Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-22 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 34 Special Meeting January 22, 2019 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:01 P.M. Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine; Kniss arrived at 5:35 P.M., Kou, Tanaka Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD THIS EVENING. 2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY Subject: Written Liability Claim Against the City of Palo Alto By Mary Bartholomay (Claim No. C17-0057) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(3). MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Kniss absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:02 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 5:31 P.M. Mayor Filseth announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Manager Comments Ed Shikada, City Manager, reported Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would replace parts of its gas transmission pipeline located in Palo Alto beginning at the end of January and extending through June. Information could be found on the Utilities Department homepage. The third Cubberley Co- FINAL MINUTES Page 2 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Design community workshop was scheduled for January 24 at Cubberley Community Center. The Palo Alto Public Art Program and artists from the Cubberley Artist Studio Program would celebrate new City art acquisitions on January 24. The Council's Retreat had been planned for February 2. Members of the public were invited to complete a survey via Open City Hall regarding the Council’s 2019 Priorities. The Mayor's Tree Planting and the Canopy Award Ceremony were scheduled for January 24. Friday Night at the Art Center would be held on January 25. The first community workshop for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) would be held on February 5. Council Member DuBois inquired regarding a PG&E response about tree removal. Mr. Shikada understood trees would be removed on a case-by-case basis. Staff continued to work with PG&E on the matter. He agreed to obtain additional information and provide it to the Council. Council Member Kniss asked if the improvements on University Avenue were nearing completion. Mr. Shikada indicated work on the final block of the project was underway. Council Member Kniss suggested the City host a celebration upon completion of Upgrade Downtown. Oral Communications Herb Borock remarked that the Record of Land Use Action for the affordable housing project on El Camino Real referred to individuals with specific incomes. The term "households" was less ambiguous and should have been used in place of "individuals." Keith Bennett, Save Palo Alto's Groundwater, noted many City construction projects included underground construction. Implementing design and construction best practices would minimize impacts to groundwater flows. Ron Owes commented that underground construction could lead to contamination of underground water. The issues of underground construction were complex and significant. Roberta Alquist, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, expressed concern regarding the housing crisis. The City should provide Below Market Rate (BMR) housing at the Hotel President; pressure Stanford University to build thousands of housing units prior to any other construction FINAL MINUTES Page 3 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 on Stanford University land; implement rent stabilization; and prohibit demolition of rental housing. Teacher housing could be built on the Cubberley Community Center campus. Dennis Backlund read a statement from the tenants remaining at the Hotel President. The statement requested the Council recommend AJ Capital consider extending tenancies until June 30, 2019 or until the Hotel President development project had been approved. A number of residents had not located alternate housing. Rita Vrhel requested a Town Hall meeting or an agenda item regarding developers being allowed to construct office space. She expressed concern that unelected governmental bodies would be authorized to tax residents. The City should enact a business tax. Iqbal Serang related that the Council should consider a program to provide free legal aid to persons facing eviction. Eviction was a civil rights issue. He requested the Council ask AJ Capital to extend the eviction deadline. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requirement for a one-year lease had not been enforced. Mark Weiss stated the Council should do something definitive and direct to help and protect the tenants of the Hotel President. Consent Calendar MOTION: Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-4. 3. Approval of a Revenue Agreement With the County of Santa Clara in the Amount of $250,000 Over two Years for Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection With Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless. 4. Review and Acceptance of the Annual Status Report on Developers Fees for Fiscal Year 2018; and Resolution 9816 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Findings Regarding Unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino Traffic Impact Fees in the Amount of $1,376,491 and San Antonio/West Bayshore Area Traffic Impact Fees in the Amount of $828,208.” MOTION PASSED: 7-0 FINAL MINUTES Page 4 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Action Items 5. PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Resolution 9815 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated (Continued From January 14, 2019).” Public Hearing opened at 6:02 P.M. Rakesh Sood advised the Council that his property was placed in the weed abatement program prior to his purchase of the property. Once he learned the property had been placed in the program, he began removing brush from the