is added to Chapter 18.85 entitled "Interim Zoning Ordinances" to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: "18.85.200 Annual Office Limit 18.85.201 Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the definitions below: (a) Office Annual Limit Area shall include the area shown in Exhibit A, comprising the commercial districts of Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Real corridor. (b) Office Annual Limit Land Uses shall include any of the following uses in the Office Annual Limit Area: 1. Research and Development as defined in Section 18.04.030(123); 2. Administrative Office Services as defined in Section 18.040.030(6); 3. General Business Office as defined in Section 18.040.030(61); 4. Medical Office greater than 5,000 net new square feet as defined in Section 18.04.030(95 ); and 5. Professional Office as defined in Section 18.04.030(116). (c) Qualifying Application shall mean an application for a permit or other planning entitlement for an Office Annual Limit Land Use which (1) has been determined to be complete, (2) has completed the necessary analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act and (3) has been reviewed by all required commissions and/or Planning Director, as applicable. 18.85.202 Office Annual Limit. During the pendency of this Ordinance no more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office Annual Limit Land Uses per fiscal year shall be approved by the City in the Office Annual Limit Area. (a) For purposes of this Ordinance, the fiscal year shall be defined as July 1 to June 30. (b)The 50,000 square foot limit imposed by this section shall not apply to exempt projects as defined in 18.85.203 and such projects shall not be counted towards this limit. (c) This restriction shall be in addition to any other applicable growth restriction including but not limited to Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 and Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Code. In the event multiple policies apply to a project, the policy most restrictive of growth shall apply. 18.85.203 Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from this Ordinance: 151103 cs 0131471 2 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 058EA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084711 CF4A49 (a) Small Projects. Projects containing less than 2,000 net new square feet or less of Office Annual Limit Land Uses and accessory office space that is incidental to and customarily associated with a principal use or facility are exempt from the Office Annual Limit. (b) Small Medical Office Projects. Projects containing 5,000 net new square feet or less of Medical Office are exempt from the Development Cap. (c) Self-Mitigating Projects. Projects that would both: (1) provide rental housing for more workers than would be employed in the project; and (2) provide substantial transportation demand management strategies (individually or in cooperation with other projects or programs) to improve the current parking and traffic conditions. (d) Pipeline Projects. Projects which have been approved, or which are considered "pipeline projects" as follows: 1. Projects which obtained a planning entitlement for an Office Annual Limit Land Use prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 2. Projects which are the subject of a planning entitlement application that was submitted to the City in 2013 or 2014 and deemed complete by the City on or before March 31, 2015. (e) City Office Space. New office space used by the City of Palo Alto. 18.85 .205 Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment. An applicant may request that the requirements of this Ordinance be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this Ordinance would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Any such request under this section shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Director together with an economic analysis or other supporting documentation and shall be acted upon by the City Council. 18.85.206 Procedures for Reviewing Qualifying Applications. The following additional processing and approval requirements shall apply to Office Annual Limit Land Uses: (a) No Qualifying Application for an Office Annual Limit Land Use shall be acted upon by the Director or by the City Council between July 1 and March 31 of the following year. (b) If the combined square footage proposed by all Qualifying Applications that are 151103 cs 0131471 3 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 058EA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084 711 CF4A49 pending on March 31 would not exceed the annual limit, the Qualifying Applications shall be acted upon using the Zoning Code's usual process immediately following March 31. (c) If the combined square footage proposed by all Qualifying Applications would exceed the annual limit, the Director shall rank all Qualifying Applications based on scoring criteria set forth in Section 18.85.207 and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council may accept the Director's recommendation or reevaluate the ranking based on the scoring criteria. Based on their review, the Council shall approve in ranked order one or more Qualifying Applications to achieve a maximum of 50,000 net new square feet. The Council may approve applications as proposed and recommended, and may require modifications of any project to reduce the proposed square footage in order to stay within the 50,000 square feet Office Annual Limit. The Council's action on all Qualifying Applications shall be made before the end of the fiscal year on June 30. (d) Any application which is subject to City Council evaluation and action pursuant to Section (c) above and which was not approved by the City Council shall be denied unless, at the request of the applicant, it is rolled over to the next fiscal year for processing in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance. Further, in lieu of modifications to the project's Office Annual Limit Land Use, the applicant can elect to roll over the application to the next fiscal year. The City and applicant may agree to extend any applicable processing time periods to effectuate this provision. 18.85.207 Selection Criteria. The City Council shall evaluate applications subject to the annual limit using the following criteria based upon weighting set forth in administrative rules or procedures which shall provide that projects meeting criterion (i) shall be selected first and weighted against each other: Impacts (a) The density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surroundings; and (b) The ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking; and (c) The quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality; and Environmental Quality (d) Environmental quality; and Public Benefit (e) The value to the community of public benefits offered; and 151103 cs 0131471 4 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 05BEA42C-633E-4A13-978B-OB4711 CF4A49 (f) Mixed use projects including substantial housing; and (g) Mixed use projects including retail; and (h) Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios; and Pipeline Projects (i) Any entitlement application involving an Office Annual Limit Land Use deemed complete by the City between March 31, 2015 and June 15, 2015. 18.85 .208. The Director has the authority to adopt rules or procedures to implement the efficient and equitable implementation of this Ordinance." SECTION 2. Supersede. This Ordinance supersedes any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. This ordinance shall expire within two years of its effective date or upon Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update, whichever occurs first. SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations II II II II II II II 151103 cs 0131471 5 Rev. October 1, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 058EA42C-633E-4A 13-9788-084711 CF4A49 Section 15061(b)(3) because it is a temporary measure designed to slow the rate of change in some commercial areas of the City. INTRODUCED: September 21, 2015 PASSED: October 26, 2015 AYES: BERMAN, BURT, DUBOIS, FILSETH, HOLMAN, KNISS, SCHARFF, SCHMID, WOLBACH NOES : ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATIEST: ~ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~1~ .. --------------- Senior Assistant City Attorney 151103 cs 0131471 6 APPROVED: Mayor [?:-;;!' 3QFZ2Q8F82064QB City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Rev. October 1, 2015 CJL Stanford Shopping Center Downtown/Unniversity Area UniversityStation PAMF Town & Country California AvenueArea Fry's Site Stanford Research Park El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor Alma Plaza Stanford MedicalCenter CharlestonCenter R-1 San AntonioArea San AntonioArea Midtown West BayshoreArea EdgewoodPlaza East BayshoreArea MSC Embarcadero EastArea SOFA I SOFA II R-1 R-1 (7000) East MeadowCircle s J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d P a g e M i l l R o ad R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R oa d O re g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d U niversity Avenue y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real n e R o a d F o o t h i l l E x p r e s Hi l l vi e w E a st B a y s h or e W e st B a y s h o r e Fabian S a n d Hill R oa d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Lo s Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct Mc Kellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Wa y Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive Hemlock Court Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El C apitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley StreetSouth CourtBryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley StreetEl Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael DriveSt Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina W ay Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road A mes Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Mead ow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road D CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia StreetBowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Arastradero Road Miranda Avenue e Hill Avenue anuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matader o Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Lag u na Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRoblesAvenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Av enue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Expres La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Aven ue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madron o Aven u e Portola Avenu e Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford AvenueBirch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan AvenueJacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road MortonStreet Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar LaneAlannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon AvenueBlair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara DriveColorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado Avenue Simkins Court Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way E Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison AvenueScott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer AvenueGuinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenue Chaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlowe St Maple Stree Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton StreetCowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wils o n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive C University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson AvenuePine Street Mark Twain Street Louis RoadBarbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Edgewood Drive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion AvenueWelch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Hillv Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bays hore Road East Bayshore Road East Bays hore Road West Bayshore Road East Bays hore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Wa y Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 WLane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenu e Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail DrQuail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolu mne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryes sa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado CtAlvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cooksey Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court JenkinsCourt Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L L ane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomitaCourt Lom ita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears CourtMears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mirada Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hill Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way Rai m undo Wa y Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra W alk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco CourtSan Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm R oad Thoburn Court Tolman DriveValdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Alpine Acce ss Road Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r v oir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch RoadPasteur Drive Pasteur Drive This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Commercial & RT Zoning Districts - Office is a Permitted Use w/ Possible GF & Size Limitations ROLM & RP Zoning Districts - Office and R & D is a Permitted Use MOR Zoning District - Medical Office is a Permitted Use PF Zoning District - Office is a Conditional Use GM Zoning District - R & D is a Permitted Use & Office is a Conditional Use Stanford Research Park Annual Office and R&D Cap Area Boundaries City Jurisdictional Limits abc Note: Other uses where Office may be an "accessory use" maybe conditionally permitted in Residential Zoning Districts 0'2200' Of f i c e a n d R & D An n u a l C a p B o u n d a r i e s Ar e a M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-10-01 11:54:38 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) Exhibit A Certificate Of Completion Envelope Number: 058EA42C633E4A 139788084 711 CF4A49 Subject: Please DocuSign this document: ORD 5357 Office Growth Meter October 1 2015.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 6 Certificate Pages: 5 AutoNav: Enabled Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled Record Tracking Status: Original 11/3/201510:58:11 AM PT Signer Events Cara Silver cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 7/15/2015 5:07:16 PM PT ID: 11910ed1-61d1-4ff3-9cf9-f4eb5a0768e2 Hillary Gitelman Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAito.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: James Keene james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org City Manager City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 4/14/2015 5:40:07 PM PT I D: 44fe333a-6a81-4cb 7 -b 7 d4-9254 73ac82e3 In Person Signer Events Editor Delivery Events Agent Delivery Events Intermediary Delivery Events Signatures: 3 Initials: 0 Holder: Kim Lunt kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org Signature ((DocuSigned by; ~:.0~:::,. Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 ('UDocuSigned by: ~::;,.:~~ Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Signature Status Status Status Docu~. iii SiCU.lD Status: Completed Envelope Originator: Kim Lunt 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33 .32.254 Location: DocuSign Timestamp Sent: 11/3/201511:01:21 AM PT Viewed: 11/3/2015 11 :27:49 AM PT Signed: 11/3/201512:46:40 PM PT Sent: 11/3/2015 12:46:41 PM PT Viewed: 11/3/2015 12:50:43 PM PT Signed: 11/3/201512:51 :05 PM PT Sent: 11/3/2015 12:51 :07 PM PT Viewed: 11/13/2015 2:33:24 PM PT Signed: 11/13/2015 2:33:32 PM PT Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp Timestamp INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE February 17, 2016 Pursuant to the authority granted by Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.85.208, the following Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Program Guideline (“Guideline”) is hereby adopted and determined to be desirable for the implementation and enforcement of PAMC Section 18.85.200 (Annual Office Limit) of PAMC Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances). All defined terms used in this Guideline shall have the meaning set forth in PAMC Section 18.85.201. Overview: The purpose of this Guideline is to implement the annual limit on Office/R&D development adopted by Ordinance Number 5357 on October 26, 2015. The annual limit was adopted on an interim basis for two years (until November 26, 2017) or until the Comprehensive Plan Update is completed, whichever occurs first. No more than 50,000 gross square feet of new Office/R&D development can be approved within a given fiscal year in the subset of the City shown in Attachment A and adopted as Exhibit A of Ordinance 5357. This Guideline is intended to implement the interim annual limit in Fiscal Year 2015/16 and Fiscal Year 2016/17. Program Guideline: A. Applicability. This Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Program Guideline is applicable to all discretionary development applications proposing an increase in gross square footage devoted to one or more of the following uses,1 when the site is located within the area shown on Exhibit A of Ordinance 5357: • Research & Development as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(123) • Administrative Office Services as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(6) • General Business Office as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(61) • Medical Office as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(95) • Professional Office as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(116). Building permit applications and associated use and occupancy certificates are not discretionary and applications proposing use or reuse of existing building space via non-discretionary applications are not subject to the Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit. B. Exemptions. Exempted applications, as defined below, shall be processed in accordance with applicable sections of the PAMC without regard to the 1 The text of the cited definitions is included in Attachment B. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 2 procedures established by this Guideline. The decision to approve or disapprove such applications shall be appealable to the City Council in accordance with existing provisions of the PAMC. An applicant may request in writing a formal determination that a pending application is exempt pursuant to one of the exemptions outlined below at any time. The resulting written determination shall be considered a code interpretation that is appealable to the City Council consistent with Section 18.01.025 of the PAMC. 1. Accessory office space that is incidental to and customarily associated with a principal use or facility. Examples include a small office space used in conjunction with a retail establishment, a hotel, a school, or a religious institution. 2. City office space. 3. Any application proposing less than 2,000 new gross square feet of Research & Development, Administrative Office Services, General Business Office, and/or Professional Office, where such application does not also involve the Medical Office exemption in item (4) below. 4. Any application proposing a project containing less than 5,000 new gross square feet of Medical Office, where such application does not also involve the exemption in item (3) above. 5. “Pipeline Projects” as follows: a. Projects which obtained a planning entitlement prior to the effective date of Ordinance 5357 (November 25, 2015). b. Projects which are the subject of a planning entitlement application that was submitted to the City in 2013 or 2014 and deemed complete by the City on or before March 31, 2015. C. “Self-Mitigating Projects” which provide rental housing for more members of the workforce than would be employed in the project, and which provide substantial transportation demand management (TDM) strategies either individually or in combination with other projects or programs such that parking and traffic conditions in the site vicinity would be improved. D. Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment. An applicant may request that requirements of Ordinance 5357 be adjusted or waived based upon showing that applying the requirements of Ordinance 5357 would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 3 1. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence to support a hardship-related waiver or modification and shall submit an economic analysis along with an explanation of the factual and legal basis for the claim to the Director of Planning. 2. The Director of Planning shall review the request and forward it to the City Council with a recommendation within 60 days. The City Council shall consider the request at a noticed public meeting, along with the economic analysis and the Director’s recommendation, and provide a final decision to grant or deny the request. E. Processing and review of applications subject to the Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit. 1. Applications subject to the Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit shall be processed in accordance with the PAMC and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), except that neither the Director of Planning nor the City Council shall adopt the CEQA document or act upon any such applications between July 1 and March 31 of each year. 2. The Director of Planning shall review all such applications that are pending final action by the Director of Planning or City Council as of the close of business on March 31 of each year, and determine which applications are eligible for consideration. a. Pending applications only become eligible for consideration if they have been recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC – for Site and Design and rezoning applications only), and if review pursuant to CEQA has been completed. For purposes of this section, subdivision requests accompanying entitlement applications do not need to be submitted or processed. b. Applications that are not eligible for consideration at the close of business on March 31 will be reviewed for eligibility in the following fiscal year unless the 50,000 square foot annual limit has not been reached as described in paragraph (c) below. In this case, additional applications may become eligible and be considered between March 31 and June 30, as long as the 50,000 square foot annual limit is not reached. 3. If the sum total of new square footage proposed by all eligible applications on the close of business on March 31 is 50,000 square feet or less, all of the applications will be acted upon by the approving authority established in the PAMC. For example, the Director of Planning would act upon Architectural Review applications, and that action would be appealable to the City Council. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 4 The City Council would act upon applications requiring Site and Design or rezoning. 4. If the sum total of new square footage proposed by all eligible applications on the close of business on March 31 is greater than 50,000 square feet, the Director of Planning shall prepare the applications for hearing by the City Council as follows: a. At an initial hearing, the Director shall provide the City Council with all pending applications, including required CEQA documents, recommended findings and conditions of approval. Each applicant will be invited to present their project at the initial hearing, and the City Council may provide comments and direction regarding the recommended findings and conditions. The initial review of the eligible projects by the City Council may be spread over more than one meeting if time does not allow review of all projects on one meeting agenda. i. If the City Council is unable to support approval of the required CEQA document or the required findings for any of the eligible projects, it may direct staff to prepare findings for denial or impose conditions that will permit it to make the necessary findings. ii. Projects that are denied based upon not meeting required findings for approval are no longer eligible projects and the applicant must submit a new planning entitlement for a substantially different project for proposed development at the same site. b. At a second public hearing, the Director shall provide the City Council with a recommended ranking of the eligible applications using the scoring criteria included below. The Director may convene a panel consisting of the Chair of the ARB and the Chair of the PTC to assist in the ranking. At the second public hearing, the City Council shall review the Director’s recommendation and select the projects that shall receive an office/R&D allocation. The projects selected shall receive planning entitlement approval at the same hearing, which shall occur before the end of the fiscal year on June 30. The City Council shall approve, deny, or approve as modified the project(s) receiving an office/R&D allocation. c. Any application that is not approved by the City Council solely because it exceeds the office/R&D allocation shall be denied unless the applicant requests that the project be rolled over for consideration in the next fiscal year. In addition, the applicant may request his/her application be rolled over to the next fiscal year if the City Council INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 5 proposes to modify the project by reducing its square footage and the applicant declines to do so. A project can be rolled over only one time. F. Expiration of Office/R&D Allocation. Once a project has been approved, all applicable entitlement timelines apply to the project, including the expiration of approvals. If an entitlement expires, the approved allocation also expires. The allocation cannot be carried over to another development proposal; it must be used for the approved project or it will be lost. G. Review Criteria and Scoring. 1. Eligible applications that were deemed complete by the City between March 31 and June 15, 2015 shall have priority over other projects and shall be evaluated against each other and granted an allocation before other eligible applications are considered 2. Review criteria are established in Ordinance 5347 as follows: Impacts a. The density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surroundings; and b. The ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking; Design c. The quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality; and Environmental Quality d. Environmental quality Public Benefit e. The value to the community of public benefits offered; and Uses f. Mixed use projects including substantial housing; and g. Mixed use projects including retail; and h. Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios 3. The Director’s recommendation shall be based on an evaluation of eligible applications weighting the review criteria as shown in the score card in Table 1, below. All projects will be ranked against each other according to the point totals they receive. 4. The City Council may accept the Director’s recommendation or modify it based on its independent review of the criteria, and shall determine which eligible applications will be approved, approved with modifications, or INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 6 denied, such that the total square footage approved does not exceed 50,000 new gross square feet of the uses listed in Section A, above. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 7 Table 1. Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Scoring (One Score Card Shall be Used to Evaluate Each Eligible Application) Project Address and APN: Net New Square Footage Requested: Brief Project Description: Scoring Criterion Total Possible Score Considerations for Each Criterion Project Score Explanation 1. Impacts 30 a. The density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surroundings 10 Projects will be ranked against each other, with the most points awarded to the project that does not require variances or exceptions from applicable quantitative standards of the code and that is deemed to be most consistent in terms of its mass and scale with nearby buildings. 1 b. The ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking 20 Projects will be ranked against each other, with the most points awarded to the project resulting in the least traffic and the least potential for unmet parking demand, regardless of whether these impacts are considered significant pursuant to CEQA. 2. Design 20 c. The quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality 20 Projects will be ranked against each other, with the most points awarded to the project with the highest quality of design. Rankings will consider how the buildings address the street and their compatibility with surrounding buildings. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 8 Scoring Criterion Total Possible Score Considerations for Each Criterion Project Score Explanation 3. Environmental Quality 20 a. Environmental quality 20 Projects will be ranked against each other, with the most points awarded to project that avoids significant environmental impacts under CEQA and that is designed to enhance the built and natural environment. Enhancements may include, but are not limited to, incorporation of energy conservation, storm water, and sustainability features above and beyond legal requirements, as well as incorporation of vegetation/landscaping and bird friendly design. 4. Public Benefit 20 b. The value to the community of public benefits offered 20 Eligible projects will be compared to each other in terms of their value to the community, with the top project receiving up to 20 points and other projects receiving lower rankings based on their relative benefits. For purposes of this section, the value of public benefits may be qualitative or quantitative.2 5. Uses 20 c. Mixed use projects including substantial housing 10 Projects will be ranked against each other with the most points awarded to the project with the greatest number of dwelling units.3 d. Mixed use projects including retail 5 Projects will be ranked against each other based on their mix of uses, including the quantity of ground floor retail.3 e. Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios 5 Projects will be ranked against each other based on their mix of uses, including retail or personal services uses (galleries or studios) for use by artists, or space for other cultural uses. A project’s public art requirement does not count towards this.3 INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 9 Notes: 1. For purposes of this section, exceptions to the “Build to Line” standard and requests for parking reductions per PAMC Section 18.52.050 shall not be considered. Section 18.52.050 can be used to allow parking adjustments based on provision of on-site amenities, shared parking, senior housing, affordable housing, housing near transit, and TDM plans. 2. Benefits may be intrinsic to the project, such as affordable housing units, publicly accessible open spaces, publicly accessible off-street parking, community meeting space, or subsidized rent for community-serving non-profits. Benefits may also be extrinsic improvements or voluntary financial contributions to larger community initiatives. Some benefits may be quantifiable and some may not. 3. By rewarding provision of uses that may not be permitted in all zoning districts, this section effectively gives some priority to those projects that are proposed within districts that allow the desired uses (when those uses are incorporated into the proposed project). INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 10 Attachment A Map of Areas Subject to the Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Attachment B Definitions of Relevant Office and R&D Uses from the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Land Use Code Section Definition Research & Development 18.04.030(123) "Research and development" means a use engaged in the study, testing, engineering, product design, analysis and development of devices, products, processes, or services related to current or new technologies. Research and development may include limited manufacturing, fabricating, processing, assembling or storage of prototypes, devices, compounds, products or materials, or similar related activities, where such activities are incidental to research, development or evaluation. Examples of "research and development" uses include, but are not limited to, computer software and hardware firms, computer peripherals and related products, electronic research firms, biotechnical and biomedical firms, instrument analysis, genomics, robotics and pharmaceutical research laboratories, and related educational development. Research and development may include the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities listed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, or etiological (biological) agents up to and including Risk Group 3 or Bio Safety Level 3 classifications as defined by the National Institute of Health (NIH) or the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Higher classification levels of etiological (biological) agents are not allowed without express permission of the City Manager, Fire Chief, and Police Chief. Related administrative uses such as finance, legal, human resources, management, marketing, sales, accounting, purchasing, or corporate offices; provisions of services to others on or off-site; and related educational uses may also be included provided they remain primarily supportive of the primary uses of "research and development" and are part of the same research and development firm. Administrative Office Services 18.040.030(6) "Administrative office services" means offices and service facilities performing headquarters, regional, or other level management and administrative services for firms and institutions. General Business Office 18.040.030(61) "General business office" means a use principally providing services to individuals, firms, or other entities, including but not limited to real estate, insurance, property management, title companies, investment, personnel, travel, and similar services. Medical Office 18.04.030(95) "Medical office" means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventive, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice by the state of California. Incidental medical and/or dental research within the office is considered part of the office use, where it supports the on-site patient services. Medical office use does not include the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the permit quantities as defined in Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Medical gas storage or use shall be allowed up to 1,008 cubic feet per gas type and flammable liquids storage and use shall be INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 12 Land Use Code Section Definition allowed up to 20 gallons total (including waste). Professional Office 18.04.030(116) "Professional office" means a use providing professional or consulting services in the fields of law, architecture and architectural design, engineering, accounting, and similar professions, including associated product testing and prototype development, but excluding product manufacturing or assembly and excluding the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of permit quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code. _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Draft Meeting Minutes 2 July 26, 2017 3 Excerpt 4 5 4. PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation to the City Council Regarding an Extension of 6 Interim Ordinance 5357 Imposing an Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet of 7 Office/R&D Uses in Designated Areas of City to June 30, 2018 and Finding That the 8 Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 9 in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). For More Information, 10 Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. 11 12 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Ok, let's move on to Item Number 4, public hearing. I’d just like to 13 remind everybody that we have taken up this issue of the office cap several times previously. 14 Tonight we're discussing a short extension to give the Council time to sort out what they want 15 to do. That said if anybody feels strongly about debating it tonight we can do that, but if we 16 don't then we can move it along, perhaps move it along quickly. So let’s just see what, where 17 the sentiment is. 18 19 Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Thank you, Chair [Note-Acting] Waldfogel. Clare Campbell 20 is here to give the brief presentation. This is a public hearing so we'd invite any public 21 comments after staff presentation and then we're interested in any comments from the 22 Commission. We're hoping you will recommend adoption of this extension. 23 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Clare Campbell, Senior Planner: Thank you, good evening Commissioners; Clare Campbell, 2 Senior Planner. The Planning Commission as you've just mentioned has reviewed this annual 3 office ordinance just recently in a study session in March. So since this was relatively recent 4 and for the purposes of managing our time tonight I’ll just provide a very high level overview of 5 the ordinance in my present presentation. And I can answer any specific questions you may 6 have afterwards. 7 8 So the ordinance was adopted in 2015, October 2015, and it applies to two fiscal years 2016 9 and 2017. And it will expire later this year in November. The interim ordinance affects all office 10 and Research and Development (R&D) development within defined areas in the City and that 11 includes the Downtown area, the El Camino corridor, and the California Avenue area. So earlier 12 this year Council gave directions specifically to staff to prepare a permanent annual office limit 13 ordinance and this effort was to be separate from the Comprehensive Plan update. So staff is 14 proposing an extension of the interim ordinance to give staff the time needed to prepare the 15 permanent ordinance and to assure there's no lapse in the regulations. And so no current, 16 currently no changes are being proposed to this existing ordinance. The proposed extension 17 would be for seven months with the expiration to coincide with the end of fiscal year 2018. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So as mentioned earlier the Commission did conduct a study session in March where staff 1 received a range of comments on the permanent annual office limit regulations and your 2 comments will be forwarded to Council in September when they will provide direction to staff 3 on the permanent ordinance. So this slide here gives you an overview of the next steps and 4 general timeline of the office limit. So tonight we're reviewing with you the interim office 5 extension. In September we're going to go back to Council to review the extension, take action 6 on the extension of the interim ordinance, and then get comments back from them on the 7 permanent ordinance. And then in early spring next year we're going to come back to you with 8 a draft ordinance for the permanent language and then shortly after that in the late spring 9 we're going to go to Council for review of that ordinance. So with all of his efforts we should be 10 on track to have a permanent ordinance in place no later than June 30, 2018, when the interim 11 ordinance expires. So this concludes my presentation and we're available to answer any 12 questions. Thank you. 13 14 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you very much. I have two speaker cards so let's go to the 15 public speakers before we move on to Commissioner discussion. The two are Hamilton 16 Hitchings and Bob Moss. So let's take a Mr. Hitchings first. 17 18 Hamilton Hitchings: Good evening, my name is Hamilton Hitchings and I was one of the 19 members of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Comprehensive Plan update although 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. these comments are my own. In order to reduce greenhouse gases and traffic congestion the 1 State of California is trying to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and so should Palo Alto. 2 This means placing housing near jobs to reduce and ideally eliminate commutes thus taking 3 vehicles off the road. Palo Alto has some unique opportunities to do this such as by building 4 housing targeted for local workers such as those Downtown at Stanford Research Park (SRP), 5 Stanford Hospital, and Stanford. While Palo Alto may not be able to legislate a housing 6 requirement for local workers in many cases the [property] owners can deed restrict them as 7 an incentive to receive permits for zoning extensions. A perfect example could be SRP which is 8 considering adding housing along El Camino, but if that housing was limited to SRP employees 9 and Stanford employees not only would it provide more housing, but it would eliminate many 10 commuters and take cars off the road during rush hour. 11 12 Over the last decade Downtown [unintelligible] added numerous build office buildings. I'm not 13 sure the exact count, but I think it's around 20 versus almost no if not 0 office, I mean 14 apartment buildings. This is because the profit per square foot is higher for office buildings. It 15 means that every job, every new job added will likely mean a new commuter into Palo Alto for 16 the next 50 to 100 years and possibly beyond that. Thus, we have had an over development of 17 office buildings and under development of new housing Downtown. Furthermore, many of 18 these office buildings have been under parked and the result has now we now have 1,500 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Downtown workers parking in nearby residential neighborhoods. Almost no other city in the 1 Bay Area has this. 2 3 Palo Alto has a 3:1 housing to working adult ratio which is one of the highest in the nation 4 versus Santa Clara’s 1:1 ratio. That means if we do not build any additional housing, any 5 additional office space for the next 50 years we would still have a major imbalance and a large 6 number of commuters coming into the City. Every square foot of office space added is one less 7 square foot of housing built. Since the office cap ordinance was put in place applications for 8 new office development have slowed considerably and multi-unit housing applications and 9 projects including housing have increased. The office cap for Palo Alto except SRP is a critical 10 component to addressing our housing shortage and reducing VMT. 11 12 While I do see the value in a one year carry over so projects are not rushed anything beyond 13 that is just watering it down and reducing housing further and increasing the total number of 14 VMT daily. Also the limit needs to be low enough to be material and I feel that 50,000 sf is too 15 high when you add in the current exceptions. The misnamed beauty contest portion of the 16 office cap should be called highest quality project selection criteria rather than first come first 17 serve that can result in projects with worse parking, traffic, and environmental projects impacts 18 being approved. It has never been used, so has not yet been a significant burden to staff, but 19 should a large amount of new additional office space be requested in a single year then 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. buildings which have the least parking, traffic, and environmental and neighborhood impacts 1 would be selected. I also believe that when you consider November the and many of the other 2 folks on the CAC also believe this that the area of coverage for the office cap should be citywide 3 minus SRP thus if you are truly committed to increasing housing and reducing VMT you'll 4 support a meaningful office cap. Thank you. 5 6 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you very much for the comments. Mr. Moss? 7 8 Robert Moss: Thank you, Chairman [Note-Acting] Walfogel: First I agree with the comments of 9 the speaker and would like to elaborate on a few of them. We've had a jobs/housing imbalance 10 in Palo Alto for over 40 years. It’s ranged from 2.8 to 3 jobs per housing unit. I went back in my 11 files since 1978 and it's created some really major problems. 12 13 Currently one of the problems we have because of State ordinances are that we're being asked 14 to build more housing in order to reduce the jobs/housing imbalance. And we have a problem 15 where we're going to fit them in. And then one of the things that people don't want to talk 16 about is a fact that every housing unit costs the City about $2,800 a year more for services than 17 pays in taxes. So you put in 10,000 more housing units and you increase the City's deficit by 18 about $2 [unintelligible] million a year. That can be a problem. And that doesn't even attack 19 the problem we have with the schools if you add that many housing units. We’re not a school 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. board so we don't have to address it directly, but it is still an issue and as citizens we worry 1 about it. 2 3 So the first thing I'd like to suggest is that we make the cap citywide not just on specific zones. 4 Second, I think it should be reduced [from] 50,000 to perhaps 30,000 or 40,000. Because one of 5 the things that has been happening over the last 10 years is the number of the employees 6 crammed into an office is been increasing significantly. Years ago the rule of thumb was 250 7 square feet (sf) per employee. Currently it's closer to 100 to 125 and when you have high cost 8 office space like you do in Palo Alto which is one of the highest cost per square foot per month 9 in the country it is a real incentive for the people who are there to cram as many people in as 10 they can because they are paying a lot for the space. That creates traffic problems, parking 11 problems, jobs/housing imbalance problems and it makes it harder for the City to be successful. 12 13 So I think it would pay to limit the amount of office space [we’re allowed to develop] in the 14 future and because if you're only limit it to certain areas I can guarantee you you’re going to 15 have more offices developed along Bayshore, along Fabian, along San Antonio because where 16 there isn't a limit that's where they will build. So the simple and also it's a lot easier to enforce 17 if it’s just citywide. You don't have to worry about is he putting it in exactly where it's 18 prohibited or limited or is he one or two parcels over. So simplify it, reduce the amount that's 19 allowed, and take another look at it in a year or two and see what our job/housing imbalance 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. looks like then and if it's not getting better we should scale it down again, but we have to 1 address this problem. We've been letting it go for decades and we should have to stop that, 2 grit our teeth, and make it harder to increase the jobs/housing imbalance. We haven’t been 3 doing that for years. It's time we did. 4 5 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Those are all the speakers cards that I have. Let's move on 6 to Commissioner discussion. Commissioner Gardias. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you very much for your report and thank you very much for the 9 comments. So I understand that today's discussion is going to be about the extension of this 10 ordinance. We discussed this ordinance it was like over a year ago or so I remember the 11 comments I can even cite them. 12 13 Ms. Campbell: It was March. 14 15 Commissioner Gardias: It was March. Ok, thank you very much you. Yeah, so over a year ago. 16 So a personally I just I mean first of all I think that the discussion over the ordinance is on the 17 table today, right? I will reiterate the point the main point of this what I said in March that 18 pretty much I just disagree with the whole notion of the separate ordinance, but I understand 19 it's not the subject of our discussion today. However, I'd like to just make one point; typically if 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. we regulate something it has some other unintended consequences. So my question to the 1 staff is like this, have you observed some other imbalances that would be growing up as a result 2 of this ordinance? 3 4 Ms. Gitelman: Well we can certainly go into this when we come back with a recommendation 5 on a permanent ordinance. I think our feeling is that this has been really successful at what it 6 originally intended to do which was to slow the pace of office development in these three areas 7 that are covered by the by the current ordinance. It has certainly done that. I don't know that 8 there are other unintended consequences. [Unintelligible] give that some thought, but none of 9 them nothing occurs to me off the top my head. 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: The other question would be of course I mean if they are not building 12 offices what are they building instead? And since we don't have the whole [unintelligible] to all 13 the buildings because it's mainly within Architectural Review Board (ARB) purview I would like 14 to understand this. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. I think we've seen fewer large applications since this ordinance was 17 adopted then in the couple years preceding it. 18 19 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. I rest with this, thank you. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Commissioner Monk. 2 3 Commissioner Monk: What's the effect if the ordinance expires? 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: Well, when the clock runs out on the ordinance any applications we receive 6 would have to be processed without regard to this limit or the time frame that it sets up for our 7 reviews. 8 9 Commissioner Monk: Have there been applications received this year? 10 11 Ms. Campbell: Yep. We do have there's a few pending applications that we do have on file. 12 And right now they're still going through the review… well, there's at least one and it's going 13 through the review process. So if by March 18, March 30th of 2018… well, if it expires in 14 November then it would just be the standard review process, but if we do an extension then we 15 would take a look at whatever projects we have in March of next year and then we would make 16 a determination whether or not we have to go through the additional evaluation for the 17 contest. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: Do you expect to have a new ordinance before then even though this will 1 be in effect until then? 2 3 Ms. Campbell: So this existing interim ordinance is due to expire in November of this year. So 4 what we're asking tonight is to extend it from November of this year to June of next year. So 5 that way it will cover fiscal year 2018. 6 7 Monk: Right. So when are you going to come back to us or Council with the new ordinance? 8 9 Ms. Campbell: Oh. Yes, so in my timeline that I was explaining we're going to come back in 10 early spring to the Planning Commission with a draft ordinance and then soon after that we 11 would go to Council for their action on it. So we definitely our schedule is in line to have 12 everything completed before the expiration of the interim ordinance. 13 14 Ms. Gitelman: If I can offer one addition to that which is we had a great conversation with the 15 Commission on sort of pros and cons, what are the options for modifications to this in March. 16 We haven't had that conversation with the Council. So when we bring the Council this 17 extension we're going to have that kind of brainstorming session that will inform development 18 of a draft ordinance which we’ll get to you as soon as we can probably after the first of the year 19 and then to the Council. Just so we have it in place by the end of the fiscal year. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Monk: Thank you for clarifying and just to confirm that you will be presenting 2 the findings from our March hearing to Council so that we're not rehashing it again tonight 3 because I do, I was involved with that meeting and did weigh in on it, on my concerns. Thank 4 you. 5 6 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Commissioner Summa. 7 8 Commissioner Summa: Thank you to staff for the presentation and also to members of the 9 public. It's always great to see you and I really appreciate your comments. So I think since we 10 discussed this at some length so recently I just want to be very brief and I wholeheartedly 11 approve the extension. I would be very interested in the Council I would be very interested in 12 looking at reducing the annual limit to make it even more effective potentially in bringing, 13 trying to bring some a better balance of the to the house, jobs/housing imbalance. I have 14 always thought it should be citywide. And I like Hamilton's idea of changing the name of the so-15 called beauty contest which I think I opined about in March that it’s just kind of embarrassing 16 sounding. I'm not sure highest quality projects selection criteria is perfect. It might be a little 17 bit wordy, but I think we should change the name of that. And yeah, so I think those are my 18 comments. Thank you very much. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Commissioner Rosenblum. 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: So I'm in favor of staff’s recommendation to extend this until they 3 can give a proper proposal. When we started reviewing this project though this proposal and 4 every time it's come I've disagreed with the whole ordinance. I think it's a poor ordinance. And 5 specifically the comment that it's worked because it's just slowed down applications I don't 6 think is very good. I think the reason why we're concerned about office buildings are the 7 effects of office buildings and the imbalance between housing and office which is traffic and 8 congestion and it's a regional problem. I think in using this tool what you do is put a chilling 9 effect on development of offices and clearly that's the goal of some people and maybe the goal 10 of this ordinance, but really what we want to work on is reducing the number of people who 11 have to travel by car to their offices. And I think in going for this kind of blunt instrument we've 12 taken our eye off that ball. I think that's the most important ball. 13 14 Notably a lot of people that are really excited about this ordinance are also it against many 15 housing projects. So the same people are not working to say let's build more housing then to as 16 a lever to reduce this imbalance. So I'm skeptical of the good will of those that are pushing for 17 this, but the motivations of them doesn't really matter. In the end it's the effect. And I think 18 what we're doing in this kind of ordinance is we're not getting anything good. We are putting a 19 chilling effect on development to the extent that you think less development is good then 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. great, you win, but the extent that what we really want to do is have a smarter city where we 1 invest in mitigations so different ways for people to get in out of town, different ways for 2 people to live and work then I think we lose. And I think long term as a community we do want 3 to invest in better ways of getting in and out, better ways of living. 4 5 And the last comment I'll make this came up after we had the Our Palo Alto Summit which was 6 as many people here know an off-site, had 300 plus citizens that gave up their Saturday to 7 discuss this, and this question was specifically asked: how do you want to account for the 8 jobs/housing imbalance? What tools would you use to meter growth? And there was three 9 choices. There was metering, there was a hard cap, and there was a project by project 10 mitigations through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. And 11 overwhelmingly the people there had this what we actually adopted as the worst option. The 12 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) at that time in discussing it also didn't like this 13 option, but Council adopted it because their notion was I think that they want to have that they 14 want to reduce the number of offices being built. And so as Director Gitelman said that if that's 15 the intention then it succeeded, but the will of the citizens that had precipitated in this process 16 was that we should be smarter about this and we should come up with ways that individual 17 office projects have to be smarter about the way they handle the impacts. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So long winded way of saying I don't like this ordinance. I respect staff’s request during this 1 period when we're trying to get the Comp Plan over the line, etcetera for more time to have a 2 comprehensive proposal and I think that's completely rational. I also think the concerns of 3 people like Bob Moss and Hamilton Hitchings are completely rational. And in fact talking about 4 how we address the jobs/housing imbalance is one of the challenges we have. I think that this 5 tool does accomplish something, but I think it’s the wrong way that we're going about doing 6 this. It’s certainly not the smartest thing we could do. So at any rate I agree with the staff’s 7 recommendation for tonight, but I'd like to go on the record again in I saying I just don't think 8 this is a great, this is not the smartest thing we could have done around this problem. 9 10 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. I also plan to support staff’s recommendation. I'm 11 not as convinced that this is a terrible tool. I mean the problem in our [unintelligible] situation 12 where it's hard to find tools that work. And I think we have to be very pragmatic about finding 13 tools that do actually work on addressing traffic and congestion issues. I mean I think that 14 we've seen it's very difficult to set up Transportation Management Association (TMA) and TDM 15 in a in diverse districts. So we do need to be fairly pragmatic and I hope that we are considering 16 that as we look at permanent ordnances. I'd also comment that I think it's very hard to tell the 17 direction of causality on the slowdown in office development. It could be caused by this. It 18 could be caused by general economic conditions, secular economic conditions, the election, 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. who knows. Very it's always very hard to tell. Anyway I think we should just move on to a 1 Motion if we are ready for that. Yes. 2 3 Commissioner Rosenblum: I forgot to make I have a request though in this time that staff is 4 going to take to make their permanent recommendation there was a letter from Neilson 5 Buchanan which I admire around his ask for data collection. I don't agree with the actual data 6 that he's looking to collect, but I think that this time needs to be used for data collection that 7 prompted me to think what would I want to see as a Commissioner? And there are a couple 8 things I would really like to see. So I would like to see the parking utilization and employee 9 Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) rate at a couple of key locations around town; so in particular 10 the University Ave. core and the California Ave. core, and SRP. And this some of this data exists. 11 Some of it probably needs to get collected. 12 13 I would also like to see to the extent possible employee density. Mr. Moss made a gave some 14 data. He said that employees are now at 100 sf per employee or 150 sf per employee. I helped 15 conduct a survey of our company Downtown and we found the opposite. We found actually 16 kind of low density utilization because of our work pattern where we have a lot of cafes and 17 common spaces, etcetera. And we found that actually our utilization was quite un-dense which 18 I think surprised us. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Now I think that staff should actually get this data and whichever way it goes I think all of us 1 would breathe a sigh of relief that we're not just making up numbers. So basically how many 2 people are working in our Downtown core per square foot and then how many of them are 3 using cars. I know that some of this data has been collected in the past, but that should be part 4 of this presentation that goes to us because I think that then it would help us come to grips 5 with is new construction adding this problem? Is it old construction that was under parked? Is 6 it increasing employee density that is causing more of a problem? So I have an ask for data 7 collection as part of our next package and not just do we want to extend this ordinance or not, 8 but as part of that it should be a pretty well constructed data package. 9 10 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. So we’re ready for a Motion? Do you want to make 11 a Motion on this? 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: I can make a [unintelligible] 14 15 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, please. 16 17 MOTION 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, so agreeing with the whole discussion, but recognizing the reality 1 and being ready for the Comprehensive Plan I'd like to propose a Motion to accept staff 2 recommendation and recommend to the City Council of adoption, extend… recommend to the 3 City Council extension of this ordinance through June the 30th of 2018. 4 5 SECOND, VOTE 6 7 Acting Chair Waldfogel: Who’s the second? Commissioner Summa. Let’s toss one. Any further 8 discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Five to nothing in favor. Thank you. And for Mr. 9 Moss and Mr. Hitchings thank you for coming and please come back in the spring when we 10 discuss the permanent ordinance. Ok, are we ready to move on or should we take three 11 minutes or what do we want to do? Ok, we'll take three minutes. 12 13 MOTION PASSED (5-0, Chair Alcheck and Commissioner Lauing absent) 14 15 [The Commission took a break] 16 17 Commission Action: Motion to Accept Staff Recommendation and Recommend to the 18 City Council the Extension of the Ordinance Through June 30, 2018 (Motion: 19 Commissioner Gardias, Second Commissioner Summa) Motion Passed 5-0 (Chair 20 Alcheck/Commissioner Lauing Absent) 21 22 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6 Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7 Commissioner Ed Lauing 8 Commissioner Susan Monk 9 Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10 Commissioner Doria Summa 11 12 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14 15 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18 19 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24 25 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Meeting Minutes 2 March 29, 2017 3 Excerpt 4 5 6 7 Study Session 8 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 9 3. Discussion and Comments for City Council Consideration Regarding Development of 10 an Ordinance to Perpetuate an Annual Limit on Office/R&D Development Following 11 Expiration of Interim Ordinance #5357 Restricting Such Land Uses in Certain Parts of 12 the City to 50,000 Square Feet per Year. Environmental Analysis: This Discussion is 13 not a Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For More 14 Information, Please Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: To bring to order this meeting again and begin with Agenda Item 3. Staff would 17 you kick us off? 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Chair can I just ask a procedural question? 20 21 Chair Alcheck: Yes (interrupted) 22 23 Commissioner Lauing: This is obviously characterized as a study session not an action item. 24 25 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: That's correct. 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: Right, but I know that Council has already opined because they were 3 asked at the January 30th Council meeting to give their opinions on precisely this issue along 4 with a number of other large ones. So for us to come up with discussions that are just… our 5 only action item tonight is to come up with comments that are going to just be sent over to 6 Council. Wouldn’t it be more productive if we had a session, a subsequent sessions that 7 actually analyzed this issue in light of the Council direction apropos of Chair [Note-Vice-Chair] 8 Waldfogel’s comment in the last item so that we could maybe wrestle with this and come up 9 with a recommendation if that's something the Council has an interest in or we do? Rather 10 than just discuss it and ask questions and just send over 30 random comments that may be not 11 be pertinent or that they're interested. So I'm not saying that there aren't questions that we 12 could ask about what's in your staff report, but it doesn't seem productive if we aren’t going to 13 get into a situation where we're going to recommend something. I don’t know if other 14 colleagues have comments on that, but... 15 16 Chair Alcheck: That's an interesting question. My perspective here… what I would like to do is I 17 would like to give staff the opportunity to present and 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Certainly, certainly. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: I appreciate the sense that there's not really a defined objective here. And that 2 there's a lot of unknowns, but I let's follow protocol and then we why don’t you circle back to 3 this concept in our first round of comments. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Sure, no I look forward to that (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Alcheck: [Unintelligible] we can kind of determine to what extent that might be an 8 appropriate. And we don't have to go through it for two hours. You'll have a chance I think to 9 speak in the first half an hour and then we can kind of figure out (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: That was part of my point is I don't think we need to discuss this 12 necessarily for two hours if we're going to come back with an action item at some later point 13 and we don't need to go on for two hours because we don't know what Council concluded at 14 the end of January because we didn't get a separate staff report on that. 15 16 Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Maybe I can offer just a little (interrupted) 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Why don’t you? Yeah, would you? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: Context on that. So the only question that the Council really weighed in on at 1 that meeting in January was whether they wanted to perpetuate an annual limit on office 2 Research and Development (R&D) and they said they did want to. They want a permanent 3 ordinance to replace the temporary ordinance and that's really all they decided. Each of the 4 Council Members offered their own thoughts, individual thoughts about what it would look like. 5 Some of them said oh, we don't want the beauty contest anymore, we want first come first 6 serve. Some said oh, we want the allocate, unused allocation to roll over, but there was no 7 action or unanimity about those characteristics of what the program would look like. And so 8 we thought before going back to Council we would seek the Commission's insights and input if 9 you have any. Again, we're not asking you to take any action, but we're interested in your 10 individual thoughts about how this program could be structured in the future and we will come 11 back to you for a more organized and formal action item at some point in the future. So I mean 12 I appreciate you might want to not want to spend a ton of time tonight, but I thought we 13 thought your comments would be useful (interrupted) 14 15 Chair Alcheck: And allow me just to also sort of suggest that our obligation, our I think chief 16 responsibility here is to review items and provide feedback on Council directed matters, but 17 also a lot of times we can provide insight and shape the discussions the Council has without 18 necessarily their direction and input in advance. And so I would encourage us to look at this 19 particular opportunity as a many of you were not on this Commission when we first dealt with 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this cap. And it was a very interesting dialogue that we had last time we reviewed it. Here it's 1 coming to us again and there is a real opportunity here to figure out whether there are ways to 2 improve upon it. And I think we're all in a position to provide some insight and I think that that 3 will help this moving forward. And I know it's going to come back to us, but at least this way we 4 have an opportunity to see some of the questions that we might have get answered in that 5 follow up session, so. 6 7 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah and I apologize there's one thing I forgot about the Council's dialogue. So 8 they talked about the their desire to adopt a permanent ordinance. They also talked about 9 their preference that the annual limit area that's included be extended from what it is currently 10 to the whole City minus the Research Park. So they actually I think they did include that in their 11 Motion, but they didn’t include anything else about the process or exemptions or any of the 12 other details that will have to be figured out during the rewrite. And we'd love your thoughts 13 on those things so that maybe we can get let staff go with the presentation and then hear from 14 you on those elements. 15 16 Clare Campbell, Senior Planner: Ok great, thank you; Clare Campbell, Senior Planner. So tonight 17 we're going to be talking about the Annual Office Limit Ordinance. The purpose of our 18 discussion today is we're going to provide you with an update of the office development since 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the implementation of the interim ordinance and ask for feedback and comments for 1 developing the permanent ordinance. 2 3 So the interim ordinance was adopted in September 2015 and the intent was to meter the pace 4 of development in the City regarding office and R&D development. The City had been 5 experiencing substantial development of office and R&D projects and concerns and had 6 concerns about the rapid growth and how that may exacerbate traffic congestion and parking 7 conditions existing already in the City as well as some negative impacts potentially on existing 8 neighborhood character. So the ordinance established a 50,000 square foot limit for new office 9 R&D development and it focused its focus on the Downtown California Ave area and the El 10 Camino corridor. And the ordinance is due to expire in eight months on November 26, 2017. 11 So here's a map showing where the area applies, the area that the ordinance applies to. So we 12 have a section here in the Downtown including South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I along the El 13 Camino corridor and this whole section here is called the California Avenue area. 14 15 So give you a brief summary of our ordinance. So basically it applies to five different land uses. 16 We have R&D, administrative office services, general business office, medical office, and 17 professional office. We have included some exempt projects from the ordinance and they're 18 basically small projects that are less than 2,000 square feet (sf), small medical office that's 19 5,000 sf or less, and self-mitigating projects. So those are projects where the housing 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. component provides more housing than the number of workers that would be employed by the 1 project. And also self-mitigating projects include projects that have a really strong robust 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that helps to improve the parking and 3 traffic conditions. 4 5 So the ordinance also established selection criteria for evaluating projects and we have five of 6 them here. So basically the first one is impacts and does the project include appropriate 7 development density, does it avoid or mitigate traffic and parking impacts. Design, does the 8 quality and is the design quality compatible, is the design quality good, and is it compatible with 9 the surrounding neighborhoods? The environmental quality, does the project have impacts as 10 determined by our California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation? And for public 11 benefits does the project include meaningful public benefits that the City can utilize and 12 appreciate? And the uses, so does the project include a mix of uses with substantial housing, 13 ground floor retail, and cultural amenities? 14 15 So to facilitate the implementation of the ordinance some administrative guidelines were 16 developed and this document basically reflects the ordinance requirements, but it includes 17 some more detailed procedures to streamline the implementation of the ordinance. It includes 18 the scoring process and the evaluation scorecard and that scorecard reflects the points which 19 we use for the ranking. The guidelines also reiterate the review timelines for projects and that 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. projects approved cannot roll over their square footage to another project. If you don't use it 1 you're going to lose it basically. 2 3 All right so I'm going to walk you through the basic steps of the existing process. So the first 4 thing is that it is based on a fiscal year and the projects as you know are submitted year round 5 for us to take a look at. During the time from July 1st through March 31st no qualifying projects 6 can be approved by the Planning Department. So the first step is we need to establish a project 7 list. So on March 31st staff will determine which office and R&D projects are ready for final 8 action. And ready means that they've been deemed complete, that we've done all the 9 environmental review, and all the boards and commissions except for Council have to have 10 done their review and all the required reviews have been completed and the project is ready 11 for action. The second step once we have our project list is to determine whether or not the 12 office square footage goes over the 50,000 sf. So on the bottom line here if the projects do not 13 go over 50,000 sf then those projects would get approved following the standard review 14 process. So for the other scenario if the projects do exceed the 50,000 sf those projects are 15 forwarded to Council for their review and determination of the project. So that kind of that 16 affects our first beauty contest review, but both scenarios must be completed by June 30th of 17 the year. So then after June 30th passes we start the process over again for the following fiscal 18 year. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ok so in the two years that we've had our ordinance we have not yet had the opportunity to try 1 out or test our process that we've put in place. So we actually don't have any real information 2 to report back to you on the effectiveness of our process. So since the implementation of the 3 ordinance though there appears to be some conscious efforts made by some of the applicants 4 to avoid triggering this ordinance and what they've done is they've either just taken office out 5 of their project or they've reduced the amount of office in the project so it becomes exempt 6 and doesn't trigger any additional review. 7 8 So here I'm going to go over our pending projects. So this is a list of all the projects that we 9 have currently on file that are open that have some office component to it. So the first two 10 3045 Park and 411 Lytton these two projects count towards the 50,000 square foot limit. The 11 next project 4115 El Camino I've included this even though it's a preliminary architectural 12 review just to illustrate what I had just mentioned that some projects really keep the square 13 footage down so they become exempt from the process. So this project is only proposing to 14 have 2,000 sf so then it's not part of the projects that we would review as part of the annual 15 office limit. The next one down is 3251 Hanover and this project is located in the Research Park 16 so the office limit doesn't apply for this particular project for two reasons: it's outside the 17 boundary that we've defined under the ordinance and it's also replacement square footage so it 18 doesn't account it doesn't count towards the limit. So the next one is 380 Cambridge and again 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this one is exempt because it's less than 2,000 feet and 2600 El Camino is also exempt because 1 the 62,000 sf is replacement square footage. 2 3 So here you'll kind of get a sense that the total the figure at the very bottom here the 17,260 4 that's the number the square footage of projects that would count towards the 50,000 sf for 5 this ordinance. So even though you see several projects on our lists those would be the only 6 two that would count towards this ordinance. So for next year if it were just these two projects 7 that we're showing here to consider on March 31st then we would have left over square 8 footage. In this case it's approximately 32,000 thousand sf so that 32,000 sf can be approved 9 for other types of office projects long as it's done before June 30th. And again that's the hard 10 cutoff date for the process to start over again for the next fiscal year. 11 12 Ok so tonight we're looking to get your comments and basically they can be on any aspect of 13 this ordinance. It can be focused on the boundary, the square footage cap amount, the 14 selection process, first come first serve versus the competition, and the review process, but any 15 other part of this can be reviewed. We just know that we need to move forward with some 16 type of annual office limit. So next steps staff will continue with our public outreach and we 17 will forward your comments to Council for feedback and discussion and later of course this year 18 we’ll return with our draft ordinance for you to review. And the ordinance expires on 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. November 26th though Council action is needed by early October. And that concludes staff’s 1 presentation. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Thank you, staff. Ok I’d like to begin this oh, wait, we have a speaker card. Just a 4 minute, sorry. 5 6 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: [Unintelligible]. 7 8 Simon Cintz: Ok, thank you. My name is Simon Cintz. I'm actually going to decline to speak 9 now because I think what was pointed out before this is a study session and I would sort of also 10 be interested in seeing how you folks look at things and whatever and will reserve my 11 comments for later. So I've never been in here when I've been the only speaker in, but so but I 12 do want to thank the person from the City handling this for reaching out to the business 13 community. I did get an email. That was really important that we knew this was going on 14 although I didn't really quite understand what the details of it and look forward to hearing what 15 your comments are. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Yeah just so we're clear the next opportunity for public comment would be 18 the next time we see this item, not later tonight. Just in case. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: [Unintelligible-off mic]. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: I suspect it is. Ok, so what I'd like to do right now is I hope we're comfortable 3 with 10 minutes? I’ll give everybody sort of hopefully it's less than 10 minutes and I'd like to 4 start at the other end of the table for this item so Commissioner Rosenblum will you kick us off? 5 Questions/comments. 6 7 Commissioner Rosenblum: Sure. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: However you’d like to start. 10 11 Commissioner Rosenblum: First just want start with a question. So you made the statement 12 that regardless of what the discussion or comment is tonight we have to move forward with 13 some kind of office cap. And I want to just ask you why is that? My understanding was this 14 ordinance expired either two years from adoption or upon adoption of the new Comprehensive 15 Plan whichever is sooner. So we’re coming against the two year mark which is the sooner. 16 There's nothing in those says we have to have an office cap so I'm curious about that comment. 17 You seem to want us to continue this policy maybe with modifications, but I wonder if you 18 could respond to that. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: Sure, I'd be happy to respond to that. When the Council had that meeting on 1 January 30th where it was talking about the Comp Plan one of the questions we asked in the 2 context of a discussion of land use policies was whether they wanted to include a policy about 3 metering the pace of growth or a program related to the office cap. And the response was well 4 we don't really need to put this in the Comp Plan, but we would like to update the ordinance 5 about the annual limit. Maybe make some changes to it, but we would like to continue that. 6 So as you point out the current ordinance expires either in two years or when the Comp Plan is 7 adopted whichever is sooner. There is a potential that we could simply just extend it if we need 8 more time until the Comp Plan is adopted, but we are thinking based on the Council's direction 9 on January 30th that they will want a replacement ordinance and so we thought it was wise to 10 start thinking about what that might look like and this was an obvious first stop to get some 11 input. 12 13 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, great. In that case I have two parts to this. So the first is should 14 this ordinance be continued with improvements or should we allow it to expire. And regardless 15 of which way we think as a body I think that we do have to answer Council’s question which are 16 what are the parts of this ordinance that you’d want to adjust. But I think it's worth weighing in 17 to them is it a good thing to have a cap and as you know from the Our Palo Alto Summit there 18 were three different modes considered. There was metering, there was a hard cap, and there 19 was mitigations. And our Council ultimately went with a cap. But I think it's worth our body as 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. an independent advisory body first weighing in do we think that's the right mechanism, but 1 second to answer their direct question which is let's if we assume they do want to continue 2 with this current mode what are the changes that one would make. 3 4 So in terms of using my slot I would say first in terms of whether or not this is the right 5 mechanism I would argue it's never been the right mechanism. Now we're two years into it and 6 we know it literally didn't do anything. We've never hit the 50,000 number. So it took a lot of 7 staff time, it took like four Council meetings, it took three Planning and Transportation 8 Commission (PTC) meetings, it's taken all of our time quite a lot, but it hasn't actually done 9 anything. And all that time I think could have been more valuable if we had worked on 10 mitigation measures and had really focused on making a Transportation Management 11 Association (TMA) more effective. Now part of the reason why I never thought this would, was 12 the right approach was it's kind of the horse is already out the barn. A lot of the problems 13 we’re trying to address have to do with buildings that were constructed even before the 14 Ninety's which were under parked. So working on new construction doesn't really address this 15 problem of traffic and indeed again despite put this measure into place I don't think that there's 16 been a corresponding reduction in traffic that we would have wanted from this measure. 17 18 So also finally when we did the Our Palo Alto Summit I think there were like 300 people in 19 attendance seventy percent of people in attendance voted to work on mitigations and only five 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. percent for hard caps. So even the people that were most involved always said this was the 1 wrong approach. So I would argue pretty strongly that people that citizens involved the process 2 said it was the wrong approach, the analysis would say it was the wrong approach, and 3 hindsight suggested it didn’t do anything. So it feels like a weird thing to continue. 4 5 Having said that if we are going to continue my observations based on the way we have it are 6 the following. I think the first big problem with it that Stanford Research Park (SRP) is left out 7 of it. I think SRP is the biggest source of traffic through our community. And the reason is they 8 have most of the large employers and it's very difficult for them to have any kind of transit 9 program. And so I think it's something like 73 percent of SRP employees still take Single 10 Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) whereas the Downtown number I think was something like 57 11 percent and Stanford's number is something like 47 percent. And so whereas in other places 12 they've been able to get people out of their cars SRP has not and they have the big employers. 13 And so it's a bit of an odd thing that we have this program that exempts them from this. If 14 there's any place we want people to build it's actually here where people don't drive their car 15 as much it's not there, but this program as you saw in your pipeline the largest building I think 16 was 110,000 sf is not part of this because it's built there. And I think it would be much more 17 attractive now to build there because you’re not counting the cap. You don't have to go 18 through this beauty contest, etcetera. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Second, I do think there should be some mechanism for banking unused credit so if we build 1 very little this year, if there's a downturn and we stop building that upon recovery there is cap 2 relief. Now in terms of how many years the credit can be built based on the analysis that you 3 gave us it takes anywhere between two years and five years after recession for us to start 4 building again. But any rate Council can come up with their own mechanism, but I would be in 5 favor of somehow banking these credits on a go forward basis. 6 7 And my final comment around the ordinance itself is that some of the exceptions seem 8 counterintuitive. So there's a real kind of love small projects meaning they don't count against 9 the cap. So offices below 2,000 sf, medical offices below 5,000 sf and again if part of our point 10 is that we're trying to cap office space to mitigate traffic impact which was I think one the 11 drivers of this having multiple small places just seems like it's counter to the goal of trying to 12 get a more efficient use of space. Meaning given X number of employees you want to have 13 fewer cars and if you're subdividing into multiple small places it doesn't seem like there's a 14 public interest in that or at least it's counter to the goal of the whole ordinance. So that's on 15 the general ordinance. 16 17 The last couple comments I'll make are on the beauty contest itself. I love the idea of beauty 18 contest so if we’re going to have this again I hate this whole, this whole ordinance, but if we're 19 going to have it I do like the that if we do have it that the beauty contest idea is kind of cool. I 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. like that then Mayor Burt had proposed it. I’ve always been in the context of this a fan. The 1 heuristic is a bit odd. It's very skewed towards penalizing density. So there's 110 points I think 2 that are allocated of which about 50 are related to density or impacts of density and 20 are 3 related to use. So do you have housing or do you have mixed use, etcetera of which 10 of the 4 points are those that feature housing and I would personally think that in terms of if we're 5 using beauty as one of our criteria one of our great community needs is more housing. And so 6 the beauty contest is heavily skewed towards weight sort of density verses use. And so my 7 personal preference would be to skew towards those who are helping us to relieve our housing 8 crisis. 9 10 So that's the sum of my comments. So just to sum it up first I'd say I would love this body to say 11 that this was the wrong mechanism we should go for a mitigations focus mechanism, A. But if 12 we're to go with this mechanism then my three big points are put SRP in as part of it, consider 13 banking credits, the exceptions we should not be skewed towards small. If anything if you're 14 trying to traffic mitigation normally having some kind of scale is better so you shouldn’t give 15 incentives to go smaller. And then finally the beauty contest should be skewed towards things 16 that we want and so I think housing is a big one. That’s it for me. 17 18 Commissioner Summa: So I actually don't think this is a bad ordinance I guess. I also I just don't 19 like the word beauty contest. I wish we could call it something else because it's kind of 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. offensive. But anyway I was going to ask couple questions and then I’ll make some comments. 1 Have we had any self-mitigating projects? No and ok, and then so couple of things. 2 3 There was a lot of talk at the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). I think this should be citywide 4 for sure and there was a lot of talk on the CAC about including the Research Park, but maybe 5 allowing the Research Park to roll over square footages annually that they don't use and the 6 idea was that because there's such bigger buildings there. So I would say I favor a citywide 7 program and I would encourage the Council to look at a way to include the Research Park that 8 lets the Research Park be the Research Park, but also we'd have more control. I have a concern 9 about replacement square footage not being included and maybe this is a legal issue it can't be. 10 And one of the reasons is because replacement square footage is often replaced with a much 11 denser use which just has more people and more cars, more SOV trips, more greenhouse gas 12 emissions. So I would look at a way of maybe if it's legal including replacement square footage 13 with some, in some way. 14 15 And I was especially struck in the findings by Finding B about the huge, huge increase in Class B 16 office space. And I know we have a lot of concern about displacing those kind of uses so and 17 they've actually increased exponentially in price much more than Class A office rates. So that 18 was interesting to me. So I oh, and then I would like to give… I think it's interesting that this 19 ordinance not only… well, it did two things. It wanted to meter the pace of growth, office and 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. R&D growth, but it also wanted to give the Council a chance to look at projects and prioritize 1 them through the non-beauty contest, the merit contest, and it didn't do that. And I think that 2 was because 50,000 is too high a threshold. I think if we lower the threshold and I'm not sure 3 what the magic number would be we could get more projects into that prioritization and which 4 would also have the benefit of including projects that were better for the public. It may be 5 prioritized housing also so let's see… Yeah, so those are my comments for now. 6 7 Commissioner Monk: Ok so in looking at what the rationale was for creating the ordinance and 8 looking at the outcome of the ordinance I'm wondering why we would need to continue it 9 based on what the findings were on Page 33 and also in your presentation you were [sitting] 10 that in the end of the very first paragraph of the top of Page 33 that the projects really haven't 11 come forward and you believe that a lot of it was to avoid the potential of additional rigors 12 required by the interim [AOL] ordinance. I don't know if you wanted to provide any additional 13 input on that or feedback as to why the ordinance has reduced the amount of applications for 14 new office projects. 15 16 Ms. Campbell: I think basically applicants don't want to have to go through this additional 17 review. And it's very unsure for them to kind of go through this process and it can be very I’m 18 not finding the right word, but basically I think what's happening is that our review process is 19 well known. And it takes a lot to get through even a normal application process, but when we 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. have to add this additional contest for this evaluation I think it makes it much more 1 unpredictable for applicants to project forward and to invest time and energy to do something 2 here in Palo Alto. So I think that could definitely be something that adds to why we're not 3 seeing anything happen. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: Ok, so instead of it actually pacing growth it sounds like it's halting 6 growth. Does that sound correct under what we've seen in the last two years? 7 8 Ms. Campbell: I think honestly that the two year timeline might be a little bit short for us to 9 kind of make a full determination on that. 10 11 Commissioner Monk: Ok. 12 13 Ms. Campbell: Certainly just based on the numbers that are coming in for applications we 14 definitely have seen a decline in applications. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: And has this ordinance had a benefit on traffic in any way? Have we seen 17 any changes in traffic as a result of this ordinance? 18 19 Ms. Campbell: Not that I'm aware of. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Monk: OK. What was the reason to not have a rollover? And if you don't want 2 to answer that I would just say that I would support a rollover with some sort of oversight or 3 timeline for it to expire. 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: I think originally the discussion was about a mechanism to meter the pace of 6 growth and so in the original deliberations I think the Council felt like if the allocation could 7 rollover then you're really not having that effect of metering growth because you'll continue to 8 have the spikes. The leftover allocation will all be used in a future year. What they were trying 9 to solve for was the spikes where some years you’d have a ton of growth and in the next year 10 you wouldn’t. 11 12 Commissioner Monk: Ok. Well I see that on Page 31 that you talk about the six years where 13 there was in excess of the 50,000 sf, but you didn't really detail how far the growth was beyond 14 the 50,000. So it's hard to know what those spikes were from just my reading of what was 15 presented in the packet. Is that information that you have or? 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. We have a different data set that's a little harder to use that goes back 18 much further and it's we can represent it and really show the spikes. There are years in which 19 we see a lot of growth and we were trying to solve for that problem. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Campbell: And just to add to that in the staff report from September 21, 2015, when the 2 ordinance was adopted there was a hand out that was provided as an attachment that basically 3 showed all of the development over the last 15 years and it illustrated what the square footage 4 numbers were. 5 6 Commissioner Monk: That’s on this? 7 8 Ms. Campbell: No, in the September 21, 2015, Council report. 9 10 Commissioner Monk: Ok. And when it I just have one more question and then I have a few 11 comments on to the ordinance itself. When it comes to mixed use does the square footage 12 that could be occupied by a retail or residential use go towards that cap or is that kept outside? 13 14 Ms. Campbell: No. It’s just office only. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: Ok. So I wanted to look at Page 36 where it's talking about any 17 contradictions between our Comp Plan and the ordinance in the event that the ordinance does 18 remain in effect I would advise to look at the last sentence and consider making a change that 19 the policy most instead of the policy most restrictive of growth shall apply that that be further 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. qualified to the policy most restrictive of R&D growth or office growth or whatever people 1 agree with on the Council. Or it could say the policy least restrictive of housing shall apply. 2 That would be a recommendation that I would make because it's broad the way it's written by 3 just saying growth in general. 4 5 And then in regards to the self-mitigating projects I did send an email to Jonathan Lait on this 6 one because I was curious about whether or not any of those had been accomplished and you 7 confirmed now that it would had not. Has there are any examples ever of this ever being 8 attainable any point in time? On that's on Subparagraph C on Page 37. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I'm not aware of any although we have had inquiries from developers who 11 are interested in this concept. So I think people saw this in the ordinance and thought it was an 12 intriguing idea. So I've had at least one local developer talk to me about how they might go 13 about something like this. 14 15 Commissioner Monk: Ok so what I would love to see is some follow up from the developer and 16 whomever to find out what we can do to make it more attainable and encourage development 17 because I think that self-mitigating projects that would increase our housing stock are in 18 compliance with the City's objectives of increasing housing. So I don't know if it's putting a 19 percentage in there rather than saying that it has to be more than the number of workers or 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. something like that. So I would like to see that looked at in a deeper level. And I think that's 1 my last comment. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok before I dive in I there’s this allegory I'm sure most of you are familiar with. 4 This individual, two individuals come into work and one is always too hot, they open the 5 window and the other individual is annoyed because they're freezing and so they close the 6 window and it's the same thing every hour one opens it, one closes it, one opens it and finally 7 someone’s like hey why don’t you put a sweater on? And then I and don't sit next to the 8 window and I'll sit next to the you know. That's not really how it goes, but you understand, you 9 appreciate my sentiment. 10 11 So I just want to acknowledge Commissioner Rosenblum’s comments. There is I always find 12 your analysis just to be incredibly valuable and it's not hard to understand how this ordinance 13 came about. It is it seems to just reek of a response that is politically driven. The overwhelming 14 growth that we experienced in Downtown the just the… we got the residential parking permit 15 program, we have so many, we have the difficulty these neighborhoods have in absorbing the 16 amount of office growth it's such a foreseeable sort of result, right? But we're capping office 17 growth that's it. Whether or not that actually achieves the goal of reducing so many of the 18 issues that the Downtown is suffering from is the sort of question that I think Commissioner 19 Rosenblum is highlighting tonight which is that at our at the Our Palo Alto event individuals 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. spent a great deal of time sort of evaluating options and the community felt that there were 1 some options that were more valuable than a cap. We currently have a cap in an area where 2 we the impacts are more mitigated than in areas that we don't have a cap which suggests a just 3 incredible iron, not I don't know if irony is the right, inconsistency with what are we actually 4 trying to do and what are we doing. 5 6 The best I should say the best or the only part of this ordinance that I like is that we get to re-7 review it because it's an interim. And I want to just commend staff and Council for operating in 8 that framework. There's a real there's a wonderful reason for using interim ordinances like this 9 one. It gives us a chance to look at it a couple years later. I felt the same way about the 10 ordinance we reviewed a couple weeks ago. I feel the same way about this one. I would never 11 encourage as a Planning Commissioner this City Council to adopt this ordinance in any other 12 way but in an interim fashion. So even if they proceeded to adopt this ordinance I would 13 encourage them to do it for either another two years or if they were uncomfortable with that 14 limit for four years, but to not necessarily adopt it permanently because I personally share the 15 view that this is not the correct solution for the subset of problems that we are attempting to 16 address. 17 18 I have heard really what I would describe as strong arguments for why a beauty contest despite 19 potentially the challenge of that name being divisive, but I've heard positive arguments for it, 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. arguments that I can relate to. Why not have a process in this City where we have architects 1 compete for projects that really demonstrate just tremendous architecture. The problem is is 2 in who's eyes, right? Who makes that determination, right? And then we created a framework 3 and my main concern is that the application of the point system or the decision… I don't I would 4 suggest that I'm uncomfortable with the decision of or the judges of the beauty contest to be in 5 a political body. I'd be much more comfortable if the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for 6 example evaluated the judged the beauty contest then the City Council because it depends how 7 you feel your Council member reflects whether you think they're pro-growth or you think 8 they’re a residentialist or however you feel they situate if you believe that they can be bought 9 or influenced in a political way then there's so there's it’s such a the system is sort of fraught 10 with potential problems. 11 12 So despite this beautiful, this I shouldn’t say beautiful. Despite this aspirational goal of having a 13 contest a system that pushes the best to the top I think the biggest problem with that is we’re 14 familiar with the saying you get what you pay for? I believe that applies in architecture and in 15 development. So if you're going to spend a significant amount of money developing a concept 16 for development and applying only to be slotted in with maybe 10 other projects that may or 17 may not that may exceed the thing and then to have absolutely no certainty as to whether or 18 not your project it we are discouraging individuals in my opinion from investing the sort of 19 money that would produce the best result because that's too much risk. Now if the goal of the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. ordinance is to do just that we actually want to discourage developers from developing in this 1 town commercial office space not just literally with a cap, but also by creating a process that 2 involves so much ambiguity and uncertainty that developers won't even want to participate 3 then this is a great tool for that. And so from that perspective if that's the goal City Council's 4 within its right to make that determination and whether or not that's the right goal is a… but if 5 the goal is to discourage development because of ambiguity then I believe that this is the right 6 tool. So if that's the goal this is the right tool. I think that the lack the reason why we have not 7 hit the cap is not simply because there's been a slowdown in office. I believe it's already having 8 an impact of discouraging applications in office space because of this I don't want to say 9 unintended outcome because it could be the intended consequence. 10 11 I we just had a discussion about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and I wondered during 12 that discussion whether the office cap affects the economic analysis that was inherent to the 13 scenarios. And I guess there was a part of me that believed that our when we adopted this 14 interim ordinance that the Comp Plan would actually come before it expired and somehow it 15 would incorporate policies and programs that furthered the stated goals of this interim 16 ordinance. So I guess one of my suggestions to Council would be to evaluate whether or not 17 they really would like to accomplish their objectives whatever they may be in an ordinance like 18 this one or whether there is a way for us to incorporate them within the Comp Plan that 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. prioritize… I'm not sure. If they if the Council decides to expand this ordinance citywide I think 1 that there should be a consideration for rollover. 2 3 And finally if the Council determines that they want to continue this ordinance permanently I 4 would suggest my recommendation to Council would be to eliminate the beauty contest 5 entirely. Right now we choose March 31st as just an arbitrary date. So any project that got 6 let's say the office cap had been hit and just at the right amount that didn't trigger a beauty 7 contest because it was only 50,000 projects, but it got hit in May of 2017 then any applicant 8 who is ready to go after May 2017 would in essence have to wait till March 31st. They could be 9 they could have spent two years getting through the process on May 1st, but they have to wait 10 till March 31st to participate in this process. And I would suggest that a much more investor 11 friendly or I should say maybe the right term is developer friendly way to do this would be to 12 treat it as a first come first serve process. Which is to say that no that you can't start you can’t 13 we can't green light your project on May 1st because you're in a calendar year where we've 14 exceeded the number of you exceed the cap, but come January one you're permitted to begin 15 your project. 16 17 And you may find that between May 1st of 2017 and November 1st of 2017 we already hit our 18 50,000. And so the projects that are slated for 2018 are all determined in those months 19 between May and November of the previous year, but at least there would be some ladder. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. And if you were a if you were out in the community and you were and attempting to gauge 1 whether a development project was worth your time you could very easily say ok wow, there 2 are 11 projects before me. The earliest I could possibly go would be 2019. That is the sort of 3 certainty that would encourage developers to go ok if I can get in line for 2019 then I'm going to 4 hire the best architect I have. I'm going to get the best design I can. I'm going to throw 5 everything at this because I get one shot possibly every four years and I want it to be brilliant. 6 And I think that will encourage that sort of dollars that will create the sort of results that we 7 want. 8 9 So again I would be in favor of eliminating the beauty contest and I'm not suggesting that we 10 don't create a framework that encourages the goals of the beauty contest, but we do in a way 11 that doesn't discourage investment. And I don't know what that is yet, but I know that this 12 doesn't accomplish that goal for me. Ok, that's those are my comments. 13 14 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: My turn? Thank you. I've heard some speculation both among my 15 colleagues and from staff that the cap produced office growth within the boundaries, but do 16 you have any interpretation on why we haven't seen significant net new office group growth 17 outside of the cap boundaries? 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: We don't really and I'm not sure as Clare indicated that we've had a long enough 1 test of this idea to really draw conclusions and I think we need to study not just our local 2 conditions, but regionally what's happening in the office market. I don't know whether we 3 adopted this ordinance just at the time that something was changing here. I think we should 4 hesitate to draw (interrupted) 5 6 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so yes so it's pretty speculative about cause and effect and I get that. 7 Also there's some discussion about traffic and was there ever any intent that the office cap 8 would remediate existing traffic? 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: No. I think the Council was very clear when this was adopted that they were 11 attempting to address the pace of change in neighborhoods that people felt were changing 12 most rapidly. 13 14 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so we wouldn't expect to see traffic reductions over the last couple 15 years as an effect of this interim ordinance? 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: That’s right. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, ok. Great. Yeah and I mean I've seen some speculation that it's 1 really higher office density that's above the code assumptions of four or five employees per 2 thousand that's really a causal factor. I’m going to… we all had anecdotes about this, but this 3 probably isn't the right place to share them. 4 5 So I support extending the cap at 50,000 feet. I feel like a bit of an odd man out here, but I 6 don't support extending it outside the current boundaries. I think that using mitigations in the 7 Research Park versus metering in the boundary districts gives us a really interesting local A/B 8 test on what works. And I think that both these approaches are valid and having a local running 9 a local experiment maybe making a decision in the future that one of the other is preferable 10 may be an interesting exercise. I don't support rollover although I could be persuaded that 11 rollover I mean well, if we only keep it within the current districts I don't support rollover. And 12 rollover isn't an issue outside of the current districts or in the office park. 13 14 I do support continuing I'll call the bake off process because I like the idea of the City having a 15 seat at the table to get good projects. I appreciate my colleague Commissioner [Note-Chair] 16 Alcheck’s comments about great architecture. I haven't seen great architecture regularly 17 committed in areas outside of the development cap boundaries. And I'm not too worried that a 18 bake off process will deter good design. I mean I think that we need to be cognizant that we 19 have to design processes as if our objective is to improve the quality of design we have to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. design processes that will achieve that, but I'm not I'm not concerned that a the City having a 1 seat at the table will deter good design and will deter good projects. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: I want to go back to that top of Page 33 again. Again if we’re going to 4 make decisions we like to have data and I think you're saying that we haven't had much time to 5 get much data in fact none so it's not indicative of anything really. So I just think we should all 6 kind of understand that. Were there any even anecdotal developers saying I don't like this 7 ordinance so I'm not going to submit or is this just sort of a presumption or speculation? 8 9 Ms. Campbell: I think so the project list that I gave you some examples we definitely saw some 10 projects where the applicant has reduced the amount of square footage and we had some 11 projects that were already like under review when we first adopted the ordinance where 12 they've actually they had planned for office and they've switched it to retail or yeah and 13 housing, yeah. So we’ve… but again we haven't really seen this enough to really make any real 14 determinations on a trend. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: That latter example might turn out to be a plus. 17 18 Ms. Campbell: Yeah. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: If they’re putting in more housing and retail than office. 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: That’s right. I mean there’s only a few examples, but we have had projects that 3 were in our shop for review as office projects the cap was adopted and they have since changed 4 to be residential projects. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Ok. So I also appreciate Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel’s 7 point that there's not been sizable building anywhere, but there certainly hasn't been in the 8 restricted area so to that extent it's been “successful” given very little data. I also wanted to 9 get clarification on what is the real assignment here? The words you put in the front here is 10 that they made a Motion, Council made a Motion that directed staff to bring forward a 11 permanent annual limit ordinance and it’s separate from the Comprehensive Plan update. Is 12 that separate in terms of timing? Because they want to get it done quickly by this date even if 13 the Comprehensive Plan is not available? I mean it certainly isn’t going to be in contradiction to 14 the Comprehensive Plan so I’m still looking kind of for clarity of what the assignment is. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah I think they're there they meant separate to mean separate. That we were 17 asking them at that time whether they wanted to include a policy framework in the Comp Plan 18 for an annual process like this and they said no. We I mean obviously we don't want to 19 contradiction, but what we’d prefer is to refine this through an ordinance process. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Instead of a policy in the Comp Plan? 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: That's right. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, that's helpful. Yeah I think we could use some more debate on if we 6 expanded to certain areas would they be just the office park or would they be other areas and I 7 don't know that tonight’s the night for that. So that's all. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So I believe definitely that the room proper place for this 10 policy it's not a separate regulation, but the Comp Plan. And I'm not sure what's the 11 mechanism here is this is it either a representative of this Commission should speak at the 12 meeting of the City Council or maybe we could ask the staff or the Director to recommend if 13 that would be agreement maybe among ourselves to put a recommend the Council to 14 reconsider their suggestion and include this regulation in the Comprehensive Plan. And there is 15 a the reason is that a Comprehensive Plan should address housing and office balance. And then 16 specifically here there is no greater topic then that. This policy addresses this balance in a 17 significant way. So excluding that from the Comprehensive Plan somehow negates the purpose 18 of the Comprehensive Plan. So it's not very logical for me for this reason I would like somebody 19 there to from this Commission to recommend the Council to reconsider or maybe staff would. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 In terms of how this should work so 50,000 annual limit cap it is the number that doesn't 2 explain itself. It's like with any other numbers that we reviewed here at this Commission and 3 the impact fees was recent topic. We are given the numbers and we need to somehow which 4 are artificial they mean nothing. They are prescriptive as opposed to performance based and in 5 this way they just don't work with variety of other regulations. They are just pretty much 6 artificially created. We know why because at the time when this regulation was created there 7 was a pressure to limit the office cap and then for the time being it worked so there was 8 nothing wrong with this interim regulation that Council passed at this time, but now we are 9 approaching discussions on the Comprehensive Plan so maybe we can just approach it 10 differently. 11 12 I think that the way to approach it is to define and to commit to a ratio which you already 13 presented to us when we were talking about EIR. Where we have jobs, employed, and resident 14 ratio of 3.3 and then this cap may be expressed with this ratio. We can maybe in the 15 Comprehensive Plan we can have a statement that this City that the vision of the City is to drive 16 towards a narrower or is to minimize the today’s differentiator or the ratio that is pretty much 17 high, it's very high maybe the objective of the City is to drive toward lowering this ratio. And 18 inclusion of the statement in the Comprehensive Plan would address this issue totally. We can 19 also assume that there is a variance that from the ratio, let's say 3.0. There can be variance 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. annual or quarterly variance of 0.05 which it would be a standard deviation from the mean and 1 then as long as the City marches with the development between those two parameters we’re 2 fine. So then we would not need to have any other review, any beauty contests or any other 3 first come first serve as long as there is a metric and this metric should be naturally maintained. 4 5 This discussion would resolve itself, but of course we would have to have understanding and 6 agreement and then maybe the agreement that City Council is trying to express with the recent 7 discussion maybe it’s the target ratio that we should have. And then if we have it as I said, 8 right, we would not need to have this cap. As I said 50,000 doesn't say anything to me? I was 9 trying just to do some numbers and then excluding I think we have 3.2 million sf which are in 10 the Comprehensive Plan out of this 1.3 million were already taken by the Stanford Medical 11 Center which leaves us with 1.7 so give or take. Now there is a question how much of this 1.7 12 will go to the toward the outside areas, how much will be left for the City and that remainder 13 should be pretty much allocated towards the 2030 horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. So if 14 you do if you discount the growth of the area outside of the… if you discount the growth of the 15 areas like SRP you are left with some office area that may be allocated toward the City if you 16 drive from 3.2 million sf number. Other ways to approach it as I said is to just pretty much look 17 around this ratio. One method or the other method it just give us the greater direction and we 18 don't need this regulation. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. But however my colleagues talk about this that we need to answer this question what if we're 1 left out with this specific regulation so for this reason my propensity would be like this: I don't 2 believe that there should be any beauty contests because I don't really think that it serves 3 anything. I'm sure that it would not self-serve better architecture just knowing that higher is 4 the that higher burden of the regulation equates to a mediocre architecture. So architects are 5 busy with resolving the issues around the zoning and regulations and they don't design and we 6 know that. So I would be against the beauty contest. 7 8 I think that it should be on the first come and first serve basis and it should be within the rolling 9 timelines. So as long as there is a cap for the 12 months and if that amount of the area is 10 unattained, the office area designated within this 12 months it should keep, going. Of course 11 there is a question that you may ask what's going to happen if there's a large project on the 12 horizon that will automatically go above this cap,? So then of course we would have to just kick 13 in some other review, but then as long as this is below that cap that pretty much the 14 applications should be rolling in. That's how I think about this. I agree with colleagues of mine 15 that suggested to include all the office area regardless so I think that the medical offices all 16 should be included and then all the areas below 2,000 should be included in this cap as well. So 17 those are my comments. Thank you. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Ok Commissioners our the light system does not really work right now because it 1 doesn't reflect the news, the addition of our newest member so just signal me if you have some 2 additional comments. Any order. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: I was just going to circle back to what I said before we had this 5 conversation and I think the conversation illustrates there are a lot of different opinions. 6 There's a lot of different levels of knowledge about this because of when it came up. And if 7 Council wants us to do something besides just tweak this ordinance which we certainly can do 8 then I think it needs more study. Perhaps even a two or three person ad hoc committee in 9 advance of the next meeting with people that we know have maybe a different opinions so we 10 get something done so we could reestablish the Waldfogel/Rosenblum couple there and see 11 what comes out of that one because there's various opinions that I heard up here so. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: It's an interesting idea. I think to what extent we can affect... So your tasked 14 with the process of bringing an ordinance to City, to the to us and then from us it will go to City 15 Council. So this is in essence like a study session before the development of an ordinance 16 which we’ll review and then either recommend or revise or theoretically recommend revisions 17 because it we may not see it twice on its way to Council, right? 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: Right. I think we'd like an opportunity to think a little further about the process 1 after tonight's discussion. We did hear a wide variety of opinions if we had to develop an 2 ordinance based on tonight's discussion I think we would be hard pressed to do that. So I think 3 we want to regroup a little and maybe we'll sit down with the City Manager and talk about his 4 impressions of how this fits into the Council work program this year. We do always have the 5 option with this ordinance to just extended it or let it lapse for a little while we take a little bit 6 longer. So I guess what I'm asking is let's if you have any further thoughts tonight that be 7 terrific and why don't you let us assimilate the input we've received and come back to you with 8 some suggestions and an updated process. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'm going to make a comment and I hope that it serves as a quick example of 11 I think some things that might work out for us. So I'm going to let all of you have an 12 opportunity, but I want to just make a quick comment. I think this will help further the process. 13 14 I think when we come back or in the in your next step this self-mitigating projects exclusion I 15 think it would be very helpful if you could demonstrate how this would be achieved in a 5,000 16 or 10,000 square foot office project. How many housing units would have to be built based on 17 our assumptions for how 10,000 sf of office space is allocated or 5,000 sf or actually 2,100 sf 18 because one of my concerns is that this paragraph about self-mitigating projects is completely 19 unattainable. There is no 2,500 square foot office that within five stories could house enough 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. people to mitigate the jobs/housing imbalance. And so one of the questions that I would like to 1 explore down the road is ok well what how much, how what is reasonable? Like a half, could a 2 project a accommodate half of the housing units versus jobs that it creates? Because otherwise 3 this paragraph is essentially a impossible feat, right? 4 5 That's basically one of the questions that I have. So when, if we explore this further and if the 6 next version of this or what however this works I'd love to sort of figure out whether there is 7 such a thing as a self-mitigating project. Alright, so that's one example of potentially something 8 that could inform this discussion later and I encourage all of you if you have questions since this 9 is a very open ended return to go ahead. Ok. Commissioner Summa. 10 11 Commissioner Summa: So I mean it may not be a perfect ordinance I agree with that, but it 12 seems like it's been successful in doing something that was sort of a consensus moment on the 13 Comp Plan group and that is incentivizing mixed-use that's retail and housing. To respond to 14 people's concerns about housing and also address the jobs/housing imbalance or at least not 15 making it work. So I see it as having been sort of successful understanding that there's only 16 been a very short time to look at it. And yeah I think it’d be very interesting to have an example 17 of the self-mitigating project. Thanks. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Rosenblum. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thanks. So a couple reactions; first, I don't think this is that well 2 suited for like an additional subcommittee and the reason is the history of it which is that 3 Council had many sessions on this. We had many sessions on this. And part of the reason I 4 think you sense passion at least on my part for this is that I never actually thought this would do 5 very much. My opposition to it is that it keeps us from doing things I think will do quite a lot. 6 And just to say well this at least accomplished something I don't think, I think the best thing you 7 can say is we don't know. There just hasn't been enough time or who knows, but after hours 8 and hours and hours of Council debate and hours and hours and hours of PTC debate and public 9 input I think we could have done something much better. 10 11 And specifically I think what the community has always been interested in is the impacts of 12 office, the impacts of people. So where do people put their cars? How do they get into our 13 community? And there are effective ways of dealing with that. And so when I suggest to let 14 this ordinance lapse what I really mean is to choose one of the other options that were on the 15 table. So one of the options on the table was to work extensively on mitigation, so cap is not a 16 mitigation. To work on in our community that would be getting a funding source for our TMA, 17 getting proper leadership in place, getting proper oversight. So when I think of those however 18 many hours nine hours of Council meetings on this and all the hours that we had on this and 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. could have been spent productively trying to find a funding source for example for TMA I find it 1 kind of tragic. 2 3 But if we are going to do this again the thing that to me is one of the biggest examples of why 4 this is strange is that the place that leads to a lot of our traffic which is SRP in terms of the total 5 square footage of office and the fact that 73 percent of them drive alone. This is a known issue. 6 This has been an issue for years. They've been working on trying to get people out of their cars. 7 It's a difficult place for people not to drive to. That we've actually just flipped everything on its 8 head. The places where people are reducing their reliance on cars we've put a cap in place. In 9 a place where people can’t get out of their cars we’ve put no cap in place. It’s just the whole 10 thing is very strange. 11 12 And so when I suggest we let this lapse I'm not saying not replace it with anything I'm saying to 13 work on something that we would feel good about which is a program to really reduce the 14 reliance on cars in the Downtown area where that ability exists. And to me again it would be 15 it’s the Stanford plan. Stanford did an amazing job over the last decade plus of getting people 16 out of their cars, but it’s by focusing on this and not just putting a cap in place. I think if they 17 had just put a cap in place and not focused on all the programming they did around the shuttle 18 program, the go pass program, the education program, the marking program. That took work 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and they focused on that. If they had just said a cap will accomplish what we want I think they 1 would have been short changed. 2 3 So anyway so my suggestion given this process would be I think additional like subcommittees 4 in this case is probably not the best use, but I do hope that we at least come up with some 5 consensus. I have my view. I may be outvoted on this one. I expect I would be, but at least I 6 think we should give guidance to Council that we support this ordinance being extended or we 7 don't we think it should be replaced with something different. And then hopefully some 8 consolidation of our feedback if we decide that this ordinance is really well actually, either way; 9 even if we say we should replace it with something they can just ignore us. And then I think we 10 still owe them some pointers on things that we think should be changed. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: So a process wise would you say bring it back in a month and have 13 another debate and then vote on something? 14 15 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, something like that. I mean I may be strong of will on this 16 one, but I'd be willing to do that right now. But I'm also happy to bring it back if people feel like 17 they need more time to digest and again this is maybe something where this all came during my 18 tenure and so maybe I feel like (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: You’ve got a lot of history. 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. So it's possible that given the composition of this Commission 3 if people want more time to absorb and talk to folks then I'm open to that. But yeah I think we 4 should we owe Council some kind of direction and answer on this. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah unless they've already told us otherwise. I'd like to see the exact 7 Motion actually if we could get that sent to us. 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah we'd be happy to do that and one of the things that we are talking about is 10 whether we should go to the Council and have this same kind of open ended discussion. We 11 really just scratched the surface because there were so many other issues on the agenda on 12 that June 30 that January 30th date. And so we're kind of figuring out can we fit a study session 13 into the Council schedule, should we just draft an ordinance and bring it to you and bring it to 14 them, we really have to strategize after hearing the wide variety of thoughts expressed this 15 evening. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Look, I’ll say this: new, old, it doesn't really make a difference. I think everybody 18 on this Commission is sensitive to the impacts that have occurred as a result of the growth that 19 I think most of us have seen as residents. And I don't want to take away here to be Commission 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. split on whether to continue to develop office or not. I think or I at least I speak for myself 1 when I say this is not I'm not opposed to the office cap because I would like more office in our 2 City. I and one of the I think most valuable comments you're making is how much more time 3 are we going to spend on a potentially flawed approach? That is something that we need to 4 address. We can have another two meetings and debate office caps and I think one question is 5 are we continuing to waste time and I think there maybe even Commissioners that don't think 6 we would be and there's a lot of uncertainty involved here. So I don't know that we're ready to 7 even make a Motion to… I don't know. I shouldn’t say make a, I don't know that what we... 8 please. Why don’t? 9 10 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So Commissioner Rosenbaum raises an interesting point that mitigation is 11 really at the bottom of this is the objective and maybe the way to split the difference is for the 12 time being I really think we need to extend this office cap, but perhaps what we do is we sunset 13 it around demonstrably effective mitigation. That when we show that we have TDM that works 14 or other mitigations that work that we increase the cap or we relieve the restrictions, but I 15 mean for the time being I think this is the best tool that we have in our or the best tool that we 16 have in our tool kit. We don't have reliable funding sources for TMA yet and perhaps that 17 would be an incentive for the private sector to adequately fund TMA. Who knows, you know 18 that's pure speculation, but maybe we come up with some tool like that. I don't know is an 19 interesting? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: I guess my I'm sort of curious to know how you would respond to this exclusion 2 of the SRP. I mean that being potentially the largest generator of the impacts that the TDM 3 measures that you're waiting for would address. So why wouldn't you use the best tool that 4 you have to address an area that is creating the largest problem that you are hoping will be 5 solved? 