property. He was not responsible for the state of the property when purchased, and requiring him to pay a fine and fees was punitive. Public Hearing closed at 6:05 P.M. Moe Kumre, Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Coordinator, reported a property found to be noncompliant with minimum fire safety standards was added to the Weed Abatement Program and remained in the Program until voluntary compliance was maintained for three consecutive years or until the parcel was developed and landscaped. He would review the issue with the property owner. A change in ownership did not affect a property's inclusion in the Weed Abatement Program. The first step of the Program was a public hearing in which the property owner could contest the property's inclusion in the Program. Properties were inspected between April 30 and October 31 when the threat of fire was greatest. Council Member Kou clarified that the Weed Abatement Program ran with the land. Mr. Kumre concurred. Council Member Kou asked if real estate transaction documents would disclose the property's inclusion in the Weed Abatement Program. Mr. Kumre advised that the seller was required to inform the buyer if weed abatement was an issue. Council Member Kou inquired whether the properties located at 575 and 567 Maybell would remain in the weed abatement program as the two properties had been cleaned. Mr. Kumre reiterated that the properties would remain in the Program until voluntary compliance was maintained for three consecutive years. FINAL MINUTES Page 5 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Mr. Sood suggested the Program should be reassessed because the previous owner's negligence caused the weeds. Council Member Cormack requested the method for calculating the assessment amount. Mr. Kumre related that the property owner would pay a one-time fee listed in the County of Santa Clara's fee schedule if the property owner maintained a compliant property between April 30 and October 31. Additional fees and the cost of abatement would be incurred if the property owner did not maintain the property. Mayor Filseth requested the amount of the fee Mr. Sood would likely pay. Mr. Kumre replied $80 if Mr. Sood maintained the property during the fire season. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt the Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 6. Approval of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Compostable Materials Collection and Processing Services With GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. in the Estimated Average Annual Amount of $22,183,000; and Approval of an Addendum to the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration for City-wide Waste Hauling Service as Adequate and Complete Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Brad Eggleston, Public Works Director, reported the Council in August 2018 accepted an updated Zero Waste Plan and directed Staff to develop an amendment to the contract with GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. (Greenwaste) that would add to the scope of GreenWaste's current services and extend the contract term by five years. Rob Arp, Zero Waste Manager, advised that the contract with GreenWaste began in 2009 and was scheduled to terminate in 2021. A consultant conducted an environmental review of the proposed activities and found that the activities would have no significant impacts. Paula Borges, Environmental Control Program Manager, related that the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) set a goal to divert 95 percent of waste from landfills by 2030. The updated Zero Waste Plan FINAL MINUTES Page 6 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 included approximately 50 key initiatives to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste. Palo Alto's waste stream was handled through three main contract agreements. Two 30-year agreements pertained to the contents of the black garbage cart. Garbage was transported from Palo Alto to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT) where some recyclables and organics were removed. Waste Management handled disposal of the residuals at the SMaRT Station. Both agreements were scheduled to terminate at the end of 2021. The City's third agreement pertained to the collection of all waste materials; processing, sorting, and marketing of recyclables at the GreenWaste facility in San Jose; processing of compostables at the Zero Waste Energy Development anaerobic digester; and processing construction and demolition materials at Zanker Recycling. The proposed amendment included new vehicles, construction materials management, cleaner recyclables, additional outreach and enforcement to commercial customers, an expanded Clean Up Day, and a term extension of five years. Costs to the City for additional services were classified as either one-time or ongoing. One-time costs totaled approximately $9.8 million distributed over three Fiscal Years (FY). The majority of one-time costs would fund the replacement of 35 GreenWaste vehicles. Staff proposed use of the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund for one-time expenses. Ongoing annual costs totaled approximately $1.4 million and included new programs to achieve sustainability and Zero Waste goals. GreenWaste contract expenses comprised approximately half of Refuse Fund expenses. Expenses would increase in FY 2020 and FY 2021 due to the recommended one-time expenses. The proposed additional expenses would not result in rate increases for customers in FY 2020 and probably not in FY 2021. At the current time, the Reserve Fund's balance exceeded the recommended guidelines. After a deduction for one-time expenses, the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund's balance would continue to exceed the recommended guidelines. By utilizing the Reserve Funds for