6 7 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Well I partially because I think that the 73 percent and what is it, 54 8 percent numbers are slightly deceptive. Until we actually look at the occupancy per square foot 9 basically how many trips are generated per square foot of building in those districts. I don't 10 have those numbers, but at least historically the Research Park has had lower occupancy 11 density. So I think that if we knew that we could say something smarter about this. I mean we 12 know that for better for worse we know that Cal Ave. has more trips now than it had some time 13 in the past because we're seeing demand for Residential Preferential Parking (RPP), we're 14 seeing a serious discussion about a new parking ramp. So I mean we know that affects have 15 happened, but I don't know enough to agree or disagree that the Research Park is a bigger 16 causal issue than other districts. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: I just want to follow up, I'm curious. So let's assume for a minute the numbers 19 are the same. Let’s say it was 54 and 54. Still why wouldn't you include that area? What would 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. be the rationale to not… what would how would we encourage TDM measures in that area if 1 there was no cap? Or the development of [unintelligible]. I get (interrupted) 2 3 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Well I’m not sure what you're, are you arguing that the cap should be 4 extended to the Research Park? 5 6 Chair Alcheck: I'm trying to suggest that the exclusion in your mind, in your… you suggested 7 that you want to continue the office cap, but you want to exclude the… its expansion citywide 8 seems inconsistent and I was trying to I was trying to pick your brain as to how that made 9 sense. I appreciate that there's information that you're that you would like to obtain so. 10 11 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Well and I'd like to see mitigations in the Research Park. I mean I'm not 12 saying we shouldn't do anything in the Research Park. I'd like to see mitigations. I'd like to see 13 that perhaps as a local experiment on mitigations versus metering, but that but I'm trying to 14 suggest there may be a middle ground here which is this isn't a calendared interim item this is a 15 this is interim until we show that we can actually achieve what we say we want to achieve. And 16 we just haven't done that yet. So let's show that we can do it and let's create some incentives 17 for them for the private sector to respond. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Rosenblum. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah I guess it’s I think it's all well and good for us to say well it's not 2 ideal, but let's continue and then we also really care about mitigation so hopefully something 3 good happens there. To me it’s exactly the opposite which is what we really should care about 4 is mitigation. This is a program that has been shown to work by our neighbor at Stanford. It's 5 something that we've seen examples on individual building levels. So one building that really 6 struck me was this body presided over a proposal where the proposal was fully parked or they 7 offered Option 2 where they get rid of 10 spaces, but offer Caltrain Go Passes for every person 8 working in the building and it was near the Caltrain Cal Ave. station. And that really struck me. 9 They had something like a 10 percent reduction in number of spaces, but because it cost them 10 $60,000 per space that funded Caltrain passes for everyone. And we considered those two 11 options and one was they’re dramatically different. One you fit ten more cars in the other I 12 forget the number of people it was like 110 people work in the building would all get Go Passes. 13 14 And what I realize is we only have so much time and Council only has so much time and we do 15 what we spend time on and so this particular issue has taken up a lot of time and if we ranked 16 issues that in the last two years have taken Council time this would be a top five item talking 17 office cap, multiple sessions that went on for hours. And so my rejoinder to this is it hasn't 18 really done much. Removing it probably won't do much either. I actually like I said I don't 19 actually think this is that important a measure one way or the other, but I know it takes time 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and it takes our focus off of what I think is the most important thing which is I think we right 1 now really ineffective TMA at the moment frankly. And I would love to see us and Council start 2 to spend a lot of time understanding why that is and all the different options we could have for 3 funding and staffing that body and doing it well. 4 5 Now the only objection I have to this again is I think it's a really blunt instrument, but at least if 6 we’re going to use the blunt instrument and let's apply it consistently so if we’re going to have 7 a blunt instrument then at least let's apply it to SRP, let's get rid of these exceptions that don't 8 make sense. But I think that we have much better instruments that we should spend our time 9 on. And so that’s it. I just feel sad that we keep discussing this cap which I don't think really 10 does much one way or the other. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Is it, do, is there any baring other comment or go ahead. 13 14 Commissioner Monk: So looking first of all I just want to say that with what Commissioner 15 Rosenblum was saying I do agree that if it's about mitigation then the time should be spent on 16 doing the hard work to figure out how to really reduce the traffic and those things that impact 17 our quality of life. Although Director Gitelman said that this was more about the pace of 18 change and that's why it was enacted. So getting some clarity on that and addressing that 19 specific would be really important. And also looking at what our objective is tonight this is a 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. study session and as you mentioned you did hear of a variety of a range of opinions and I think 1 that is exactly what we were tasked to do tonight and I think we've successfully met our 2 objective for tonight. So I don't know what the additional conversation needs to continue on so 3 I just want to say that I think we've met our objective and I appreciate all of the interesting 4 commentary. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Yeah I agree that I think we met our objective. I wonder if there is a way that I 7 can, we can and I'd love to hear if there is support for this empower staff to bring us an 8 agendized item this summer where we delve into TMA. Or if there is a way for us to begin a 9 discussion about effective TMA solutions that address the challenges that may or may not be 10 effectively addressed by this tool. I think that it would be we've talked about this a lot this 11 notion of proposing an item of interest on the Planning Commission that the staff would help 12 facilitate an opportunity to put it on the agenda. I mean I've had that conversation with 13 Assistant Director Lait a few times. And I don't know that I am following the right protocol 14 here, but I guess my question and I'd love if follow Commission Members feel strongly about 15 this I mean there is maybe an interest here in pursuing that. I'd much rather create a 16 subcommittee to talk about TMA than to talk about this ordinance. And is there a way we can 17 accomplish that goal in this calendar year? 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: I think we can find a way to do that. I should mention that we have scheduled a 1 discussion with the City Council on April 11th. So coming up in fact the packet goes out 2 tomorrow on parking management strategies Downtown which does offer some potential for 3 funding the TMA in the long term. And what and our recommendation to the Council on the 4 11th is not to take any action just to receive a study that we've been working on and basically 5 instruct us to go and get some additional input and potentially work with the Commission on a 6 further evolution of kind of an implementation strategy if they're interested in pursuing the 7 recommendations of the study. So I'd encourage you to pay attention to the Council meeting 8 on the 11th. It's a Tuesday meeting rather than a Monday meeting, but that may evolve into a 9 Commission agenda item just like the one you're saying you're suggesting and even if it doesn't 10 we can find a way to bring the TMA related issues back to the Commission this year. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Maybe one of the most constructive thing that we can do at this point would be 13 to encourage staff when they go for that meeting to communicate the passion and interest 14 among Commission Members to explore this and if they're so interested empower us that in 15 our discussion of the cap we had some discussion about delving into this further and if as part 16 of their review they consider that opportunity. Does anybody else have some? Commissioners 17 Summa. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Summa: So I think it would be great to discuss a TMA, but unless TMA gets 1 significant funding that’s it's never going to get off the ground. It's a totally different thing than 2 Stanford’s academic success with reduction of trips because they own all the land. So it's very 3 different Downtown and that's why they have a harder time in the Research Park. Even though 4 they own the land there's these long term lease holders and they can't make all the rules. So I 5 appreciate my colleagues’ passion on the topic of the this item, but I think the fact that there 6 has been so much time spent on it is evidence of the passion on both sides around it. So I 7 would suggest it's perfectly appropriate for us to spend time on it because it just elicits a lot of 8 passionate responses. So yeah let's go for trying to improve the TMA, but we've got to figure 9 out who's going to pay for it because it needs professional people running it in my opinion. 10 Thanks. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Any other comments? Commissioner Gardias. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Does the light system work or? 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Not really. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: I just wanted to make a comment about this what Director Gitelman 19 said. So you said you were wondering how to approach this ordinance with the City Council 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and some other items. My general thought is like this that Comprehensive Plan that we would 1 be approaching very soon gives us this opportunity to comprehensively review all the 2 ordinances like this one. I think that once we're going to approach summer or the 3 Comprehensive Plan discussion we should just have the laundry list of all the ordinances and 4 then see if they can be incorporated into Comprehensive Plan. Or if a Comprehensive Plan 5 pretty much invalidates them or replaces them in some way. 6 7 Ms. Gitelman: Certainly your review of the Comprehensive Plan is going to be an opportunity 8 for you to review the land use policies that involve growth management strategies and other 9 approaches to growth in the City. And once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted we will have to 10 undertake some changes to our zoning ordinances to implement the new policies in the plan. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok I want to make one more suggestion when this does come back to us in 13 whatever form it comes back to us. I think we've talked about this last time I think it would be 14 very instructive if we could review any other American city’s approach to an office cap that 15 potentially involved a beauty or bake sale or whatever you want to call it. I think we talked 16 about this last time and we were does anybody else do this and how are they doing it and how 17 if because we don't really have a lot of data maybe there's a way we can analyze their results. 18 So barring any other comments by Commissioners I think we can sort of complete (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: Do we want to agendize this for the next meeting? 1 2 Chair Alcheck: I don't know that it will be ready in time. 3 4 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. I think we'd like some time to think about it maybe we prepare an 5 ordinance so you have something to react to, something more concrete, but maybe we have to 6 go to Council first. We just have to give it a little thought, but we'll keep working on this. We 7 do know there is some urgency to this because the expiration date of the current ordinance. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Time is on our side and this is different than the last interim ordinance 10 (interrupted) 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: That’s what I was just going to say. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: We’ve got a few months here. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: I’m happy to get a little bit more extra time on this one. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: It would be a great though if we could see the text of the Motion so that 1 we know what the direction is to you guys and effectively to us right now even if we want to 2 push back on that we’d like to know what the status is. Thank you. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 5 6 Ms. Gitelman: Well thank you all for the input tonight. It's really helpful. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Yeah this is really very effective. I'd like to close the study session now and move 9 to the approval of the minutes from the March 8th meaning. 10 11 MOTION: There was no Motion. 12 13 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6 Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7 Commissioner Ed Lauing 8 Commissioner Susan Monk 9 Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10 Commissioner Doria Summa 11 12 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14 15 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18 19 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24 25 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34 Prepared by Planning Division, August 2017 Projects Subject to the Annual Office Limit for FY2016-FY2018 Approved Office Projects Fiscal Year Address Project Description Location Net New Office Area 2016 2747 PARK BL R&D: New three-story 33,323 sq. ft. research and development building, replacing the existing 4,800 sq. ft. commercial building. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM). [14PLN-00388] California Avenue 28,523 sq. ft. 2016 3225 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed-use: New 29,249 sq. ft. mixed-use project, replacing the existing 7,000 sq. ft. retail building, which includes eight residential units and 11,984 sq. ft. of commercial space (retail & office). Zoning District: CS Service Commercial. [15PLN-00003] El Camino Real Corridor 2,932 sq. ft. 2016 2585 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed-use: New three-story mixed use building including 19,954 sq. ft. of commercial space (retail & office) and 13 residential condominium units. Zone Districts: CN, CC(2). [15PLN-00170] El Camino Real Corridor 9,408 sq. ft. TOTAL 40,863 sq. ft. Fiscal Year Address Project Description Location Net New Office Area 2017 NONE Pending Office Projects Fiscal Year* Address Project Description Location Net New Office Area 2018 3045 PARK BL R&D: New two-story 29,120 sq. ft. R&D building replacing the existing 17,956 sq. ft. commercial/office building and construct a. Zone District: GM(AD). [17PLN-00073] California Avenue 11,164 sq. ft. Total 11,164 sq. ft. * Providing projects are ready for approval by March 30, 2018. Fiscal Year CalAve* Downtown* ECR* SRP Other Areas Total (sq. ft.) 2001 5,828 9,601 2,080 155,930 22,600 196,039 2002 4,490 42,210 1,191 32,433 9,950 90,274 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 4,198 492 4,690 2005 26,320 10,201 0 0 ‐85,639 ‐49,118 2006 1,860 76,268 6,185 0 ‐164,152 ‐79,839 2007 60,703 410 0 5,700 ‐248,958 ‐182,145 2008 0 10,535 0 0 ‐15,442 ‐4,907 2009 1,754 0 0 0 ‐66,000 ‐64,246 2010 0 17,510 33,979 0 0 51,489 2011 0 28,148 0 35,000 5,690 68,838 2012 58,473 48,356 0 26,745 ‐162 133,412 2013 0 26,739 2,775 49,000 0 78,514 2014 45,406 45,608 0 11,571 ‐43,040 59,545 2015 58,840 0 0 0 14,608 73,448 2016 42,189 ‐9,203 12,340 47,141 0 92,467 2017 0 0 0 36,357 0 36,357 Total (sq. ft.) 305,863 306,383 58,550 404,075 ‐570,053 504,818 AOL Area* Citywide Citywide w/o SRP Total Development (sq. ft.): 670,796 504,818 100,743 Average Annual Development (sq. ft.): 39,459 29,695 5,926 Summary of Office/R&D Development FY2001‐FY2017 Notes: 1. Data shown is from VTA's Congestion Management Program's (CMP) and reflects office and R&D uses that is derived from Planning Entitlements from FY 2001‐ FY 2017. 2. Data excludes Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) expansion and Mayfield Development Agreeement Projects, which demolishes approximately 323k of non‐residential square feet and replaces 300k of demolished square feet in Stanford Research Park (SRP). *The Annual Office Limit (AOL) affects primarily three commercial areas in the City: Donwtown, California Avenue area, and the El Camino Corridor. Prepared by Planning Division August 2017 CJL Stanford Shopping Center Downtown/Unniversity Area UniversityStation PAMF Town & Country California AvenueArea Fry's Site Stanford Research Park El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor Alma Plaza Stanford MedicalCenter CharlestonCenter R-1 San AntonioArea San AntonioArea Midtown West BayshoreArea EdgewoodPlaza East BayshoreArea MSC Embarcadero EastArea SOFA I SOFA II R-1 R-1 (7000) East MeadowCircle s J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d P a g e M i l l R o ad R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R oa d O re g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d U niversity Avenue y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real n e R o a d F o o t h i l l E x p r e s Hi l l vi e w E a st B a y s h or e W e st B a y s h o r e Fabian S a n d Hill R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Lo s Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct McKellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive Hemlock Court Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El C apitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley StreetSouth CourtBryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley StreetEl Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael DriveSt Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina Way Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road A mes Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road D CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia StreetBowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Arastradero Road Miranda Avenue e Hill Avenue anuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRoblesAvenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Expres La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford AvenueBirch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan AvenueJacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road MortonStreet Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar LaneAlannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon AvenueBlair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara DriveColorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado AvenueSimkins Court Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way E Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison AvenueScott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer AvenueGuinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenue Chaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlowe St Maple Stree Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton StreetCowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wils o n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive C University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson AvenuePine Street Mark Twain Street Louis RoadBarbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Edgewood Drive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion AvenueWelch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Hillv Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 WLane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenue Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail DrQuail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolu mne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryessa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado CtAlvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cooksey Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court Jenkins Court Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L L ane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomita Court Lomita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears CourtMears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mirada Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hill Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way Rai m undo Wa y Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra Walk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco CourtSan Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm R oad Thoburn Court Tolman DriveValdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Alpine Access Road Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r v oir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch RoadPasteur Drive Pasteur Drive This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Commercial & RT Zoning Districts - Office is a Permitted Use w/ Possible GF & Size Limitations ROLM & RP Zoning Districts - Office and R & D is a Permitted Use MOR Zoning District - Medical Office is a Permitted Use PF Zoning District - Office is a Conditional Use GM Zoning District - R & D is a Permitted Use & Office is a Conditional Use Stanford Research Park Annual Office and R&D Cap Area Boundaries City Jurisdictional Limits abc Note: Other uses where Office may be an "accessory use" maybe conditionally permitted in Residential Zoning Districts 0' 2200' Of f i c e a n d R & D An n u a l C a p B o u n d a r i e s Ar e a M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-10-01 11:54:38 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 8277) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/5/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Rail Program CSS Alternatives Analysis Plan, Problem Statement, Goals and Performance Measures Title: Adoption of the Community Engagement Plan, Problem Statement, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade Separation Alternatives From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council consider recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council Rail Committee and: 1.Review the revised Community Engagement Plan (Attachment A), summary of Community Workshop #1 on May 20, 2017 (Attachment B), and summary of Community Questionnaire #1 responses (Attachment C), and 2.Adopt the revised Community Engagement Plan (Attachment A), and Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria (Attachment E) for discussion at Community Workshop #2 and to inform the development and analysis of project alternatives. NOTE: Due to potential conflicts of interest for Councilmember(s) owning real property near rail crossings, the Council will segregate the process issue (community engagement) from the policy issue (problem statement, objectives, and criteria) and will discuss the process issue first. Report Summary The City Council directed staff to prioritize the definition of a preferred solution for grade separations along the Caltrain corridor due to: longstanding concerns regarding connectivity, safety, noise, aesthetics, and circulation impacts along the corridor; AGENDA ITEM # 11 City of Palo Alto Page 2 passage of Santa Clara County Measure B in November 2016, which includes $700 million for grade separations that will be split among three jurisdictions with a total of eight crossings (four in Palo Alto); scheduled implementation of Caltrain modernization by 2021, which will facilitate more trains per hour through Palo Alto; and ongoing environmental review of the California High-speed Rail Project alternatives which may further increase train service through Palo Alto. As a result, the City Council’s Rail Committee has been discussing how to best seek community input at key junctures along the way. At present, Staff is seeking input on a Problem Statement to succinctly define the purpose of the project, project Objectives that will be used to help develop project Alternatives, and Evaluation Criteria that will be used to analyze project Alternatives. This approach is typically used in the context sensitive solutions (CSS) planning process and staff has proposed a community engagement plan using a suite of strategies to maximize input from the community throughout the planning process. Direction from City Council will be used to inform Community Workshop #2 on September 16, 2017 and the development and analysis of project alternatives. Background The brief discussion below summarizes past planning processes related to grade separations in Palo Alto as well as the principal characteristics of existing and planned grade crossings along the Caltrain corridor. Where more detailed information is available, links to prior staff reports are provided. Prior Rail Corridor Studies The City of Palo Alto has long discussed the need to improve circulation and connectivity along the Caltrain rail corridor, and has undertaken a number of previous planning efforts as well as offering multiple comments during the environmental review process associated with Caltrain modernization and the California High-speed Rail Project. If Council members are interested in a brief description of the Rail Corridor Study planning effort from 2013 and the more recent analysis of a trenching solution for grade separating the Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings, these can be found in the form of a report to the Rail Committee which is available at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58463. The 2013 Rail Corridor Study itself can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38025 The 2014 trenching study can be found at: City of Palo Alto Page 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44211. Please note that the Discussion section below provides some additional detail on the vision and goals of the 2013 Rail Corridor Study, as well as constraints identified during the 2014 trenching study. This report also contains a summary of the status of other grade separations that are being planned by local jurisdictions along the corridor via an updated status diagram, included as Attachment F. Existing and Planned Grade Crossings in Palo Alto There are currently two grade-separated crossings for all modes at University Avenue and Embarcadero Road and two grade-separated crossings for pedestrians and bicycles at Homer Avenue and California Avenue. Two existing grade-separated crossings at Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road accommodate motor vehicles and bicyclists, but not pedestrians. There are four at-grade crossings that have been the focus of grade separation discussions: Palo Alto Ave (AKA Alma Street), Churchill Avenue, East/West Meadow Drive, and East/West Charleston Road. In addition, there have been at least two new grade-separated crossings for pedestrians and bicycles discussed in the past several years, one near Matadero Creek or Loma Verde Avenue in South Palo Alto and one at Emerson Avenue in Downtown North. Past studies have also discussed relocating pedestrian and bicycle access from Churchill Avenue one block north to Kellogg Avenue and adding a pedestrian and bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue (to Peers Park). The Study Area map below provides the location of the existing and planned crossings (with the exception of the Seale Avenue/Peers Park concept). Figure 1. Map of the Rail Corridor Showing Existing and Planned Grade Crossings City of Palo Alto Page 4 Note: The “Planned bike/ped crossings” shown have been identified as desirable in past planning efforts, but require additional planning, design, and funding. Source: Mott McDonald, August 2017 Staff has initiated a data collection effort to inform planning for changes along the rail corridor, and the preliminary data on existing at-grade crossings was presented at Community Workshop #1 on May 20, 2017. Some of this data is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Existing Conditions at Existing At-Grade Rail Crossings Palo Alto Ave (Alma St) Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston Rd Traffic (Average Daily) 14,700 11,400 9,300 16,000 Bicycle (Average Daily) 550 1020 900 240 Pedestrian (Average Daily) 300 270 180 140 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Palo Alto Ave (Alma St) Churchill Ave Meadow Dr Charleston Rd Road Transit/Bus (Average Daily) 33 7 11 45 School Bus (Average Daily) 0 64 48 20 Heavy Truck (Average Daily) 190 127 47 20 Daily Gate Closures 43 39 39 40 Avg. Seconds Gates are Closed 25-75 30-78 20-74 22-76 Collisions (2011-13) 0 13 13 11 Source: Mott McDonald, May 2017 Future Challenges As noted earlier, modernization of Caltrain (including electrification) will facilitate more train service to and through Palo Alto starting in 2021. This expanded rail service will have impacts as well as benefits, and the impacts will be exacerbated when combined with the potential addition of High Speed Rail. The most notable impact will be an increase in the number of gate closures at the existing at-grade crossings listed above. With more gate closures at greater frequencies, motorists will experience more delay and congestion at the grade crossings and at nearby intersections. Pedestrians and bicyclists will also experience more frequent delays, and the presence of the Caltrain corridor as a barrier impeding east-west connectivity in Palo Alto will be accentuated. The noise from train horns as trains approach the at-grade crossings will also increase in frequency. The Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Process The context sensitive solutions (CSS) process was raised by the City in its comments to Caltrain and the California High-speed Rail Authority, and represents good community-based planning that gathers information and input prior to making decisions. CSS, as defined by one of the leading practitioner’s website (www.contextsensitivesolutions.org), is a “collaborative, interdisciplinary, holistic approach to the development of transportation projects.” The organization further states that a CSS approach is guided by four core principles: 1. Strive towards a shared stakeholder vision to provide a basis for decisions; 2. Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts; 3. Foster continuing communication and collaboration to achieve consensus; City of Palo Alto Page 6 4. Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while preserving and enhancing community and natural environments. The revised Community Engagement Plan in Attachment A provides a summary of how Staff plans to involve community members and stakeholders and gather the input needed to craft a shared vision and make informed decisions in this instance. Community Workshops will be periodic plenary sessions for the wider community helping anchor the community engagement process, along with focus groups and other methods designed to provide information and receive input from as many Palo Alto residents and stakeholders as possible (see revised Community Engagement Plan – Attachment A). A Technical Advisory Group (TAC) and consultants with technical expertise will help City staff fully understand physical constraints and requirements of other agencies, which will help inform reports to the Rail Committee, PTC, and City Council Community input and technical information/analysis will also be used to inform recommendations to those bodies. Planning and Transportation Commission The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussed the Community Engagement Plan, as well as the suggested Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria, at their meeting on August 9, 2017. The minutes from this meeting are included as Attachment G. After a lengthy discussion regarding the Community Engagement Plan, the PTC adopted the following motion on a 4-2 vote (Alcheck, Monk against, Rosenblum absent): “Palo Alto follow a CSS process for evaluation of rail grade separation including the creation of a dedicated expert stakeholder group in parallel with neighborhood stakeholders.” The commissioners also offered input into the Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria, which included: Reconsider inclusion of noise and vibration and other common issues near railroads in Problem Statement. Reduce the number of Objectives to the top four, eliminating ones that are “a given.”( A video of the Planning and Transportation Commission discussion is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp9s0vrPshY A revised Community Engagement Plan and Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria are included as Attachments A and E. These revisions incorporate feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Rail Committee. Items marked with an asterisk (*) have been incorporated into the revised documents. City of Palo Alto Page 7 City Council Rail Committee The City Council Rail Committee discussed the Community Engagement Plan, as well as the suggested Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria, at their meeting on August 16, 2017. The minutes from this meeting are included as Attachment H. After a lengthy discussion regarding the Community Engagement Plan, the Rail Committee offered the following input: Focus Groups would be an appropriate supplement to the planned Community Workshops* The public comment format of the Rail Committee meeting could be modified to allow for increased participation by interested stakeholders* Staff should make efforts to open the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings to the public, if feasible, and add expertise not currently represented. The Rail Committee’s motion was recorded as follows: “Chair DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to direct Staff to propose adding members to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), provide additional expertise in areas not currently represented, define those roles and responsibilities, suggest potential subcommittees and to consider adding focus groups.” As discussed at the Committee meeting, the TAC was designed to obtain staff-to-staff input from other public agencies and those agencies may not be willing to provide staff or give advice freely in public meetings. As an alternative, staff is proposing to include additional agencies on the TAC such as the Palo Alto Unified School District, to structure Rail Committee meetings to allow for more citizen input/dialog, and to create additional/alternate venues for citizen advocates to meet with City staff and provide their insights about the process, available data, and decisions along the way. The Rail Committee also offered input into the Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria, which included: Problem Statement o Touch on the importance of enhanced Caltrain service at the beginning of the Problem Statement* o Describe high-speed rail as “probable,” instead of “possible( o Add “commercial areas and Stanford University” after “surrounding neighborhoods” Objectives o Reference previous rail corridor planning work explicitly* A revised Community Engagement Plan and Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria are included as Attachments A and E. These revisions incorporate feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Rail Committee. Items marked with an asterisk (*) have been incorporated into the revised documents. City of Palo Alto Page 8 o Break third bullet into two separate Objectives* o Delete the last three bullets from the Objectives* o Add “by eminent domain” after “right-of-way acquisitions”* o Add new Objective: “Facilitate land-use changes and station-area planning and redevelopment.” o Add new Objective regarding sustainability Evaluation Criteria o Reduce to only two tiers* o Delete “at any single location” in second to last Evaluation Criterion o Break last Evaluation Criterion into two separate Evaluation Criteria, with one addressing the minimization of right-of-way acquisition “by eminent domain” and the other referring to funding feasibility, with the latter being a Tier 1 Evaluation Criterion* A video of the City Council Rail Committee discussion is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_kbx3QqniI Discussion To develop and evaluate alternatives, it’s important for City decision makers and the community to have a common understanding of the problem we’re trying to solve, our objectives, and ultimately the criteria we will use to develop and evaluate the alternatives. While some may find it frustrating to dwell on these points and want to simply embrace and pursue a specific solution, the adoption of a Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria will pay dividends as the community begins to evaluate trade-offs inherent in any complex capital project with the potential to affect the long term future of Palo Alto. The trade-offs don’t just relate to the physical form of improvements along the rail corridor, but also to specific engineering, financing, phasing, and construction considerations. A revised Problem Statement, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria are provided in Attachment E and are explained below. To a large extent, these suggestions derive from input received at Community Workshop #1 and the recent citizen questionnaire summarized in Attachments B and C. They remain a draft for further input and discussion at Community Workshop #2, which will begin a discussion about the development of Alternatives. A short discussion of constraints that have been or will be considered as the planning process proceeds is also included below. Problem Statement Community Questionnaire #1 asked for input on a draft Problem Statement that starts with the concept of connectivity, which was a clear focus of the vision statement in the 2013 Rail Corridor Study: City of Palo Alto Page 9 Community Questionnaire #1: “The Caltrain corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity within the City of Palo Alto, and is also the source of safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, especially at existing at-grade crossings. These challenges also create issues in surrounding neighborhoods such as noise, vibration, traffic and visual impacts. These will continue to get worse in the future with increases in train traffic due to Caltrain modernization (including electrification) and the possible addition of high speed rail.” 2013 Rail Corridor Study: “To create a vibrant, safe, attractive, transit-rich area with mixed use city and neighborhood mixed-use centers that provide walkable, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly places that serve the community and beyond; and to connect the east and west portions of the city through an improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions.” Individual responses to the recent questionnaire suggested a number of edits or changes, including addressing suicide prevention, recognizing that Caltrain electrification will reduce noise and vibration, a preference for undergrounding the tracks, and a statement assuming that the High Speed Rail would be contingent on grade separations. The suggested Problem Statement in Attachment D was adjusted slightly in response to the input from the questionnaire. The revised Problem Statement in Attachment E has been modified to include feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council Rail Committee (changes are tracked; additions are underlined and deletions are crossed-out). Objectives Attachment D also includes suggested Objectives that are derived in part from the goals and policies articulated in the 2013 Rail Corridor Study for potential consideration in the Comprehensive Plan Update. These are provided below: Goal 1: Rail Improvements Should Be Constructed in a Below-grade Trench. Policy 1.1: The City’s preferred vertical alignment for fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade. Policy 1.2: The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of rail in Palo Alto. Policy 1.3: When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention shall be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation measures should be proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Goal 2: Ensure the Highest Possible Safety at All Rail Crossings and Mitigate Rail Impacts on Neighborhoods, Public Facilities, Schools and Mixed-use Centers. Policy 2.1: Improve existing at-grade crossings. All at-grade crossings of the Caltrain corridor should be improved to provide the highest possible level of safety and convenience. This may be grade separations or safer at-grade crossings, with the preferred choice being grade separation, if supported by technical studies. Policy 2.2: Provide additional safe and convenient crossings. Additional crossings of the tracks, and in some cases Alma Street as well, are essential to provide connections from neighborhoods to destinations such as schools, parks and services. Policy 2.3: Improve safety and minimize noise, vibrations and visual impacts of operations in the Caltrain rail corridor. With or without the addition of a High Speed Train, the Caltrain corridor should be modified to improve safety and to minimize noise, vibration and visual impacts on adjoining districts, public facilities, schools and neighborhoods. Goal 3: Connect the East and West Portions of the City through an improved circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. Policy 3.1: Seek to increase the number of east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossings along Alma Street, particularly south of Oregon Expressway. Policy 3.2: All four existing at-grade rail crossings shall remain open to vehicular traffic. Goal 4: Provide Improved Access to Parks, Recreation Facilities and Schools and Assess Future Needs for these Facilities. Policy 4.1: Enhance connections to parks, community centers, libraries and schools within the corridor or between the corridor and nearby facilities. Opportunities to increase school capacity and facility development and use should be evaluated and coordinated between the Palo Alto Unified School District and the City. Goal 5: Infrastructure Should Keep Pace with Development. Policy 5.1: Implement plans and coordinate with other agencies where required for parks, recreation and traffic improvements, as well as new or expanded schools in order to keep pace with new development. Sewer, water, storm drainage and wastewater management should be evaluated and implemented in conjunction with development. The suggested Objectives in Attachment D differ from these suggested goals and policies by not pre-judging the below-grade trench solution. This is not meant to express a lack of interest or City of Palo Alto Page 11 support for the goal of accomplishing grade separations below grade, but simply to provide an opportunity for consideration of community objectives before alternatives are developed for analysis, which is a key tenet of the context sensitive solutions process. Also, Staff does not yet have a full understanding of the constraints that would dictate the form and cost of a below- grade alternative, as discussed further below. The suggested Objectives recognized input received from the questionnaire, which ranked suggested goals as follows: 1. Reduce congestion near at-grade crossings 2. Prioritize student safety 3. Separate motor vehicle from bicycle and pedestrian traffic 4. Deliver grade separations in a timely manner 5. Support planned Caltrain service improvements 6. Reduce unsafe driver behavior 7. Collaborate with neighboring cities and agencies 8. Keep construction period disruptions to a minimum 9. Reduce/eliminate train noise and vibrations 10. Fund project with existing funding from local sources While the questionnaire results indicate a pretty clear hierarchy of goals in descending order, Goals 1-7 were tightly arrayed and ranked quite high, with Goals 1-3 being clearly the most important. Goals 8-10 were lesser priorities with #10 (funding) being clearly the least important goal. Results suggest that the list of goals could be reduced to 1-7 or could be grouped into Tiers (1, 2, 3) in order of importance. The revised Objectives in Attachment E has been modified to include feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council Rail Committee (changes are tracked; additions are underlined and deletions are crossed-out). Evaluation Criteria As reflected in the suggested Objectives, responses to Community Questionnaire #1 emphasized the importance of safety, and also touched on a variety of other issues including the importance of rail service, traffic circulation and signal timing, bicycle and pedestrian access, and more. Questionnaire responses ranked possible Evaluation Criteria as follows: 1. Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Clear/safe passageways 2. Automobile Circulation - Reduce queue length and time 3. Pedestrians and Bicycle Circulation - Separated from auto traffic 4. East-West Connectivity - Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of travel 5. Automobile Circulation - Reduce traffic on neighborhood streets 6. Environmental Effects - Reduce noise and visibility of trains from neighborhoods City of Palo Alto Page 12 7. Transit - Support Caltrain service improvements (level boarding, platform extensions, etc.) 8. Construction Impacts - Minimize construction period disruption (detours/street closures) 9. Cost - Fund the program with available funding sources 10. Construction Impacts - Able to implement in phases Evaluation Criteria 1-3 were clearly ranked highest by respondents. Criteria 4-6 formed a tight grouping of the second most important set of criteria. Criteria 7-10 were ranked least important and well below other criteria. Grouping the criteria into Tier 1, 2, 3 might help when evaluating alternatives, using Tier 1 criteria as “must address” criteria, with Tier 2 as “would like to address” criteria, and Tier 3 as “ nice to have or bonus” criteria. As with the goals, questionnaire respondents did not feel cost was an important evaluation criteria, although this may change once more is known about project costs and available funding sources. The revised Evaluation Criteria in Attachment E has been modified to include feedback and recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council Rail Committee (changes are tracked; additions are underlined and deletions are crossed-out). Constraints Staff does not yet have a thorough understanding of the constraints that will help define alternatives. For example, the total amount of funding that can be secured from all possible sources is undetermined. This will require additional investigation and may ultimately prove to be an important constraint. Similarly, there are technical requirements for freight and passenger rail facilities that the Staff will need to explore before having a full understanding of the physical constraints associated with grade separations. There will also be constraints associated with railway and roadway operations and a host of other issues. In CMR #6182 from October 13, 2015, which described the analysis of trenching below Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road, a number of preliminary constraints were identified (see pages nine through 14 of the document at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49398). For example, the analysis noted the following as potential constraints because they would tend to dictate the extent and cost of below-grade (trenching) alternatives considered: The location and elevation of existing station locations The location and depth of existing grade separated crossings The location and depth of San Francisquito Creek City of Palo Alto Page 13 Construction specifications such as a maximum slope of 1% for freight rail tracks unless an exception is granted(( These and other issues will be explored by the City’s experts with assistance from a Technical Advisory Group made up of senior representatives from organizations and agencies with expertise or jurisdiction over aspects of the project or the project area. Based on the recommendation of the City Council Rail Committee, Staff has initiated a white paper analyzing the constraints associated with the planning, design and construction of a rail trench. This white paper will be transmitted to the City Council, as well as the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council Rail Committee, as soon as it is completed. Resource Impact The City included $1.9 million in the FY 2017 Capital Improvement Program in the Railroad Grade Separation project (PL-17001) for the planning, engineering, and environmental review necessary to advance grade separations in Palo Alto. As part of the Adopted FY 2018 Capital Budget, $1.0 million of this funding was reappropriated to FY 2018. Staff is currently in the process of reconciling FY2017 and reviewing the final year end expenditures for all capital projects. Based on the year-end reconciliation of expenditures, this project, along with other capital projects, will be recommended to be adjusted accordingly as part of the FY 2017 Year- End action to Council. Santa Clara County 2016 Measure B funding, administered by VTA, may be available to reimburse the City for some of these expenses. Measure B includes a total of $700 million for grade separations that will be split among three jurisdictions with a total of eight crossings (four in Palo Alto). Additional funding for grade separations may be available from state and federal sources, although some additional local funding is likely to be required. Environmental Review The requested action is intended to help define a project and alternatives that will be reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is not itself a “project” requiring review under CEQA. Alternatively, the requested action falls within the categorical exemption established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 for information gathering activities. Next Steps/Timeline The Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria adopted by the City Council will be presented at Community Workshop #2, which is currently scheduled for September 16, 2017. This workshop will begin the development of grade separation alternatives for later analysis and screening. If a majority of Councilmembers wish to attend the September 16th workshop, it The study identified a cost of approximately $1 Billion for grade separating Charleston & Meadow with a trench using a 1% slope and a cost of approximately $500 Million for the 2%slope alternative, with the main differences being the length and the need to rebuild some existing stations and grade separations if the 1% slope is required. City of Palo Alto Page 14 will be noticed as a special meeting. Councilmembers are asked to inform the Clerk if they plan to attend. Attachments: Attachment A - Connecting Palo Alto Community Engagement Plan (Revised) (PDF) Attachment B - Connecting Palo Alto Community Workshop 1 Summary (DOCX) Attachment C - Connecting Palo Alto Community Questionnaire 1 Summary (DOCX) Attachment D - Connecting Palo Alto Problem Statement and Objectives (Suggested) (PDF) Attachment E - Connecting Palo Alto Problem Statement and Objectives (Revised) (PDF) Attachment F - Status of Grade Separation Projects (PDF) Attachment G - Planning and Transportation Committee Excerpt Minutes 2017-08-09 (PDF) Attachment H: August 16, 2017 Rail Committee Draft Transcript (DOC) Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Alternatives Analysis Citizen Engagement Plan I. Introduction The Palo Alto Rail Program—now called Connecting Palo Alto—is a community based process to address long‐standing challenges associated with at‐grade crossings on the Caltrain corridor that runs through the community. This process will lead to project design decisions that will inform both community aesthetics and mobility choices for many future generations. Community understanding, input and collaboration will be a vital part of the decision making process. The Project Team will lead the community engagement activities associated with Connecting Palo Alto to raise awareness, inform, educate, gather input and connect citizens about potential rail design alternatives that can help prepare the City for the transit landscape of the future. The Alliance for Innovation, a coalition focused on emerging practices to transform local government in partnership with Arizona State University and the International City/County Management Association, has identified three types of community connections: citizens to each other, citizens to local government, and the local government to citizens. The Alliance identifies the characteristics of the connected community to include: Citizen engagement activities are connected to what citizens perceive to be important Citizens are connected to each other and to local government through engagement activities Citizens are connected by electronic and traditional linkages that permit generation of information, consideration of alternatives and joint action Participants in various citizen engagement activities are connected to each other to expand civic capacity, activities are linked and support each other and new ventures build on previous ones Organizations in the community are connected to citizens and the local government as partners in engagement. The Alliance’s approach to citizen engagement aligns with the Context Sensitive Solutions process identified by the Palo Alto City Council as the preferred framework by which to involve the community and make decisions about the future of the rail corridor. As articulated by the Mineta Institute, the four principles of CSS include: Strive toward a shared stakeholder vision to provide the basis for decisions Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of contexts Foster continuing communication and collaboration to achieve consensus Exercise flexibility and creativity to shape effective transportation solutions, while preserving and enhancing community values, and natural environments. In terms of citizen engagement, the CSS process calls for the integration of stakeholders into the planning process early and continuously to ensure the project reflects the views and values of the community. The goals of community engagement under CSS are similar to many other public participation models: ATTACHMENT A 2 Identify stakeholders: Identifying interested parties and evaluating their concerns will help guide the engagement strategy. Identify key stakeholders with the potential to invite others to join the process. Identify cross‐cutting areas of interest. Build consensus: Set a clear collaborative structure to integrate stakeholders into the planning process and to empower them by providing a way for them to have a voice in the process. Establish clear rules of engagement about how various views and perspectives will be incorporated and shared. Engage the community to define the problem to be addressed: It is important to engage communities at the beginning of the planning process and reflect community values and vision. Integrate contextual elements: Ensure that a community’s vision for a project recognizes constraints and will fit into other regional plans. Analyze alternatives for best project selection: Stakeholder input is needed to define the problem, develop alternative solutions, look at tradeoffs and determine cost/benefits. As outlined by the International Association of Public Participation, which is made up of members who seek to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments, institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest throughout the world, there is a public involvement spectrum that can determine the level of public engagement, as well as appropriate tools used to achieve that outcome. It’s important to be clear on the goal for engaging the public. Levels of engagement include: Inform the public with objective and balanced information. This is a one‐way flow of information. Consult with the public by informing them and then requesting input. Involve/include the public in the decision by accepting input and reflecting this input in the choice. Collaborate by partnering with citizens and sharing the decision‐making with them. Empower the public by putting the final decision in their hands. 3 This Plan identifies a menu of engagement tools based on the level and type of public participation anticipated to be needed. It is also a living document where community engagement activities are aligned with the Rail Program’s technical efforts and deliverables. The Plan will be revised as appropriate as the Connecting Palo Alto program progresses to incorporate community involvement and ownership to the greatest extent possible. II. Goals and Objectives The goal of any citizen engagement effort is often twofold: to build civic capacity and community in general and to drive public participation to decide a project or policy. The City hopes that Connecting Palo Alto will do both. The significance of the project and the already high level of community interest presents an opportunity to expand citizen participation and partnership with the City. The configuration, design, and other choices that will need to be made to advance grade separations will need a high level of community input, collaboration and ultimately, support, to be successful. Specific objectives of the community engagement efforts include: ‐ Provide clear, accurate and easily accessible information on the Rail Program ‐ Facilitate communications between interested stakeholders ‐ Create engagement strategies for gathering input on grade separation alternatives and making decisions 4 ‐ Identify meaningful metrics to evaluate community engagement efforts ‐ Document community input to ensure it informs the decision making process III. Key Stakeholders and Concerns The Connecting Palo Alto process will bring forward input and lead to decisions that will impact a wide range of stakeholders so the identification of key participants is essential to a successful outcome. This Plan identifies the following participants or target audiences: ‐ Palo Alto residents who live near or travel across the rail corridor ‐ Regular transit riders ‐ Senior citizens ‐ Citizens with special needs ‐ Low income residents ‐ City elected officials and staff ‐ Non‐profit organizations (i.e. Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design and Friends of Caltrain) ‐ Local businesses ‐ Local educational institutions ‐ Local environmental advocates ‐ Community‐based organizations ‐ Neighboring elected officials and staff ‐ Other members of the general public Based on input at a May 20, 2017 Community Workshop and in accordance with findings of the Rail Corridor Circulation Study, the City will consider multiple alternatives for grade separations to address a number of areas of concern. While a final “problem statement,” project objectives, and performance measures are still being developed based on community input, the areas of concern include: ‐ Community cohesion and connectivity generally ‐ Safety, noise, and aesthetics along the rail corridor ‐ Traffic congestion around at‐grade crossings ‐ Access for pedestrians and bicyclists ‐ Facilitating rail service along the corridor ‐ Rail program costs ‐ Equity between north and south Palo Alto in terms of investments and benefits ‐ The potential for disruption and impacts during construction IV. Engagement Strategies The Project Team will implement a series of community engagement strategies and tools as described below. Communication Tools and Platforms Throughout the community engagement of Connected Palo Alto, the Project Team will use a regular set of communications tools and platforms to inform, consult, engage and reach decisions. These include: 5 Stakeholder Database: The Project Team has developed an initial stakeholder base of interested community members, as well as subscribers to the City’s two monthly e‐newsletters that total about 7,500 individuals. The Team will continue to add to this database to expand opportunities to connect with the community. Collateral Materials: These will include the core messages developed about the project, mailers, facts sheets, and other community informing materials Website Updates: The webpage for the project at www.cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto will be updated on a regular basis with the latest news and updates, links to background documents, as well as opportunities to sign up for regular e‐newsletter updates Social Media: Both Nextdoor and the City’s robust social media channels will be used on a regular basis to cross promote community meetings/events, drive traffic to survey link and help to keep community informed and engaged. This could also include boosted posts on Facebook that are an economical method to broaden reach. The Project Team may also use Open City Hall when appropriate to solicit feedback on specific project questions or ideas. Email Newsletter: The Project Team plans to design an e‐newsletter to be distributed on an as‐ needed but regular basis to our stakeholder database. The first edition is expected to be distributed by the end of August Press Releases, Council Comments, Public Announcements: Announcements about upcoming workshops, survey opportunities or other outreach activities will be included in press releases, City Manager comments at City Council meetings and other regular communications avenues. Advertising: It may be appropriate to consider creating/running ads for community events or other outreach efforts V. Levels of Engagement 1. Elected and Appointed Bodies Level of engagement: Consult, Engage, Decide The Connecting Palo Alto process includes engagement with three elected and appointed bodies: Planning and Transportation Commission, Rail Committee and City Council. Public comments are accepted at meetings of all three bodies, both written and verbal. All decisions related to the Connecting Palo Alto program will be addressed transparently at each of these three bodies. Under existing rules, an opportunity exists for the Rail Committee to allow for more unstructured public comments and direct engagement during its meetings. The committee has the option of utilizing this meeting structure to allow for community members who are particularly interested in a topic to more deeply engage in the discussion and decision‐making process. 2. Community Workshops Level of engagement: Consult, Engage, Decide The first Connecting Palo Alto community workshop was held at Mitchell Park Community Center on May 20, 2017 and attended by about 150 people. This was intended to be a “restart” of sorts following several rail corridor studies and previous community discussions. The Project Team gathered feedback and contact information from participants, as well as provided necessary context for upcoming decision points. 6 The Project Team anticipates a total of six community workshops will be needed to allow for larger discussions, as well as dialogue in smaller group sessions. The structure and purpose of the meetings will be scheduled to align with project milestones including: Identify a formal “problem statement” that captures the purpose of Connecting Palo Alto, as well as objectives and evaluation criteria that speak to the need for the project and provide , set its context Identify potential alternatives for evaluation and analysis Explore findings of the analysis and discuss outstanding issues, including potential impacts and mitigation Evaluate alternatives based on evaluation criteria and select a preferred alternatives for further refinement The City promoted the workshop through a variety of channels including postcards, Nextdoor, social media, local media, website content and Council announcements. A second community workshop is scheduled for September 16, 2017 at the Palo Alto Arts Center, and will focus on the problem statement, objectives and performance measures, and begin to define alternatives. The Project Team will utilize similar outreach tools to encourage participation and attendance. 3. Focus Groups Level of engagement: Consult, Engage, Decide The purpose of Focus Groups is to collect information from a small group (for instance, five to 12 participants) in a systematic and structured format. An effective focus group is designed around a clear and specific goal. Participants interact with a facilitator who presents the participants with questions designed to yield insight into current and/or desired results in relation to a specific topic or issue. Focus Groups will be used throughout the Connecting Palo Alto program to facilitate tough decision making. Focus Groups may be convened in advance of Community Workshops to help identify potential red flags that could derail the decision‐making process. 4. Stakeholder Interviews Level of Engagement: Consult The Project Team conducted an initial round of stakeholder interviews in April, May and June 2017, in order to develop the agenda and presentations for Community Workshop #1. These interviews also provided an opportunity for these highly‐engaged stakeholders to assist the Project Team in developing the Community Engagement Plan and other program materials. Stakeholder Interviews will be used through the Connecting Palo Alto program to inform the decision‐making process and assist the project team with structuring the alternatives analysis. 5. Community Questionnaires Level of engagement: Inform, Consult Surveys and questionnaires are good way to solicit input on the project through targeted questions. The Project Team plans to conduct at least two online questionnaires (via SurveyMonkey) and promote participation through emails, website and social media. The first questionnaire was sent out on July 5, 2017 to solicit community input into aspects of the four grade crossing alternatives, as 7 well as initial reaction to a problem definition statement. As of July 13, more than 700 individuals had completed the survey online with 600 providing comments in the open ended question indicating a very strong level of interest by the community. While not a statistically valid sampling, the high level of participation shows the importance of this issue to Palo Altans. A second online questionnaire is expected to be distributed once more details about the impacts and benefits of grade separation alternatives are more clearly defined. Simple text–based surveys may also be considered for use at community workshops and in other venues. These simple tools release short surveys and polls to recipients’ mobile devices, which solicit reply via text messages. Questions from software like Textizen, for example, can be added to a chain of subsequent messages according to recipient responses. A limited amount of characters are available for presenting inquiries and responses, and depth and length of insight tends to be superficial and short. However, its simple module allows for a quick, timely, and cost effective exchange with respondents. Once there is a preferred alternative and financing options identified through the process, the Project Team may consider potentially polling eligible voters, similar to other formal research polls taken to determine public opinion. Engagement Throughout Decision Making Process: Additional Community Engagement Options: Pop‐Up Open Houses Level of engagement: Inform Pop‐ups can be small tables or activities co‐located with either the site they address or events engaging the same audience. Pop‐up Open Houses are often viewed as fun opportunity to participate in civic process. Community Events Level of engagement: Inform Use an existing event such as Farmer’s Market, concerts, school events, etc. to promote/educate community about the project with booth/exhibit. Community Initiated Meetings Level of engagement: Inform, Engage Meetings organized and run by members of the community, can be supported by having issue experts/city staff attend to provide information. Site Visits Level of engagement: Inform, Consult Invite members of the public to visit the project site to allow better visualization of alternatives. Focus Groups Community Workshop PTC Rail Committee City Council 8 21st Century Town Hall Meetings Level of engagement: Inform, Engage Hold a large group meeting in person with technology facilitated platforms such as Facebook Live. VI. Community Engagement Metrics The Project team will track the effectiveness of all Rail Program community engagement activities and services through the following quantitative metrics: o Total number of stakeholders recorded into stakeholder database o Total number of meetings/ events related to Rail Program stakeholders logged into stakeholder database o Total number of inquiries recorded in stakeholder database o Ratio of positive/negative feedback on Rail Program developments, rail separation alternatives, and general community engagement activities and services recorded in stakeholder database o Total number of stakeholders reached directly by collateral o Total number of stakeholders visiting Rail Program’s webpage o Frequency of stakeholder engagement with Rail Program’s website, social media platforms o Total number of stakeholders reached by Rail Program surveys o Ratio of recipients/respondents of Rail Program surveys o Ratio of positive/negative feedback on Rail Program developments rail separation alternatives, and general community engagement activities and services recorded in survey findings o Attendance at public meetings VII. Community Engagement Schedule1 Date Event Topics May 20, 2017 Community Workshop #1 Review and discuss background, context, problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria July 2017 Community Questionnaire #1 Review problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria August 2017 E‐newsletter #1 Discuss problem statement, objectives, evaluation criteria and upcoming Community Workshop #2 September 16, 2017 Community Workshop #2 Finalize problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria and begin to develop alternatives September 2017 E‐newsletter #2 Finalize problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria and begin to develop alternatives October 21, 2017 (tentative) Community Workshop #3 Continue to develop alternatives 1 Please notice that this schedule will change according to project developments, needs, and milestones. 9 October 2017 Community Questionnaire #2 Continue to develop alternatives November 2017 E‐newsletter #3 Continue to develop alternatives November 2017‐January 2018 Focus Groups #1 Discuss Alternatives Analysis and Selection of Preferred Alternative December 2017 E‐newsletter #4 Discuss Alternatives Analysis and Selection of Preferred Alternative November 2017‐January 2018 Community Workshop #4 Discuss Alternatives Analysis and Selection of preferred alternative January 2018 E‐newsletter #5 Discuss Alternatives Analysis and Selection of Preferred Alternative February‐March 2018 Focus Groups #2 Adopt preferred alternative(s) February‐March 2018 Community Workshop #5 Adopt preferred alternative(s) February‐March 2018 E‐newsletter #6 Adopt preferred alternative(s) Notes: This schedule of events and topics are subject to change. This summary does not include concurrent stakeholder interviews or other engagement activities that may supplement workshops and newsletters; it also does not include concurrent meetings of the technical advisory committee or meetings of City bodies such as the City Council, Rail Committee, and Planning & Transportation Commission. VIII. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) The Project Team is working to convene a Connecting Palo Alto Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC will provide a forum for engagement with staff from the agencies with special knowledge about the rail corridor. The TAC will help the Project Team and community identify the technical opportunities and constraints for various alternatives. The TAC will not, in and of itself, be making any decisions regarding the Connecting Palo Alto program. The first meeting of the TAC is scheduled to occur in September and its membership is expected to include senior staff from the agencies and organizations listed below in alphabetical order. The TAC will likely only be convened on an as‐needed basis moving forward. o California High‐speed Rail Authority o Caltrain (Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board) o Caltrans District 4 Traffic Operations o City of Menlo Park o City of Mountain View o City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department o City of Palo Alto Public Works Department o City of Palo Alto Utilities Department o Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee o Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) o Palo Alto Unified School District (and interested site administrators) o Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department o Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority o Santa Clara Valley Water District 10 o Stanford University o Union Pacific Railroad Attachment B All information related to the Connecting Palo Alto Community Workshop 1 Summary can be viewed by visiting the City’s Connecting Palo Alto web page at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/railways.asp . Attachment C Responses to the Connecting Palo Alto Community Questionnaire 1 can be viewed at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/railways.asp Information specific to the questionnaire can be found under the “What are the latest updates?” section. Attachment D Connecting Palo Alto: Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria August 2017 Draft for PTC and Rail Committee Discussion Purposes Page 1 of 2 Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Problem Statement “The Caltrain corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity within the City of Palo Alto, and is also the source of safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, especially at existing at‐grade crossings. These rail corridor challenges also creates issues in surrounding neighborhoods such as noise, vibration, traffic and visual impacts. While the City of Palo Alto benefits from Caltrain service and supports Caltrain modernization (including electrification), some of the issues experienced along the rail corridor These will continue to get worse in the future with increases in Caltrain service traffic due to Caltrain modernization (including electrification) and the possible addition of high speed rail.” [Tracked changes show modifications to the draft problem statement included in the July 2017 citizen questionnaire and are based on responses to that questionnaire.] Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Objectives* To improve safety along the rail corridor To reduce the traffic congestion that occurs at existing at‐grade crossings every time a train passes by To improve circulation and access across the rail corridor for all modes of transportation, separating bicyclists and pedestrians from automobile traffic To deliver grade separations and circulation improvements in a timely manner To reduce train noise and vibrations and minimize visual changes along the rail corridor To support Caltrain service enhancements To minimize right‐of‐way acquisitions and local road closures To ensure fairness in terms of the investments and improvements in north and south Palo Alto To minimize potential impacts and disruption during construction while enabling continued train service at all times To maximize Palo Alto’s fair share of available funding sources *Suggested objectives are loosely based on July 2017 questionnaire responses and prior studies. These are suggestions only, and are subject to change. Attachment D Connecting Palo Alto: Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria August 2017 Draft for PTC and Rail Committee Discussion Purposes Page 2 of 2 Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Evaluation Criteria The following evaluation criteria are suggested as a starting place to support the development and evaluation of alternatives. These can be modified or supplemented with performance measures or metrics based on community input and technical analyses. Tier 1 Criteria: Most Important East‐West connectivity: facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation Traffic congestion: reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings Ped/Bike circulation: provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking to cross the rail corridor, separate from automobile traffic Rail operations: support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements Tier 2 Criteria: Also Important Environmental impacts: reduce rail noise and vibration along the corridor Environmental impacts: minimize visual changes along the rail corridor Local access: maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other destinations along the corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets Tier 3 Criteria: Somewhat Important Construction: minimize disruption and the duration of construction activities at any single location Cost: minimize right‐of‐way acquisition & finance with available funding sources Attachment E Connecting Palo Alto: Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria September 2017 Draft for City Council Discussion Purposes Page 1 of 2 Tracked changes show modifications based on recommendations from the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Rail Committee. Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Problem Statement “While enhanced rail transit service is important to the City of Palo Alto, tThe Caltrain corridor creates a physical and visual barrier to east/west connectivity within the City of Palo Alto, and is also the source of safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, especially at existing at‐grade crossings. The rail corridor also creates issues in surrounding neighborhoods, such as noise, vibration, traffic, and visual impacts. While the City of Palo Alto benefits from Caltrain service, and supports Caltrain modernization (including electrification), some of the issues experienced along the rail corridor will continue to get worse in the future with increases in Caltrain service and the possible probable addition of high speed rail.” Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Objectives To recognize and build off of the previous rail corridor planning work To improve safety along the rail corridor To reduce the traffic congestion that occurs at existing at‐grade crossings every time a train passes by To minimize right‐of‐way acquisitions by eminent domain and local road closures To improve circulation and access across the rail corridor for all modes of transportation, To separateing bicyclists and pedestrians from automobile traffic To deliver grade separations and circulation improvements in a timely manner To reduce train noise and vibrations and minimize visual changes along the rail corridor To support Caltrain service enhancements To minimize right‐of‐way acquisitions and local road closures To ensure fairness in terms of the investments and improvements in north and south Palo Alto To minimize potential impacts and disruption during construction while enabling continued train service at all times To maximize Palo Alto’s fair share of available funding sources Attachment E Connecting Palo Alto: Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria September 2017 Draft for City Council Discussion Purposes Page 2 of 2 Connecting Palo Alto: Suggested Evaluation Criteria The following evaluation criteria are suggested as a starting place to support the development and evaluation of alternatives. These can be modified or supplemented with performance measures or metrics based on community input and technical analyses. Tier 1 Criteria: Most Important East‐West connectivity: facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation Traffic congestion: reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings Ped/Bike circulation: provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking to cross the rail corridor, separate from automobile traffic Rail operations: support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements Cost: finance with feasible funding sources Tier 2 Criteria: Also Important Environmental impacts: reduce rail noise and vibration along the corridor Environmental impacts: minimize visual changes along the rail corridor Local access: maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other destinations along the corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets Cost: minimize right‐of‐way acquisition by eminent domain& finance with available funding sources Construction: minimize disruption and the duration of construction Tier 3 Criteria: Somewhat Important Construction: minimize disruption and the duration of construction activities at any single location Cost: minimize right‐of‐way acquisition & finance with available funding sources Caltrain Corridor Grade Separation Schedule, Estimates, & Alignment Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program South San Francisco Linden Avenue San Bruno Scott Street Burlingame Broadway & Broadway Stn. San Mateo 25th Avenue & Hillsdale Stn. Mountain View Rengstor Ave Mountain View Castro St. & Transit Cntr. Sunnyvale Mary Ave High-speed Rail San José-San Francisco Caltrain Electrification San Francisco 16th St. & Railyard $160-200M $310-390M $250M Location Estimated Schedule Vertical Alignment of RailroadCost Estimate Hybrid Hybrid Under Consideration Under Consideration At Grade Unknown N/A N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown $45M $120M At Grade Under Consideration Under Consideration Under Consideration At Grade: 1 xing Hybrid: 3 xings Below Grade At Grade $180M Redwood City Whipple Ave Menlo ParkRavenswood Ave & Others Palo Alto Pending Outcome of CSS 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown Planning Underway; Schedule Unknown Planning LEGEND Prepared By: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Date Prepared: August 2017 Environmental/Design Construction Vertical Alignment Alternative Selected by City CouncilSchedule Unknown Beyond Milestone Final Design Complete; Remaining Schedule Unknown _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Excerpt Minutes 2 August 9, 2017 3 Council Chambers 4 250 Hamilton Avenue 5 6:00 PM 6 7 Study Session 8 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 9 Action Items 10 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 11 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 12 1.Recommendations Regarding a Suggested Problem Statement, Objectives and13 Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade14 Separation Alternatives15 16 Chair Alcheck: I'd like to move on then with our first action item, Item Number 2, which is the 17 railroad grade separation item. 18 19 Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Great. Thank you, Chair, Members of the 20 Commission, My name is Joshuah Mello. I am the Chief Transportation Official with the City of 21 Palo Alto. This evening I'll be giving a brief presentation on the Connecting Palo Alto Rail 22 Program and presenting some [unintelligible] problem statement, objectives, and evaluation 23 criteria for this program moving forward. 24 25 ATTACHMENT G _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Alright, thank you for allowing me to present tonight. I'm going to kick it off by just going 1 through a brief recap of the existing conditions along the Caltrain corridor in Palo Alto. The 2 Caltrain corridor is roughly four miles long and runs roughly from the northwest to the 3 southeast of the City. This study is looking at the entire rail corridor all of the existing grade 4 crossings as well as existing grade separations. We're starting very broad and the intent is to 5 narrow down as we move forward so we're starting very broad looking at the entire corridor. 6 This is a map that we developed of the study area that shows the existing at grade crossings 7 which are where roadways are at the same grade as the railroad as well as grade separated 8 crossings which have the roadway and/or a bike/pedestrian path separated from the rail 9 corridor. 10 11 We currently have four at grade railroad crossings at Palo Alto Avenue also known as (aka) 12 Alma Street, Churchill Avenue, East and West Meadow Drive, and East and West Charleston 13 Road. You can see here the modes are a little bit different. The primary mode of 14 transportation is a little bit different on each grade crossing. Charleston Road carries a lot more 15 motor vehicles while Churchill Avenue carries more bicycles and Palo Alto Avenue actually has a 16 higher rate of pedestrian traffic. You can also see there is a significant amount of truck traffic at 17 Palo Alto Avenue and the delay in the number of gate openings varies by grade crossing as well. 18 There will be a lot more data collected as we move through this process. This is just to give you 19 a quick overview of our current grade crossings. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 We have done a little bit of work as a community on the rail corridor prior to this project kicking 2 off. Notably back in 2013 City Council adopted the 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. This was 3 commissioned in 2010 and it was ultimately adopted in 2013. It was developed by a 17 4 member task force comprised of community members and it focused on the rail corridor 5 circulation, connectivity, land use as well as urban design and public facilities. And this was a 6 very broad look at the rail corridor and it did not just look… it didn't get too far into detail on 7 grade crossing alternatives and it was more of a big picture look at land use and transportation 8 components along the corridor. 9 10 In 2014 staff and Council commissioned the Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study 11 and this is what I would call a feasibility analysis. This was a study done by an engineering firm 12 to look at what ifs. If we were to grade separate at Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston what 13 would the impacts be of different alternative configurations of those grade separations? So 14 they looked at traditional bridge over crossings, trenching the railroad, and other variations and 15 identified what the extents of those projects would be and what some of the property impacts 16 could potentially be. This was not a preferred alternative identified from the community. This 17 was a feasibility analysis of looking at what if these certain types of crossings were constructed. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. During budget discussions for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to 2021 Capital Improvement Program 1 (CIP) we were able to secure $1.9 million in the CIP to begin work on our railroad grade 2 separations. And at that time Council ranked that, this project, as the highest priority project 3 for the City as a whole not just in the transportation realm. So this is a very high profile, high 4 priority project as you know for our community. Shortly thereafter we released a request for 5 proposal (RFP) for a consultant services for rail program management and we selected a team 6 to move forward within August of 2016. That fall, this is fall of last year, Santa Clara County 7 voters approved Measure B which is a transportation sales tax which will run for 30 years. $700 8 million of that funding has been allocated to building grade separations in Palo Alto, Mountain 9 View, and Sunnyvale. There are a total of eight grade crossings that this money will be directed 10 towards in those three communities. And we're currently working with Santa Clara Valley 11 Transportation Authority (VTA) to develop an implementation plan which will hopefully enable 12 the region to construct all eight of those grade separations within that 30 year tax timeframe. 13 14 Finally you’ll hear a lot about this this evening, but one of our directives from City Council was 15 to move forward with a context sensitive solutions/alternatives analysis process. We formally 16 kicked that off in March and I’ll talk a little bit more about what CS is… Context Sensitive 17 Solutions (CSS) is, but we were we've been moving very deliberately and very slowly on this and 18 this is the first check in of many with you and the Rail Committee and City Council as we move 19 along those CSS/alternatives analysis process. So I'm not sure that all of you are familiar with 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. what CSS is, back in the old days highway engineers primarily state Departments of 1 Transportation (DOT) would sit in their office in the capital city start work on a project without 2 ever consulting the community. They had standard details for highway widenings, freeways, 3 they would often endanger the environment, impact communities, fail to consult with 4 community members and neighborhood organizations and so as a result there was a lot of 5 negative reaction to some of the projects that DOTs, particular state DOTs moved through the 6 planning and design process. 7 8 So shortly after the National Environmental Policy Act was adopted back in the 1960’s a new 9 way of thinking about projects was devised and this was piloted by some of the state DOTs. 10 New Jersey DOT was one of the early front runners in this process and it became known as CSS 11 because it thinks about the context of the project. One of the key tenants is to have continual 12 community involvement and instead of approaching a project with the solution front loaded at 13 the beginning and then defending your recommended solution to the community the goal of 14 CSS is to work collaboratively with the community and first identify what the problem is that 15 you're trying to solve. So the problem that you ultimately end up addressing may not be the 16 one that you identified or would typically identify at the beginning of the process. There's also 17 a very clear decision making process in CSS. Traditionally large roadway projects and other 18 infrastructure projects a lot of the decisions are made in back rooms without community 19 consultation and without the community being involved in a transparent decision making 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. process. So CSS is a transparent collaborative process that there's a step by step process that 1 you follow and the step that we're at this evening is the problem statement objectives and 2 evaluation criteria step. So we're really going to talk a lot about what the problem is that we're 3 trying to solve this evening. A lot of us going into this project assumed that we knew what the 4 problem was and what the problem is, but in talking in the community we have a draft problem 5 statement that may not be what we thought we would have walking into this project. 6 7 The principles that we're proposing to follow on this trip that we’re going to take with this 8 project are very similar to what's espoused in the CSS process and we've built on the principles 9 from CSS. One of the things that we've really struggled with is this needs to be a flexible 10 process. So we're trying to tape take steps forward, but at the same time we need to be ready 11 to adapt the process and we don't know where we're going to, where this whole community 12 engagement and community decision making process is going to take us. So what we 13 ultimately decided and with the support of the Rail Committee we decided to hold a 14 community workshop, go over some of the background information with the community, do a 15 community questionnaire, develop a draft problem statement, some objectives, and some 16 evaluation criteria and then visit with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), the 17 Rail Committee, City Council and then go back to the community again in order to finalize that 18 problem statement, objectives, and evaluation criteria. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So as I said we're very early in the process. This is a chart that shows kind of the five steps that 1 we see. Where we're standing today we see five steps moving forward and we're currently in 2 stage one which is the problem definition and evaluation framework. As I said we're very early 3 in the process and this is designed to be a flexible process and an adaptable process and I think 4 you'll be able to help us as we move through this process adapt and make changes in order to 5 make sure that we are making decisions at the right level, talking about the right things, and 6 looking at the right alternatives and the right options. 7 8 So our work to date which I said started back in March prior to that the Rail Committee was 9 reconvened in December of 2015. It's met basically monthly. There was a break from 10 September 2016 to March 2017. The Rail Committee charter and the guiding principles were 11 updated by City Council in April 2017. And then as I said since March of 2017 staff and the Rail 12 Committee have been primarily focused on moving forward with this CSS alternatives analysis 13 process. And we spent a lot of time with the Rail Committee trying to figure out how to get this 14 moving and what the next step should be in the process. 15 16 And one of the very first things we did was we invited 15 members of the community into the 17 Downtown Library across the street and myself and some of my other staff members we sat 18 down and we conducted interviews with these stakeholders. And we asked them about the 19 previous studies, we asked them about what a CSS analysis alternatives analysis process should 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. look like, we also asked about their opinion on problem, what the problem is. We tried to avoid 1 starting a discussion about solutions and alternatives because we think that's going to come 2 later and it really needs to come later after we decide as community what problem we're trying 3 to solve and what some of the objectives are. 4 5 So some of the key takeaways from these stakeholder interviews are early on we were as staff 6 we were not fully aware of how important the prior rail corridor studies are to the community 7 and how much work went into particularly the 2013 study so that was something we quickly 8 changed course on and got up to speed on the outcome and the process that went into that 9 study. There was also a little bit of confusion around the trenching study that was done in 10 2014. Some members of the community felt that that was a some type of alternative that 11 already been adopted by City Council and that there had already better an alternatives analysis 12 process when in reality as I mentioned earlier that was really just a feasibility study to look at 13 what some of the impacts would be of different alternatives. 14 15 There's also and you'll hear a lot about this tonight there's some different opinions on what a 16 CSS process looks like. There is a there are some folks who want to use the community 17 workshops that we've been holding as a “stakeholder group” where we'll make decisions at 18 these community workshops and we'll invite the entire community in to help participate. And 19 then there's another group of folks who would rather see a formal stakeholder group organized 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that would help manage those CSS process. As staff we believe that those are both consistent 1 with the principles of CSS; however, I think ultimately it'll be up to City Council to decide 2 whether to continue moving forward with a community workshop format or to convene a 3 formal stakeholder group. 4 5 There was also some concern from the stakeholders about presupposing solutions. So there 6 was a little bit of discussion about the trench option versus some more traditional options. And 7 the cost of the trench is really undetermined and it's really hard to start to evaluate the 8 different alternatives without getting a better handle on cost and impacts. And then we also 9 learned that safety and visual impacts are very important. There were a couple of stakeholders 10 who were very concerned about what the visual impacts of some of these alternatives could be 11 to their communities and their neighborhoods. 12 13 After conducting the stakeholder interviews we convened a community workshop on May 20th 14 at Mitchell Park Community Center. This was a Saturday. We had we started at 10:00 a.m., had 15 great turnout. We had 130 attendees. The morning was focused on background information a 16 lot of similar information that's presented in your packet and that I'm presenting to you this 17 evening. And then we talked about what the existing conditions and the future conditions will 18 look like with Caltrain electrification as well as the potential for high speed rail service and 19 additional trains along the corridor. Then we broke for lunch, continued the discussion over 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. lunch and in the afternoon we started to delve into the problem definition. So we asked folks 1 in your opinion what problem should we be trying to solve? What are some of the issues that 2 you encounter along the rail corridor? And we also discussed the objectives and the evaluation 3 criteria. 4 5 One cool thing that we were able to do during the workshop was real time polling using 6 smartphones. And we ask people questions like is this time of day a good time for you to meet, 7 did you like the Saturday meeting, what's the best way to keep in touch with you? This was not 8 a scientific poll, but it was a good way to keep people involved and active in the conversation. 9 We did learn a lot about people's communication preferences and there was generally support 10 for the Saturday midday format of that day. 11 12 We took a little bit of a break over the summer while Council was at recess, but we did not 13 want to lose touch with the community and we did not want them to feel as though work had 14 stopped and that their attendance on May 20th was in vain. So we developed a community 15 questionnaire with the assistance of the Rail Committee and this community questionnaire was 16 intended to do two things. It was to maintain community involvement throughout the summer, 17 but we also wanted to we wanted the community participate in the drafting of the problem 18 statement, the objectives, the evaluation criteria that we developed after Community 19 Workshop 1 with the community during that workshop on May 20th. So we emailed out the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. community questionnaire to 444 recipients on July 5th. We also advertised it I believe on 1 Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, all of the other social media outlets that we have access to. We 2 received 791 unique responses in I think the two week period that we had the survey posted. 3 And 98 percent of the people who started the questionnaire finished the questionnaire which is 4 pretty impressive. It was a fairly detailed questionnaire with some pretty intense questions. 5 6 So we were able to use the conversations that we had on May 20th with the community at 7 Mitchell Park as well as the feedback that we got on the questionnaire and the stakeholder 8 interviews that we conducted prior to the workshop on May 20th to develop a draft problem 9 statement for your consideration. I can read it if you'd like. If not we can talk about it during 10 the question and answer (Q&A) session. It's presented on this slide as well as in your staff 11 report. We also developed a series of objectives and these would be goals that we would strive 12 for as we developed alternatives and move through this process. And then finally we 13 developed a set of draft evaluation criteria and typically evaluation criteria is used in a 14 alternatives evaluation matrix. So we would assign some type of scoring mechanism for each of 15 these evaluation criteria and working with the community we would develop alternatives, 16 different types of grade crossing solutions, and each one of those alternatives would be 17 evaluated against this objective criteria. And that would be one component of the alternatives 18 analysis that would help us narrow down the alternatives and eventually get to a preferred 19 alternative that we would advance into preliminary engineering, environmental, and design. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And with that next steps: we’ll be making the same presentation, almost the same presentation 2 of course with your input included following this meeting, we’ll be going to Rail Committee on 3 August 16th, so next Wednesday, and then we'll be following that up with a City Council 4 meeting on August 28th. We're also looking to convene the Technical Advisory Committee 5 (TAC) which would be a staff a committee of staff members from various agencies that would 6 have a stake in these projects. And this committee would primarily be used to look at technical 7 issues around some of the alternatives and some of the potential solutions. We’re also looking 8 to convene a Community Workshop Number 2 on September 16th. We would present the 9 outcome of the PTC, Rail Committee, and City Council meetings at that public meeting which 10 will be at the Arts Center Auditorium and September 16th is also a Saturday. And then 11 tentatively we have a Community Workshop 3 scheduled for October 21st where we hope to 12 start to delve into the development of some of the alternatives that we will analyze through 13 this alternatives analysis process. So this evening we are recommending that the PTC review 14 the attached community engagement plan, summary of Community Workshop Number 1 on 15 May 20th, and summary of questionnaire responses and provide input to the City Council on 16 the draft problem statement, project objectives, and evaluation criteria for discussion at 17 Community Workshop Number 2 and to inform the development and screening of grade 18 separation alternatives. And with that that concludes my presentation. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Mr. Chair maybe I can just say a few words before we go to 1 the public comment. I’m Hillary Gitelman, the Director, and I just wanted to thank Josh. This 2 project really has the potential to be a second full time job for Josh. It's already been quite a bit 3 of work and there's a lot more on the horizon. I also noticed in the presentation that our slides 4 there didn't quite match the text in Attachment D. I think it's just because we have to 5 paraphrase on the PowerPoint slide so Attachment D is really where you'll find the suggested 6 language for the problem statement objectives and criteria that we'd like your input on this 7 evening. Also one of our objectives this evening is to determine which of you are or I should 8 say get the September 16th date on your radar screen. We would really invite the Planning and 9 Transportation Commissioners to attend on the 16th, that's a Saturday, for the next workshop. 10 And if you could let us know in the next week or so which of you are planning to attend we’ll 11 have to notice it as a special meeting if we have more than a quorum of Planning to be there. 12 Of course you don't have to attend, but I think if this is going to be such a kind of high profile 13 project and of such interest to the community that some of you may wish to participate. With 14 that we suggest that you take some public comment and then we're happy to answer your 15 questions and get deeper into these issues. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. I would recommend that staff circulates an email to the 18 Commissioners in the coming days to determine who will be in attendance to that meeting and 19 then they can consult their calendars. Alright, I am going to open the floor to our speakers. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. You’ll have five minutes to speak and I’ll call up the person and then the next person so that 1 you know you’re up. Our first speaker tonight is Stephen Rosenblum followed by Nadia Naik. 2 3 Stephen Rosenblum: Hi, I'm Stephen Rosenblum. I live near the California Avenue train station. 4 I’ve lived in Palo Alto since 1985 and I've been following the whole rail process since the time 5 that high speed rail proposed coming here and running their trains through Palo Alto on four 6 tracks. A lot of things have happened since then. I've campaigned throughout that time for 7 grade separation and preferably underground, but I know that's not the subject. The solution is 8 not what we're talking about today, but we all realize that this decision or the decisions that we 9 make about the rail configuration and the street configuration will affect the way Palo Alto 10 looks for the next hundred years probably. So it's a decision that we have to make with great 11 care and not just looking at the bottom line. I think we have to look at the quality of life that 12 residents will have as a result. And so we need to look at how we want Palo Alto to look in the 13 future, how we want people to get across the tracks in the future, and how to ensure that 14 people are safe; that there's no opportunities for collisions between trains and people and cars 15 and bicycles. 16 17 The process has been well begun by the City Council and particularly with the appointment of 18 the Rail Committee and the selection of CSS as a process for gathering input from the 19 community. At this point the main issue is the recommendation of the process that will be 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. used for CSS. And I would strongly urge you to recommend to the Rail Committee and the 1 Council that we try to seek the widest possible community input at the beginning rather than 2 what I would consider the broken process by which high speed rail pretended to gather 3 community input and then did with they wanted to in the end and just create a lot of acrimony. 4 So I suggest that we add as Nadia Naik has proposed shared stakeholder meetings to the CSS 5 process in order to be sure that we're gathering the widest possible input from stakeholders 6 right at the beginning. So I would hope that this would be what would be recommended to the 7 Council. Thank you very much. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our next speaker is Nadia Naik followed by Sara Armstrong. 10 11 Nadia Naik: Good evening everyone, I’m Nadia Naik. I'm a resident of Old Palo Alto and I'm also 12 co-founder of a group… it's ok. I'm also co-founder of a group called CARRD, it’s Californians 13 Advocating Responsible Rail Design. We were the group of citizen advocates that poked some 14 holes in some of the high speed rail groups data. So that's kind of how we became activists 15 with the train. 16 17 I wanted to really praise Hillary and Josh. I think they've been doing a tremendous amount of 18 work and it really has been a lot of work. Part of the reason that this is coming to you tonight is 19 we had originally as a City tried to hire a city manager, a rail project manager, excuse me to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. follow this project and in they weren’t able to get somebody and instead they ended up getting 1 a consultant that will be helping Josh and Hillary and their team. So they are now having to sort 2 manage the work that's being contracted out to them which makes it tough. It also is exactly 3 the same reason why we need more, we need to have a dedicated citizen stakeholder group. I 4 think it provides the je ne sais quoi that the people who live here are able to explain frankly and 5 it just it's hard to explain to people who don't live in the City and who are consultants why hey, 6 that would never fly or you can't do this. 7 8 The CSS process isn’t your classic process. It's also not magic, right? I don't mean to say that 9 this is going to make it easy if we follow this process, but specifically what it does is you usually 10 have an entire project team which would be a dedicated stakeholder team, staff, the TAC and 11 everybody gets together and then decides what is the exact problem we're trying to solve. And 12 it may seem obvious, we need grade separations, but in some cases it's not. What if we have to 13 close one and open another one, right? Once you’ve all decided the exact problems you’re 14 trying to solve you then say well wait before we come up with a new solutions we're going to 15 come up with criteria to measure those things. And then once you've done all of that upfront 16 work you then kind of go back and start to deliberate. 17 18 And so frankly part of the reason I can't stand here today and tell you oh, you should do this, 19 this, and this is because we're not actually been able to have the real conversation of what is 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the problem we're trying to solve. The May meeting that we had was a great into for the 1 community, but it didn't for example show what are going to be the future conditions in 20 2 years that might indicate hey, we have a bigger problem in South Palo Alto than North Palo Alto 3 which might actually change our process a bit. So all of those things if we were able to all get in 4 a room with citizens who can really focus the time to get through this data would really be able 5 to help figure out what that process would be. Because in the absence of that staff is having to 6 say well we'd like to have these community meetings and let's just see and that makes it a little 7 too open ended and loosey-goosey and really leaves it open for the classic Palo Alto process 8 which would go on and on. So when you do a good CSS process you keep going back to what 9 you're trying to measure, what you agreed upon, and how do you then deliberate through 10 those things. 11 12 Frankly the other thing is that citizens can help you question assumptions. A classic example on 13 the corridor for example is the issue of freight. Part of the thing that dictates how expensive 14 these grade separations are or how much flexibility we have deals with freight on the corridor. 15 An engineer that would be hired by the City would naturally say freight exists therefore I will 16 pencil out according to that, but citizens would be like well, can we push on that? What's 17 happening? They might pull in the fact that hey, the Dumbarton rail corridor is out there and 18 they're looking there's a possibility that you could run freight on the Dumbarton rail. There's 19 other alternatives, right? And this is the kind of good thinking that happens when you can get 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. in a room with everybody, but otherwise it would be difficult for staff or even for the 1 consultants to come in and say hey City of Palo Alto you guys should even consider booting 2 freight off the corridor. It would be very politically untenable and frankly hard for them, but a 3 stakeholder group can come out and make those bigger statements, right? I think all of those 4 things is the reason why you need to have a dedicated stakeholder group. 5 6 Lastly I will just say if we're not going to have a dedicated stakeholder group that's ok, but then 7 we're not doing CSS and you should lose that name. And the reason is when high speed rail 8 was having the issue on the corridor we were able to convince the high speed rail folks to 9 create the peninsula rail program and follow a CSS process. They hired Bruce Fukuji, some of 10 you may know him. He did a great job, but ultimately it failed and the reason it failed was not 11 because Bruce did bad work. He did great work, but because the decision makers ignored 12 everything that was going on. There was no buy in and the people who participated were not 13 actually involved in any decisions. If we do that now we're telling Palo Altoans sure you're 14 welcome to come and give your feedback and then in the end they're not actually part of the 15 problem solving and they're not actually part of the decision making and that would be terrible. 16 It would be disastrous and I think you would have a lot of repercussions and we might actually 17 lose funding because of it. It would slow everything down and as you probably know we're 18 trying to get some Measure B money to actually make all this happen. So I want to thank you 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. all for your consideration today and I really think a dedicated stakeholder group is the way to 1 go. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our next speaker is Sara Armstrong followed by Arthur Keller. 4 5 Sara Armstrong: I have some handouts for you guys. Just going to follow on to what Nadia just 6 said and appreciate the work that's been done. I've been involved in this for almost 10 years, 7 but the proposed process is not what we would call a CSS. It's missing several key elements 8 including the establishment of a stakeholder committee or what we would prefer to call a 9 program team that’s comprised of community members, City staff, domain expert consultants, 10 and transportation agency representatives. Some people might argue that that's a good thing. 11 Stakeholders those are the ones who drive a stake through the heart of your project, right? 12 There's plenty of examples that we could probably point to to say that there’s some truth in 13 that. And that's why we're not just arguing for a stakeholder group, but one that would engage 14 in a highly structured collaborative empowered decision making process that's been specifically 15 designed for complex transportation projects where we lack obvious an obvious solution that 16 meets basic community goals and can be paid for. 17 18 The years that we've spent on this corridor and the experience with previous grade separations 19 has convinced us that finding a consensus solution that improves our city will require out of the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. box thinking. Some assumptions, presumptions, and requirements will have to go and some 1 reconceptualization of the problem will have to happen. This will require a dedicated group of 2 people who can go deep and to bring the public along the journey. Today's environmental 3 review process is used to justify choices rather than help design a project from the beginning 4 that reflects the issues and opportunities of existing conditions. Its multi-tiered project 5 approval process can sometimes help screen out poor proposals, but it often means multiple 6 rounds of very shallow review. In some cases a project will be bogged down by when someone 7 raises an issue at the last minute or other times projects fly through that actually could have 8 used much more input and you can probably think of examples of those. 9 10 We appreciate the transparency and wonderful community involvement that the Brown Act 11 gives us, but it can also create an unhealthy power dynamic between decision makers and the 12 people that you represent. Staff members have to deal with multiple objectives on from 13 multiple different bodies, but a team that is doing a deep review can result in a better project 14 that that saves time and money and avoids the pitfalls that you're going to hear about. 15 Thoughtful and creative responses simply take time. Having people join the process later is 16 problematic and a thorough systematic approach that surfaces potential issues early and 17 establishes common facts is really vital. Unhealthy dynamics between experts and community 18 members can arise when everyone isn't part of the same team and a transparent process and 19 staff or consultants can sometimes be several steps ahead of the community when it comes to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the technical information and this can also create as was mentioned with the corridor trench 1 study a sense that choices have already been made. 2 3 The current way of doing things tends to emphasize the concrete part of the plan and other 4 aspects are relegated to mitigations and become afterthoughts instead of an integral part of 5 the plan. And the goals as an example that the staff presented there are a good start, but they 6 really only scratch the surface of what we need. Each criterion has to be vetted by the public 7 and the agencies responsible with a full understanding of the tradeoffs and costs. And each 8 criterion has to be formulated in very concrete measurable objectives. One example, reduce 9 congestion verses maximum 95th percentile queue times during peak travel, right? We have to 10 be able to measure these things. Goals should be from the community and from transportation 11 agencies the City might want to specify capacity for the number of crosstown traffic and they 12 should be beyond the concrete the capacity numbers may be about people traveling corridor 13 and not in one specific mode. Emergency services may have their own requirements and might 14 require certain crossings to be open to their vehicles. The presumptions, assumptions, and 15 requirements need to be explicitly laid out and then validated as Nadia mentioned and 16 sometimes questioning these requirements leads to breakthroughs. 17 18 Nadia mentioned an example about the great separations accommodating diesel and freight. 19 Another would be the clearance levels that drive really high costs for some of the alternatives. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. The grade level that the train has to go on also drives costs. There are current examples on our 1 own corridor where trains pass through tunnels in San Francisco much smaller than the [dinette 2 mentions] that we're currently looking at. Those are just really in the weeds details. We need 3 to put together a team that can do the deep dive and analysis and it has to include people from 4 the community. We can do this old style, but I don't want to be back here in 10 years having 5 the same conversations that we had almost 10 years ago about involving the community in a 6 meaningful way. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our next speaker is Arthur Keller followed by Elizabeth Alexis. 9 10 Arthur Keller: Thank you. So I would like to make an observation. Many years ago I went to 11 college and I had Boston College and he had this sign over his desk and he said why is there not 12 enough never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to do it over? And my 13 corollary to that that I added is but there's actually rarely an opportunity to do it over. And I 14 think that this process is being done in such a manner that it's not taking the time to do it right 15 and I actually if it doesn't work I hope that in 10 years we can do it over, but I don't think we'll 16 ever get a chance to do it over. This is our one shot to do it. 17 18 And I think that if you think about public participation there’s a balance between narrow and 19 deep and broad and shallow. The public participation that is proposed in this document is 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. broad and shallow. And the stakeholder group that the previous speakers have talked about is 1 includes a process that is narrow and deep and I think that that's critical. You actually need 2 both and if we don't have a narrow and deep process where you have people who are 3 representing the community who are engaged the community who provide deep input from 4 the community and participate in the process deeply then you only essentially are paying lip 5 service to the public and getting them to talk about situations in which the public actually 6 doesn't really understand and is dealing with a low information environment. And so that's 7 why I think it that I associate myself with the previous speaker’s remarks. 8 9 Also in terms of thinks, think about this you have this TAC; so let me give you an example, you 10 have the Safe Routes To Schools effort which is a joint effort between the City and the School 11 District. Do they belong on the TAC? Maybe, maybe not. Do they belong if there's a 12 stakeholder group? Certainly having representatives on the stakeholder group makes sense. 13 So there is participation like that that are interesting and worthwhile because they are proper 14 stakeholders. Our schools are stakeholders to the effort. They may not provide technical input 15 to the effort, but they’re certainly interest in terms of commuter traffic for the schools so I 16 think that that's interesting. In terms of for example the Palo Alto Transportation Management 17 Association (TMA) that's representing Downtown. What about the rest of the businesses in the 18 City? What about the businesses in the Stanford Research Park (SRP)? Are we expecting 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Stanford University to represent the businesses in the SRP or are they only representing the 1 interests of people get commuting to Stanford? 2 3 So I think that this is why we really need a stakeholder group that really thinks about this 4 broadly. I don't think the TMA has any particular expertise in the technical aspects of this the 5 way that Caltrain or Union Pacific Railroad would, but they are stakeholders. So I think that you 6 need to think in terms of a stakeholder group that has stakeholders that are basically people 7 being involved in a deep way repeatedly meeting frequently coordinating with staff 8 coordinating with the TAC and really providing input to the process and I think that that's 9 critical. So I think that is why we really need to have this and I can't emphasize it enough, a 10 stakeholder group as part of CSS because that is the essence of a CSS process, not just 11 [unintelligible]. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Our last speaker is Elizabeth Alexis. If anybody else wishes to speak 14 please hand a speaker card to staff. Thank you. 15 16 Elizabeth Alexis: Good evening, my name is Elizabeth Alexis and I'm also a member of CARRD 17 along with Sara and Nadia. I do want to just emphasize what Nadia spoke about and Sara spoke 18 about. We are unaware of any CSS approach that's ever been done that did not include a 19 permanent specifics and we don't want to use the word stakeholder, we really don't, program 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. team. It's just an integral part of this that you have a set of people from these different 1 perspectives and different knowledge bases who go deep into something. So what I would like 2 to do is give you kind of make this process a little bit concrete. Like what would this actually 3 look like? We have a lot of mumbo jumbo words, but what would it actually look like? 4 5 So the first step would be to carefully construct a program team. There would be several 6 members of the community who might represent different neighborhoods or the school 7 community or senior citizens. There would be key City of Palo Alto staff. There would be 8 people from Transportation, from Engineering, definitely from Utilities. All projects like this 9 always include a lot of utility relocation and complications. There would be consultant experts 10 who would, you know, somebody on all the historic assets, somebody on hydrology, somebody 11 on traffic engineering. There would be people who might be sometimes part of the group and 12 maybe part of a subgroup on financing and ways that we can raise money. There might be City 13 Council members or Commission members who would participate in that side. You'd have 14 people from bike and pedestrian aspects. You'd have design people and then you'd have these 15 this group of people who staff has talked about being on a Technical Advisory Commission 16 [Note-Committee], but we would see them as part of the broader program team: Caltrain, VTA, 17 freight, maybe even somebody from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) which is set some of 18 the rules that we're dealing with. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Then you would start to have probably in this context we would see a series of sort of 1 educational workshops, kind of a teach in. We did have a teach in in 2009. We think this is a 2 good beginning step based upon sort of the initial work that's been done. You'd have 3 something to learn about the requirements for cars: the grades, the slopes, the clearance 4 levels, people, car… bicycles are different. Walking is different. Americans with Disabilities Act 5 (ADA) is different. Slopes/widths, all of that. You learn some… everybody would learn some 6 basic traffic engineering enough so that you could be a constructive member and suggestions 7 and start to see the complications with some of the things that people throw out. 8 9 You'd have something on railroad engineering understanding the one percent, two percent, 10 why you have these things. You might have a session on you’d start to get into fuzzier things 11 like what does it mean to have cohesion in a community or what creates barriers, because it's 12 not just physical things, right? I mean if you're actually in Palo Alto a lot of the barrier that the 13 rail corridor creates is not the physical tracks it's the fact that then the school districts become 14 based upon not having kids crossing tracks and then that creates divisions and separation. 15 You'd have something on hydrology because whatever we do anything that goes down into the 16 ground is going to have some a big impact on hydrology we know that. You might have 17 something on the ins and outs of eminent domain so we could get some facts established. We 18 hear a lot of people talking we can't take any houses or we should just buy up the houses oh my 19 God and it would be useful for people to understand what's actually involved with that because 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. all the while you're trying to compile this list of facts and assumptions and you're going back to 1 your list of requirements that you would have created. 2 3 I've handed out this is something from Caltrain and high speed rail are trying to work together 4 to figure out how they're going to share the corridor. And they're using basically a context 5 sensitive framework. There are some issues because they haven't actually validated some of 6 their own constraints, but this is we thought a pretty good example of how this would work. So 7 as you're going into this then you start to go into the existing conditions, right? This is the this 8 and you'd start work on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sections. You define 9 and development the requirements and go back and forth. You’d settle on questions that the 10 broader community must answer. Then you would hopefully at that point be able to start 11 looking at alternatives which go beyond just thinking about the concrete. I mean at the end of 12 the day we're trying to get something that is a hundred year project as you said. I mean at this 13 point now we're saying it's CSS, but it's not CSS. We do think it is worth doing a group which I 14 know everyone is terrified of and this is not pie in the sky thinking. This really could happen. 15 It's not that hard. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you very much. I don't have any other speaker cards, but I’ll leave it 18 open in case anybody else shows up. What I would like to do is give the Commissioners an 19 opportunity to discuss anything, their questions for staff or comments on this item. I would 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. encourage the Commission to open their packets to Page 226 and 227 so that they have the 1 suggested problem statement and the suggested evaluation criteria available to them so that as 2 you speak you can make sure to at least touch upon these items and give our feedback to the 3 staff. And then we'll see where we go. Would anybody like to begin? Absolutely, go ahead 4 Commissioner [Note-Vice Chair Waldfogel]. 5 6 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Just before we launch into this and thank you for the 7 presentations and I'd like to thank the public for showing up. What are the definitive deadlines 8 for decision making on this? I mean do we have any… is time our friend or our enemy as we go 9 through this process? 10 11 Mr. Mello: So the last page in your… this for this agenda item is a schedule that shows where 12 we are in comparison to other grade separations that are in the planning or design process 13 along the peninsula as well as the high speed rail and the Caltrain electrification project. There 14 are no hard and fast deadlines, but we are in jeopardy of falling very far behind our peer cities 15 along the peninsula. Mountain View is much further along in the planning process and the 16 Measure B the $700 million in Measure B funding will be allocated over the 30 year period 17 through an implementation plan that's going to be developed by VTA at the beginning of 2018. 18 They're working on an RFP for that now and what they're going to look at is where each of the 19 three cities Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale are in their planning and design process 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. for those eight grade crossings. So there are no hard and fast deadlines, but we do need to 1 think about where we lie in comparison to other cities that we’re vying for funding against. 2 3 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, I'll probably come back to that because I think I'd like to know what 4 we have to have on that date certain in 2018, but we can come back. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don't we if we don’t mind, why don’t start on this end and make our 7 way down? 8 9 Commissioner Summa: Ok, so thank you very much staff and welcome back to those of you 10 who were on vacation or on paternity leave. And I'd like to start out by saying that I'm not an 11 expert on CSS. I heard about it at the rail the community meeting for the first time, but I've 12 been very taken by some of the emails and speakers tonight and also my own reading of this. I 13 don't think we can take something that's so complicated that is such a huge infrastructure 14 project that's going to last for such a long time and that people have such differing levels of 15 information about and expectations for and rush it. And I am very worried about a process that 16 doesn't involve resident stakeholders. I agree that we have to have all the people with 17 technical expertise involved and other local agencies, but I and I'm sorry that all of this is so will 18 create so much work for staff. But I don't know how else to do something like this; it's a huge 19 amount of money and it's potentially a huge impact on people even taking people's homes. It's 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. not something I feel we can rush or do incorrectly. And I would really feel more comfortable 1 with the kind of stakeholder group or project team, program team that the women of CARRD 2 recommended. They've been going at rail stuff for such a long time. So that's the first thing. 3 4 Community meetings a really great, but they also don't have the same kind of flexibility that a 5 stakeholder group would have. They're kind of orchestrated and they're not as spontaneous. 6 They don't allow people to just kind of brainstorm because of the number of people there and 7 that staff has sort of a scripted approach to those kinds of things so those are really great to 8 get… give people updates in larger groups, but I don't think it takes in any way the place of a 9 stakeholder group. 10 11 And then I also feel that there as we move along we're going to learn more about high speed 12 rail and their expectations. It's now seems like they want more than the blended system. They 13 want extra rails; maybe there'll be three or four tracks. So there's a lot of huge moving parts 14 that are going to be changing constantly throughout the process that we have to respond to. 15 Even Dumbarton rail, questions about if we can do something about freight that it's a regional 16 thing and so in general terms. I think we got off to a great start, but I think we should really 17 take a step back and have a proper program team that is going to be devoted to getting us to 18 where we need to be with this. So those are my general thoughts on this program, the staff 19 report, and having been informed by the comments and emails from the public. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Go ahead. 2 3 Commissioner Monk: I just want to thank you Mr. Mello for the background on how we arrived 4 historically with this CSS program and the evolution. Could you just put that into context here 5 and why a stakeholder group wasn't considered or was it considered and how we arrived at 6 going this route in the first place? 