one-time expenses, the City would avoid approximately $1.2 million in interest and financing costs. A major component of the proposed amendment was the extension of the contract by five years. A comprehensive benchmark study of collection costs found that Palo Alto was receiving a good value from GreenWaste. The extension would provide continuity during the initiation of new programs and would avoid disruption of service. The public had provided positive feedback regarding GreenWaste's responsiveness and services. The extension would ensure collection and local processing capacity for Palo Alto. Historically, the majority of California and Palo Alto recyclables had been sent to China for processing. China's new requirements for cleaner recyclables was forcing the use of new vendors that may not have infrastructure to handle the volume of recyclables. The new vendors could utilize unconventional social labor practices and new recycling processes that created air and water pollution. Consequently, Staff proposed two new contract requirements for FINAL MINUTES Page 7 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 GreenWaste to report annually the name and location of vendors purchasing recyclables and for the City to have the option to direct materials elsewhere. Herb Borock did not believe the City should purchase vehicles for GreenWaste. According to Contract Attachment G, GreenWaste was responsible for purchasing vehicles to replace those that were placed in service in 2009. The Public Works Director may have exempted the vehicles placed in service in 2009 as allowed by the Agreement. Mayor Filseth asked if the Finance Committee (Committee) had reviewed the contract amendment. Mr. Eggleston replied no. Council Member Kniss asked who decided the Amendment would not be presented to the Committee. Mr. Eggleston advised that Staff interpreted the Council direction from August 2018 as Staff should return to the Council with an amendment. Council Member Kniss felt the Committee should review the amendment. She inquired about garbage bins being checked for compostable items. Phil Bobel, Public Works Assistant Director, reported samples had been taken from residents' garbage bins. Compostables were found in garbage bins, but the amount was not significant. Council Member Kniss understood some recyclables vendors were sending the material to sea rather than processing the material. Ed Shikada, City Manager, requested Staff share Bob Wenzlau's input and information regarding the vehicles. Mr. Eggleston recalled in August, Mr. Wenzlau raised concerns regarding overseas markets for recyclables. The City Manager had indicated protections and additional reporting requirements could be included in the Amendment. Mr. Wenzlau had reviewed the proposed Amendment and supported the requirements contained in the Amendment. Under the terms of the original and first amended Contract with GreenWaste, the City purchased vehicles under a depreciation schedule for some number of years and included interest payments to GreenWaste. The intention was not for GreenWaste to absorb the cost of vehicle purchases under the contract. Mayor Filseth felt the fundamental question was whether Staff performed its due diligence and determined that the City received a good deal regarding the vehicles. FINAL MINUTES Page 8 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member Kniss requested her colleagues comment regarding referring this item to the Committee. Mayor Filseth inquired about the time sensitivity of the Amendment. Mr. Bobel reported the vehicles were more than eight years old and new trucks were needed. Adding Committee review to the process would delay purchasing new vehicles by six months. The Public Works Director had to approve the vehicles being purchased and their cost. Committee review of vehicle purchases would not be effective due diligence. Vice Mayor Fine remarked that the Council could review the Amendment terms and vehicle purchase due to time constraints. In August, the Council directed Staff to return to the Council. He asked if the existing vehicles would be sold. Mr. Arp indicated the sale price of the vehicles would be credited to the City. Vice Mayor Fine requested clarification of the statement that there would be no rate increases until 2022 in light of the proposal for a new fee structure. Mr. Arp explained that the modified fees to GreenWaste could be absorbed in the operating budget. The new fee structure would not apply to customers. Vice Mayor Fine asked if Staff was comfortable with utilizing the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund to purchase vehicles and inquired regarding the amount the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund exceeded the guidelines. Mr. Arp noted the guidelines set the reserve amount at 10-20 percent of sales. In FY 2020, when the vehicles would be purchased, the Rate Stabilization Reserve balance would be $12.9 million after a deduction for the vehicles. In FY 2020, the balance should be $3-$6 million in order to comply with guidelines. Vice Mayor Filseth noted the Rate Stabilization Reserve Guidelines were set in the 1990s and perhaps should be updated. Mr. Bobel indicated Staff was planning to return to the Council with a recommendation for a change in the Guidelines. Mayor Filseth remarked that the City had been saving money for the purchase of new vehicles by placing funds in the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund. Mr. Bobel reported Mr. Borock assumed that GreenWaste was supposed to purchase the vehicles, which was an incorrect assumption. FINAL MINUTES Page 9 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member Tanaka concurred with adjusting the Guidelines. The Committee should have reviewed the Contract Amendment. He wanted a redline version of the Contract amendment. Mr. Arp reported