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, let me see if I can take a stab at that and then Josh can pile on. First let me 9 say I think that the City Council of course will get your recommendation, any Motion you make 10 tonight as well as the minutes from your meeting and I'm sure that they will be interested in 11 your thoughts on this question of the stakeholder committee. So I welcome you all to make 12 your feelings known based on the comments you've heard tonight. I think I would agree with 13 Commissioner Summa that this is a super complex set of issues we're talking about and by no 14 means do we want to rush this. I mean we have to take the time it's going to take to 15 thoroughly vet all of the issues, all of the constraints, there are going to be tradeoffs here that 16 are going to be difficult to make and the community has to be fully involved. 17 18 So the way we put the community engagement plan together with our team is to look at some 19 of the it's kind of a tool box of techniques that we thought we could use to engage with the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. community and kind of in a in multi-direction so to educate and inform about what some of the 1 issues and constraints are, but also to get input and to make decisions with the community as 2 part of the process. And so you see that there are a number of different tools in there. One of 3 them is these big community workshops. We were delighted at the turnout we had at the first 4 workshop 130 people. I think we’ll get hopefully more at the September workshop. And one of 5 the reasons we didn't come out of the gate suggesting a task force is that we thought that that 6 was such a positive force that it showed such a level of interest in this community that that 7 number of people want to come out on a sunny Saturday and spend their time getting 8 educated and participating in this process. 9 10 So I think even if the Council were to say we want to do a task force or a stakeholder group we 11 would want to continue those larger forums and not rely just on 16 people in a room or 22 12 people in a room to filter the input and do the analysis. We want to keep engaging with as 13 many members of the community who want to as part of this process. So those are just our 14 thoughts. I think ultimately the Council is going to have to decide this issue of the structure. 15 We all want to get to the same place which is a fully informed decision making process that is as 16 expeditious as possible without being rushed or taken too lightly. 17 18 Mr. Mello: And I would just add a couple points. Convening a stakeholder group could lead 19 some of the other folks who are not appointed to that committee to feel left out of the process 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and we might lose some interest from some of the folks that were willing to come out to the 1 bigger meeting. And our ultimate intent was to the reason we asked some of the questions we 2 did using the real time polling about what's the best way to communicate with you, how often 3 do you want to be to receive emails and phone calls and newsletters was we wanted to keep 4 those people engaged. So we didn't want to just have a community workshop with 130 5 attendees and then have a second community workshop with 70 different people. We want to 6 bring those people along for this whole project and that would be our defacto stakeholder 7 group is this larger self-selected community group that would be open and inclusive to anybody 8 who wanted to participate; that was our thinking. 9 10 There could also be some schedule impacts if we were to move forward with appointing a 11 stakeholder committee. That appointment process could take up to three to six months to get 12 that committee up and running. But I know you did mention that you think we shouldn't be 13 bound by any type of schedule for a project this large we should take our time and do it the 14 right way so that may not be a concern for you that added time it would be needed to appoint 15 that committee. 16 17 Commissioner Monk: I appreciate that input and that further complicates the issue in that you 18 pointed out some interesting ideas in that it would possibly alienate a portion of the 19 community if they weren't a part of this proposed stakeholder group and how to account for 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that level of interest that you've seen and will probably continue to see rise. So I thank you for 1 your comments on that. I think this discussion is primarily about the process and how do we 2 engage the citizens and staff and this Commission to an effective outcome. 3 4 In looking at the plan that was presented in our package I thought it was quite comprehensive 5 and seemed to cover everything that you would expect. Of course I’m not an expert and in 6 hearing the speakers tonight it makes me want to learn a little bit more, review the materials 7 that were presented, and see what holes we might be missing and take a little bit of a deeper 8 dive in comparing what is being advocated by the folks here tonight versus what we have in our 9 packet. But just looking at what was presented to us in the packet it actually seemed a little bit 10 overkill in a way. Again, we know the City doesn’t have a full understanding of all of the 11 constraints yet we're doing a full blown study. We're also doing so many different types of 12 studies with the community groups and the questionnaires where people who are responding 13 might be living closer to an area and that area is going to be a greater priority to them. So 14 there's a lot of information that needs to get sorted out in order to really have a reliable study. 15 There's things like that that I would be a little bit concerned about. I would just direct the staff 16 to when moving forward on this plan if that's the decision to determine which options are 17 preferred of the engagement strategies so that staff is in charge of that effort rather than the 18 contracting group that you're working with. It's is it Circle Point? Is that who you’re working 19 with? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And also with the schedule that's at Page 25 I know you're also doing stakeholder interviews 2 and workshops and all these other things so just looking at the total amount of effort being 3 spent on it just kind of streamline it would be my feedback on all those different pieces that are 4 going to be working together. And maybe you don't know the answer to this one, but the 5 survey answers differed from the community workshop where the community workshop had 6 East Meadow as the highest concern and on the questionnaire it was Churchill. Are there 7 strategies for rectifying those different outcomes and the different types of tools that were 8 used to get the information? 9 10 Mr. Mello: So this is going to be a very complex analysis process. There's going to be qualitative 11 and quantitative measures that we're going to need to use and I think every time we talk to 12 somebody different we'll hear different priorities. And it's going to be our job and the larger 13 community and Council’s job to distill all that into something that's legible and allows us to get 14 to a preferred alternative. I don't think we can we're ever going to hear the same answer twice 15 about what the priority is for a particular grade crossing or which grade crossing is a priority. I 16 think we can start to move towards a community consensus and that's the goal of this, but it's 17 going to be a very complex conversation and there's going be a lot of different opinions 18 throughout this process. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: I guess the only thing I'd add is this is why some of us got into the planning 1 business. It's really complicated. Everyone's going to have a different perspective and a 2 different set of priorities here. I think our hope is that we can collectively analyze and vet a 3 series of alternatives and at the end of the day end up with something that may not be perfect 4 from everybody's perspective, but which can be acceptable from everybody's perspective and 5 really reflect the kind of collective wisdom of this community. 6 7 Commissioner Monk: So to that I would just ask that it be made obvious where a certain 8 crossing received a great number of support, but that was because most people that lived 9 within a half a mile were the ones that responded to it. So just please have a really thorough 10 presentation of that data because I think that would be important to know that it's rated that 11 way because the majority of people around it voted for it, if that makes sense? And I think that 12 was something that I had to flip through and do my own analysis on. So just having that type of 13 detail that we can keep track of because it will be complicated will be helpful going forward. 14 15 Mr. Mello: If I could just interject so as we get into the real hard core decision making part of 16 this there's going to be a lot more analysis in front of you and in front of the Rail Committee 17 and the community and Council. Really tonight we're just talking about the very early stages of 18 this, but I don't want folks to glean from what's presented tonight that we're not going to dive 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. really deep into the particulars about what's happening out there and what some of the 1 constraints are and what the technical opportunities are for each of these crossings. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: If you want we can do a couple rounds. [Unintelligible]. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: Yeah, why don’t I pass this along and next round come back to my other 6 issues. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. So let me dive in. It's funny that you mention that about the 9 planning business because I feel the same way. I think what drew me to land use law was sort 10 of the immense and powerful result of what takes place when people make decisions in this 11 area. 12 13 So I'd like to start with the problem statement. The rail corridor also creates issues in 14 surrounding neighborhoods such as noise, vibration, traffic, and visual impacts and while the 15 City of Palo Alto benefits from Caltrain service and supports Caltrain modernization including 16 electrification some of the issues experienced along the rail corridor will continue to get worse 17 in the future with the increases in Caltrain service and the possible addition of high speed rail. 18 So I get this is a very general problem statement I think. I'm on the Page 226 and 227. I'm 19 going to focus most of my comments on those two pages. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 I think there's a lot of reasons why… I think there's a lot of ways to address the safety of the 2 corridor. And well I guess it's just not clear to me that it's a certainty that this will get worse 3 with increased service. And I just want to make that point because my hope is that the 4 continued modernization of Caltrain will actually improve safety. I imagine that if we were 5 really wanted to grapple with safety concerns at our crossings we could come up with solutions 6 that had nothing to do with changing the actual physical elevation of our grade crossing. And 7 so I think there… I think the, I wonder if the problem statement is sort of missing the mark in 8 that the real question is, the real problem is are the benefits and consequences of changing the 9 physical nature of the rail worth it? But I don't know maybe this is the way you write that. I 10 just think to some extent the real problem here is that there is going to be a very difficult 11 decision that it's going to be very costly, it's going to require a tremendous amount of 12 coordination to enact a change and I think the question is, is that change worth it? And I 13 believe whether it's a stakeholder group or a much a very publicly involved staff led and 14 community leader led process that will be the heart of the question is are the options worth it? 15 I see your light on, go ahead. 16 17 Mr. Mello: Do you think quantifying the problem a little bit in the problem statement might 18 help address that? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Let me ask you a question (interrupted) 1 2 Mr. Mello: Like being a little less broad and actually putting in some… using some analysis to 3 determine what some of the specific… 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Maybe. I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about how to author this statement, 6 but I did wonder if you if Palo Alto didn't support Caltrain modification I mean what relevance is 7 that? Whether we support it or not does it change this the question at hand? So I guess what 8 I'm trying to say is it’s not it’s… this isn't this is a good summary I guess. I just we're hearing 9 tonight about from people and we heard we had a letter from former Council Member Pat Burt 10 and got emails people talking about stakeholder group. My concern moving tonight is that 11 there is this impression that somehow if you didn't involve a stakeholder group you get it 12 wrong. I don't think that we should operate under that premise. We haven't even started the 13 process so to suggest that errors could be made that were so fundamental that no matter what 14 answer you come up with that it’s going to be the wrong one I think is dangerous and I think 15 what we should be focusing on right now is well what is the question. And I think that by 16 identifying the question more specifically by laying it out a little bit more specifically people will 17 approach how to design the process differently. So it's very open ended right now and it's not 18 entirely clear. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Tonight we heard someone say something about diverting freight. I'm not entirely sure that 1 that would ever be under the purview of Palo Alto leadership's decision making. Maybe it is. 2 I’m doubtful. I don't actually know enough to answer that question myself, but the notion that 3 Palo Alto could make a decision about whether freight runs down Caltrain’s tracks in the 4 absence of all the other stakeholders and when I say stakeholders I mean the other 5 communities and the regional… My point is is that there are issues like noise, vibration, and 6 traffic, and visual impacts and this is not about solving all the problems related to living near a 7 train. And I want to and I'm afraid that that somehow that we can… I don't know that we be 8 able to solve all the problems related to living next to a train and I don't know that we should 9 be trying to. I think we really need to focus this. 10 11 I think there's one benefit to us being sort of late to the party which is that we can see to some 12 extent what our neighbors are doing and how they did it. I don't think that would justify 13 somehow slowing down our process, but anyways so let me jump in to some of the other 14 comments. I think that the question about citizen engagement I think this is… I have not I spent 15 time also reviewing CSS. I did not find in my review this sentiment that you should refrain from 16 using that terminology because you haven't suggested using a stakeholder group. Again I think 17 that's I don't think that's the case at least in my review. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I think one of the things that I think I walk away from and I'm using a federal definition here, 1 but to me CSS in general and I'm really happy to see that we're adopting those principles and 2 this process. I think in general what we're looking to do is employ very meaningful continuous 3 and early public involvement, stakeholder involvement. And I think one of the one of the 4 points I'd like to make tonight is that there is a tradeoff, right, with the citizen with each citizen 5 engagement model. And I would argue that with our Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) process 6 which we used effectively in the Comp Plan process there is a lot more community ownership, 7 but there's also a more drawn out process. And I think it focuses more on philosophical 8 questions than technical issues. It lends itself to a more philosophical discussion than a 9 technical discussion. I think that's appropriate when you're talking about a Comp Plan which is 10 philosophical in nature. What do you want this city to look like? It's a very abstract question. I 11 think this is an abstract question. I think that may be a problem. I think this question needs to 12 be less abstract so that people understand that there's extremely technical issues here. And 13 that's why I think using a process that more heavily relied on experts, Planning staff, PTC, and 14 Council is more appropriate for where specifically because we have to deal with technical 15 details like budgeting, value capture scenarios, feasibility analysis. 16 17 I also want to suggest that stakeholder group presents an interesting issue which is conflict of 18 Interest. We always when we review projects we have to determine whether or not a 19 Commissioner is potentially conflicted out of discussing an item because they live too close to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. it. How would we put together a stakeholder group if that had to review potentially the 1 purchasing of homes if half the stakeholder group or one or it doesn't how many represented 2 potential homeowners? How do that are, that would be susceptible to it's… There is anyways 3 I'll say that about the stakeholder group that I think that this is a very difficult decision and 4 there will be winners and losers from the as perceived by the various individuals in our 5 community. And I think that no matter what this is going to be very controversial. That said I 6 don't necessarily think a stakeholder group is the right solution and so I wouldn't recommend 7 that to Council. 8 9 That said I would recommend that the approach adopted and articulated in your staff report is 10 an appropriate one and that we approach that in a very sincere and meaningful way. This is the 11 first, tonight was the first time in I think over a year I think that I've heard someone say Palo 12 Alto process with a negative, in a negative way. And I think that and I mention that because I 13 think we've come a long way. I think under our current staff leadership I think we've come a 14 long way from the days when people had very little predictability and felt inconsistently 15 inconsistent approaches. So I actually would very much welcome our current version of the 16 Palo Alto process in this because great examples of Palo Alto process the current version is 17 initial studies of potential impacts way before we would get to an Environmental Impact Report 18 (EIR) for example. I mean I think the we are doing, I think the staff and I would say the PTC has 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. participated in a process that is really attempting to create meaningful depth, narrow, deep 1 community engagement. 2 3 Ok, that's the bulk of my comments on this item. I think I'll let everybody else comment and if 4 anybody would like to take a second chance at this we can do multiple rounds. And then at the 5 conclusion I hope we can provide some a recommendation to City Council when they get this. 6 Go ahead, Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Let's see, I need to organize some thoughts here. I have to 9 say I’ve talked to maybe a half a dozen experts on this topic and I've gotten a lease and they all 10 know the answer on what should happen it just turns out they're all different. So I understand 11 how complicated this issue is. 12 13 One of the things that I'm… well let me just lay out a couple things I'm worried about. One is 14 you said 2018 and that's let's call that about a year away, 17-18 months. In my experience 15 that's two blinks of city time and it strikes me that if you really have to have something that's 16 reviewable by another agency that we really ought to start drafting it yesterday. So I'm just 17 looking for some commentary on what we think we have to have by whatever that date is. I 18 don’t know if it's early or late 2018, but where do we need to be in terms of the thoroughness 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. of our understanding and our plan? Could we have a plan with five different options or what's 1 our objective relative to that? 2 3 Mr. Mello: There's no defined deadline, but the implementation plan that VTA will be 4 developing in early 2018 is going to look at where each of the three communities are with their 5 8, the 8 different grade crossings that are identified for the Measure B funding. So I can't 6 predict what the impacts would be, but if we were to push this out we could end up behind one 7 of the other communities, one of the other grade crossings, we may not. We may all end up in 8 the same place and it may just be based on a more objective prioritization. But the bottom line 9 is there's a 30 year timeline for this sales tax so one of those eight grade crossings will be built 10 in year 2025, 2028 chances are so that could end up being one of our grade crossings. 11 12 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So you're saying that these will actually be sequenced it's we can’t all say 13 start our grade crossings in 2023? 14 15 Mr. Mello: yeah, the $700 million is not enough to build all eight grade separations so they'll 16 have to be federal funding and other funding identified and the implementation plan is going to 17 be a programmatic look at how to deliver those eight over the 30 year period. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So I'm actually this is a really key point and let me just be clear on this. 1 So what we're saying is Caltrain will be electrified by I think it's 2021 and at that point based on 2 this funding schedule we're looking at 10 years of often uncrossable tracks because of dwell 3 times on the, on higher train service. Is that correct? 4 5 Mr. Mello: We will experience the impacts of increased train service well before we're able to 6 deliver our grade separations. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so we're in and how many… Well, ok we probably don't know how 9 many years of that pain that we're anticipating, but it looks like we're already teed up for that. 10 And if you mean in other realms if I knew that I had a deadline in 2018 I mean I would have 11 some work in my back pocket that I was ready to that I was ready to go with. So I mean are you 12 in a place where kind of regardless of what process we recommend today you'll be able to 13 participate or depending on what happens and how these processes go will you perhaps have 14 to walk in in early 2018 and say hey, we're not ready yet? 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Maybe I can jump onto that. I mean our hope is in mid-September at that 17 community workshop to tee up a discussion of what the range of alternatives are. I mean like 18 what are the options here? We have for grade crossings. We've looked at trenching; we've 19 looked at other solutions. What are the options that are on the table? And through the fall and 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. early 2018 try and refine that list so there's a finite number of choices that we’re analyzing and 1 be able to let VTA know that we're making progress. When they're drafting their 2 implementation plan they know that we're starting to narrow down to a series of choices that 3 are being analyzed in terms of their tradeoffs (interrupted) 4 5 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I guess I’m am not clear on what the deliverable is to them because for 6 example the pricing the financing workshop doesn't come until some indeterminate time in the 7 future which I would assume is probably early next year. So it seems like some of these early 8 discussions would be without even budgetary costing estimates or… 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I think we want a conversation with the community about what should be 11 analyzed before we start analyzing in a way so really the range of alternatives then we'll have to 12 get into what the relative costs would be, what the impacts would be vis-à-vis traffic, property 13 takings. I mean some of that testing was done with the study that Josh mentioned from 2014, 14 but there's a lot more of that kind of exploration that would need to happen and we can't do 15 that for an infinite number of alternatives and options. So we're hoping that the community 16 process will help us start narrowing down to a finite list of options for that kind of analysis and 17 the implementation plan that VTA prepares concurrent with that will recognize that we're 18 putting a good faith effort into working with our community to refine a list of options to get to 19 one or a couple, but that we’re serious about. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, let me let me switch gears. So I've been looking at some of the 2 history of this and I actually briefly liaised to the Rail Corridor Task Force when I was in the 3 Utilities Commission so I think I went to those meetings in two thousand… probably 2011. Give 4 or take. And it feels like some of these alternatives have already been fairly thoroughly vetted 5 and explored. I see years and years of City policy outlining vertical alignment. I mean there are 6 some pretty clear statements deprecating elevated vertical alignments going back at least to 7 2010. There's pretty clear preferences for below grade rail alignment again going back to 2010, 8 reiterated in I think 2014, may be reiterated in 2017. And I'm a little puzzled by the idea that 9 we're now pushing the reset button on all those years of work. I mean all the studies, the task 10 forces, Council resolutions, I mean we seems like we've made some decisions and maybe we 11 don't agree with those decisions. I mean some of the list is easy and I think the problem 12 statement really ought to be how do we pay for the choices that we want, but it kind of feels 13 like there really three viable choices or something or and that it would be pretty quick to 14 identify those three viable choices and price them. I'm just kind of curious why I mean do, 15 where are we on a process like that if we're aiming for 2018? 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: Well I guess I hope you're right that it's obvious that there are three viable 18 choices and that when we get together as a community on September 16th it’s that clear. My 19 expectation is although there's been a lot of thought given to this corridor and a clear 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. preference expressed by the community in any number of forums about a below grade solution 1 that it that will be a little more complicated than that particularly as we start learning about 2 cost and constraints, the impacts on existing grade crossings, and other aspects of our life 3 around this train that bisects our community. 4 5 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, yeah. I would just hope that we understand that pretty well. I mean 6 I’ll just make one last comment on this round which is I mean we have a little bit of a history of 7 choosing the shiny object and then deciding a couple years later that we can't do it. I mean we 8 just went through a case of that with the ped/bike bridge over 101. We made a choice and 9 then as we got into design and bidding we discovered that that choice wouldn’t work. And 10 especially with something where we're relying on it sounds like a smorgasbord of funding 11 sources over a 30 year period. All this feels a little… the degree of difficulty of this dive is not 2 12 or 3 it's 8 or 11. It's the backward triple twist and I mean how are we even if with whatever 13 process we go through how will we make people sort of understand that whatever happens in 14 this process may or may not happen depending on other moving parts, other funding issues 15 that come up 6, 8, 10 years from now? 16 17 Mr. Mello: Well I think we're at a really key moment here with the approval of Measure B and 18 the backing of VTA and the tentative backing of Caltrain. Today we've had great conversations 19 with them about grade separations. I think our goal here is to move directly into a preliminary 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. design and the environmental analysis immediately upon adoption of a preferred alternative. 1 So our goal is to not have this gap between phases. We want to get moving. We want to keep 2 moving until we have significant progress and we're able to secure the funding that we need 3 get it in the transportation improvement program, identify funding sources, work with the State 4 and VTA and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). So I think we're at a real 5 watershed moment here for grade separations in Palo Alto and I don't think we have to worry 6 about assuming that things continue on the course that they're on right now. 7 8 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, well then if we need to sell bonds I hope we can sell them this year. 9 Anyhow I will I may have some other questions, but I'll pass this along. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, well I guess we're doing the problem statement as well as sort of the 12 structure so just a couple comments on that. As I read this I first started with Attachment D so 13 that I could actually see where it was and then went back and looked at where it was before. 14 So first thing is I would salute the workshops. They worked hard, they gave good input. I 15 thought they clarified it pretty well, particularly the prioritization which I’ll talk about first. The 16 suggested objectives I kind of did a line below those and after about the fourth one I said that's 17 probably the basics and again this is without any prompts just so I did it on my own. And things 18 like reducing noise and vibration as Commissioner [Note-Chair Alcheck] mentioned I mean 19 that's probably not a great objective because you can't get rid of that. So I would rather see 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. these objectives sort of condensed a little bit because of course there can be sub-points and so 1 on as we see in the Comp Plan. 2 3 And then a few of them I put in the margins is this apple pie? So stuff that support Caltrain’s 4 service enhancements it's not like we have a choice; they're coming through our town, right? 5 So that's kind of apple pie. And fairness in terms of the investments improvements in North 6 and South Palo Alto, sure, but we really need to optimize for where the bigger problems are 7 rather than just take sort of a friendly statement there. So I felt that was kind of an apple pie 8 one too. And then the ones below that are kind of what I call best practices. I’m not sure those 9 are really objectives at all. You don't want to disrupt things if you don't have to during 10 construction and funding is funding. So I'm not sure why that actually even needs to be listed 11 here. 12 13 And back up on the problem statement I think part of what you might have been saying 14 Commissioner [Note-Chair] Alcheck is that it's not just a problem, but there might be an 15 opportunity here. Not to put work words in your mouth, but this isn't just a problem. This is 16 they're coming through so what can we do now? This is actually what can we do here to make 17 this thing better? Not unlike when we were going to redo the golf course and we said well if we 18 moved it over here we create ten and a half acres in Palo Alto. So that's a little bit of what the 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. positive view of the problem statement can be is how can we make our town even better, 1 which is what we're all trying to do every week. 2 3 I think that that said there's a hundred percent certainty that this congestion is going to get 4 worse. So I wouldn’t agree with a previous statement on that because there's just going to be a 5 lot more trains coming through and a lot of people taking trains. So the congestion is the core 6 aspect of the core problem statement and then the visual is definitely an aspect of it because 7 you have these choices to make. So I’d rather see the problem statement a little bit more 8 focused on how can we make the best choices from whatever the numbers of options are 9 because that's what it's about including no choice. We can just sit there and let it happen 10 although they might widen the tracks and we’d have to address that. So you might have a 11 status quo and some other options and kind of focus a little more on that because I think this 12 thing needs maybe shortening, but also beefing up in terms of the impact. It’s just a little bit 13 vanilla now in terms of what's really in front of us for the next few years as we sort this thing. 14 So that would be overall my comments on that. 15 16 On the structure I guess I'm not yet hearing that there's very much of a downside to what we’ll 17 call the complete CSS process. I mean I heard one comment that the stakeholder folks first of 18 all if I heard you correctly that’s anyone who wants to be a stakeholder, which is great for the 19 Palo Alto process. They want to come in and they want to spend their he said Saturday 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. afternoons working on this stuff, fantastic. And that they might be offended if they weren't in 1 the stakeholder they weren't in the kind of other stakeholders group I’ll call it, I don't think they 2 would because they're still getting their input from their perspective. 3 4 That's different than the sort of what I'll call the expert stakeholder group. And the very fact 5 that the shareholder group that is here now is anyone I think could kind of argue for why you 6 need the other shareholder group because those are really the experts. If you're talking 7 hydrologists and engineers and people that can really provide input on well, if you do the 8 trenching here you’re going to have these problems that's not something that my neighbor is 9 going to come up with if he's not a hydrological engineer. So the document that was presented 10 by Ms. Naik talked about having both, the stakeholders led if you want to call it that or 11 stakeholder component of experts and the type of outreach that you're already doing which is 12 excellent. So I guess again I'm not seeing any downside of going with this process and I see 13 some upside by having these experts involved because it's such a significant thing for Palo Alto. 14 And if we can keep from making some mistakes or do some tweaks because we've got some 15 experts who are really a stakeholder group I think that's worth the investment. Maybe a little 16 bit more management, but you're going to be managing a lot of process and people anyway. So 17 that's kind of where I come on on that one at this point. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I don't know how many of these hydrologists are going to want to work free which is another 1 issue. Is this a volunteer or are these actually a series of consultants that's beyond our purview 2 at this point. But the investment level and the impact for what folks have correctly been calling 3 a hundred years I think is worth the investment in the full process as I understand it right now. 4 And people can speak, can continue to educate me if I’m incorrect on that. So I’ll hold there for 5 now. Thank you. 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So members of the community and potential stakeholders 8 thank you very much for attending and for your presentations and thank you very much for 9 staff for your presentation. Congratulations again to Josh for the newborn. So send us out, 10 send out some pictures. 11 12 So the I think that this aspect of the stakeholders group is very important. I believe that we 13 should solicit actively very quickly the attention and participation of the major stakeholders 14 group. We should identify them, promptly send out the messages, request their attention, and 15 propose some framework for their work. I cannot imagine that this project of this magnitude, 16 this will be a big project, it will change neighborhoods for many years from now so I have no 17 doubts about this. I cannot imagine that some groups are left out or maybe their voice is if they 18 are key stakeholders is at the same level of my voice, right? I think that their voice should be 19 prioritized over mine. So in terms of recommendation my recommendation is please build very 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. quickly a stakeholder group. Identify them, invite them to a meetings, propose the framework, 1 and incorporate into the process. 2 3 In terms of the problem statement I think that this problem statement should be written from 4 scratch. And then probably stakeholder team it should be the first task of the of the 5 stakeholder team when it's created. I also agree with some comments that some of the 6 objectives are very obvious here and then pre-much should be removed from the objective lists 7 because it's a normal mistake of writing objectives that people are writing issues that are not 8 really relevant, they are obvious, they bring the no value. And also when you build a schedule 9 like this there is always a value in identifying risks and tracking those risks down. Also 10 assumptions; assumptions, issues, dependencies they all fall into the categories of the risk. 11 That's a typical tool of the of any project management. And also some items that are in scope 12 and out of scope. When teams work on projects of this scale if they create agreement of this 13 set of the values from the beginning the rest is a pretty much about the execution, but I think 14 that you will get lots of help from the stakeholders group because I think that you can approach 15 this issues in in a variety of different ways. And I'm sure that they will provide the value in here. 16 17 There is one more comment. I think that there should be a permanent presence of a 18 Commissioner or maybe even two at those meetings because there will be lots of meetings. So 19 this is something that we ask Jon about making sure that we are embedded, the Commissioners 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. are embedded at various initiatives and this is very big one so probably there should be even 1 two of the Commissioners either rotating or being present at various meetings and observing 2 the process and bringing the live comments from each of this meeting. 3 4 Otherwise I think that those would exhaust my comment. I would be interested in those three 5 options that my colleague Asher mentioned. So I never heard about them so if somebody can 6 share them at this meeting I would be interested what they are. Thank you. 7 8 Commissioner Lauing: There are three options, but nobody agrees on what the three are. 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: That’s fine. Just tell us what the options are (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Alcheck: I thought you said there were six. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: I haven’t heard them, right? But (interrupted) 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Hold on, I do want to say something. I would like to discourage a discussion of 17 those options tonight and the reason why is because… yeah, it's not… I agree with you actually 18 that the premise of your question really is you don't even really know, we haven't really 19 stepped into this yet. As a Commission we don't many of us probably are unfamiliar with what 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this group that Asher, Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel mentioned earlier has done 1 which is a really fair point. We are so early in this process that many of us on this Commission 2 have not significant familiarity with what we’re the totality of what we're talking about. But I 3 wanted to I don't want to spend too much time especially I don't want staff to spend too much 4 time getting into that because that's the whole point of the process that we're trying to design. 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, but with the whole respect, right? Sorry for interrupting, right? 7 This is very simple thing, right? I mean I'd like to just have somebody disclose these options, 8 right? If somebody can take this as an action item forward an email to us with this what was 9 developed earlier on, right, so it's not a private knowledge of (interrupted) 10 11 Chair Alcheck: No, that’s fine. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: Vice-Chair Waldfogel just tell and we will all know and it's a normal 14 question. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, do you want to respond that real quick? 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I'm getting a little confused by the description of three options. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: I know. 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: But we did include links in the report to the prior Rail Corridor Study which is 3 worth a read. I mean it's really well done and trenching analysis that Josh talked about which 4 looked at a below grade trench solution for Meadow, Charleston, and Churchill and there are a 5 couple different options studied in there. So it's a little more complex than three options, but 6 there's a lot of information available and there are links provided in the staff report. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: More importantly I want to suggest that I think we don't have our attorney here 9 today, but I think discussing the options and even referencing potential preferences would be 10 highly damaging to the whole notion of the process that we're trying to discuss here and so the 11 whole notion of PTC being involved in this in some point means that we participate in a process 12 that we don't really step in to making statements tonight about specific options. Ok, why don't 13 we do one more round if that’s alright? I would encourage us to be as concise as possible. I 14 have typically have a problem with that myself so I know that, but let's try to be concise 15 because we've got a big agenda tonight or a big topic tonight and I'd like us to get to it soon. So 16 go ahead, please Commissioner. 17 18 Commissioner Summa: Ok, so appreciated many of the comments of my colleagues and 19 specifically with regards to the problem statement maybe being too boilerplate or general and 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that some of the objectives don't really need to be there I mean. But I wanted to ask after the 1 other cities using the CSS process with the what many feel to be an integral or essential part of 2 it a stakeholder group? The other cities, do we know that? 3 4 Mr. Mello: They're all doing it a little bit differently. They're generally just following more of a 5 traditional alternatives analysis process where their city councils are making the bulk of the 6 decisions. I mean CSS is a is more of a spectrum. It's more of a philosophy than this clear cut. 7 There's thousands of papers on what CSS is and every agency does a little bit different so I don't 8 know if they're intending to use CSS, but I've been following some of the work in our adjacent 9 communities and it's it seems to be more of a traditional alternatives development alternatives 10 analysis process. They're not starting necessarily with a problem statement and starting as 11 broadly as we are. 12 13 Commissioner Summa: And the Rail Corridor Taskforce that I guess it was disbanded and you 14 guys started it up again. How, who is on that? Is I think that's what… 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Well there was a Rail Corridor Taskforce that generated the report in 2013 that 17 we linked to in the staff report. I think Josh was referring to the Rail Committee of the City 18 Council. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Summa: Oh, ok. I was confused. 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: That was reestablished. 3 4 Commissioner Summa: Ok, I (interrupted) 5 6 Ms. Gitelman: And that consists of four Council Members. 7 8 Commissioner Summa: Ok, and then so I'm also kind of confused how this is all going to fit 9 together I think timing wise and how to prioritize that. But I do I just I think I made myself clear 10 earlier, but I do think it's very important for the city staff not to have the full weight of this on 11 their shoulders and that's why a stakeholder group is of residents and then the technical 12 experts I think will be so important. And I think the one of the speakers made an analogy to not 13 wanting to go down this the road of high speed rail which people are not very happy with the 14 lack of transparency and feeling that they didn't get what, they're not going to get what they 15 voted for and that they didn't understand enough. So I just want to make it really clear that I 16 think it would be a great help to staff to have really devoted citizens to take some of the wait 17 and in addition to the community meetings. So that would be my… Yeah, I think that's enough 18 for now. Thanks. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: I'll try to be succinct, but probably won't happen so apologies in advance. 1 I also just want to acknowledge and thank all of the members of the community for coming out 2 and speaking tonight. I think you shared a really deep understanding and presentation of the 3 issues. There was a lot of new information to us and maybe to staff as well. It's apparent that 4 there's deep concern from the community and a lot of work went into presenting to us tonight 5 and I just want to acknowledge that. I thank you for all the materials that you brought to us 6 tonight and all the words that you shared. 7 8 I'm not sure that going with this approach is a trade off to the shareholder citizen engagement 9 type model which is the closest model would be like what we did with the CAC. And that was 10 what I think Chair Alcheck was alluding to earlie when he was referring to the distinction 11 between the philosophical and the technical issues. So I am still trying to flesh out my thoughts 12 on that, but I am concerned about falling behind and risking losing any Measure B funding. I 13 saw that we're already behind our neighboring cities. I think that the planning and design 14 process timing is critical and we're competing with our neighboring cities for funding so just 15 balancing that out would make me lean towards going with what's been proposed by staff. 16 17 I did like what Commissioner Lauing said about what opportunities this can lead towards. And 18 I'm wondering with the increase in train service that's anticipated are there going to be any 19 connections or thought put into connections for office workers, anything along those lines? I 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. don't know that we've looked at opportunities can come from this so that might be something 1 to explore and something to present to Council. I'm sure those are the types of things that at a 2 higher level they'd want to hear from. 3 4 If you just give me a moment I want to quickly look at my notes. A lot of questions were 5 answered that I had so I have a lot of different things on here… Ok, did anyone here talk about 6 the value capture? Did you mention that? Is there any comment that you want to make on 7 what would happen if a corridor was trenched and there were any possibility to build it on top 8 of it? Has there any been discussion on that? 9 10 Mr. Mello: That would be something that would be analyzed when we move into the 11 alternatives analysis phase of this project. That could very well be one of the alternatives that 12 we decided to analyze. 13 14 Commissioner Monk: Ok, thank you. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I’ll try to make my responses quick. I'm glad you asked that question about 17 our neighboring cities. I love to know what our neighbors are doing and I typically ask that 18 question and I didn't tonight and I'm glad you did. It doesn't necessarily mean we should 19 always copy them, but it is I'm always curious to know. I think that it sounds for those who feel 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. that a CSS that the CSS approach requires a stakeholder group then I think the more 1 appropriate description of the approach staff is suggesting would be like a hybrid of what our 2 neighbors are doing with significantly more a stronger amount of community engagement. But 3 I think that what staff’s proposed actually is a lot greater than that. I mean this is one of the 4 most sort of just the approach of creating the criteria and not identifying the options at the 5 outset of the process I find to be one that is essentially inviting the community to participate in 6 a really unique way. As we as somebody mentioned tonight there have been options that have 7 been investigated and I think one of the, look one of the issues that is again, I think this boils 8 down to this will become a very difficult decision for the community to make because we even 9 if you're not familiar with the options I think our report was sufficient enough to know that the 10 options have some significant costs. And it's always difficult to make a decision that has such 11 significant costs. 12 13 I do want to also suggest that I'm glad you brought up the bike/pedestrian bridge. 14 Commissioner Gardias were you a part of the Commission when we did the pageant show? I'll 15 tell you something that was what fun that was. I mean I was a young Commissioner, right? But 16 we had this thrilling design pageant they architects and design teams I don't know 50 I don’t 17 how many presented to a small community group and then those people selected their finalists 18 and then the… you weren’t part of that. So then and then the Commission the seven of us got 19 to have a four way competition between four design firms and then we picked our what we 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. thought was gorgeous and anyways the result is there's no bike/pedestrian bridge. And I 1 thought that process was magnificent. I really did at the time. I thought it was so amazing and, 2 but at what cost, right? How did that process affect the result and to what extent was the 3 resulting inaction unavoidable because of the process? 4 5 If look I think we've heard a lot of commentary. If the issues are so clear, if there are six experts 6 that have six different opinions then we're going to need to have a decision making group that 7 can make that decision and there's really one body that can do that. I would not suggest that 8 we start from where the Rail Corridor Study left off seven years ago. I think that staff’s effort to 9 basically it's sort of two, it’s two, there's two elements here. It's there's an education; I think 10 that going through the process with a lot of public engagement will educate everybody and also 11 potentially provide meaningful feedback. And I think the most important thing that I’d like to 12 say right now is at our meetings we host the public to make comments. And I would strongly 13 suggest to every individual in this City that they're the opinion of one member of this 14 community is not more valuable than another member of this community. But that doesn't, 15 but just because the process is driven in a PTC led format does not necessarily mean that our 16 opinions are more important than community member’s opinions. And so again I don't think 17 anybody on this Commission will participate in this process and not appreciate the significance 18 of the issues. And I think that I will reiterate this because the next part here is to make a 19 Motion to recommend a process and criteria and a draft problem statement to City Council. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 And my last comment will be that while I really appreciated the work of the citizen advisory 2 group on the Comp Plan I do think that there is a tremendous flaw involved in citizen advisory 3 groups which is to say that they are so demanding of time that by their very nature they 4 alienate a tremendous number of individuals in our community whose perspectives are 5 important and meaningful, but who will never have the time to participate in such a group. 6 And while that's a tradeoff they could come to certain meetings and communicate their input I 7 would much prefer a process that was City led that really encouraged a sort of an informative 8 reach out and then invited the bulk of our community to participate in this decision making 9 process. Because number one, I think that's what the City Council will need to make this 10 decision to insulate them so that they make the decision that the community supports. 11 Because I don't think that anybody would be satisfied with the with an option supported by 25 12 members that didn't necessarily represent the community at whole. So again, I think this has to 13 be a community wide involvement process and I think that staff’s recommendation gets it right. 14 Again I don’t think it's worth spending too much time and I hope we can get a Motion going 15 that supports some elements of this and then we can make our, we can move on and make a 16 recommendation to Council and move on. 17 18 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Great, thank you. Let's see, couple things, so on this one I think I'm 19 inclined I mean the people in the room have spent the most time on rail issues are the two 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. women from CARRD who can explain all 3 of the 12 possible corridor options or 17 or whatever 1 the number is so I'm slightly inclined to defer to their view. I mean I think that the engagement 2 that's described in the report is all important. I see this as kind of inner rings and outer rings of 3 engagement, but it's important. I think the critical thing is we have to get through this pretty 4 expeditiously and we just have to figure out how to use all the tools at our disposal. 5 6 I do have one request and you can tell me if this is an appropriate add to the problem 7 statement, but can we add something about mitigation during the interim period between 8 when electrification and the number of trains increases and when we get to a permanent 9 solution? I mean is there anything we can do? For example, should we be budgeting money to 10 widen the Embarcadero underpass right now? Because that’s a passageway that we know is 11 available or is accessible to us. I mean I'm not saying that's the right answer. I'm not trying to 12 tee it up as a proposal, but I would just like a really quick study of that done as part of this 13 scope if that's appropriate. 14 15 Mr. Mello: I think that could be done and I think an appropriate place for that might be the 16 objectives. So an additional objective that is to mitigate the impacts of additional rail service 17 prior to major infrastructure investments or something to that effect. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah and if that's appropriate I would just love to see something like that 1 included in this because I'm really worried about 2020 to 2030 based on this discussion. I 2 wasn't before and you've really got my attention. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: I think the start has been made or has been excellent by staff, great 5 work. As I said I think that the stakeholders group from the neighborhoods as I’ll call them is 6 very effective. And when we did the Parks Master Plan when I was over there it was 7 extraordinarily over a couple years affective to get that kind of input. Different from the other 8 kind of stakeholder’s group that was sort of expert, not in the way that you guys need it in 9 terms of the technology, but when we had some bird experts really telling us how we needed 10 to get the stuff written correctly that was better than just two or three people that like birds. 11 No disrespect to any of those four people that I just mentioned it’s just helped us a lot. So I 12 would I like the start. I totally love leaving it open and not talking about options right now. 13 That's part of what the this group has they do. With respect to us sort of improving or codifying 14 a problem statement I think we're had very collegial discussion the inputs to the problem 15 statement that maybe is enough for you to distill because there wasn't any diametrically 16 opposed stuff there. It’s just a lot of good collegial comments on how that might be improved. 17 So that's all that I would say at this point on that and then move on. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Gardias: When writing objectives it would be nice to differentiate between Palo 1 Alto objectives and Caltrain objectives. And just wanted briefly make a reference to this what 2 Mike was saying. Actually I was part of the second meeting when pretty much we were 3 selecting one of the four bridge options, pedestrian options over 101. I wasn't part of the first 4 meeting, but his comment led me to repeat the recommendation that I made over there and I 5 also made the same recommendation over at the couple of other meetings although now it 6 may be too late to incorporate one, but I think that this is this keeps coming again and again 7 and again. How to extract if we have a project like this the question is how to extract the best 8 talent and knowledge and proposals to make solution. And I advocating that Kingdom of Saudi 9 Arabia (KSA) resolved this problem like 30 years ago already. They were doing this very 10 cheaply, frequently, and you can just I would recommend again to Palo Alto to pretty much 11 follow the footsteps of that country. And then if we have projects of this size pretty much 12 create a competition send the invitation to the students of U.C. Berkeley Department of 13 Architecture. They will do it for $20,000. We’ll have plenty of different solutions to choose 14 from and options will come available to us at any time. So that's in reference to a pretty much 15 how we can move quickly and select good or solicit good options for projects of this size. Thank 16 you. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok, at this time I'm going to make a Motion that... Oh, sorry. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: I was going to make a Motion. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Well I’m going to beat you to it. At this 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: The Chair is going to beat the Commissioners to making a Motion? 5 6 MOTION 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I'm just going to propose a Motion real quick. I'm going to suggest that we 9 move to have staff include the themes discussed tonight about the suggested problem 10 statement and the suggested objectives and incorporate some of the comments that we made 11 in their rewrite of that as they move it towards Council and adopt the process and recommend 12 that Council adopt the process as outlined in the staff report. And I say that I will welcome 13 Commissioner proposed amendments to that so that we can… Anyways so do I have a second 14 to that Motion? 15 16 SECOND 17 18 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I’ll second that Motion. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Before we take a vote I want to invite anyone to make any 1 amendments or to offer any amendments to that. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: So I'll just comment on your Motion first of all as I just said I’m not sure 4 we have to codify the first part of that. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: I agree. I was actually I was following your lead in suggesting that staff have the 7 liberty to incorporate some of our comments in their revision to the problem statement and 8 objectives. I think Asher’s comment about mitigated efforts could easily be incorporated into 9 objectives. I think staff got that. And I think that I don't think that anybody proposed really any 10 specific language to the problem statement, but the sort of feedback I think will instruct them 11 and hopefully when they move it forward that they will incorporate that feedback was my 12 suggestion in this. 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: So that wouldn't have to be in your Motion then. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: I’m, well I’ve not, I’m making a Motion and the purpose of the statement 17 regarding those elements was to suggest that I'm not moving to recommend that Council 18 consider this version of the problem statement. What I'm suggesting is that staff incorporate 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. our feedback to the problem statement, objectives, and evaluation criteria in when they bring it 1 to Council and then recommend the process that staff outlined in their packet. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: So to me it seems like you're motioning two different things. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: No, I think there's (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: But we if (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Alcheck: I think this issue here, the statement, the objectives, and the criteria are one 10 element of our discussion tonight and the second element of our discussion is whether the staff 11 recommended approach the way it is or as many of our members in the community suggested 12 and some of the Commissioner Members suggested a stakeholder groups should be 13 incorporated. What I would like to do is sort of put on the table what we discussed tonight and 14 then give someone an opportunity to make a Friendly or Unfriendly Amendment about the 15 stakeholder groups so that Council could in theory understand where the Commission stood on 16 that specific item. Does that makes sense? Is it… I guess my question is is it… 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: So… 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: How is there an issue that you have with the… 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: Well, yeah because I would make a different kind of Motion entirely 3 relative to going (Interrupted) 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Would you like to make a Substitute Motion? 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, that’d be fine. That’s I was trying to make it simpler and just have 8 you do something else, but [unintelligible]. So I (interrupted) 9 10 Chair Alcheck: I’m inviting a Substitute Motion. 11 12 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: I would suggest that here's the Motion as I've written it up. That Palo 15 Alto follow a full CSS process for evaluation of rail grade separation including creation of an 16 expert stakeholder group in parallel with neighborhood stakeholders. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: So just so I’m clear before I ask for a second you're using a term of art that I think 19 is defined, the CSS. I'm a little concerned about that, but I think that you are a little bit more 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. explicit about your request to have an expert group which I am assuming does not necessarily 1 mean made up of residents. And then my second question is the second group that you just 2 mentioned is that what are you referring to the stakeholder group as a member a group of like 3 the CAC? I'm just trying to get clarity here before we I call for a second. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Consistent with my comments earlier the existing stakeholder group of 6 citizens (interrupted) 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Is two separate groups. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: Terrific and needs to stay and I want to make sure that we stay that in 11 the Motion. So I put that in the Motion. We need an additional one as was suggested by the 12 document from a [unintelligible] to have this expert stakeholder group. So those are the two 13 things that I'm covering. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok, sorry; one more question. What stakeholder group that's in existence are 16 you referring to? 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: The one that they were already worked with for the workshops. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: That’s still together? 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: It's not only together, but they want to continue it is what Josh said. 3 4 Ms. Gitelman: It's just a series of community workshops with people participating as self-5 selecting their participation. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, you're not you don’t mean an appointed stakeholder group? 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Could we get a second on that? 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Sure. Are there any seconds to this Motion? 16 17 Commissioner Summa: I will second it if you make it clear that it's a stakeholder group made up 18 of devoted residents and also the experts that staff already identified as part of the TAC. 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Because you didn't specify residents and my goal is to get residents involved in a stakeholder 1 group. So if you… 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, but that means you have to write it. 4 5 Commissioner Summa: You want me to write it? 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Because that's a complicated add to whatever (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Summa: I'll make a suggestion that you add just add the word made up of 10 residents and experts that staff has already recommended as the TAC. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: But doesn't that leave out new experts that they would find? 13 14 Commissioner Summa: No, they're going to appoint a stakeholder group made up of residents 15 and the already identified TAC and hone that down. The idea is to get residents involved with 16 technical experts and in addition they have I think identified 7,500 people that through various 17 through the committee community meeting and through the [what you might call it] the 18 survey, thank you. Have already that's the group that they were referring to. They want to 19 keep those people engaged and those people can be maybe can be engaged on that level of the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. occasional community meeting or a written comment or survey, but we also want a stakeholder 1 group that can just go to work, dive down made up of residents and technical experts. So 2 (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok [unintelligible] hold on a second. I'm going to interrupt for a second because 5 I my I could be wrong, but I feel like we're talking about two very different things. When we are 6 when it's when you refer to a stakeholder that's like a term of… that refers to anybody that has 7 sort of an interest in the matter in a variety of ways. But I think when Commissioner Summa is 8 talking about a stakeholder group she's referring to a community a team that's identified and 9 then throughout the length of the process is essentially tasked with doing the work. And I'm 10 confused and I'm only asking this question because you referred to staff’s stakeholder group. 11 And I think staff’s stakeholder group is the community. They keep reaching out to the 12 community to participate in the engagement schedule, but there isn't a specific list of 13 stakeholders that is exclusive. And so is that, am I right? 14 15 Ms. Gitelman: If I can make a an observation it seems to me that the Commission is heading 16 towards a Motion that basically is the staff recommendation with the addition of a citizen task 17 force made up of residents and experts some of which are already identified on this TAC. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Is that what your Motion is? A taskforce? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. I've read these documents on CSS this long seven page memo and 2 that process which is an established process is what from what I'm hearing is what we should 3 follow. That doesn't mean that we should do anything different with the workshops with 4 citizens and that should continue because it's a very valuable. I’ve seen that for 10 years in the 5 City. So all we're doing is we're doing what I call the full CSS process which incorporates that 6 and that was not in the original staff recommendation so. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: And I just think there's a lot of interpretation about what the full CSS process is. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Right, that’s my concern. 11 12 Ms. Gitelman: If we can just say I mean you have to tell me if you think this is where you're 13 headed, but that the recommendation would be the staff recommendation with the addition of 14 a citizen task force made up of residents and technical experts. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Is that your Motion? 17 18 Commissioner Lauing: I think (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: She’s suggesting you not use CSS because unfortunately it's not an agreed on, 1 we’ve demonstrated tonight that there's some confusion here about that term. And so I think 2 the question is: are you interested in a task force that's appoint, appointed, would be the right 3 word? Identified and appointed in addition to the staff (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: I'm not sure what's wrong with the language of full CSS practice. 6 7 Ms. Gitelman: I think the staff disagrees that it's a mandated part of the full CSS to have a task 8 force. Now a task force can be part of a CSS, but I don't think it… I mean I haven't gone through 9 [unintelligible] through the handouts that we’ve received this evening so it would just be 10 helpful for us to understand what it is you're asking for and using that terminology. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Do you want staff to interpret your Motion or would you like (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: Well for example in the document we got from former Mayor Burt he 15 notes essential differences between the nationally recognized full CSS best practice and the 16 staff proposal. 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: And again I don't with all due respect to the comments we received, I don't think 19 it's quite that clear that CSS must include any specific type of community task force or group. I 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. hear that you want to make that recommendation and I think that is a great idea. I think the 1 Council will be very receptive to your suggestion. I'm just suggesting let's make it a little more 2 clear what it is exactly that you want. Is it a citizen a group of a stakeholder group made up of 3 residents? 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: It's consistent with the comments in the in the letters and the speakers 6 that it would be very beneficial to have important technical expertise to advise all along the 7 way. And that can be negotiated exactly who those people are. I certainly don't have the 8 expertise to define that. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Alright, so for the sake of clarity it's the staff report inclusive of his task force 11 that is (interrupted) 12 13 Ms. Gitelman: With technical expertise. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Diverse. With technical expertise (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Summa: Can I jump in? I would recommend that we use almost Commissioner 18 Lauing’s wording. We take out the word full, but if we want to acknowledge it we staff 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. recommendations we want to follow the CSS process with a resident stakeholder group that 1 will work with the TAC. Do you like that? 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, although the resident group could be technical too so I don’t know. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: May I weigh in on the Motion? 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Hold on a second. Let me just ask staff. From a process standpoint I have a 8 Motion on the floor which got a second. I have a Substitute Motion which may or may not have 9 a second. How do I… I would like to operate in an organized fashion. I understand that people 10 would like to reword Motions. My preference here would be that if this Motion as worded isn't 11 sufficient to receive the second maybe somebody else make a Substitute Motion and then we 12 see if that get a second. Are you comfortable with that? 13 14 Ms. Gitelman: If I understand Commissioner Summa is trying to achieve the clarity that will 15 allow her second of the Substitute Motion to stand. So that (interrupted) 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so then why don’t we leave it to the two of you for a minute to communicate 18 this so that the two of you can get on the same page so that we can have sort of follow the 19 process and I appreciate that you want to jump. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, no that’s fine. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: If this doesn't work then you can offer your [unintelligible] in a second. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: You have to read it with the amendment or I 'm sorry, the clarification. 6 What I first said was a follow a full which you're taking out CSS process for evaluation of rail 7 grade separation including creation of a dedicated expert stakeholder group in parallel with 8 neighborhood stakeholders. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 11 12 SECOND FOR SUBSTITUTE MOTION 13 14 Commissioner Summa: I think that's clear staff, don’t you? [Ok], I’ll second. 15 16 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright. I have a Substitute Motion on the floor. I'm going to propose an 19 amendment which you can treat as unfriendly if you wish. My amendment would be to not 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. require a task force or stakeholder group as you've defined it and to proceed with the staff 1 suggested approach. Do you accept that amendment? 2 3 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FAILED 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: No, that’s a 180. 6 7 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so let’s treat that as an Unfriendly Amendment. As I'm going to (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Monk: May I offer an (interrupted) 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Should I just speak to the Motion for a minute? [Unintelligible] 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Hold on I’ve got to (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, Doria seconded. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: I just have to see if I have a second of my Unfriendly Amendment. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Sorry. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Does anybody wish to second my Unfriendly Amendment? 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Commissioner Monk: I second it. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so we're going to quickly vote on (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry; I just need to chime in. I don't believe that this is along the 12 rules. 13 14 Ms. Gitelman: Excuse me. 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Yes exactly. So I (interrupted) 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: If I can (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Gardias: Need to this is not along the Robert’s Rules. 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: I’m trying (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Go ahead. 5 6 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. I think that the amendment is really a restatement of the original 7 Motion. So I think the Commission should vote on the Substitute Motion by Commissioner 8 Lauing seconded by Commissioner Summa, once that's resolved you'll know whether the 9 Substitute Motion or the original Motion is going to be the opinion of the Commission. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, that's fair actually. We can treat the fact that there is a original Motion on 12 the floor as sufficient enough to determine this... 13 14 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: May offer an amendment? 17 18 Chair Alcheck: You may. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: I don't have the language parsed out, but instead of the language around 1 it creating a task force (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Hold on, hold on a second. I’m sorry, what was that? 4 5 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: I’m just looking at your rules to find out the procedures for 6 amending a Substitute Motion so I need a minute on that if you want to explore that. 7 8 Commissioner Monk: It’s already been amended by Commissioner Summa, correct? 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: No. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: No. No, no. 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: There was a second. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: Ok. My head is spinning. 17 18 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: She just worked to clarify the language, but then we went back to pretty 1 much the original language and then she seconded it. So it's just a straightforward Substitute 2 Motion. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, we can give staff… the only, I'm only attempting to give the Commission an 5 opportunity to sort of identify where people stand on that on this on the Substitute 6 Amendment [Note-Amendment to Substitute Motion?] you have and I think staff’s suggestion 7 that having a amend, having a proposed Motion and a Substitute Motion actually does that 8 without having to make the suggestion amendment that I suggested. So why don’t we give 9 them another minute to determine whether amendments are even permitted and then we can 10 vote on it. And I'll give you a chance to speak to your Motion before we vote. 11 12 Commissioner Monk: Can I just ask the staff a question then? 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: So I'm hearing two different concepts coming together and I'm wondering 17 if it's possible to just broaden the TAC to encompass the key stakeholders that have been 18 omitted such as the Safe Routes to School as Arthur Keller had mentioned, such as the CARRD 19 stakeholders, other key folks and therefore maybe it would just obliterate the need for having a 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. completely independent task force. I think the problem that I have in supporting the Motion 1 right now is that it doesn't let staff have time to digest all of the information that was presented 2 tonight that might be incorporated into a deeper dive of on the CSS plan. So I'm not inclined to 3 support it right now without having staff heading a deeper dive into what was presented 4 tonight. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 7 8 Commissioner Monk: So staff that is a question for you. Is that something that could, can the 9 TAC be broadened so as to sort of address the concerns of the key stakeholders without… 10 11 Ms. Gitelman: Well, I think that might be one of the potential outcomes of the Motion that's on 12 the floor, of the Substitute Motion. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, I’d like to I want to give I want to defer to our process so I want to give this 15 Substitute Motion an opportunity to be voted on and then you can speak to your Motion and 16 we can vote on it and then excuse me, we can vote on it, you can speak to your Motion and I’ll 17 give an opportunity to people who dissented to speak as well. So are you guys comfortable 18 voting on this Motion? Does anybody need clarity on what we're voting on? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Monk: Please repeat the Motion. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: Is Jonathan done with his research? 5 6 Chair Alcheck: I'm assuming you're withdrawing your offer your decision to voice and 7 amendment so it's probably moot. She's not going to try to amend your Substitute Motion. So 8 (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Monk: I was just trying to get clarity on what is trying to be achieved within the 11 Motion and whether or not that's already being achieved or can separately be achieved with 12 the existing plans around the TAC by broadening that committee to include these stakeholders. 13 Does that make sense Commissioner? 14 15 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: I know. Me too. 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, so… 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Well why don't… 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: Did you want to hear it again? 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Yes, please. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, so that Palo Alto the Motion [Note-Substitute] is that Palo Alto follow 8 a we don't say full anymore. The CSS process for evaluation of rail grade separation including 9 creation of a dedicated expert stakeholder group in parallel with neighborhood stakeholders or 10 stakeholder workshops if you prefer. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Alright, we have (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Lauing: We have the second already. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, we have a Motion [Note-Substitute] on the floor. I would like to ask 17 Commissioners who are in favor to raise their hand and say aye. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: I thought we're going to speak to the Motion and then get any dissents. 1 It’s very simple (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Alcheck: You speak to your dissent after it takes place. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Pardon me? 6 7 Chair Alcheck: People speak to their dissent after they've (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Lauing: Not if their opposed to an intended vote against it and want to… 10 11 Chair Alcheck: No, no, no. Typically can help me out here? 12 13 Mr. Lait: So the Substitute Motion has been made, seconded so the maker can speak to that 14 Motion as well as the seconder. There is debate, vote. Anybody who votes against it has an 15 opportunity to speak their dissenting views. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Alright. So I'm going to give you the opportunity to speak to your Motion and 18 the seconder may speak to their Motion and then we’ll vote. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: Very simply it's very high stakes. There is no reason not to do this 1 because it just adds a risk. No reason to take that risk. I haven't heard any substantive 2 downside at all to beefing up the expertise and I've heard a lot of upside from our ex-mayor 3 and very informed consultants. So we should use all the expertise we can get to surface and 4 vet all the options and optimize for the best decision. 5 6 Commissioner Summa: I’m good. I think I've made it clear that I think the process would be 7 made more transparent and with the participation of residents and that it would help staff. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, if anybody would like, are you suggesting I have to host a debate on this? 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: If somebody wants to say something. 12 13 Mr. Lait: Yeah, I mean if there's an opportunity for people to speak to the Motion. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Would anybody else like to speak to the Motion? I will provide an opportunity 16 for anybody to speak to the dissent, speak to their dissent if they wish. Ok, seeing none I'm 17 going to host the vote then. All of those in favor of supporting the Motion on the floor, the 18 Substitute Motion on the floor please raise your hand and say aye. Ok, we have four ayes. All 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. those opposed? Two. Ok, the Motion passed, the Substitute Motion passes 4-2. Would you 1 like to speak to your dissent? Commissioner Monk. 2 3 MOTION PASSED (4-2-1, Chair Alcheck and Commissioner Monk against, Commissioner 4 Rosenblum absent) 5 6 Commissioner Monk: I find the Motion convoluted in that there seems to already be an existing 7 TAC and so I don't know what this additional group that is being proposed in the Motion is 8 doing what functionally. So it just wasn't clear to me. I'd prefer to see staff look at what was 9 presented tonight by the citizens that came and spoke on this and perhaps come back and 10 determine if there's any changes that need to be made to the CSS plan based on what we 11 learned tonight. And my recommendation would be just to broaden the TAC to add the key 12 stakeholders and the folks that were here tonight. My concern is that in having a separate 13 group that we would be excluding the broader community that Director Gitelman referred to 14 earlier and I think that is something that I would be concerned about if we just had a select 15 group to represent the whole of the community. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'll speak to my dissent as well. The reason why I don't support this Motion is 18 because I don't I would I would like to communicate that I don't think that a community 19 stakeholder group should be appointed to participate in this process in the way that the CAC 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. was developed to run the Comp Plan process. I also want to suggest that I am going to accept 1 some responsibility here tonight because I think that the reason why it's so important for 2 example to be really clear in our Motions and I wish I could have done something about it is 3 because this is a perfect example where I don't believe that the CSS “method” is a universally 4 agreed upon uniform set of rules. And I think that the greatest and the clearest evidence of 5 that is the fact that staff disagrees with individuals in this room about whether or not a 6 stakeholder group has to be incorporated. I also think that the Motion is problematic because 7 it doesn't clearly define the group that you would like to appoint as a stakeholder group in the 8 way that I believe the members of this community some of them have communicated to us. So 9 I'm not entirely sure that this Motion reflects for example the letter that Pat Burt suggested to 10 you which is that a group of community members be chosen to lead this effort. 11 12 Finally, I think the justification for not supporting that process would be that it is very time 13 intense. Not only would the group have to be chosen which could take several months if not 14 half a year. Then the process of engaging that group to meet and run their own process could 15 take a significantly long time, which again I think it would be problematic because we are 16 behind the curve and we need to get we need to focus on the technical issues at hand here and 17 have community input on those technical issues as quickly as possible. Ok, is anybody else 18 interested in speaking at this time about the Motion? If not… 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: Commissioner [Note-Chair] Alcheck I’d just like to con… I mean first of all thank 1 you for your work. I recognize this got a little messy at the end, but we appreciate the work to 2 come up with a Motion and we’ll convey that to the Rail Committee and the Council. Also I was 3 hoping that you would allow us based on the comments we got this evening about the problem 4 statement and objectives to summarize your thoughts in our staff report to the Council. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, yeah. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: So they have the benefit of that and that if the Chair would like to appoint a 9 representative to come on August 28th you can that representative can amplify and clarify 10 anything additional they want to add. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, thank you for mentioning that. It sort of slipped through the cracks here. 13 It wasn’t included in the Motion the notion of incorporating some of the themes that although 14 the maker the Motion had suggested that you guys appreciated those comments and I 15 assume… Do you feel like I need to make a Motion to suggest? 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: I think we can do that without a Motion as long as that we have the sense of the 18 Commission that that's where you're comfortable. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Ok, well and when this is going up to staff? 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: It goes to the Council on August 28th. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok, well it's very fitting because Commissioner Lauing is our representative to 5 City Council in August and so our maker of our Motion will be present hopefully at the August 6 meeting because he's already lined up to do it. So barring any issue with your attendance at 7 that meeting if there is an issue we can choose somebody else, but I think actually this works 8 out really well. Ok, sorry that that was a little messy. Let's take a five minute break and get 9 right into Item Number 3 and 4. 10 Commission Action: Motion: Have Staff Include Themes Discussed Tonight About the 11 Suggested Problem Statement and Objectives and Incorporate Comments Made in 12 Their Re-write as it Moves Toward Council Process as Outlined in the Staff Report 13 (Motion Chair Alcheck, Second Vice-chair Waldfogel). Substitute Motion: Palo Alto 14 follow a CSS Process for Evaluation of Rail Grade Separation Including the Creation of 15 a Dedicated Expert Stakeholder Group in Parallel with Neighborhood Stakeholders. 16 (Substitute Motion: Commissioner Lauing, Second Commissioner Summa) Substitute 17 Motion Passed 4-2 (Alcheck, Monk against, Rosenblum absent) 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6 Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7 Commissioner Ed Lauing 8 Commissioner Susan Monk 9 Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10 Commissioner Doria Summa 11 12 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14 15 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18 19 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24 25 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34 CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE TRANSCRIPT Page 1 of 72 Special Meeting Wednesday, August 16, 2017 Chairperson DuBois called the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. in the Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: DuBois (Chair), Filseth, Fine, Scharff arrived at 8:02. A.M. Absent: Oral Communications Chair DuBois: (Inaudible) Nadia Naik: Good morning everyone. Nadia Naik from CAARD and Friend of Caltrain at the moment. I’m here to reiterate what Adina has been talking about, which is that they are doing the presentations for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. There’s a couple of meetings coming up but notably, there’s nothing in Palo Alto and so I really would urge you guys to see if there’s a way that they could come present to the full Council. They are presenting everywhere in San Mateo County but not for us and as you guys know, Dumb Barton Rail Corridor actually has a huge effect on traffic in Palo Alto. I think it’s a big deal and so I would urge you guys to think about maybe putting that on and trying to get them into City Council. I know it tight but they are trying to move very, very quickly with this. They want decisions within the next month or two. We’re hoping to be able to dive into some more of the details. Some of the things that are – so it’s good that they started the report but there are some things that need to be tweaked. For example, they’re looking at being able to have bus and rail but they would them illuminate the bikes, which kind of doesn’t make sense because bikes don’t take up a lot of space. So, I think there needs to be some tweaking but overall, it’s excellent that there’s a study but I think you guys are going to want to dive into those details. Thank you. Chair DuBois: (Inaudible) ATTACHMENT H TRANSCRIPT Page 2 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: I’ll provide more information on the Dumbarton study under the next agenda item. Chair DuBois: Our next speaker is Roland Lebrun. Roland Lebrun: Thank you and good morning and I absolutely second everything Nadia said one hundred percent. The reason I am addressing you today is to give you a heads up about a letter that you are going to be receiving from me hopefully next week, which essentially is going to echo what I say to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the PAC. That is, we look at what’s happening in (inaudible) – at what Caltrain’s plans are and there is absolutely no way they are going to be able to handle the demands that we are going to have on the system. Especially, as you know, what Google is doing in the Sunnyvale area and actually, it is going to hit Mountain View because slap bang in the middle between Mountain View and various above. So, the proposal is that we are going to double the length of every single baby bullet platform to 1,400-feet and of the City’s one in Palo Alto. Now Diridon, we tackled this over six months ago so we’re coming – we have nine platforms at grade and hopefully, we are going to have two underground platforms, also the same length, which will have the same capacity as the nine at grade platforms. We’re done with Mountain View and so far, the reception has been good. Sunnyvale, I think knows what’s coming and then now, I want to talk about Palo Alto and talk about some of the opportunities here. Essentially, it’s a 1,400-foot platform, it’s four tracks so that you can pass and traffic can go through. We don’t block the line like they do in some San Mateo County cities and it starts off by branching off the line for about 800-feet so that you branch off pretty close to maximum speed. You now have your 1,400-foot platforms and another 800-feet at the end so that the total thing is 3,000-feet but since you are looking at grade separations, it gives you an opportunity here with Alma. If you start forking between the bridge and Alma, you will have four tracks at Alma and then the situation is that there is no such thing as a grade crossing with four tracks; you get automatic grade separation. In terms of funding, the opportunity that you have is not just the $700 million that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has for grade separation but you can also use some of the $300 million because you are increase line capacity; which is what those $300 million (inaudible). So, there will be a letter over to you with more details and what the opportunities are in Palo Alto. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Our last speaker is Richard Brand. TRANSCRIPT Page 3 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Richard Brand: Good morning, Richard Brand, 281 Addison and it’s good to see everybody again. I – since the last meeting there was an announcement that was made by High Speed Rail that they have to tunnel 14-miles to get through Pacheco Pass which this didn’t come up before. I just want to make the Committee, if you are not aware of it, that that’s the case and it’s – I don’t know Nadia, it’s about $1.3 billion for – anyway, it’s a very expensive tunneling project. I think that if they are going to go ahead and do that just to get into San Jose directly, rather than over the Altamont Pass as you’ve heard me talk about. I think they ought to have money for us to actually pay for grade separations and I don’t know how – I’ll have to think about how we might address that but San Mateo County got funded for some of their grade separation requests from High Speed Rail and that’s something that – I know we’re going to get into that in the other agenda item but I am just putting it out there as something new. Maybe we go back and request High Speed Rail representatives to come back in again. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Alright thank you. Agenda Review and Staff Update 1. Receive and Review Rail Program Briefing Paper From June-July 2017. Chair DuBois: We’ll proceed to Item Number 1, a review of the rail program. Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Sure, good morning Chair and members of the Committee. I’m Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official with the City of Palo Alto. Included in your packet is a Rail Program briefing paper which covers the period from June 15th to August 2nd and provided you with an update on all the activities that transpired over that period. Item 1 was the planning for Community Workshop Number 2 and I’ll talk a little bit more about those in our presentation on the next steps for the program. However, it is important to note that this workshop will be held on September 16th at the Palo Alto Art Center auditorium. It will have a similar time frame as the previous workshop on May 20th, which was 10 AM to 2 PM with a lunch provided during a break period. I’ll talk more about the programming of that workshop later in my presentation. Item Number 2, we’ve also tentatively penciled in a Community Workshop Number 2 or Number 3, excuse me, for October 21st; also at the Community Art Center auditorium. Number 3 in the briefing packet is an update on the community questionnaire. You remember the meeting that the Rail Committee held prior to summer break, we discussed doing a community questionnaire in order to solicit input on the problem statement, the objectives, and the evaluation TRANSCRIPT Page 4 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 criteria. The questionnaire was extremely successful. We had almost 800 unique responses to the questionnaire and got some incredible feedback on the problem statement, the objectives, and the evaluation criteria. That feedback has been incorporated into the presentation that you’ll see later on, on those components of the program. Item 4 in the briefing paper is an update on a Measure B Caltrain Grade Separation Program meeting that City Staff had with VTA Staff on August 2nd. This was a very productive meeting, we learned a lot about their approach to the Measure B Caltrain Grade Separation Program. Some key take away from that meeting is that VTA is working on a Request for Proposals (RFP) currently to complete an implementation study to determine how to best allocate that funding and construct all eighth-grade separation over the 30-year tax time frame. We will be involved in the preparation of that RFP and I will assume that we will be able to provide comment. Their goal is to kick that off in early 2018 and they were excited to see that we were making progress on our planning efforts. They also seemed open to discussing some creative ways to utilize the grade separation funding. They seem open to closing grade crossings, redirecting some funding to maybe some more expensive grade separations and they also seemed open to changing the language that we are concerned about. We are still in discussions with them and they haven’t made that change yet. The final program guidelines are going to the VTA Board on September 7th so that’s our last chance to get this language changed. The language that I am referring to is, funds will be allocated to the most cost- effective grade separation alternatives. We feel like this may preclude communities from adding local funding and other funding sources that do something that may be more expensive but in the community interest. We’ve recommended some changes to that language. They would more specifically call out the cost-effective use of Measure B funds and that would leave open other alternatives that may bring some additional funding to the table. We have talked to Staff from Sunnyvale and Mountain View and Sunnyvale concurs with that change. I have not heard back from Mountain View yet but we have asked VTA Staff to make that change before this September 7th meeting to the program guidelines. Item number five in your briefing packet is an update on the Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study. I’ve also attached a presentation that was delivered when they announced that the draft plan was released. I’ll be attending a stakeholder meeting at Menlo Park City Hall this afternoon, which is all of the agency representatives that are involved in the Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study. I’ll be able to provide further information after I attend that meeting. Our speaker, Nadia Naik, did mention that there are some public meetings that are also scheduled. We’ve also reached out, at the request of the Chairman, to invite SamTrans here to present on the study and they have TRANSCRIPT Page 5 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 agreed tentatively to attend the September Rail Committee meeting; if you are all interested in having them present. The public comment period is open until the end of September so we fully expect that we’ll be drafting a letter after we receive some input from you. I think we can wait until after the presentation from Staff before we start drafting that letter, we do have until the end of September to submit comments. Item Number 6, recently San Gabriel – in the San Gabriel Valley and southern California a trench – a railroad trench was opened and this Committee asked for some information on that so I’ve included a budget. It was a little hard tracking down any kind of project fact sheet or any information for the specific project but I was able to determine that it was a 1.4-mile long trench. The total budget was $312.7 million and they separated several roadways using the trench. They did an interesting thing which creates a Joint Powers Board (JPB) just to construct these grade separations and what’s included in your packet is actually the 2018 budget for that JPB. It has some pretty detailed information on the funding sources and the total budget and some photos of the project. This was really the only information that I could track down without actually calling somebody from the JPB. If you would like additional information, I can do that and see if they have any kind of project fact sheet or update specifically on the trench project. Then finally in the briefing paper, we have the latest expenditures from our consultant team attached and I will say that we had a little bit of a reset over the summer with our approach to the Rail Program. Starting this summer Staff has taken more of a leading role in the management of this program and we’re using our consulting team strategically for technical support and community engagement support when needed but going forward, you’ll see Staff play a larger role in this process. That’s why the briefing paper was actually prepared by Staff this month. So, with that, any questions on the briefing paper, I’ll be glad to answer. Chair DuBois: Any questions? So, we do have some members of the public so maybe we should have them speak quickly and then go back to questions. So, on Item 1 we have Richard Brand, followed by Elizabeth Alexis. Richard Brand: Richard Brand, I applaud that Joshuah – you’ve done a good job here in this report and I especially like it – it was brief to the point and covered a lot of the things that needed to be covered. Once again, I thank you for that good work. One of the things about the Dumbarton thing is included in here in the meeting and I’ll be at that meeting tonight and I invited Joe Simitian to come too. Is that we – it’s true, we have no representation from VTA going to this at all. I’m glad that our City is taking that option to go. I wondered if we can get our old colleague Mark Berman TRANSCRIPT Page 6 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 involved in this too. It might be something that the Committee would do, to send a letter to Mark and say hey Mark, I need a little help here, because it’s a regional issue. It’s not just San Mateo County issue so I just offer that as a thought. I think the Committee ought to consider sending a note to Mark. Thanks Chair DuBois: Thank you. Elizabeth Alexis to be followed by Roland Lebrun. Elizabeth Alexis: Good morning. I want to talk about the VTA piece also. I think while we are making progress, I think we really need to push for reset of the VTA entire approach, I mean on two different levels. I think they have now sort of said that this isn’t just like a bike project grant program where a couple of good projects will rise to the top. That yes, you need to do everything but they are still talking about a 30-year time horizon and that’s just not the time horizon that Caltrain is going to be on. Transbay Terminal is going to open sometime between 2025 and 2030, Caltrain demand, just from that alone, will double. The number of people who live in Palo Alto who take the train will probably triple just based upon an analysis that we’ve done with sort of similar towns. The same kind of things will happen in Sunnyvale though and will happen in Mountain View and even before then. I mean we see eight trains for Caltrain in not that distant future and we would see ten trains for Caltrain by 2025. No major – during the peak hours, no grade crossing will effectively be open after that time period or one of the Cities will stand in the way of the expansion of Caltrain and the option is gridlock on 101; more people going there. I mean whatever we do, it’s a bad situation and the entire County needs to mobilize behind this idea that this needs to get done. I’ve heard well, it’s a 30-year tax measure, well I mean you borrow against the sales tax. I mean the $700 million that they have is in 2017 dollars are ready. They’ve already assumed that it’s sort of borrowed and right now interest rates are low and they might not be low in the future. I mean we need to reset this as something where everybody’s major – I mean we need Sunnyvale stuff to get done, we need Mountain View stuff to get done. This idea of pitting everybody against each other, they should simply allocate it out, divided up by the number of grade crossings per City and then let the Cities allocate across their own – make their plans. No one is going to be wasting money, I mean everybody’s projects are going to cost more than their prorated share of the money, everybody. So, everybody will have to come up with the difference. So, there’s the incentive to do that and we need to make this where we all understand that we are all in this together, instead of some kind of composition. We do not benefit – I mean, we will have a time pressure of this – of Caltrain’s expansion; the Cities will have that but quite frankly, the TRANSCRIPT Page 7 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 other Cities also – they need to have some planning time. We have heard this competition and that we’re falling behind. I know the situations in all those Cities, they are not going to benefit either by rushing their programs through. Chair DuBois: Thank you. Next speaker is Roland and then our last speaker is Adina Levin. Roland Lebrun: So, that was a perfect segue into my public comment, right? We know there is this massive problem, it was right there, we’re not seeing any answers in governing and business plans. That’s why we decided to take the matter into our own hands and we also know that we are specifically speaking the entire (inaudible) will not get grade separated. So regardless of what we do in Santa Clara County, you’re going to get stuck but we do have an opportunity that if they don’t get their act together (inaudible) the road, is to actually start taking trains up the mountain rail and address the congestion that way. So, half of the traffic will be going across the bay and the rest will be going to San Francisco. Anyway, I want to talk about what’s going on with Dumbarton Rail and I think Nadia already brought up one of the problems. The figures they gave us last night, that they need 65-feet for the trains, are totally incorrect. That’s four tracks and we’re only going to have two tracks and they only need 35-feet, which means there is plenty of room left for peds and bikes trail. I put a post on Adina’s blog last night that actually gives the references directly from the Caltrain Standards and how the calculations were arrived at so that’s point Number 1. We also – I don’t know if you know what (inaudible) is or what the deal with Union City is? Union City is what blew up the entire Dumbarton Rail last time because they want $400 million to reroute Ace and Capital Corridor to Union City but we’re safe from the beginning; we don’t need this; I mean this is just a boondoggle. All we need is (inaudible) which is where BART and the tracks intersect so you can transfer from Capital Corridor and Ace right there at (inaudible).It’s not going to be an infestation, it’s just going to be a pure transfer station. There is $130 million right there in (inaudible) that (inaudible) approved for this. So, last night we are hearing from Caltrain oh, the $130 million is not all for (inaudible). We are saying this over and over again over there at SamTrans, this has to stop, we’ve got to get rid of these people because they keep ripping us off. The $12.5 million (inaudible) Metro Lane cost, well look at what’s there, ok? They are not red, they are still gray just like they were in Metro Lane days; the money is gone. The $125 million bridge loan, while we are waiting for the FGA to come through, that money is also gone and it just goes on and on; it’s got to stop. Now going back to Dumbarton Rail, one thing they are not even considering is a tunnel; it’s not TRANSCRIPT Page 8 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 even on the map. If we tunnel, we will be able to grade separate both Willow and University. Just think about that – for that – what that would do for us; (inaudible). I think that’s it for now but we’re going to go out there tonight and I strongly encourage you to go to East Palo Alto and listen to what’s going on. My take on this is we’re going to have to ask Facebook to basically take over the entire thing and just get the job done. We’re never going to get anything done with SamTrans. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Ok, and our last speaker is Adina Levin. Adina Levin: Morning Council Members. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain and here to piggy back on what Mr. Lebrun said about the Dumbarton Corridor. While we’re not done pouring through their several hundred-page reports, the fact that this is ambitious and it’s talking about ridership on the level of the mid-twenty thousand to thirty thousand is good. That’s really different from what came out a decade ago, which wouldn’t have been worth investment and this is worth investment but there’s also a lot of specifics in there that are worth a lot of attention. There are near term bus improvements that make eminent sense and could be done tomorrow, which is great but some of the issues in there in terms of how do you use bus and rail together seem really perplexing in terms of how you would actually run a transit system. The fact that it’s multi-modal, great, but how they work together is kind of odd. The – having buses and rail use the right of way and crowding out the bikes, the data that came to Palo Alto from Stanford on the general use permit showing twenty to thirty percent bike mode share within five miles when you have good connections. That could suck up twenty to thirty percent of the drivers between Redwood City and Facebook if that was done and it’s basically ignored because the Metropolitan Transportation Commission model doesn’t forecast bikes and therefore you can’t forecast bikes; that needs attention. The proposed improvements not only for – there’s a – it looks like there’s about $800 million in freewayizing 84 in there, with the hope that it will improve the traffic but if you have drivers coming up, they still need to get off of 101 and how much extra room is there on Willow hill towards 101 or University hill towards 101? None, so will that actually just move the bottleneck? That’s needs a lot of attention for the amount money towards the amount of value. Lastly, even though there are all kinds of details in there that need to be hashed out, it’s good to see the funding in the expenditure plan for RM-3 and if somebody made a call, it’s time to make a call again because that expenditure plan is in flux. There are political issues in Sacramento causing people to be fighting over what’s in there and so talking to Marc Berman and Mullen and Hill and anybody else TRANSCRIPT Page 9 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 you have relationships with, let’s keep the money in, figure out what to do with it and pay a lot of attention towards making it good. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Alright so back to the Committee, does anybody have questions? Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I do. Chair DuBois: I do too but go ahead. Mayor Scharff: I think that the change – oh yeah sure. So, the change in the language if we get it and I guess Mountain View hasn’t weighed in, is that it? The practical differences of the language are the language we’re suggesting allows us to do a trench if the trench is cost effective. Is that roughly the difference? Mr. Mello: The language that we’re requesting would give communities more flexibility to add additional funding on top of Measure B for something that maybe more expensive like a trench. Mayor Scharff: So, it’s basically adding the – is that we – it basically allows us to take whatever the low-cost alternative is, add any money to it and do, as opposed to not getting the money because it’s not cost effective. Mr. Mello: The current language makes it sound as though VTA will judge the projects based on the total cost when they measure the cost effectiveness. Not the most – not the cost effectiveness of the Measure B funding and you know, using Measure B funding to leverage local funding and other funding is actually more cost effective than just picking a lower cost alternative. Mayor Scharff: So, Mountain View people tell me that they are pretty much done. That they’re ready to go, they are looking for the funding and they are hoping to get the funding to fund the whole thing and move forward with their grade separations. Sunnyvale tells me they are going to have – do you know their (inaudible) because I think they said something to me like they are basically planning on two meetings and then just moving forward. Mr. Mello: I have a table and I’ll talk more about that later but their ready – they are going to have preferred alternatives identified by early 2018 and then they are going to move into design. TRANSCRIPT Page 10 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: I mean it seems like both Sunnyvale and Mountain View are going to get their grade separations and that they are moving really quickly and that seems to be the facts on the ground. Have we had any discussions with VTA? I mean do we have any commitment at all about – the whole 30- year thing really concerns me as well and I think it concerns the speakers. I was – do we have any sense at all of what they are thinking on that stuff? Mr. Mello: We know that they want to build all eight grade separations. We know that the horizon for the sales tax is 30-years. Mayor Scharff: Are they talking about bonding or are they not… Mr. Mello: They have not talked about bonding recently. That was a question we continue to ask through the holding Measure B development process. I would assume that they are still talking about that; their financial folks but we haven’t heard an update on that recently. Mayor Scharff: Then in terms of the trench over at San Gabriel, the relevance to us is that it shows what a trench might cost or does it not really have any relevance? I mean we don’t – we did some preliminary estimates of what a trench would cost. I remember us having our consultants look at that but do we think – what do we think the relevance to that is frankly, to our own trench numbers and what would it take for us to actually get – to get some context around what a trench would cost; those kinds of information. What are the constraints on building a trench and what’s that going to take for the City? Mr. Mello: So, we provided the information on the San Gabriel trench at the request of Committee Members. I do not know enough about the project to know how relevant it is to our trench discussions. We can look into that and get some more information on that project if that’s something you’re interested in. Mayor Scharff: No, no, I… Mr. Mello: As far… Mayor Scharff: … if it has no relevance, I have no interest. What I am interested in knowing what it would cost to build a trench in Palo Alto. So, my question is – I mean if it does have relevance, I want you to look into it but if it’s really not that helpful then I want to know what it would take to TRANSCRIPT Page 11 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 get good numbers or at least starting to get some handle on a range of numbers or where we are on that. Mr. Mello: We’re planning to start the development of alternative at the September 16th community workshop number two. You know very—in quick order, upon starting the alternatives development we’ll start putting together some planning level cost estimates to get that kind of a magnitude of cost for things like a trench, a standard overcrossing, and an under crossing. I think September or October we’ll start to get a hand on what the order of magnitude is. Mayor Scharff: So, there’s the over crossing but as – do we have any issues – does VTA have any issues with an over cross? That’s an elevated track, right? I know (inaudible), it’s an overpass and then we have the underpass and then we have the trench. I mean is there any other options? Mr. Mello: I think there could be a whole host of different options. Mayor Scharff: Like what? I can’t think of any. Mr. Mello: Closure, a hybrid which is raising the rail a little bit and lowering the road a little bit. It’s also going to depend on the location of the overcrossing and under crossings. How do we interface with Alma Street? Do we sever the connection with Alma Street or do we raise or lower the intersection? I think there’s going to be a pretty significant number of – you know in our universe of alternatives before we start to narrow down. We’ll start to have this discussion pretty intensively in September and October and I think we can narrow them down relatively quickly when you start looking at costs and constraints. Chair DuBois: I had a couple quick questions. The Art Center Auditorium, is that the space in the back? Mr. Mello: Yes. Chair DuBois: So, are we concerned that it’s not large enough? I mean the first meeting there was – probably wouldn’t have fit in there. Mr. Mello: Yeah, there are 180 seats available and we’re going to use the courtyard as well for activities; the weather should be good. TRANSCRIPT Page 12 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: Ok, I guess we don’t have a choice for this next meeting but the third meeting – again, I’m just concerned that it’s not a big enough space. Mr. Mello: Yeah, we’re very limited on the space that’s available. We tried and tried to get the Mitchell Park room again. Chair DuBois: So, even in October? Mr. Mello: Yeah, there was very little availability for Saturdays. Chair DuBois: Is there any other spaces larger than the Art Center? Cubberley? Mr. Mello: Claudia helped secure the space. I don’t know if you have any more information, Claudia? I don’t think there’s a space large enough at any other location. Claudia Keith, Chief Communications Officer: We do have the Art Center which holds 180 and the October dates, we had originally had a late October date for Mitchell Park and then when we changed dates, it was tough to find a place. We’ve looked at other venues that are not public facilities like the Elks Club and things like that but it does have a cost. I think the Art Center, we’ve had some large gatherings there and we do have the court yard which it should be nice weather so at least in terms of activities –we can search for the October date and see… Chair DuBois: Yeah, I am just – again, if we can get to September and if it’s standing room only, we may not have enough time to adjust. Ms. Keith: I mean the El Palo Alto room definitely holds more, for sure. Chair DuBois: Yeah and I know we did the Sustainability Summit in the multi-purpose room in the schools so there might be some other options like that. So, I’m glad to hear about the conversation with VTA and funding. Is there’s recognition that Measure B funds aren’t going to cover all these grade seps? Mr. Mello: Yes, and I think the enroll mentation plan is going to look at what other potential funding sources there are. I think they’ll look at a high level at what a package could be for the whole eight. You know VTA does have the ability to program other federal funding through their TIP. TRANSCRIPT Page 13 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: So, they can help us with that or we could do that ourselves as well, right? Look for other sources of funding? Mr. Mello: Yes. Chair DuBois: Ok. I’m glad to hear that we’ve got SamTrans committed and I guess we’ll talk about that at the end of this meeting. The San Gabriel trench, I guess I found it very interesting. The part that I found relevant was again, the funding plan and looking at how they put together a bunch of funding sources. I guess we’ll talk about it at the next item but one of my concerns is that this isn’t a linear process and we should really probably start to talk about a funding strategy sooner rather than later. They – just looking at it pretty quickly, they – it looks like they had 35 percent funds from State grants, forty percent came from the MTA and 25 percent were federal and local together but the idea that JPB—to assemble all these funding sources, looks like a pretty big effort. That is something that we haven’t even started to talk about. Then the last one, again I appreciated this report and the Staff taking more of leading role. I noticed that seventy- two percent of the funds on the circulation study has been spent. When are we expecting to get that study? Mr. Mello: They are working on a modeling of the scenarios right now and soon as they’re in a legible format – the output is in a legible format, we’re going to have a meeting with them and put together a draft report on the findings. Chair DuBois: Is that going to be used at the next public meeting, to… Mr. Mello: That’s the goal, yes. Chair DuBois: Ok. I mean if it’s not ready, it seems like that’s pretty important information to start to look at alternative impacts and… Mr. Mello: Yeah, they started modeling immediately after the last Rail – after the time period for comments on the scenarios expired, we directed them to begin modeling those scenarios. Chair DuBois: Cool, I guess that was it so thank you. Yep, Adrian? Council Member Fine: Thank you and thanks for this report. A few things, so I actually agree with Council Member DuBois about the JPB. I thought it was TRANSCRIPT Page 14 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 interesting so one was the organization they used. The other things were kind of that they were looking at multiple trenches in multiple areas and they had a pretty nice project plan for (inaudible) showing where they were in the works. I think Sunnyvale does a good job of that too. With regard to VTA, so do I understand that you correctly that there are multiple agencies helping VTA write an RPF to study how disperse the funds? Mr. Mello: VTA is authoring the RFP and we will have input into the scope and we already gave them some opinion on the time line but the project will be managed by VTA in consultation with Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Caltrain. Council Member Fine: So, do they not have established ways of dispersing funds likes this? Mr. Mello: They – you know a lot of their funding projects have different criteria and different grant – they use completive grants for a lot of the programs like Go Bag and TFCA and some other funding streams. This is a little bit different and I think they recognize – well, it’s a little bit different because they’re – they’ve to date committed to delivering all eight grade separations. So, to do a completive process would not work because you wouldn’t be able to strategize about how – what the funding package looks like for all eight so I think this is a different animal when it comes to all the different funding programs. Council Member Fine: Yeah, I mean I guess I would just echo what some of the public speakers said, like this seemed like a public County Wide Measure and as you mentioned, there’s an opportunity here for each local municipality to leverage their own matching funds and VTA should be looking at that bottom line. What can we do to help? I mean should we contact the VTA Board? Mr. Mello: I think we need that language changed before it goes to the Board on September 7th and we have the example – the recommended language in the briefing report. James Keene, City Manager: Can I jump in? (Inaudible) my questions were going to be (inaudible). I’m sorry guys, I didn’t wear the Staff uniform today the blue shirt, the dark jacket, and the jeans and I really apologize for being out of uniform. I agree with what Elizabeth was saying, I mean first of all it seems absurd that we would be thinking about trying to do this without funding for it at all. I mean over a 30-year period if we have $27 and the TRANSCRIPT Page 15 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 elasticity of sales tax over that period of time. Even there’s an equity issue about really who is paying and who is benefiting. I mean is this completely open and up for debate or is it – are we able to get that commitment in some way because without, I really think we’re at risk. I think it’s very difficult for us to be doing any near-term planning on gap funding if we don’t know what and when (inaudible) is going to be available. Mr. Mello: I think a lot of this discussion will occur in the development of the implementation plan because they are going to look at what the bigger funding package is, can they deliver all eight with their existing funding sources, do they need to bond? I think we need to stay on top of – you know we need to make sure that the scope includes things like – that would need – be needed to do an analysis of whether bonding will work and those types of tools. Mr. Keene: I just think we need to die on this hill honestly. I mean the – or else the … Council Member Fine: I think that’s my question, for now, thank you. Chair DuBois: Alright, let’s move on to Item Number 2. NO ACTION TAKEN. Action Items 2. Recommendations Regarding a Suggested Problem Statement, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria to Support Development and Evaluation of Railroad Grade Separation Alternatives. Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: So, in the interest of allowing all of the Committee Members to participate in the maximum amount of discussion, we’ve broken this into two separate discussions – two separate presentations. The first on the process, the Context Sensitive Solutions Process and then the second part of the presentation and discussion will be on the problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria. Council Member Filseth: (Inaudible) Mr. Mello: Council Member Filseth is going to participate in the first part of the discussion which is the process and then he’ll recuse himself for the TRANSCRIPT Page 16 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 second part of the discussion, which is the problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria. Do you want to… Council Member Filseth: In advice of the City Attorney it’s because I live within 500-feet of one of the grade separations and that I’m conflicted. Chair DuBois: Are we going to be talking about specific grade seps or are we talking about overall objectives? Molly Stump, City Attorney: Is it helpful if I chime in? Good morning, City Attorney, Molly Stump. So, the conflict rules include a set of rules on real property proximity to significant projects or events. The problem statement talks about the four grade crossings in a way that takes them on as a group and talks about beginning and decisions making process on potential projects and the grade separations. Council Member Filseth does own real property quite proximate to one of the crossings. Council Member Fine asked whether the public generally exception would apply here? It does not because that exception means that it – to qualify for that, the decision at issue needs to effect twenty-five percent or more of property in substantially the same way. While the grade separations solutions at the four crossings will affect all Palo Altans and in fact, people throughout the region who travel to Palo Alto, it does not affect them all in the same way. Both in terms of short term construction and long-term solutions of the properties that are very proximate to the crossing will be affected in a more intense and quite distinct way from others who may live further away who will also have some effects but not similar effects. Mayor Scharff: So, Molly it did strike me that the Alma crossing where Council Member Filseth lives close to is actually very different and distinct from the other three crossings and the issues facing it. I actually was wondering if we could segregate out the other three? Do a problem statement for them and then have a discussion to see if we want the same problem statement for Alma because Alma actually is a completely different animal in the way the whole thing looks and so that would work for me. Ms. Stump: We certainly looked at that segregation role and again, for those who aren’t familiar, that allows a decision to be broken into pieces and taken separately to narrow the recusal but there are some specific requirements to use that rule. We don’t think that we have access to it under the currently defined process at this time, although hopefully at some point we will. What it requires is that the piece that – where the conflict lies, which in this case TRANSCRIPT Page 17 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 is the Alma Street crossing that’s close to Council Member Filseth’s real property, it has to be able to be addressed in a way that is not linked in any way to the remaining items that the Council Member would participate in. It can’t be linked in terms of money, timing, engineering, policy; it has to be completely separable. It very well may be that at some point in this process one or all four of the crossings are separated out to be considered in a distinct way but right now, at this early stage as we read the report, we really are talking about them as a group and there are potentially some trade-offs and exchanges to be made in terms of priority and approach. Where a decision on one will impact the decision on another and given that situation, it can’t be separate at this time. Chair DuBois: Can you just clarify, is Council Member Filseth going to participate in any overall objectives and criteria that are at a high level? Ms. Stump: So, certainly Council Member Filseth has participated thus far on the rail policy statement. That is at such a high level that we think that works. There are some procedural items in terms of how the City is going to tackle this conversation that we’ve been able to say, those really don’t have to do with a specific potential option at the crossings and then that – the problem statement then actually does. Mr. Mello: Yeah, we have broken the presentation into the first part will cover the process, including a discussion of how decisions will be made and then the second part we’ll delve into the problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria. Chair DuBois: It just seems like the criteria and objectives were totally general, there were nothing specific grade crossings. I guess we could take this up from any future meetings. Ms. Stump: I think we all are sensitive to wanting to maximize participation while making sure that we follow the ethic rules. I think as the process works its way forward, the Staff and Council can be mindful of what ways to frame these items that come before the Committee and the Council to allow that. Council Member Filseth: Council Member Scharff’s point or Mayor Scharff’s point, you know the Alma Street crossing is such a different beast than all the rest of these and essentially all the discussion that we’ve had dating back to 2010 has been how do we deal with rail between San Antonio Road TRANSCRIPT Page 18 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 and at the very, very north part of University? Everybody assumes that basically there’s not that much to be done with the Alma Street crossing, it’s not the most critical one anyway. All the issues related to cross town traffic and so forth associated with the entire rationale for doing grade separations don’t apply at the Alma Street crossing. So, it seems ridiculous that the Alma Street crossing should be dragging around policy on how Palo Alto deals with grade separations. Ms. Stump: So, I may be then that in this process as it moves forward in the near term, there can be some priority on defining that approach to that crossing in some way that’s distinct but remember it needs to be distinct in terms of budget and funding availability. In other words, there – for FPPC purposes it can’t be the case that the funding and the timing of one say approaches on the mid and south Palo Alto crossings are in substance linked or traded off against. If that’s the case, then they are not separate for conflict purposes but if the conversation is framed in a way that focuses earlier on, on separating out that, then I think we would get sooner to this place where we really did have this separation and then there would be the ability to participate in the other crossing discussions. Mayor Scharff: I think that’s a good question that you frame it that way is that I agree completely with Council Member Filseth and that all of the tough issues here relate to the other three crossings and I almost think we could segregate that crossing out. I mean we’re probably not going to be grade separating that one on the same time frame. That may be the 30-year grade separation, is the one down there. The other three are hopefully much sooner so I’m wondering what that segregation would look like and obviously we’re not going to solve that today but the question is, what would you need from the Committee and the Council to segregate this in a way that would allow Council Member Filseth to participate? Obviously, that’s not necessarily the goal but my gut sense is that the Alma Street crossing is so different than the others and in terms of funding, timing and all that, that I think that that’s the way it would go. We need to obviously have that discussion and decided and obviously, we wouldn’t just be doing it for you, I think it just falls that way. So, the question is if we have those votes and we have the discussion at Council, how do we segregate it out and we should do that earlier. If we’re not going to segregate that out, I think Council Member Filseth should know that as well. So, how do we do that, that’s really the questions? Ms. Stump: Well, we certainly know what the conflict rules are, their settled and what they require. What we don’t know is how this conversation is going TRANSCRIPT Page 19 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 to progress so if that’s the Committee and the Council and the community’s intention to address that issue and separate it completely in terms of – so that it’s not linked or related to the other set of decisions in timing, budget, engineering, policy. Then we can support that as a Staff, we can get there and then we’ll be in a situation where we can use that rule. Council Member Filseth: Let me ask a – maybe this is the same thing but slightly different (inaudible) so it’s slightly different but how we define the problem, does that make a difference because if we define the problem as by 2025 Caltrain is going to be running ten trains an hour in both directions and it’s going to be impossible to get my car from one side of Palo Alto to the other. If we define that as the problem, the Alma crossing is irrelevant to that issue so if we define that as the problem, then can I un-recuse? Ms. Stump: We’ll need to look at the rest of the decisions and see if we’ve achieved – if we’ve met that legal standard of having the – any approach at Alma not be linked to the rest of the crossings. So, for example, if there’s a substantial question that the community and the Council needs to grapple with about other types of improvements at Alma, are those prioritized for budget and timing purposes first or behind other crossings. Then I think for FPBC purposes, they are going to say that those decisions are not fully separate. That one, in fact, depends on the other and so then they would say that that’s standard for separation is not met. If… Council Member Filseth: Even that can’t be totally a black and white thing because I mean you could make an argument that if we decide to declare Alma Street a quiet zone, then that’s going to take a certain amount of money and digging a trench in South Palo Alto, that’s going to take a certain amount of money so it’s all money so it must be connected, well that’s ridiculous too. So, how do we differentiate that? Chair DuBois: I’d like to suggest that we just have this conversation after this meeting. I think – I don’t see us changing the decision for this particular meeting and then we should work this out before the next meeting. Mayor Scharff: I agree completely with that. I think the only difference is if we have to give direction to Staff to ask what that would look like and what decisions we need to make. I mean right now I don’t know how we make that decision without us making decisions about how we break it up. I mean I think I need a Staff report or something that says, you’d have to take it this way, you’d have to make these decisions, you’d have to – the TRANSCRIPT Page 20 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 community would have to look at it this way. I mean I don’t see how we could have – I don’t see how you can get to what you need and Council Member Filseth can get what he needs without Staff telling us what we need the decisions to look like from this Committee and this Council because it’s how we phrase it whether or not he’s recused. I mean we could just say we’re not dealing with the Alma Street crossing. We’re not going to grade sep or we’re not looking at it. It’s a separate path and separate track, I’m not sure – I’m not say – advocating that or thinking about it but that would be a decision that would seem to allow him to participate or we can say we’re going to look at Alma but it’s a different and then you would have to tell us what that looks like. Am I wrong on that? Ms. Stump: I think we do need to work our way forward but I hope that I’ve been clear about the standard. For example, if there’s a common pot of money that is available for all of these projects, simply declaring that the Alma Street project is separate is not going to meet the standard. Mr. Keene: It seems to be that if you were going to have any more of this particular conversation, at a minimum it should take place at the end of this process discussion because I think that there are some implications for the process discussion even based upon these kinds of conflict issues. Chair DuBois: Ok, so why don’t we go ahead with the Staff presentation. Mr. Mello: Great, so as I mentioned earlier we’ve broken this presentation into two parts. The first will cover the Context Sensitive Solutions Process. As you know there’s been a lot of discussion about whether or not to have a Stakeholder Committee as part of this Context Sensitive Solution Process. Back in the spring prior to our May 20th community workshop, we presented you with this table that shows kind of the five steps – you know five decisions that need to be made moving along this process at the top; process milestones. In order to move this forward, we decided to come to you and recommend that we just move forward with stage one of this, which was to create a community engagement plan and host the first community workshop with a goal of getting to a problem definition, objectives and evaluation criteria decision point. We’re currently at that point today. We went to Planning and Transportation Commission August 9th and we are bringing this forward to you today on August 16th. Then we are planning to go to City Council but there is a little bit of a change on this. We were originally going to City Council on August 28th, it’s not September 5th. That has been moved forward a week and then finally we’re hoping to go back to TRANSCRIPT Page 21 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 the community for community workshop two on September 16th. We do believe that the process that we’re following adheres to the Context Sensitive Solution principles. This is from a report documenting a successful Context Sensitive Solution processes. Just take a step back, Context Sensitive Solutions came out – and it’s a solution so highway departments were really struggling with how to integrate transportation facilities into existing communities. Particularly after the adoption of NEBA back in the 1960’s and historically they had just used cookie cutter for highway designs and plowed through existing communities and neighborhoods. Some pretty cutting-edge Department of Transportation (DOT) started to deliver project that were context sensitive so sensitive to the context that they are located in. Those became known as Context Sensitive Solutions and then a whole group of academics and others started to look at how those projects were delivered and found some commonalities in how those projects were delivered. That became the so-called Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Process but ultimately, you know CSS is judged on the context – how well a project fits into its context. Does it enhance the community? Does it create barriers? Is it in harmony with the surround community? Does it solve community problem or is it just addressing something that somebody – a bureaucrat in a DOT decided that was the problem? So, that the origin of CSS so out of all those studies and kind of forensic audits of how these projects were delivered, some principles were developed. The principles are really around continuous engagement of the community. Thinking about the context of where the project is located. Every single neighborhood is different, every single context is different so a cookie cutter highway design or a grade separation design is not going to work in harmony with every community; every community is different. One of the key components of Context Sensitive Solutions is transparency, so continuing communication and collaboration with the community. You don’t come to the community after a decision has been made in a back room and say this is the alternatives that we’ve developed, what do you think? That’s the design and the defend model where you – engineers and others sit in a room and they think they know what’s best for the community, develop a solution and come out and present it. Have a faux public hearing where they take comments from the community and then go back and come back with something that is very similar. This is a totally different process under CSS, it’s much more transparent. We’ve brought those principles into our Rail Program. Our goals – kind of our principles that we’re operating under here and these are not formal principles but this has what’s come out of the discussion of the Rail Committee and Council and other in the past is that we’re going to build on the work that was done from the prior two Rail Corridor Studies. We’re going to set the context at the beginning, which is what the point where at today, TRANSCRIPT Page 22 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 define the problem and then define the measures of success. We fully expect this process to evolve. We’ve said this over and over again throughout the spring and this year that we’re not locking ourselves into a process early on because as we have discussion and as we continually involve the community in this decision-making process, I think we may end up somewhere that we’re all not expecting and we need to be ready to adapt. Then our current process is to use broad based community workshop, establish Commissions and Committees and elected bodies for decision making. We don’t currently have a stakeholder group created just for this program. On the top is a flow chart that shows our current decision-making process, which takes somewhere – for each decision it would take somewhere around two months and that’s being somewhat ambitious. It takes about four weeks for us to prepare for a community meeting. The shortest time that we can prepare for the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Rail Committee is about two weeks and that’s agenda preparation and preparing materials. For more complex decisions, you know there could be a two-week period of meeting preparation in advance of that so it could be up to four weeks for each of those Committees. Fortunately, we’re able to use a lot of the same materials for PTC and Rail Committee. City Council agendas are you know, we start work on those five weeks in advance of the City Council meetings so it shouldn’t be taken lightly when we add other steps and we – these decisions are going to take a long time to make. If we were to add a stakeholder group, at the bottom we’re estimating that that would add another two weeks to potentially four weeks to the process every time we want to make a decision. So, that doesn’t sound like a lot but cumulatively when we make multiple decisions throughout this process, we could be adding months to the decision-making process and the entire alternatives development process. This does not include – we’re anticipating that if a stakeholder group was convened, it could take three to six months to get that group up and running, which would put us in a holding patterning pattern for three to six months. Then you add any additional weeks that it would take to prepare for the stake holder group meetings and we’re looking at a several months push back of the schedule ultimately. To put that in context, this is a chart that we developed that shows where are peer Cities along the peninsula are as far as grade separation; as well as the schedule of Caltrain electrification and High Speed Rail. Since the report was prepared we got more information on Sunnyvale so I super imposed a green bar there and the red line represents when Sunnyvale will be complete with their alternatives analysis and they’ll have preferred alternatives selected. Mountain View already has preferred alternatives and they have final design actually for Rengstorf Avenue. So, they are ready to go to construction on that project and they have a preferred alternative identified for the Castro TRANSCRIPT Page 23 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Street grade crossing. So, if we were to push back—and we’re currently on schedule if we continue along a path that we’re on, it will – it is ambitious and we will need to maintain schedule but we are hoping to have alternatives identified at the same time Sunnyvale has alternatives developed. This jives very well with VTA’s plans to begin work on their implementation study because then all three communities will have a pretty clear picture as to where they are in the process when VTA begins the implementation study. We’ll be on equal footing with Sunnyvale and somewhat equal footing with Mountain View, which is farther along in both Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. We did go to PTC last week and we made a very similar presentation to them. At the end of the discussion they passed a motion that read Palo Alto will follow a CSS process for evaluation of rail grade separation including the creation of a dedicated expert stakeholder group in parallel with neighborhood stakeholders. So, they did recommend to Council that a stakeholder group be convened in order to execute those Context Sensitive Solutions Process. With that, our Staff recommendation in regard to this section of the presentation is to review the attached community engagement plan, which is Attachment A. Then provide a recommendation to the City Council on the CSS decision making process. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I guess let me know if you want to speak about both and I’ll keep your card for the second discussion. Alright, so the first two speakers that I have are Nadia Naik and Elizabeth Alexis. Do you want to speak on CSS? Nadia Naik: Good morning everyone. I appreciate Josh’s presentation, thank you, Josh. This slide, which wasn’t actually included in our packet but it was sort of an add on which is super helpful, I think is missing a lot of decision points. So, I think we’re getting to what in my public comment described that we need to flush out the process more but I don’t see the kinds of stuff that you’ve got to tackle ready that’s looking at having Caltrain, High Speed Rail, Water District, all these people being involved. Where are all those decision points in terms of where their feedback is? I think what’s important to lay here for people to understand the process and not feel blindsided is that it doesn’t matter what you do, stake holders or not, expanding attack or not, you need to the layout that these are all the things that we’re going to discuss. This is how we’re going to input those people and these are the ones making decisions. When does the City Council make a decision? When is PTC making a decision? You guys asked last time that PTC review stuff, what exactly is their role? What exactly is going to be the TAC’s role and how is the community input – is there going to be an actual decision from the community at these large community meetings? In the end, are you TRANSCRIPT Page 24 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 going to do thumbs up or thumbs down on do we even look at taking people’s homes or not? Do we look at a trench or not? I mean those things – those important decision points, those are kind of the tree diagram of alternatives that you guys are looking for that need to be flushed out in order for this to make sense. Otherwise, you’re really not spelling out the process. You’re going through some of the motions, you’ve got some great terminology going but we’re not quite there yet. So, I would just say that that’s something that you guys need to look at and I’d like to speak again on the other topic as well. Thank you. Chair DuBois: I am going to start using a timer because we have so many speakers. Elizabeth Alexis: Ok. Oh, I see, I won’t take that personally. First, I want to just – Nadia sent a letter yesterday that was kind of – if you’re going to go ahead and have a Technical Advisory Committee, one way to kind of split the baby is just added some people – members of the community there and do the matrix to see that we have different expertise covered, different neighborhoods covered. I mean especially if you’re going to have all Council Members or PTC Members who live near a crossing not there. I mean it’s absolutely essential that you have people who actually understand those places as part of that process. The second thing is CSS is this sort of complete transparency thing so any Technical Advisory Committee meeting should be open to the public. I mean they should be – people should be able to go to whatever they want. I mean this is in addition to the big public meetings. I mean you’d rather have people be bored than feel left out, even if there’s nothing actually exciting happening in the room. Just going back to this idea on the decision making, so we keep talking about this idea that you have to start with this giant list, which you amend and keep sort of a life; assumptions, presumptions, and requirements. There’s an additional feature to that which is really the decisions to be made and the decision to be made is not just community ones, like are we comfortable with eminent domain or do we want to do all of them or whatever else. There are other ones that are—like one of the things that drove the high cost of the trench was this thought that you had to have a 24 ½-foot clearance for Caltrain, which you may or may not really need to have. That you need to have additional 8-foot clearance under a creek for VTA, which or the Valley Water, which I’m not sure if you actually need that much. There are other agencies which actually would meet the deciders on some critical assumptions that drive cost. So, you really have to have this list of all the different decisions and you just – this is a list that lives and who makes those decisions. So, even a Technical Advisory Committee, I mean we were talking about who does it really report TRANSCRIPT Page 25 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 too? Is it Staff or Council and we’re like no, it’s not anyone person. For each decision that’s being made, it reports to that decision maker. So that is – that’s part of this and that just needs to be explicit. I mean we should be having at the back of these 333-page reports, I mean we could really go for 600 pages but there should be an ongoing list of assumptions, presumptions, requirements where we keep moving things up and down. As well as the decision to be made and who’s going to make them and when do they need to be made? Are these decision that needs to be made sooner or later? Thank you. Chair DuBois: Next speaker is Roland Lebrun. Did you want to speak to the process? Roland Lebrun: No, I don’t want to speak on the CSS, I want to speak on what Josh talked about just now about what’s going on and how it relates to you and how to address the issues with the FPPC. Chair DuBois: Oh, the recusal issue? Ok Roland Lebrun: Roland: The FPPC is serious business. I don’t know if you know [Roseanne Fowl], she’s been there twice. The second time around she got a $5,000 fine. The Chairman of the Caltrain Board right now is a Council Member in Redwood City and he’s currently under investigation. He’s about to get another investigation because of his interest in the building on Townsend Street, which is less than 400-feet from 4th and Kings station and directly in the path of the Caltrain downtown extension. So now I want to talk about Mountain View and Sunnyvale and how that relates to you and come up with some solutions. In Mountain View, essentially what they are doing is they are closing Castro and Moffett. That’s essentially like if you here where to close University at the station, it’s serious business but this grade separation is really part of the building of the station – I mean a massive station (inaudible). My (inaudible) over there is to have the VTA on one side of Castro and Moffett and then Bay Corridor platforms will be on the other side. One of the Council Members has to recuse himself because he’s got a nice property which is less than 500-feet away from that so I’ll come back to that in Palo Alto in a minute. In Sunnyvale, they are grade separating Mary, which is like you’re three separations and they are also going to grade separate Sunnyvale. That again is going to be part of this big – you know let’s do a station and let’s have this massive concourse for bikes and peds and whatever. So, moving onto Palo Alto, Alma, as you say, is a completely different animal and as I mentioned during public comment, if TRANSCRIPT Page 26 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 you are going to go ahead and have this massive bullet station at that point in time, Alma now becomes part of basically the redesign of Palo Alto. Potentially what you are doing with the pedestrian underpass and everything else and the other three are going to be a lot more like Mary. Now the key in Sunnyvale is that you’ve got to go to the website and see what they are doing; it really is first class. They have – they had the first presentation on Mary and they are showing eight different alternatives which are totally focused on adjacent property impacts. You can tell right at the end which one they are going to go for, it’s called a jug handle, it’s really creative and then they are going to have a complete separate discussion about Sunnyvale next week. So, my advice to you is watch what they are doing because I think they are on the right track. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Next speaker is Richard Brand; do you want to speak to this topic? Richard Brand: Yes. Chair DuBois: Do you want to speak to the other topic as well? Mr. Brand: I’ll differ because I haven’t seen the presentation yet because it had to be broken up this way and that’s unfortunate. Yes, I’ll hold that open but I will try to be brief. A couple things, I did consult with at least one PTC Committee Member who asked me some questions about this. That Member had known that I was attending the Rail Committee meetings and involved in this process and so I supported the idea. Having been a stakeholder and still am I guess in the Committee meetings, what I find and I’m looking at this time line here, is that a stakeholder group will actually truncate or shorten the work of the Staff. In fact, that’s one of the values – I know this is a push pull kind of question but with the Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP) we found that we were able to come up with a lot of ideas that could then be put in and Staff didn’t have to come up and review that. So, I think this two and a half months versus two months can be shortened because this is a continuum here that will truncate that six weeks into less time. So, I would argue that this may not be the case in terms of the time and time is of the essences here, no doubt. The other thing is that I support Nadia’s letter that if – we should just have one group and a TAC should include local residents as stakeholders as well. So, I think that one group could work out together, although looking at the TAC list, it’s a long list already. I think the list needs to be culled and reviewed in order to make TRANSCRIPT Page 27 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 this an efficient process so that this can be cut down from six weeks to less than six weeks. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Our next speaker is Herb Borock. Herb Borock: Thank you, Chair DuBois and good morning Committee Members. I want to speak on both parts of this and as – since Context Sensitive Solutions is a process type question, I want to just add reminders which I’m sure you all know but it doesn’t hurt to put it on the record. On the conflict of interest, that whatever portion someone is not participating in, it means that you can’t be at the table that the Committee Members and Staff are sitting on during that conflicted matter. Also, that definitive decisions about participation can only be in a written response from the Fair Political Practices Commission to request—and elected officials and Staff frequently get their own independent Council to help them frame the question. On Context Sensitive Solutions, Josh Mello gave a very useful distinction between the old way of doing things and Context Sensitive Solution, which is a new way. One way to continue doing it the old way is just to label it Context Sensitive Solutions and when you have that situation. Very often proponents of Context Sensitive Solutions fall into the trap and feeling that they have to bargain with the other position. If they get something—some part of it, that looks like Context Sensitive Solutions and they are willing to call it that. My advice to the public who know more about Context Sensitive Solutions than I do, if something is not Context Sensitive Solutions but is rather something resulting in a bargain with the old way, it’s still not Context Sensitive Solutions and people should still be advocating for that and labeling the process for what it is. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Thank you. The last speaker is Adina Levin. Ms. Adina Levin: (Inaudible) Chair DuBois: Great, thank you. Alright so come back to the Committee. Anybody have any questions or comments? Eric. Council Member Filseth: Yes. Did Mountain View have a separate Stakeholder Committee and a separate Technical Committee? Mr. Mello: I’m not sure. I can check on that for you. I would like to address if I could, a couple of the comments – the public comments. The TAC is not shown on this because the TAC will not be making decisions. The TAC will be TRANSCRIPT Page 28 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 advising the community and PTC and Rail Committee and Council as decisions are made. We’re not intending to allow other agencies to make decisions on our behalf around different alternatives but their knowledge will be important so that’s why they are not shown on this. Just another point of clarification, this is not intended to show the alternatives analysis, -- the Context Sensitive Solutions Alternatives Analysis process. This is only showing how we’re intending to make each decision in that process along the way so it’s not actually showing the decisions that will be made. It’s showing the process that will be used to make those decisions. Chair DuBois: Alright, go ahead. Mayor Scharff: In terms of the process and making the decisions, when I look back at what we’ve done in the past and where we are going. The big issue that came to Council was that when we looked at the different options, we obviously had an option for South of Oregon for a trench, which is only south of Oregon that came up. Then you had the crossing at Meadow and at the time people talked about taking 29 homes fully and 8t partially at Meadow and Charleston together. At property acquisition, if you maintained the turns of Alma, thirty-two full homes, and seven partials. Those are a big number of homes and I think that’s one of the reasons and there are other reasons as well as to why the trench was such an attractive option. It seems that one of the things is until we know if the trench is a constraint option that we can do or not, it’s really hard to figure out how the decisions are going to be made. I mean it seems like are we going to – as we go through this process, how are we going to get to that decision point of do we want to do a trench or not? I mean it seems to me that we don’t know yet because we haven’t gone through the process but the community would prefer to have a trench. At least that’s what was in our – Council voted and that was the preferred alternative, that’s the feedback that we’ve gotten. That the trench is the preferred alternative and that with the trench is was unclear to me if there are no homes taken or if it’s just the smallest number but I think there was some hope that there were no homes taken with the trench. So, it seems that the trench is going to be something that everyone wants to know how much is it going to cost, whether or not it’s feasible and it’s going to be impossible to think any other decisions until we have the information on the trench. When I look at the schedule, what I see happening is unless we understand the trench—and the trench is complicated. I mean I think as both members of the public have mentioned, we have to have decisions about can we do a two percent grade, can you – is – first of all, are they even going to allow us to do a trench? They may simply say we’re not allowed to do that and they are not going to let us do that. So, there are all TRANSCRIPT Page 29 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 these agencies corporations, there’s all these understanding of what permits are going to be required and how we go through that process. I think there’s going to be a significant amount of time spent on that so when you look – when you create this Palo Alto process to come out in the middle of – I guess it’s up till the last quarter of 2018, for a decision, what are your thoughts on that? How are we planning on dealing with that? Mr. Mello: The process that we’re currently planning to follow is beginning September 16th and starting to develop what’s called a universal alternative. So, we would consult with the community, let them put their ideas down on paper, what are the ideas that you had around these four grade separations – grade crossings, get some ideas on potential solutions and I fully expect the trench will be one of those solutions that are identified. Then we will go in and generate all the technical data that’s required to evaluate each of those alternatives. So, the cost will be one of those components and of course, we’re only going to be able to estimate at a very high level what the cost is until we start moving into engineering but we’ll get an apple to apple comparison of the different alternatives. Then we will reconvene the community, present the universe of alternatives and start to use our evaluation criteria to narrow those down. The narrowing down will be a decision point that will need to go through our decision-making process to pick the ones that we’ll study a little deeper and then eventually we’ll get down to one preferred the alternative. We may end up prioritizing the grade separations, we may end up deciding that we only want to identify preferred alternatives for three out of the four and the red line that’s shown on that chart is when we adopt a preferred alternative. So, that’s – after we adopt a preferred alternative, that’s the point where we start moving into design and we get a much better handle on cost but we’re hoping to have a pretty good understanding of the costs of the different alternatives by the end of this year. Mayor Scharff: I don’t think anyone was happy with the way our bridge went over 101, so this reminds me a little bit of the bridge. So, how did we get out of the bridge trap? It goes something like this, we say we’re going to build a bridge over Highway 101 – a bicycle and pedestrian bridge. We decided, let’s build a beautiful bridge, let’s have community engagement, let’s have a design composition. We get all these people involved, we have a design composition and we choose a beautiful bridge. We go through that process, we then look at the costs and we’re like that doesn’t work and now we have an unattractive bridge. I mean it’s not terrible but I mean – and it’s – but – and the process for choosing the other bridge was really just chosen on cost and we went through all this community engagement, built up all TRANSCRIPT Page 30 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 these expectations and then didn’t deliver. I don’t think we’re paying enough attention to the fact – we’re pretending that the trench is not the preferred alternative and that the community may choose something else. I think that’s a very low probability and without constraining it and saying – without having the information in a good way, how are you going to tell the community that the trench works or it doesn’t work? Once we go down the path that yes, we think the trench is going to work but there are all these issues. I mean, how are you going to make that decision? How are we going to get there? That’s my concern is that I don’t want to spend all the time and get to the end of it and say, oh, actually the trench doesn’t work. Then we’ve spent 18 months designing, going through it and not having the feedback. I mean how do we get that and then it could be complicated. I mean it seems like the issue on the two percent versus the one percent in itself is a negotiation that’s not resolved in a month, that’s not resolved in two months. Then I – I mean I guess the other question is the cost, I mean – so if I am wrong, just stop me but my recollection on the California Avenue garage was we were at like $10 million to start with, something like that and now we’re $30 million and so a high – when you say a high-level cost estimate, I panic. High-level cost estimate, what does that – what value does that have in making a choice if we’re not going to have numbers that actually we can then go ahead and find? Chair DuBois: So, Greg I agree with this conversation and I totally agree with what you are saying. I’m just wondering if you’re not getting into the next section versus the CSS process discussion. Mayor Scharff: I was actually talking about the schedule because that’s what was in front but is that – and that’s the process on CSS. When I am really deciding or asking is my concern that I have here is that we act as if CSS says everything is on the table and there are no constraints. Where there are clearly constraints and you want to start with a rational – instead of constraints that the community can work within. If you say that that’s not true, I think we could very much end up like the bridge and so that’s why I’m trying to figure out how we do the process and the schedule and if we are actually being realistic; that’s my concern. Mr. Keene: I don’t think you’re – you’ve actually bled over into this other area. I think the Mayor’s, as I hear it, is a little more theoretical or conceptual which is saying how we’re thinking about how we design this process really has some life impacts on schedule and what we do and we need to be thinking about that. If I could just add something to this, could you put – oh, you’ve got it back up there, good, you’ve got the schedule TRANSCRIPT Page 31 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 back up. I think that’s – this is really important because if you look at this right now, this is saying that vertical dotted red line looks like the end of the first quarter of 2018, which is basically saying we’ve got to, at a minimum, kind of catch up and be ready in whatever that is; 8 or 9-months. I agree with Nadia’s comment that we need to flush out the steps and the process more but I think it’s really important to think about setting what we think is when we’ve got to be ready and then reverse engineering back from that, as opposed to looping it. What I heard the Mayor potentially saying is we could vaguely also design a process that anticipates some things but then unfolds or balloons way out of our control and we lose our opportunity. I think we really need to think about that. If I could add one other frame work for thinking about this and I mentioned this to Tom when we were having breakfast. I think we need to get clear about what it’s going to take to ultimately get to making a decision and I think the language that we need, needs to be accurate. I mean unless I’m really missing something, the real decision makers in this are ultimately, the City Council. Now that doesn’t mean there are some exterior decision makers who are going to make determinations on one percent versus two percent or those kinds of questions but the real question ultimately is that we’re going to engage, we’re going to inform, we’re going to get recommendations from – through different approaches but there’s no confusion that at the end of the day, the City Council informed by the Rail Committee is going to have to make the choices and the decisions of the official positions on behalf of the City. Now ultimately if that means we’ve got to pursue gap funding that requires saying a vote of the people, then in that sense our public is ultimately going to be a decision maker explicitly. I don’t think we can -- you can forget the fact that at the end of the day, this is all going to come back to the City Council who’ve got to make some decisions and that seems to me that by the end of the first quarter at a minimum, 2018, that we’ve got to get to that point. I would like us to think about this frame work that is – includes some things that has to unfold in parallel in some ways, even if some components occur later. Number one, there is a technical issue here which is what are the – what is the design, what are the impacts of—actually what we do at these locations? The second one is what is politically feasible? In other words, what is ultimately acceptable to our community? The third one is what is financially possible? What are the financial capacity that we have to have and I think we need to be clear about what we’re – in the process discussions, what we are designing to because in the end, what is politically feasible or has community acceptance? The City Council is ultimately going to have to listen enough and have weighed all that and say this is where we see this. This can’t be delegated to anybody else. You want to be informed by it but I think that means that you – we need to be thinking about multiple TRANSCRIPT Page 32 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 engagement opportunities. We don’t have for example focus groups on here that very well may be – for example, that you would say in this eight or nine-month period has some recommendation advance. You would really want to test our community and public in some very specific practice ways to be able then again, inform reactions to folks. So, I think those three things, technical, political, community and financial need to be kept in mind and clearly, we can’t do those in an expressly linear – let’s do the technical, then let’s see what happens at the decision-making process and then let’s figure out how much it’s going to cost because it’s not going to work. So, please keep that in mind, thanks. Chair DuBois: Adrian, do you have any comments? Council Member Fine: A few, so thank you, Josh, for mentioning that one- time line was not the ultimate public facing timeline. Although I think it’s a point well made that we do need to better map of this process. Even this one is a little hard to see but – the one behind. This one certainly, yeah. I just wonder if there’s something that could be a little more public facing for folk so they do understand this. Then to Nadia’s point about where the TAC fits in as well. I mean this does document it so just to be absolutely clear that the TAC is public, right? Mr. Mello: Yeah, those meetings would be open to the public. Council Member Fine: Ok, great. I mean I have some questions around the time line but I think our question here is more about what process we want, how many groups we want to involve, what value they add, how they funnel into each other, and then as the City Manager just mentioning of what is kind of the contours of the decisions that they are making? I guess I’m looking to you three what kind of solutions are we going to propose here? I’m not sold on anything. Mayor Scharff: I mean, I’m supporting the Staff proposal and I think we should have focus groups too. (Inaudible) good approach but I think we have to be flexible on and I’m open to different… Council Member Fine: I just want to hear from you all. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I still have some questions to if you are finished? Council Member Fine: Yeah, I think I’m finished for now. TRANSCRIPT Page 33 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: So, on that time line it says that Sunnyvale still has to go through design. How long does design typically take? Mr. Mello: If you look at this chart, you can see Burlingame took a year and a half to complete the design for Broadway; well, we’ll take a year and a half. San Mateo took, it looks like a year and a half as well for the design at 25th and Hillsdale. Chair DuBois: So, I mean it does feel like we’re definitely on track in terms of timing and if it takes a year and a half for Sunnyvale to complete their design, we’re kind of right along there. It does make me feel better and I guess so does the conversations with VTA about funding this corporately instead of compactivity. That slide you had on time for decision or recommendation if Council is going to be the decider, I think then what’s missing here is the assessment of the quality of the decisions. I’ve said it multi times in this meeting that my fear is that in the rush for timeliness, we have a decision the community doesn’t except and ended up either restart and taking a much longer time. Which again, that’s the way the Comp. Plan started was with workshops and then we had to reset so I just want to make that point. Mr. Mello: If I could address that? What’s not shown here is there would be a fifth piece which is going back to the community after the Council. That’s what we’re doing with – so with the problem statement, the objectives and the evaluation criteria, that’s going to Council August 28th. Then the first part of September 16th public meeting we will be reviewing the Council decision and getting opinions on that and then we move into the next decision. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I think we just want a process that surfaces quality decisions. I’ll see this PTC input that we should have some kind of deeper engagement. I appreciate the City Manager’s comments on kind of these three areas because that’s what I’ve been struggling with. I feel that we’ve been somewhat linear so far and to Council Member Scharff’s – Mayor Scharff’s comments about is the trench feasible? What’s the cost? Part of that is what is the funding capability and I think we need to start to work on some of these in parallel and really having a more clearly defined process focusing on these areas of the engineering aspects, the community acceptance aspects. I mean we’re going to get into that in the next section but projects that are realistic with the amount of funding we expect but right now, I don’t really have a good view of how much funding we could expect TRANSCRIPT Page 34 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 with Measure B. Then Nadia’s point about we’re kind of at a high level defining roles but we need to I think, get a lot more specific. I did appreciate the CAARD letter, I thought it was very well written and the detail in here, the example of this highway project where they had the criteria for membership, a kind of detailed outline of roles and responsibilities and criteria. We’re getting there but I think some of that real focus on some of that work right now is going to get us on a much stronger footing kind of going forward. I am kind of intrigued about the idea of just adding some additional stakeholders to the TAC. I think that’s kind of the biggest gap is we are doing these community meetings, focus groups are pretty qualitative but really having some ongoing engagement at a deeper level with a few more stakeholder parties and residents. I don’t think we have PAUSD on the TAC right now. It just seems like we are missing a few groups and having this additional viewpoint feed into the recommendations. Hopefully, it’s not going to add any more time and we’re going to get a much richer set of what the community is willing to accept built into the recommendation. I think the other thing that I wanted to say was I actually appreciated making it explicit about building on the prior work. I thought that was a pretty good letter from former Mayor Nancy Shephard, about feeling like we were ignoring the previous work. I think – I heard some of that at the first community meeting as well and a lot of the people that were involved in those early works were attending these meetings. So, I think it’s critical that we acknowledge that work and how we’re building on it. Part of that is the community has said multiple times that a trench is preferred and so again, I think as we frame this process – when we start a meeting talking about four separate separations, it doesn’t really allow for that other approach to be discussed. I think we need to think about how that is made more explicit. Then again, my notes are a little bit out of order but I keep coming back to the funding investigation and the example at the Saint Gabrielle thing. It almost feels like a parallel track of people focused on the funding. The last thing that I would like to say is that I do think constraints are a key part to CSS and they need to be defined up front. Again, it gets back to this documentation of process and rules and I think constraints is a key part of that, funding is part of it and where is CSS strong? I think you bring in these community- based constraints and just an example—but I’m sure there are tons of others that we aren’t even aware of but yesterday, the Alma/Oregon Expressway intersection was completely backed up on Alma; it was very dangerous. You know we’re talking about grade separations but we haven’t – it hasn’t been explicitly talking about the Alma/Oregon intersection. Those kinds of things would have surfaced I think with more community involvement in the process and hopefully, it will be surfaced in the circulation study too. Again, I would support the recommendation from CARD and that we consider TRANSCRIPT Page 35 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 adding a few more people to the TAC as recommenders into the process. I think it’s a good way to get deeper community engagement without setting up a totally separate Committee and a separate group. Mayor Scharff: Can we look at that Committee? I actually – I’m fine with adding some people to the Committee. I think that actually makes some sense though I think you want to workable Committee and you don’t want it to be too big. I definitely agree but I don’t think we should be adding ten community people and I think we want people with technical expertise from the community. I’m open to what we do but I remember there just being a long list. Chair DuBois: I think – so it’s in your hand out here. Mayor Scharff: It is – right. It was somewhere. Chair DuBois: Well, it’s page three of the… Mayor Scharff: Of the CAARD letter? Chair DuBois: …of the CAARD letter. Again, I think some people could fill multiple roles. Mayor Scharff: No, that’s what I was thinking, right? Mr. Mello: So, a better list to look at would be in the community engagement plan which is Attachment A. It’s on page 9 of that. Chair DuBois: Do you also list potential public members? Mr. Mello: No, no, no, for the current makeup it is identified on page 9 of the… Chair DuBois: This just has all of that plus some suggestions. Mr. Mello: I have not seen that list so I can’t verify whether that matches the list on Page 9 of the Attachment A. TRANSCRIPT Page 36 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: So where – Page 9 on Attachment A of the community engagement, got it. Mr. Keene: The one that says the Caltrain list at the top and then the community engagement identifies… Mr. Mello: That’s from the current letter. Council Member Filseth: Packet Page 74. Mr. Mello: The list that Staff provided is Attachment A, Page 9. Chair DuBois: Yeah, so again I… Mayor Scharff: Packet Page 74? Chair DuBois: Again, I think the CAARD letter actually copies all of those and then it has kind of a working list of potential others. Mr. Keene: Could I make… Chair DuBois: Yes. Mr. Keene: …comment here, like a real-world comment? No, I mean I think the tendency to get into the beautiful minds solution that just ties everything together is a little risky. I mean I actually like the idea of thinking about adding some folks to the TAC. I do think we need to get clear about even the TAC’s role because there are lots of important conversations that have to take place with other peer agencies that some may benefit from being really open and public. I’m sorry but some may be debilitated by that. I know we think that everybody wants to listen to us in Palo Alto but other folks don’t necessarily see that. I can guarantee you that if we did every conversation we did on the San Francisquito Creek and the JPA project on getting that project built, we would still not have some things done because we’ve got to be able to get together with some other jurisdictions at times and have some big arguments without it all being out there. Now, that’s not no decisions are being made, those are agreements trying to be reached. I think we need to think about how we’re nimble enough to have these different technical folks – maybe there’s a plan recession at times but then TRANSCRIPT Page 37 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 there’s some break out opportunities for us to mix and match in some way in order to be able to be most effective, so just a caution. Mayor Scharff: Yeah, so… Council Member Filseth: The City Manager is very eloquent about this and I’m going to be less eloquent. Which is usually when you do these things you’ve got sort of two broad level objectives. One is how do we get the right answer and the other is how do we make sure there’s buy in from all the stakeholders? The challenge here is going to be in a perfect world you have everybody represented on all of the Committees and you would get to the right answer too. There’s going to be a trade off in here but is that we’re not going to be able to get a lot of stuff done with thirty people on the Committee or forty people on the Committee and every group. I think we’re going to have to judicious about who are represented for the – sort of getting buy in versus get the right answer part. I think as the City Manager point out earlier is absolutely correct but ultimately, the responsibility is with City Council to make the right decision. I think we should weigh very, very heavily on what it’s going to take to get us to the right decisions and perimeters of what’s technically possible. Are we going to be able to afford it and what’s acceptable to the community? I mean that’s sort of the right kind of stuff and so I don’t think we’re going to be able to represent everybody who’s interested on the Committee. In fact, we’re going to have to make a tradeoff for how do we focus on getting the right answer. The best thing that we can possible to do get everybody to accept this is to get the right answer in the first place and then it’s going to be a lot easier to – I mean I think defend is the wrong word. I think it’s – I think people will buy in and I think we’re in a situation where I don’t think this is going to be the most decisive issue in our community that has ever faced. I mean we have issues in our community – there are really people that really feel one way and people feel vastly different that we try to reach. This one, I think – I mean the general high-level problem I think you’re going to get most of the community to buy into which is increase in congestion on the rail and impacts on – we want to – without – I don’t want to veer into the second part of this discussion but I think we’re going to find that most people sort of have similar values on this kind of stuff. Who do we need on the Committee to get the right answer and let’s try to not grow it too much longer than that? I’ll say for example and I’m just going to make this up so don’t (inaudible) me but the Water District. Yes, is the Water District relevant, yes. Is the Water District – may be where they fall in the trade off of if we make the Committee to big, we’re not going to get to the right answer versus everybody gets represented. I think we’ve got to be very judicious on that. TRANSCRIPT Page 38 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: If I could just chime in. The TAC is currently intended to be on an as needed basis so as we move through the decision-making process, the (inaudible) will reach points where we need to cross the creek and we’ll need to consult with the Water District and say you know is this something you guys can work with? Do you see any red flags? It’s not currently intended to be a regularly scheduled meeting. It would be convened at key decision points where we need technical question addressed from the different stakeholders. Council Member Filseth: (Inaudible) Chair DuBois: Just some thoughts again, I think having the TAC does not stop you guys from having stuff with Caltrain Staff and these kinds of meetings that the City Manager was talking about. I think those are going to have to happen; High Speed Rail Authority is on here, right? I mean we only have I guess seven groups confirmed and we have several invited. The TAC is not that large right now and I don’t think we’re – (inaudible) representing everyone, I mean that’s kind of an extreme. I don’t think that just adding a few would make it a much richer group and I do think that it maybe needs to be on regular schedule; again, for public participation, transparency, and also just scheduling some of these groups. Looking at these lists, I can see adding maybe a neighborhood rep near each crossing. Again, I think Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), we should invite them. Maybe the Research Park or I mean we have business representation to the Transportation Management Association (TMA) but maybe another like I said the Stanford Research Park or another business representative. Then the other one that I thought was interesting on here is the hydrologist just because the water issues keep coming up and you do have the Water District but that’s like four or five plus the seven. I don’t expect—even the people currently listed on TAC, I don’t know if we expect them to show up for every meeting so that’s just my kind of thought. Mayor Scharff: I think that we need to – I’m fine with adding some people to the TAC but I think we can’t lose sight of the purpose of the TAC. It’s a Technical Advisory Committee and you may also need the ability to create subcommittees if you want too. You also – I’m not necessarily comfortable with the notion that we should have to have meetings if they don’t need to have the meetings. They’ve already committed to making the (inaudible) to the public, which I think is a good thing but I’m not – I don’t want to basically turn the TAC into the stakeholder group. What I want to do is add some additional representation so that if the – if there are technical issues that people think why didn’t you consider this? That’s really what I view the TRANSCRIPT Page 39 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 neighborhood people saying. You know what about this technical issue over here, how would that work out so that that comes forth? Council Member Filseth: Right, how do you get to the right answer? (Inaudible) make sure the stakeholders are equally represented. Mayor Scharff: Correct. People who have technical expertise and they are also in the neighborhoods. I mean – I will just be honest, someone like Nadia for instance, I think has that combination of being in the neighborhood and having technical expertise. I’m interested in adding like three people, that’s what I was thinking. Maybe four but I mean not more than that. Chair DuBois: Well I think maybe Staff has heard our input and rather than be that explicit we could have a more general motion to have Staff come back with a suggestion for adding deeper community input to the TAC and what the roles and responsibilities would be; even when they would meet and not meet. I mean I would be… Mr. Keene: Well, just a second on that Josh. Going back to Nadia’s comments earlier about flushing out the process and I just think we need to be doing that here just a little bit so that we have enough direction. I mean I really appreciate the attempt to sort of morph some of these streams together but what is the reason for adding say our local citizen voice to the TAC? Is it technical or is it political community or is it both? I mean I think we need to get clear about that because again, to the Mayor’s point, I think clearly, we’d have to have some freedom to spin off subcommittees because I mean I guarantee a lot of other agencies outside us are not going to always want to go to a meeting with us with our citizens. Nothing against them and then they are going to say, wait I guess we better bring our citizens in to and then all of a sudden it a whole different meeting. We just need to remember that other agencies in jurisdictions see the world differently than we do. What are we trying to accomplish? Is it mostly technical? Would we – or is it representational of the community? It sounds like at minimum, if anyone that we want to provide representational piece, also has to be somehow technically proficient. That is what we are saying, ok? Chair DuBois: For me, it’s not really technical or community, it’s a deeper expert engagement through the process versus just a workshop. So, it is community members who (inaudible) more technical but I think the TAC TRANSCRIPT Page 40 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 should also be more CSS. In that it’s not purely engineering type decisions, it is engineering married with some community context. Mr. Keene: Could I provide an alternative? It’s one that I brought up months ago and you probably hate it but isn’t the Rail Committee really important? I mean…(crosstalk) Mayor Scharff: We’re the community engagement. Mr. Keene: … is it – ultimately you are the nexus between the Council and the decision they make. You are going to ultimately try to formulate whatever it is to recommendations the Council makes because the Rail Committee can’t even make decisive decisions on its own. Isn’t there some way to think about is there some more direct connection to the Rail Committee, rather than the Technical Advisory Committee? You’re going to have to get this, I mean do you – I’m not saying this is the right but do you have ex-officio members of the Rail Committee from the community somehow involved? Not the same (inaudible) but advice – I don’t know or some... Mayor Scharff: We do and they are sitting in the audience. (crosstalk) Mr. Keene: I know, well now we deputize them. Mayor Scharff: You know, I don’t want to expand the Rail Committee. I think that’s too complicated. Chair DuBois: Again, I don’t think that gives us necessarily the expertise in the different areas that are potentially missing right now. Mr. Keene: So, could -- I think we need to define those expertise a little bit if we’re going to come back with some recommendations. Then again, I think the TAC needs to be thought of as a kind of not static. It kind of expands, morphs, moves, grows, has a subcommittee as needed. Do you know what I mean because – there you go, ok. Mayor Scharff: I mean I don’t view the TAC as the stakeholder group. How I viewed the TAC is it provides the ability for the City to get technical questions answered. I actually thought if we added some community members, what it allows is there are some community people who can say TRANSCRIPT Page 41 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 why didn’t you think of this? That’s all and then they can then get those questions answers but you know, the community people come here and ask us to make sure to ask the technical question and that process. I think it’s a tough call and I think you – Staff needs to be really clear with us that we’re not going to mess the TAC up. Yes, there’s no way for instance that – if you’re going to make progress with VTA on stuff, a lot of those discussions about what we want in negotiations are not going to be made in a public forum. VTA is not going to be open to being, shall we say, have a bunch of our citizens yell at them and say this is what we want. That’s not the way it’s practically going to occur and I think we have to keep that in mind. Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager: If I could perhaps chime on – in on to that from the perspective – I think maybe in the dynamic here from Staff, I’ll play the engineer here and someone who’s spent a career dealing with other agencies on projects like this. I think in terms of motivation, one of the things to remember in terms of the other agencies participation with us as we go forward is that they are here by choice or they will be here and engage by choice. The typically bureaucratic response to a situation that they are not entirely comfortable with will one be either to not show up, which is really possible in terms of the TAC Committees or more likely will delegate it to junior Staff that will not really be able to contribute at the level that we need in order to have effective input into the decision making. That group dynamic is one to keep in mind, especially if you take as perhaps a given that to a certain extent, VTA, a Caltrain, a High Speed Rail institutional interest is not necessarily to help Palo Alto define the grade separations. In fact, it could be to just go along for the process, rather than necessarily see an immediate solution come out of that. I think that dynamic is important and perhaps to Council Member Filseth’s point, the right decision – the term I might use in terms of going from the technical to ultimately the political decision is a sustainable one – sustainable decisions. One that the technicians and the engineers will say that’s the right answer but then it comes to the Rail Committee, much less to the Council, and the Committee and the Council says the wrong answer, go back and figure it out. Ultimately, I think Staff is looking for a decision that can be made at a Staff level that will be sustained through a policy process and that it involves a more deliberation of discussion that obviously goes way beyond the engineering considerations so one that can be carried forward. I think quite frankly, weighing down the technical discussions too much will ensure that – as I said, you’re not going to get the really honest feedback from the other agencies that will help make a decision that will both be sustainable, as well as actionable at the Council. So, I think there are some conflicting goals there. To a certain extent I suspect that with identifying the right people in TRANSCRIPT Page 42 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 the technical, it gives Staff the flexibility for how that interaction actually happens. It would be able to help bring that forward with the recognition of the issues that are important to the Council along with the way. Mayor Scharff: So what decision do you need us to make today under this item? I mean do you want us to just endorse the Staff plan plus anything else. Is that what you’re looking for? I mean or are you looking for just the discussion or what – I mean how do we bring this item to a conclusion? Mr. Keene: So, Number 1, we need some direction from you so we can start to move ahead. Two we’ve – for the most part, what we’re really talking about is what sort of local citizen involvement we’re going to have and into inject formally into our process right now? What I am hearing is that you want us to look at some way to use the TAC as a forum that can allow us to bring some of those perspectives or voices into the process. The Chair suggested that you give us that direction and we go to work and come back on that. Now I don’t think this is just – and Josh is freaking out thinking about how does he stay on schedule and all the twenty other things and what does he do on the shuttle; he's going to come back on that and all those things. I think there’s a lot of work that we just need to do at our level too, even talking with the City Attorney about how we could bring a recommendation forward pretty quickly on how to make this thing work. I think we would have to diagram and map it out that there will be some situations where the TAC is some subset of it and is just some Staff at some level. Then there are others that were engaged and it may be that we use our own citizen advisories to sit down and even on our Staff levels, to give us feedback or tell us what to do and then sometimes participate. I mean I think we could design that if that’s what you are interested in. What I am also hearing is we would formally all be agreeing that we can let go of this concept of this independent stakeholder group. I think we need to be clear about that. Mayor Scharff: That’s correct. Council Member Filseth: The way I say this is actually a way to avoid the scenario that Ed talked about. Just enough to avoid that scenario, right? Mr. Keene: I (inaudible) we’re not in any sort of chamber business team bureaucrat thing like gosh, let’s keep our citizens out of here. As a matter of fact, to the extent that we can ever be more effective, we will always do that. At the same time, his thing with the – we’re inviting people to a dinner TRANSCRIPT Page 43 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 party here from other places and if they really don’t like what we’re eating or what wine we’re serving, they are going to not come. We just need to be sensitive to that, that to some extent we really need their input. In other situations, we really need our own communities input to the technical recommendations that we’re going to make. Mr. Mello: I just want to say that this whole exercise today and PTC last week is CSS in process. We’re talking at length about decision making and how we’re going to do it and that is one of the core tenants of CSS; is establishing the decision-making process early on. So, I just want to commend everyone for – we are – this is the CSS process in action and we’re experiencing it right now. Mr. Keene: With that, let me just put a schedule thing on. Right now, we are scheduled to come back from the Rail Committee to the Council on September 5th on a tentative agenda. I mean it would be open to thinking whether or not the Rail Committee directions would be enough that we could put this together for an item – for the item that would go to the Council. Chair DuBois: I don’t think this is what Ed meant and I appreciate the comments about engineers and having a dinner party that people what to come too but I also think that we don’t want to go back to this old method of the technical decision driving the solution. If we get into this mode of deciding and defending and if the TAC makes a decision and you come to the Rail Committee and we don’t like it, that’s basically the old method. They are going to defend it and we would have to object to it versus a more collaborative approach. I just don’t – I think some public speakers said this too, I don’t want to call it CSS if it’s not CSS. I would like to figure out a way that we add like I said deeper community engagement at even what the TAC – being on the TAC doesn’t mean if there are subcommittees that again, there’s an engineering discussion and maybe it’s open to the public but doesn’t mean that all participants are at the table as part of that particular discussion. I don’t know how we would work that out but again, the pieces that I see missing right now are the neighborhood, the schools, we have some business and the environmental expertise. Mr. Keene: I think that’s really important but I just again think that – I mean the TAC itself isn’t necessarily how we solve that or – I mean I don’t think we have ever felt that stakeholder engagement is not central and representative. Stakeholder engagement that allows for the pollical community by in on technical decisions; that’s what we’re after. I don’t know TRANSCRIPT Page 44 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 that we can specify all of those right now but we could give more definition to that even when we come back to the Council. Even the idea of just some static representatives rather than free flowing, I mean we could have hundreds – forget the group meeting, we would have 200 people involved in a much more hands on way over the next eight months than we would with even just say one single Committee with ten people on it. You would get more representative voices so let’s just take PAUSD, I can’t imagine that we could get them to hang in there with us at the level that we would but episodically or appropriately engaging them, we could be sure that we do that. Mayor Scharff: I also wanted to say that I don’t view the TAC as making decisions on anything. I view them as purely advisory – frankly advisory to Staff and then Staff makes the recommendation to PTC and the Rail Committees and then eventually to Council. That’s – I think that’s an important point that we’ve got to keep in mind and then I think Staff needs to be able to use the TAC to get good information and I think that’s what Staff is pushing back on. I think that’s – we’ve got to make sure that happens. I also think that it's more than TAC, I think if we’re going to give this direction, I also wanted to give direction to go back and I like the City Manager’s idea of focus groups. I think some focus groups actually can really get good citizen engagement by going through that process. Then I also, on a third thing, wanted to give direction to Staff that we really focus on starting now starting to work out what a trench would look like and the cost associated and the constraints and how that would work because the sooner that we start around that process, the better the information everyone will have. I view that as the stumbling block in all of this, I think because those technical issues regarding the trench are going -- what delays this process. I don’t want to wait for people to say it’s – I don’t want to go through a whole process where we say let’s get to this point where we then decide that the trench is the preferred alternative. I want to do it in parallel and we may choose the trench as not being the preferred alternative but I want to take the risk that we spent all that time understanding the trench because I don’t think anyone can make the choice without having the information. Mr. Mello: I might suggest that similar to how we’re working on the circulation study in parallel to the Context Sensitive Solution Alternatives Analysis, maybe we start work on a white paper that looks at the trench… Mayor Scharff: That’s all I’m suggesting. TRANSCRIPT Page 45 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: … and starts to take the work that Mott McDonald did a little bit further and we could provide that as information as part of the decision- making process through the CSS. Mr. Keene: This is another aside, I mean I haven’t even talked with Josh about this but not everything just directly has to be in Transportation's wheel house. So, I mean I think we’re going to do some financial scenario planning what ifs on – under different possibilities. Whether it’s how we could look at what the appropriate numbers are, what does it mean on bond financing versus other things, so we start – again, these are high level but we start to put some meat on the bone about these things. Council Member Filseth: He’s really only talking about accelerating the existing process, not sort of getting into the decision of Alma crossing versus… Ms. Stump: Chair DuBois, can I make one comment? Chair DuBois: Yes. Ms. Stump: So perhaps one tool that would be a component of enriching citizen involvement which we could talk about off line, this would be legal and permissible for this Committee to enhance and loosen and supplement the public participation practices that we usually use. I know sometimes people feel that public comment is kind of narrow and constraining and if this Committee was interested in enhancing the public dialog process in this Committee, we can talk about ways to do that. Mayor Scharff: I actually think that would be a great idea. You know we’ve done that on some of the airplane noise stuff and I was actually thinking about engaged people are on the airplane noise stuff. I mean if I – if we scheduled a meeting on airplane noise right now, there would be one hundred people in this room. Two hundred people in this room and I got to say that we don’t have a formal stakeholder group but the airplane noise people understand that stuff than the FAA half the time I think. I mean it’s really amazing the expertise they bring to it. I’m open to us doing some of that stuff. Council Member Fine: So just a few things, I think it would be helpful to potentially expand this group but I also want to remind us all we do have comment periods at PTC and this meeting every single time, right? So, TRANSCRIPT Page 46 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 there’s that level of community engagement. I’m a little worried about just putting community engagement within the TAC because it seems like something we’re going to turn off and turn off when we don’t want it and if we’re having other agencies come, we’re just going to turn off the public engagement piece there so that seems a little shallow to me. Then also I do think Tom, your comments on finance are well taken. I don’t think we have that piece exactly. It could be the trench study that you’re looking at but maybe that’s separate and done more at the Staff level. Then just a last thing, Eric, I think you said it pretty well; we’re trying to make the right decision, we’re trying to get agreement on it and I think we, as Council, pushed more on getting the right decision, we’re taking on more of a political risk on the back side. I also kind of agree with you that the values around this aren’t as fraught as some other issues that we’ve faced in the City. So, I guess we should just be clear with ourselves about that, right? Chair DuBois: I’ll attempt a Motion, so my Motion would be to have Staff propose adding some additional members to the TAC, to add additional expertise in areas that aren’t represented, to define those roles and responsibilities, and potentially sub-committees. To consider adding focus groups and to start to develop a trench scenario. Mayor Scharff: Ok, I second. MOTION: Chair DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to recommend Staff propose adding members to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide additional expertise in areas not currently represented, to define those roles and responsibilities, suggest potential subcommittees and to consider adding focus groups. Council Member Fine: Is the trench scenario – it’s just the trench itself. Do we want anything on financial scenarios and directing Staff there? Chair DuBois: I don’t know if that needs to be a part of this Motion. Ms. Stump: Can we move – can we actually move that second part, the trench and the finances, to the second item and just deal with the process issues here? Mr. Keene: Just to be clear, I may leave during that part of it in some way but I’m assuming that the – whatever motion comes out of the Committee is not prescriptive. I mean it’s trying to clarify some particular directions but TRANSCRIPT Page 47 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 when we write the report to the Council, we may touch on some areas that are unspoken and the Council (inaudible). Mayor Scharff: It’s not prescriptive. Chair DuBois: So, do you want to read that Motion again? Did you guys get it? Council Member Filseth: (Inaudible) Mr. Mello: I mean I – well so Mr. Keene: That was good, that was classic. Let the record know (inaudible) Mr. Mello: Well I think without any kind of Motion, we’re going to put together a white paper on the trench. Chair DuBois: We’ll talk about that in the next section. Alright so, all those in favor of the Motion? Great, alright. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Council Member Filseth left the meeting at 10:08 AM Mayor Scharff: Ok, so I have a hard stop at 11 so hopefully we can wrap this up. Council Member Filseth: (Inaudible) Mayor Scharff: So now we are on Item Number 2, right? Mr. Mello: It’s still the same item, it’s 2B. Mayor Scharff: Oh, it’s 2B, right. Mr. Mello: So, it’s still the same item but we’ve broken it into two parts and this is the second part which will cover the problem, the objectives, and the evaluation criteria. Just to give you a background on how we arrived at the problem statement, the objectives and the evaluation criteria. This process TRANSCRIPT Page 48 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 started with fifteen community stakeholder interviews, which my Staff and I conducted across the street at the Downtown Library. These interviews included neighborhood leaders, advocates, former elected officials and local rail experts. The key takes away from those interviews were that the prior Rail Corridor Studies are important. There’s a confusion around the trench study, a lot of folks misinterpret the trenching study to be some type of alternative selection, when in fact it was just a feasibility analysis of what it would take to do a trench. There were also differing opinions on the CSS process, which we are pretty familiar with. Concerns about a pre-supposing solution so we – one particular interview we talked about how the trench could be more expensive than a traditional grade crossing and there was a disagreement. So, folks want us to be very deliberate about how we talk about the cost of each of the different alternatives and pre-suppose that one of them maybe more expensive or less impactful than others. Then we reaffirmed – there was reaffirmed that safety and visual impacts are very important. So, visual impacts around the potential to raise the rail road and there was a lot of concern around the impacts that would happen in surrounding neighborhoods. Following the stakeholder interviews, we hosted our community workshop. You are very familiar with what occurred then, that was May 20th; we had 130 attendees, 39 written comments. The afternoon of that Saturday we talked about the problem definition, objections and evaluation criteria and that were the – that session is where we got the most valuable input on these three topics. Over the summer we did a survey monkey community questionnaire. We emailed it out to 444 recipients, that’s the number of people we have on Gov. Delivery email list for the Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program. They sent it out via email trees to their neighborhoods and other groups. We also promoted it on social media and as a result, we had 791 unique responses within the two-week period. Nine-eight percent of those who started the questionnaire completed it, which is a pretty good completion rate given the complexity of the questions and the amount of information we were asking people for. The purposes of the questionnaire were to maintain community involvement, so you remember one of the key tenants of CSS is continuing engagement. We didn’t have the May 20th workshop and then disappear for three months and leave community member feeling as though we had forgotten them. We also wanted – didn’t want to bring anything forward to PTC, Rail Committee or Council without first going back and check with the community as part of the continuing engagement process. The questionnaire shared the draft problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria and then solicited input from the respondents on those three topics. After the questionnaire, we made some edits to the draft problem statement and I can read this if you want but it’s included in your packet. This is our suggested problem statement TRANSCRIPT Page 49 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 today and it’s – this is how we will frame this process going forward in this program. Instead of Staff or someone else deciding what we think the problem is, this is a community driven problem statement that attempts to clarify how the community sees the current issues out there and where we should – what we should use to developed solutions to the problem. We also developed a list of suggested objectives, it’s a pretty long and lengthy list and I’ll talk a little bit about PTC recommendation in a little bit but we may want to think about shortening this and being more pointed about where we want to focus our efforts on this. Then the evaluation criteria, we have three tiers and the tiers are based on the questionnaire and the input that we got during the community workshop. The ones in Tier 1 are what the community thought were the more important so facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes, reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings, provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclist, and support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements. That was something that a couple of our interviewees touched on as whatever we develop, we should – it should support Caltrain service not detract from Caltrain service or planned Caltrain service expansions. Then the tier two criteria and the tier three criteria are still important but they were judged to be less important than the tier one criteria. The PTC last week reviewed these materials and their two recommendations in regard to this portion of the presentation is to reconsider the inclusion of noise and vibration and other common issues near railroads in the problem statement. They felt that safety and circulation are really a primary issue and that noise and vibration are something that’s fairly common when you live near a rail corridor and to expect us to solve those problems a little bit of a stretch with our Rail Program. Then their second recommendation was to reduce the number of objectives to the top four. So, this is the current list of objectives and they felt that a lot of the ones at the end are just best practices and we would be doing those anyway; like maximizing Palo Alto’s fair share of available funding sources. They didn’t necessarily feel like they were worth while putting in the objectives for this program because it dilutes the other – the top four objectives, which are to improve safety along the rail corridor, reduce traffic congestion, improve circulation and access for all modes and then deliver grade separations in a timely manner. So, with that, I conclude the presentation. Mayor Scharff: The evaluation criteria and the suggested objectives, why wouldn’t you just have one? Mr. Mello: The objectives are a refinement of the problem statement – I’m sorry, I just got a… TRANSCRIPT Page 50 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: But isn’t – what’s the relationship between the suggested objectives and the evaluation criteria? Mr. Mello: The objectives are a refinement of the problem statement and the evaluation criteria, when we start to develop our alternatives, we’ll create an evaluation matrix which will rate each of the alternatives on how they meet the evaluation criteria. Chair DuBois: Like have specific metrics? Mr. Mello: Yes, we’ll develop specific metrics on how do we measure the reduction of delay and we’ll have a matrix that basically compares all of our alternatives using the evaluation criteria. So, the objectives are more policy, the evaluation criteria are technical in nature. Then just next steps, we’re going to City Council on September 5th; it’s no longer August 28th. We are hoping to convene the Technical Advisory Committee sometime in September, just to give them an update on where we are and not string them along too much; you know bring them into the fold and know that we will be consulting them throughout this process. Then we are hosting a community workshop on September 16th and then did pencil in a tentative community workshop on August – October 21st but we’ve been thinking more about that lately and we think there could be a potential to use polling and/or focus groups in lieu of having community workshop three because that work shop is going to be where we start to talk about what alternatives are acceptable and applying to the community. So, a focus group might be a better way to get more intensive involvement from the community and allow for more prolonged discussion about the pros and cons of different alternatives than a community workshop. With that, our Staff recommendation today in regards to this section of the presentation is to review the attached summary of community workshop one and the summary of the questionnaire responses and then provide a recommendation to the City Council on the draft problem statement, project objectives and an evaluation criterion for discussion of community workshop two and to inform the development in screening of grade separation alternatives. Chair DuBois: Alright, we do have some members of the public. Where did I stick these? Alright for Item 2B we have Nadia Naik, followed by Elizabeth Alexis. Nadia Naik: Hello again, so I’m kind of actually still mentally on the last section but when you’re looking for better ways to maybe have some of TRANSCRIPT Page 51 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 these meetings be a little bit more engaging with the public. Some of the things that we did in the last Rail Committee meetings in the past was that when there were lengthy discussions like what you guys just had, they would actually go around for a second round of comments because often times folks like us are like oh, but there is a mistake. So, for example, the two percent grade is absolutely a technical thing that Caltrain can do; it’s on their tech specs but it leaves the rest of us biting our finger tips because we’ve got lots of more things we could say so that’s an easy way to kind of get more engagement. The other thing that was done in previous Rail Committee iteration was there were a lot more working group sessions. So often times the Chair would have different sets of groups who might come up. So, you might have CAARD come and present what we know, you might have Clem Tillier come and talk, you might have Adina come talk but it allows you, Council Members, in an open forum to ask specific questions and get data. It also presents a way publicly for all of us to also help Staff get some of the things that they need. So those would be some suggestions on maybe how to – while you guys still figuring out where your stakeholders belong in this process, how to actually start to have a wider conversation. I think what I hear you struggling with at your – at its core is that you don’t want to make anything to official but you agree that the citizens have something to add and in the end, we all just want to have a really good conversation and make sure that we’re having it openly. So, I think there’s a way to figure this stuff out. I will say that I sent my comments and I warned you not to print because I was thinking of you guys that might be printing it at home and reading them last minute last night. It – the packet does not include the rest of my attachment which is – which would be page 10-36 which include excerpts from the Pennsylvania project. They have very specific examples in there of community criteria that they used to kind of measure their alternatives. Obviously, that’s a finished report so it’s much more advanced than what we have but some of the specific things are for example if you were looking at the Churchill crossing, including criteria that would say you know really maximizing how to get bikes across or whatever. They just had very geographically specific criteria so I would highly recommend that we continue to look at models of other projects to see how we can build on those and look at those things. I think that’s all I have for the criteria right now. I just – again, it’s going to be hard to continue to widdle that down unless there’s a kind of spelled out the process of where we’re going with all this stuff. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Thank you. TRANSCRIPT Page 52 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Elizabeth Alexis: Yes, it would be nice to talk more about the – I think there are some interesting things that were brought up about what is the role, why do you want normal people in a room with the technical experts? That’s sort of the magic of CSS is you’re asking technical people to think a little differently than they did before because on the technical side you get sort of stuck on standards and the book and what it says. What you are asking people to do is can you think of another way to achieve your objectives? Like if you’re trying – like for the Water District; I mean it really is a big project. We all the creeks that we’re crossing, we have a lot of water flow issues, and we have a lot of stuff there. So, I just – ten people going really deep is not the same as two hundred people going shallow. I mean it’s different, you want both actually because there are certain things that the two hundred people will give you feedback on but ten people thinking really deeply about the problem and that lead into the problem statement. I think -- and this is one thing to think about with Eric and some other people, I think you’ve got a problem statement on sort of a global level. That we have the Caltrain expanded in 2025 and that we have – we’ve always had limited capacity on an east/west and that’s already taxed in. That will just be – it will be a non – I mean nonviable but then we start to look – and this is where we can use the experience that we’ve learned from the previous studies and why we’re a little different than the problems that we’re looking at in Sunnyvale or Mountain View. I mean I think you can divide it up, I think there is a South Palo Alto project that starts at San Antonio Road and includes the station area because one of the things – the 2025 Caltrain thing is not just about the crossings but it’s going to be about as people who do not work in San Francisco because it’s a pain in the butt to get there, they will work in San Francisco. People who live in Palo Alto, who live in Los Altos, who live in – all of these things are going to create a demand to get to the stations and we need to be thinking about that when we’re solving these other problems. We have more issues with bicyclist than other Cities do because of our reliance and that for the high schools where you get in a half an hour period you get, I don’t know, five hundred people moving across the crossing; they have to be a different kind of width. I would look at – and as I think Staff said, you said oh, there are just two alternatives. No, there’s actually – I mean the permutations and combinations you get because we know – this is things that we already know. It’s expensive to maintain all the current turning movements so the question is, can you find a way because we do have a couple of crossings and the San Antonio Road is – we haven’t even talked about sort of looking at that area and what that can use or not use or the limits on what’s going to happen there. Looking across those South Palo Alto as a general problem, I think is one issue. Then looking at North of Oregon Expressway, including the California Avenue area because there are issues TRANSCRIPT Page 53 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 which are people getting into the station there and people getting onto Alma. Up to, let’s call it Town and Country, that’s one area because some of the solutions may include looking at the Embarcadero Crossing as part – taking up some capacity and then the – as the Alma Street one is really – it is a Palo Alto station area plan which we will need to do and thinking of those as three different distinct things. Chair DuBois: Great, thank you. Richard Brand. Richard Brand: Richard Brand, resident and I guess acting as an ex-officio advisor here, thank you, Mayor Scharff. A couple things on the problem statement, I think – and this comes back to what I outlined at the beginning of the meeting is that suggestion – let’s see, sorry, suggested problem statement. Cal – the a – High Speed Rail is going to be probably, I wouldn’t say possible. I mean as it is right now, High Speed Rail is a probable solution and we’ve heard them say that as they presented here so right now the wording is possible. Yes, funding is still up in the air but I think you need to consider changing that and that brings me to the other issue of the trench, which I think is a great discussion that’s going on. I think Staff though cannot come back with a cost issue until we have High Speed Rail tell us what they are going to do about four tracks versus two. Four tracks will change us and in fact, what are we going to do? Close down Alma and build a shoe fly along Alma to get the trains to continue to – shoe fly is an alternative rail solution. A four-track trench is going – where are you going to put the tracks? So once again, this all depends, I’m defending Staff here, on what the High Speed Rail people do. We need a solution – we need an answer from them on that proposal. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Next speaker is Herb Borock. Herb Borock: Yeah, I just want to talk a little bit about the problem statement. The – how you frame the problem statement gets into what Council Member Filseth said on the previous part of this agenda item, which is making a decision and having by in on the decision. In previous meetings and I guess at this one, it seems that the no project alternative, that is not doing any kind of grade separation; whether it’s a trench or clover leaf or anything else. That’s already been made, even though not in a formal way so, in some sense, that’s part of the problem statement in that you have already decided not to do that. Another part of the problem statement is the relationship to feature development. I mean if Caltrain is the only rail line and is not High Speed Rail, just to simplify it and their ridership is going to double, does that mean that half the people who drive – an equal number of TRANSCRIPT Page 54 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 the people who are driving now ride on the train now. Well, it’s just going to come from those people so we’re going to decrease the number of people who are driving cars in Palo Alto by an amount equal to the commuters who come into Palo Alto and the commuters who leave Palo Alto. If the real situation is related to the Comprehensive Plan, that land developers and large corporations, who among themselves could pay for all of this and not have a sales tax and bonds (inaudible) the public, it they want that relieving that traffic congestion to be able to develop more and have more employees come in by vehicles so that you are back to the same congestion. What’s missing from the problem statement is the land use decision that is being made in the future when you make a Comprehensive Plan decision and those have to be weaved into that. Otherwise it just becomes an issue that you’ve already made a decision, for example, to do a trench or maybe the problem statement is (inaudible) by the City Manager, which is there’s this pot of money available within a short period of time and our problem statement really at the top is how do we do this so quickly and come to a decision that people buy in to get that money. Thank you. Chair DuBois: Ok and our last speaker is Adina Levin. Adina Levin: A few different points in terms of the problem statement and objectives and criteria is – as well as the process is that I think funding strategies really need to be a first-class consideration here because if a trench is a preferred alternative, the order of magnitude cost here is a billion dollars. Think about the heartache about the Adobe Creek Bridge in the ten to the $20 million range and that was difficult. We’re talking two orders of magnitude greater than that; a billion dollars is a little bit of money and the strategies whether they are bonding, whether they are taxing, whether they be land value capture, those will make a really big difference in terms of the burden on community members. The change in the community being envisioned in order to make some of this possible and building in the time to get the expert advice on the financial options and then the community input on what seems like desirable strategies and undesirable strategies. I think that needs to be pretty heavily weighted in the analysis and in the decision making, so that’s one point. Another point with regards to taking things into the account but not pre-judging. You may be familiar with a process that Burlingame went through where they had earlier phase and they said we want a trench. The Council Members were persuaded they wanted a trench, the community members were perused they wanted a trench, then they looked at the details and what – where they came to was they saw visualizations of the amount of fencing you need to protect electric poles and wire from people fallings on top of them. They concluded for themselves that TRANSCRIPT Page 55 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 the aesthetic impact, they thought that was uglier than the other alternatives that they were looking at. That was the decision that they made and the other thing is that they looked at the water issues where they were located and realized that it would be extremely difficult at that location to keep it dry. They came up with, at the end, a split alternative that was different from where they thought they started. I do not have a personal opinion, Friends of Caltrain has no position on this topic so this is not to say Palo Alto should do one or the other. It’s to say that when those options are considered and people look at the visual impacts and the data, they may come to a different place than when they started. Then two more things more quickly if I might. One is about how separable Alma is and one of the things that I’ve heard from community members is around on the permeability topic, it might be possible to make additional through connections in that area but that would have timing and funding interrelationships. Even in the current value capture legislation where things don’t need to be in the exact same location, they could intertwingle. I know that has like some consequences that people don’t want in terms of process but that might be on the – be considered sooner rather than later. Oh, and just the long middle three only goes through Cal. Ave. Chair DuBois: Ok, so back to us for discussion. So, I think there are two parts, here right? There’s the problem statement criteria, objectives and then I think we’re also being asked to – well, just (inaudible) (crosstalk)…. Mayor Scharff: The problem statement. Chair DuBois: … the results, yeah, so that’s it. Mayor Scharff: Adrian, do you… Council Member Fine: Sure. I think the problem statement is pretty close, there are a few things that I want to change and I’ll start with the small ones. So, one is I actually do appreciate Richard’s comment about High Speed Rail probable versus possible. Another one that kind of stuck to me is saying the rail corridor also creates issues in surrounding neighborhoods. It also creates issues for Stanford and for our commercial areas and I think that’s worth noting and then the last thing is the biggest comment. I think it’s important for us to frame this problem as something else we’re committed to because I mean we could say like gosh, Caltrain is going to increase service and we should just fight them tooth and nail and not do grade separations. I think it’s important for us to acknowledge that Caltrain TRANSCRIPT Page 56 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 is really the backbone of heavy transit on the peninsula. You know many of our residents use it to get to work, many folks come down here for work, and so I think it’s worth acknowledging that Caltrain is expanding and it’s going to provide more service to our region and to our City but there are these connectivity and physical barrier issues. So, I would just recommend that we bring that opportunity in benefit of Caltrain to the front and then kind of do the butt. That’s my comment on the problem statement. I do have comments on the other things but you want to just stick with… Chair DuBois: Yeah, why don’t we just talk about the problem statement? Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I agree. Council Member Fine: Just stick to that for now, ok. Mayor Scharff: Do you want us to wordsmith this right now? Would that be the easiest thing for you to do or do you want general comments like Adrian just made? Mr. Mello: I mean so after this meeting we’ll refine it and bring it to Council on September 5th so I mean just input into the refinements that you’d like to see would be sufficient I think, as long as there’s general agreement among the Committee. Mayor Scharff: I agree with what Adrian said and I’m perfectly good with that. I actually think you did a good job on the problem statement. I think the unspoken part of the problem statement and I know you want to just do the problem statement but I think it bleeds into this, is when you put down objectives all the way – bottom is cost minimized right of way acquisition. I’m afraid that we not talking about that when we look at these grade separations that it’s up to 50 homes that are taken. I think that if we don’t make that explicit as we go through this process – you know one of the things may be minimizing eminent domain, which where’s when you talk about just right of way acquisition, people think it’s a cost. It feels like we’re hiding the ball so I do think it’s appropriate just to use the term right of way acquisition. I want us to be explicative so that people talk about it, that people – that the community has this discussion. I don’t want to get through this all and then 50 people’s homes might be taken, plus their neighbors and that they come out on mass and say we had no idea this was going on so I think that’s really important. I’m not sure that needs to go into the problem statement but that is my biggest concern with sort of where we are on this. TRANSCRIPT Page 57 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: If I could, we could certainly change right of way acquisition to property acquisition or acquiring property or something that is more explicative under the objectives. In the evaluation criteria, I know you want to talk about that later but currently minimized right of way acquisition is shown as a tier three criterion so a recommendation the Committee could make is to move that to tier one. Chair DuBois: Or two but I guess a question is do we want to explicatively say emanate domain? Mayor Scharff: I don’t know, I just don’t want to be ever accused that we hide the ball so I wanted them said publicly and I mean I don’t know how we do it, I just want it to be out there in the public and people start talking about it. Mr. Mello: Yeah, so there’s generally two types of property acquisition; there could be a vulnerary sale to the City and then there could be emanate domain. I think the emanate domain one is the primary concern if I’m reading you correctly. Mayor Scharff: Correct. Chair DuBois: Yes. Mayor Scharff: So, I’m good with the problem statement with the comments that Adrian made, go ahead. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I think I generally support the comments that both of you guys made. Maybe a few tweaks to something that Adrian had said but for me, I feel like we're burying the headline on the problem statement. I think it – we’re really talking about future impacts and that’s really understated. It doesn’t come out that no project is not really feasible because of these future impacts. So, I think that needs to be kind of the headline and so the very last sentence is some of these issues will continue to get worse in the future’ I think that’s just very weak. Mayor Scharff: I agree with you Tom, you’re right. Chair DuBois: I would split the support of Caltrain sentence with the but and I would actually lead with that the planned increase and frequency and TRANSCRIPT Page 58 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 length of trains by Caltrain and High Speed Rail will worsen all impacts. Then maybe follow that up with the City of Palo Alto benefits from Caltrain service and we support Caltrain. Again, being really clear that why are we spending all this money that doesn’t even sound like there’s a big problem here. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Development Director: If I could just respond to that last comment. Hillary Gitelman the Planning Director, I just wanted to let the Committee – make the Committee aware that some of the very strong responses we got to the citizen questionnaire were on this subject and they challenged us to acknowledge that some of the impacts, for example, noise, and vibration, may get better with electrification. So, they didn’t want us to lump like all the impacts are going to get worse. They wanted us to be more explicitly about our support for Caltrain service and acknowledge that while congestion may get worse, other impacts may be improved in the future. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I don’t know we quantify that they get better if others – maybe a little less noise but it’s much more frequently right? So again, we’re talking about I think more trains and potentially longer trains. Mayor Scharff: Well it’s east/west connectivity that gets worse, congestion may actually get a lot better because people will hopefully be taking Caltrain and not driving. Ms. Gitelman: But the number of times that the gates come down and traffic gets congestion… Mayor Scharff: That’s east/west connectivity. Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, the congestion associated with that is what (inaudible) (crosstalk) Chair DuBois: Something else is you need to be realistic about the volumes. I mean you’re talking ten times the volume in vehicles and 30,000 people on the train. Council Member Fine: I mean this is why I do think that we actually want to lead with the opportunity a little bit saying the City of Palo Alto is supporting the modernization of Caltrain, which will result in better service but that will impact our east/west connectivity, noise, vibrations… TRANSCRIPT Page 59 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: So, that’s the one thing that I disagreed with that in terms of a problem statement… Mayor Scharff: You think you want to lead with… Chair DuBois: … we should lead with the problem, right? Council Member Fine: I just think people don’t see it get and I think you articulated well like there is something coming towards us and not doing anything is not an option. Chair DuBois: Yeah, the other thing that I would say is that I consider Stanford and businesses to be parts of the neighborhoods so I wasn’t really clear what you were suggesting. (Inaudible) Again, that’s my main comment, that we should really be very explicit that these changes are coming and they are going to have significant impacts. Do you need anything more explicitly than that feedback? Mr. Mello: No, I mean I think we can look at ways to emphasize that more clearly and also, emphasize that Caltrain is a good thing for the community in general; the Caltrain service that is provided to Palo Alto and will be provided with electrification. Chair DuBois: Great, ok, so let’s move on to the objectives. Want to mix it up or go in the same order? Council Member Fine: I’ll lead off, I don’t mind. So, I think these are pretty good. A few of them, (inaudible) the PTC comments and what you said Josh, we maybe could knock off; like the bottom on maximizing Palo Alto fair share of available funding sources, I think we’re always going to do that. Minimize disruption during construction, I hope we do that every time and I think that’s kind of goes without saying. The one that I didn’t see here is kind of – I don’t know the exact phrase but leverage these changes that are happening and kind of coordinate it with our land use planning and other opportunities that may arise, maybe even doing a new station plan, particularly for downtown. I think that there may be an objective there in terms of saying there are big changes coming, we’re doing a lot of physical work, lots of upgrades and what are the surrounding land use station impacts. I think that’s all I’ve got on the objectives for now. TRANSCRIPT Page 60 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: Let me tell you what I’ve got. I’ve got – I actually think we should change it to minimize emanate domain and local road closures; I think that would be helpful. I think we should strike to ensure fairness in terms of the investments, improvements in North and South Palo Alto and let me tell you why. We as a community may decide we’re going to change – close Churchill, which would mean a much less investment in North Palo Alto. We may decide that we’re going to do a trench which is much higher investment in South Palo Alto and I don’t think it makes any sense to say the funding needs to be equal for both and so I think we should strike that. Chair DuBois: Is that it? Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I also agree with Adrian about getting rid of the last two. So, I would get rid of the last three to make that one change. Let me see, (inaudible) something else. Yeah, I think the rest of its fine. Chair DuBois: So, a lot of agreement on this, that’s great. I agree with both of those comments. My main comment was the third bullet, I think improving circulation access for Alma is a transportation period is an objective and that’s separating bicyclist is a separate objective. I think in your report you said that this was somewhat in priority orders, kind of clustered, so I think it might be good to make that explicit in the workshops and things because it is a long list. I don’t necessarily agree that we need to get it down to four items but I think there is some implied priority in this list. The other thing in the Staff report, you know there’s a sensitivity about talking about the trench because we’re potentially proposing a scenario but I think that’s an opposition to this and kind of recognizing the work of the past. So, I think it would be great if you could find a way in the objectives to reference the past Community desire – stated desire and Council’s stated direction has been a trench. We’re starting to look at this new approach just to acknowledge that past work so we don’t continue to get feedback that is why are you ignoring this one from a few years ago? I just wanted to completely drop it in and work it in somehow. Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I’m fine with that as long as – if it seems that the trench is not going to be feasible, I don’t want us to be locking in that as an objective. Chair DuBois: Yeah, I’m not saying that it’s an objective, I’m just acknowledging (crosstalk) (inaudible)… TRANSCRIPT Page 61 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: (Inaudible) Chari DuBois: …preference, right? Ms. Mello: I think we could certainly reference the past work and the community preference for the trench and then clarify that we’ll be going through a formal alternatives analysis process and we may end up there, we may not end up there but we’ll think about how to word that. Mayor Scharff: But at least that gets us starting on the trench work and I’m good with that. Council Member Fine: Just one last piece I’m missing from here, I don’t know again, if this one that goes without saying but to support the City and Region sustainability goals. There’s nothing in here about that but it’s not priority one. Mayor Scharff: Why would we add that? I mean I understand but I mean we’re trying to… Council Member Fine: I’m just wondering as we’ve heard about things like – as we’ve heard about things of – in terms of one -- like there’s the mass transit aspect of this too. There’s also like the bike and ped stuff, right? I agree with you Tom that separating bike and ped is not a first order thing. Chair DuBois: Well, it’s up there but I’m just saying that it’s not the same (inaudible) (crosstalk) Council Member Fine: As improving circulation for all modes. There are the electrification pieces, there’s kind of our construction management in some of these sensitive areas, there’s all the creek work. I don’t know, I’m not totally sold on it but it just seems like as I look through this list, that seems to be one key term we’re missing but we may not need it here. Mr. Mello: We could potentially expand the one that says to support Caltrain Service enhancements… Council Member Fine: (Inaudible) TRANSCRIPT Page 62 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: …to encourage sustainable transportation or something to that effect, ok. Chair DuBois: Alright, let’s get moving here. Criteria? Mayor Scharff: The draft evaluation criteria, right? Chair DuBois: Yeah. Why don’t we switch up the order? I’ll jump in and then we’ll go down the line. I didn’t know if we need to call out rail operations at a tier one. I don’t think anyone is talking about trying to stop Caltrain or anything. It just seemed not needed, I mean it was just an impression. On number two, I do think minimizing right of way acquisition should at least be a tier two, I’m not sure it should be a tier one but a tier two. On – then tier three, I think we should separate the – well the other part of that; finance with available funding sources. I think we should have something like determine funding sources and take steps to start to get them in place. I think one of the public speakers said making the funding strategy more explicit and that’s a class one problem. Mayor Scharff: Yeah so, I… Mr. Mello: See if I could just jump in so just to be clear. These are criteria that will be used to evaluate the different alternatives. So, it would have… Chair DuBois: Sure, ok so (inaudible) (crosstalk) I guess – well, I guess the other – yeah, maybe it doesn’t belong here. The other part on the cost that I forgot to mention is the last time in the workshop we threw in a bunch of potentially new crossings, which may have different sources of funding and I said it at the last rail meeting that I think we should be really clear about separation of costs on current grade seps from funding, potentially new crossings. I think that adds confusion to the process. Mayor Scharff: I think what Tom – maybe you were trying to get at it a little bit and I’m struggling with this too on the cost thing. It’s really not cost, it’s feasibility; it’s cost feasibility. I mean something may be more expensive and we may choose to do it but it’s feasible where as something may be totally unfeasible because of the cost. Chari DuBois: And know what’s feasible requires some analysis of funding sources but I’m not sure how we capture that. TRANSCRIPT Page 63 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: So maybe finance with feasible funding sources instead of available because it may very well be that… Mayor Scharff: That’s what I would say. Mr. Mello: …they are not available today. Mayor Scharff: I would just say cost feasibility quite frankly and leave it at that and knowing just like you’re going to do the work on the trench stuff in parallel. Jim said we’d start with finance and doing the financing part for availability. I actually disagree with Tom on the rail operations, I think support continued rail options on Caltrain service improvements. I think making that explicit is really important and I do think that we should move up to minimize – I actually think it's minimized, do away with the word cost and just say minimize emanate domain and make that a tier two criterion. Then I’m not so sure we need a tier three criterion. We may just have tier one criteria and tier two criteria unless you want to break some of these out. I mean… Chair Dubois: Well, I mean disruption of (crosstalk) Mayor Scharff: Right, so we could make – minimize disruption and duration of construction activities Tier 3. Chair DuBois: Well, we still have cost feasibility under Tier 3. Mayor Scharff: But I mean cost feasibility has to be under Tier 1. I think. I mean if it’s not feasible – in fact, it should be the number one criteria. I mean if it’s not feasible to do it, we should drop it. I mean that’s – so, I’d actually make that Tier 1. You disagree? Chair DuBois: I just think it’s a fund-raising effort so it happens over time and knowing up front something that is absolutely feasible – it depends – well, kind of like the order of magnitude of feasibility versus more accurate. Mayor Scharff: I realize that the term feasible is squishy, right? I mean what may be feasible for – but I think at the end of the day, that’s sort of a… Chair DuBois: But until we’ve done the work, it’s hard to know. TRANSCRIPT Page 64 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: Yeah but you can’t engage on the fund raising and decide that you’re going to see if it works and then end up not having any grade separations. You’ve got to have a plan that’s feasible, right? I mean I don’t think the plan could be hopefully someone will donate the money for instance. It’s got to be like what we did with the infrastructure. Chair DuBois: But the plan could involve private money, business impact money, and a bunch of other things that we haven’t been talking about. Mr. Mello: If I could just jump in here. So, the evaluation matrix that will be created using these evaluation criteria will be used to inform the decision- making process. The matrix itself is not going to make the decision so the way this could play out is under rail operations, for example, let’s say we get into a one percent versus a one and a half percent debate with Caltrain and they say well, we could accept 1.25 percent but not 1.5 percent. The alternative that has that 1.5 percent would have a lower score under rail operations because… Mayor Scharff: (Inaudible) support passenger rail operations. Mr. Mello: We could certainly… so it’s – basically this is just going to help facilitate the decision-making process. So, the feasibility of the funding would be something that would be if we’re building something that only uses Measure B funding because it only cost $90 million. Let’s say that would have a high score under funding feasibility but if we pick something that’s going to require a local referendum that’s – we haven’t done any polling on and have no idea, that would have a lower score under funding feasibility but it’s not going to be automatically dismissed because the decision will ultimately up to Council. Mayor Scharff: Getting back to what Tom said, what you just said – I don’t think we should be scoring that until we did the polling. Do you know what I mean? I mean I – what I don’t want to have happened in this process is we make decisions with very limited information when we could get better information. I would actually give you a hard time if you came here and said we scored this low because we haven’t done polling yet and I’d say well, let’s go do the polling. Mr. Mello: That’s exactly probably how it would – I mean we can leave it blank until we do polling and not score it but I mean I just wanted to be clear about how this will be used. TRANSCRIPT Page 65 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: Ok, I just don’t want to get into a situation with the bridge where we had the entire community go through this, we choose something, and then we are really rushed for time and we just basically do what the opposite of CSS; which is we say ok, we’re just doing this grade separation just like this because we no more time and we need to do it. We had a 5- year process and we went down the wrong path. Council Member Fine: I mostly agree with the Mayor. I do think the rail operations bullet is important, as is something about the financial feasibility and I think for Tom’s point, that could be a broad feasibility catch at that point. If we’re going to move the minimize -- I mean the use of emanate domain for this project into tier two, I agree. I think we can get rid of tier three and that the construction criteria, minimizing disruption during the duration of construction activities at a single location; it’s nice to have. I think we’re going to do that anyway and it shouldn’t just be the one hanging out in tier three. Chair DuBois: So, you’re saying to move it to Tier 2? Council Member Fine: I think that we could strike it and just move the right of way acquisition of the emanate domain bullet point into Tier 2 and then… Chair DuBois: So, I guess the one thing that we would be missing and again I’m ok leaving rail operations in there. It just struck me as we’re going to do it anyway; that was my only point. The issue of construction disruptions not only to vehicle traffic but also rail operations are we – do we suddenly… Council Member Fine: Impact on current (inaudible) Chair DuBois: (Inaudible) there. I mean are we going to like not consider an alternative because it has some construction impacts on operations. Council Member Fine: I mean that’s fair. Mayor Scharff: That’s fair but I actually liked keeping minimize disruption of the durations but I was just going to move it to Tier 2. Chair DuBois: But yeah, I’m ok with that and just have two tiers. TRANSCRIPT Page 66 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: But if Staff for some reason wants Tier 3, I mean three tiers, we could break up Tier 2 into Tier 3 and then we’ll have (inaudible) Council Member Fine: I guess that’s a little persuasive. Maybe that at any single location is a little funny then. I guess that was making think… Mayor Scharff: Why don’t we just say duration of construction (inaudible) Council Member Fine: Yeah, that was making me think we’re not going to impact a single household so badly for this but I think Tom, your point about it could like it could be existing service or another right of ways. Mayor Scharff: Well, if we take that house it won’t… Council Member Fine: We’ll we’re not going to take that house that’s why we’re going to try to minimize that. Mayor Scharff: Exactly. Chair DuBois: Ok, so I think this is mainly kind of feedback and I don’t know if we need a Motion. I did have a couple other comments on – so on the Council meeting on September 5th, what are we taking to Council? Mr. Mello: I think a Motion from you directing us to incorporate your feedback into the problem statement, objectives and evaluation criteria that we present to City Council on September 5th would be helpful. Mayor Scharff: So, moved. Chair DuBois: Second. All in favor? Ok, but is that the only thing we’re taking to Council? MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to incorporate the Committee’s feedback regarding the problem statement objectives and evaluation criteria and to present the new versions to the City Council in September; and Mr. Mello: Yeah, well we’ll also probably most likely has a discussion about the process again and we’ll provide the direction that we were given by PTC and Rail Committee to Council. TRANSCRIPT Page 67 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: The other thing I would just say is that I am pretty concerned that on the engagement plan around the alternatives, you were saying that it may not even have the second workshop. I mean the amount of people that can participate in a focus group on probably one of the most key steps is making a little nervous. Mayor Scharff: So, I thought – I’m with Tom. I think we should have – we should do – I thought the focus group was an additive to be honest, not a… Chair DuBois: Well, I heard him say that maybe we (inaudible)(crosstalk) Mayor Scharff: No, no, that’s why I’m supporting you on that. Chair DuBois: I think we need to think about that. Mr. Mello: We can do both, we can do a community workshop and focus groups. I think focus groups will enable us to get a little deeper in the discussion and spend more time… Chair DuBois: Yeah, I’m a little bit concerned about even just two meetings on alternatives and if that’s going to be sufficient. Mr. Mello: This whole process is designed to be flexible so I think if after October 21st, we don’t feel like we have closure on the development of the alternatives, we could have another discussion with the community. Chair DuBois: So, do we need to add to the Motion the idea about the trench white paper? Mayor Scharff: Yes, just add that in. Chair Dubois: Is that ok? Council Member Fine: Yep. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Develop a white paper on trench scenarios, which will address constraints to a longer trench while providing a more extensive look at the Charleston Meadow trench.” TRANSCRIPT Page 68 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: I just need a clarity; would you like the white paper to focus on just the trench under Charleston and Meadow or a trench along the entire corridor? Mayor Scharff: No, it doesn’t work on the entire corridor. Why would we spend the time on that? (Inaudible)… Mr. Mello: So, the white paper... Mayor Scharff: … can’t go past Oregon, right? I mean that’s what we’ve been told. Chair DuBois: I don’t know. I’d be interested in understanding that. Council Member Fine: Yeah, I would be interested in seeing the entire corridor and if there is that issue, spelling it out on the white paper. Mr. Mello: So, Hillary I think wants to jump in but the complexity of a paper focused on the entire corridor would have – I think it would lead to a longer turnaround time for the paper. I think we could deliver something on the Charleston/Meadow one a little bit quicker and go a little deeper than we could if we were to look at the entire corridor. Ms. Gitelman: What I wanted to add is maybe tearing off of the Chair’s comments earlier about constraints. Instead of a white paper that focuses solely on the trench, I was wondering if we couldn’t broaden it to just be more about the constraints that we’re going to face along the corridor with all of these things; particularly with below grade solutions. I mean we’ve done some work on that in the past but that needs to be re-looked at and refreshed and it might be a way to make it a little broader than just the trench at these two crossings. Chair DuBois: Yeah, that sounds good. I think constraints and maybe if there are any mitigations for constraints but I think the other part of it was getting a ballpark of pricing too at some point and costing… Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I mean we have that ballpark pricing in the first Mott McDonald study. We’ll dust that off, take a look at it, and refine it as we can at this point. TRANSCRIPT Page 69 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mayor Scharff: I think it’s more than that. I’m not actually ok with that direction. I think I don’t want to have the $10 parking garage because that’s the best you can dust off. I mean I’m fine with an iteration on this but I really do think that we need to start honing in on whether or not that trench is feasible. When we talked about this previously – and look, if you want to do a light touch across the entire trench and if it is possibly feasible, I’m interested in it but all the work that came back to us last time indicated that trench over the entire corridor was not feasible. Now, if that’s changed, great but let us know but I… Ms. Gitelman: If I can clarify, I mean that last study which we linked to in the report you got today concluded that the longer trench was like a billion- dollar project and the Charleston/Meadow trench or no it was, I’m sorry. The one percent trench was a billion-dollar project and part of it is, is it went farther than just Charleston/Meadow. It had to go and impact at the Caltrain station and the Caltrain under crossing and all that, as well as the Oregon Express Way under crossing. So, there were all kinds of costs associated with the fact that it lengthened the footprint of… Mayor Scharff: So yeah, put all that in the white paper, I agree but let’s not just stop with the white paper. I mean I think we need to hone in on what’s feasible in terms of a trench and what’s not. Mr. Mello: I think a good format for the white paper would be a look at constraints to a longer trench but then go a little deeper into the Charleston/Meadow trench and look at sharpening our pencil on the cost estimate. Mayor Scharff: Right, that sounds good. Chair DuBois: So, I know you have a time constraint… Mayor Scharff: I do. Chair DuBois: …but if we could quickly get through Item 3 which is the Union Pacific letter, was that a re-sent? Mayor Scharff: Was there a re-sent, what do we do? TRANSCRIPT Page 70 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: This is just an informational item for the Committee to show you that the letter was sent. Jessica Brettle, Assistant City Clerk: I’m sorry to interrupt. We had a Motion on the floor and no vote yet on Item 2. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to: A. Incorporate the Committee’s feedback regarding the problem statement objectives and evaluation criteria and to present the new versions to the City Council in September; and B. Develop a white paper on trench scenarios, which will address constraints to a longer trench while providing a more extensive look at the Charleston Meadow trench Chair DuBois: All in favor? MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 3-0 Filseth absent Interagency Communications 3. Cities’ Letter to Union Pacific to Inform Short-Haul Freight Operator Request for Proposals (RFP) Regarding Peninsula Grade Separations NO ACTION TAKEN Next Steps and Future Agendas Chair DuBois: Quickly on upcoming schedules and agendas. So, we have SamTrans hopefully in the next meeting. What else is on the future agenda? Mr. Mello: We’ll be bringing you an agenda for the September 16th community workshop. Assuming – I’m sorry, what’s the next date of the Rail Committee – do you know? Chair DuBois: I probably have it. TRANSCRIPT Page 71 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Mr. Mello: Yeah, so we will be going over the agenda in the planning for the community workshop on September 16th. We’ll also be recapping what the outcome was from the Council meeting. Chair DuBois: So, I have a Rail Committee meeting on September 13th, is that incorrect? Mr. Mello: Yeah, I have September 13th from 8-10 on my calendar as well. Mayor Scharff: So, we are doing one on the 6th or not? Jessica Brettle, Assistant City Clerk: Currently on the tentative, it’s for Wednesday, September 13th at 8 AM. Chair DuBois: Is there a reason to change it? Mayor Scharff: Oh, you know what, there is a reason to change it. The issues are that that’s where the League meeting is. Ms. Brettle: In Sacramento? Chair DuBois: Can everyone make the 6th? (crosstalk) Mayor Scharff: We do have (inaudible) but that’s at 3 in the afternoon. Chair DuBois: Alright so… Ms. Brettle: September 6th? Chair DuBois: Yes. Ms. Brettle: Ok. Chair DuBois: Make sure… Ms. Brettle: No problem. Chair DuBois: … Eric Filseth knows. Ms. Brettle: I will. TRANSCRIPT Page 72 of 72 Special City Council Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 8/16/2017 Chair DuBois: The other thing that you talked about not starting the Dumbarton Rail letter. I guess since we moved the meeting up, we’ll have more time but if it’s possible to even outline a draft letter for that meeting, I think that would be worthwhile. Alright, anything else? Alright, thank you guys, long meeting, meeting adjourned. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 11:03 A.M.