the City Attorney's Office and Staff had reviewed the Amendment. There were many changes to the Contract to reflect the new requirements. Staff could provide a redline version. The Staff presentation described the major changes. Council Member Tanaka asked if GreenWaste owned the vehicles. Mr. Arp replied yes. Council Member Tanaka requested the reasons for the City purchasing the vehicles but GreenWaste owning the vehicles and asked if the vehicles were used solely for the City. Mr. Arp explained that the Contract allowed the City to purchase the vehicles for the remaining depreciation, but the City could not maintain a large fleet of the vehicles. The vehicles were used solely for the City. Council Member Tanaka did not understand the rationale for GreenWaste owning the vehicles. Mr. Shikada clarified that the City was purchasing a service, and the physical assets were needed to provide the service. GreenWaste owning the vehicles delineated the responsibility for accidents involving the vehicles and for maintenance of the vehicles. As a part of the service provided by GreenWaste, the City reimbursed GreenWaste for maintenance. The City was purchasing a service and the costs associated with the provision of the service, but the City was not responsible for the duties required to provide the service. Council Member Tanaka did not understand the explanation. He requested the rationale for requiring new vehicles after eight years. Mayor Filseth clarified that the question was the useful life of a garbage vehicle and the need to purchase vehicles at the current time. Scott Schultz, GreenWaste General Manager, advised that the useful life of trucks was approximately eight years. Some of the existing vehicles were ten years old and requiring extensive repairs. Council Member Tanaka noted the City would be required to purchase GreenWaste a new database and requested the rationale for the City purchasing the database. FINAL MINUTES Page 10 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Ms. Borges indicated GreenWaste's current database was purchased in 2008. Mayor Filseth clarified the question as whether the database would be utilized for other GreenWaste customers. Ms. Borges reported all expenses pertained to Palo Alto only. Council Member Tanaka asked if Palo Alto was GreenWaste's only customer. Ms. Borges explained that Palo Alto was the only customer for GreenWaste of Palo Alto. GreenWaste, as a parent company, owned other companies, but the companies did not utilize the assets dedicated to Palo Alto. Council Member Tanaka requested the difference in contract costs per year on an ongoing basis. Mr. Arp indicated the increase would be $1.4 million annually. Mr. Eggleston clarified that the annual cost for the additional programs would be $1.42 million. The contract allowed an ongoing 3-percent Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase. The percentage increase would be approximately 5.5 percent. Mr. Arp added that the percentage increase inclusive of the CPI adjustment was 8.8 percent. Council Member Tanaka noted the percentage increase was more than the rate of inflation. Mr. Arp explained that the contract added new programs so that the percentage increase was greater than the CPI increase. Council Member Tanaka requested the rationale for not issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP). Mr. Arp indicated issuing an RFP at the same time other cities issued RFPs could result in other cities consuming all the local processing capacity for recyclables and compostables. In which case, the City would have to haul material further. In addition, the City could receive no or only one bid. Staff did not feel the time was right for issuing an RFP. Council Member Tanaka believed an RFP would reveal whether the GreenWaste proposal was a good deal for the City. FINAL MINUTES Page 11 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Mr. Arp added that the proposed amendment would terminate in 2026, when the City could prepare a comprehensive RFP for services provided under both GreenWaste contracts. Council Member Tanaka preferred to see alternatives. In Mountain View, a 32-gallon cart cost $32; in Palo Alto the same size cart cost $50. Mr. Arp reported the best comparison of costs among cities was the collection cost. The City paid a cost per ton of $136; whereas, the average cost per ton was $195. Mayor Filseth noted the cost per ton for Palo Alto was near the median cost per ton for neighboring cities. Mr. Arp clarified that GreenWaste comprised slightly more than half of the refuse program. Refuse rates were affected by landfill costs, legacy costs, Zero Waste costs, and additional costs. Staff could not obtain Mountain View information for a comparison of the collection cost. Council Member Tanaka reiterated his concern regarding the value of GreenWaste services. MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to refer this item to the Finance Committee. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member DuBois remarked that the Council was performing the review the Committee would perform. The operation costs appeared to align. The City received a good level of service. He inquired about customer service feedback. Ms. Borges advised that complaints about GreenWaste service were rare. Council Member DuBois asked if Staff conducted any surveys of customer satisfaction. Ms. Borges reported the City Auditor conducted a survey that found 80 percent of residents rated services as excellent or good. Council Member DuBois remarked that the City would pay for vehicles whether the City or GreenWaste owned them. He supported the new programs. The construction materials program could be significant. Perhaps the City could consider a pilot program with Redwood Materials, a startup company attempting to process e-waste. He supported the Staff recommendation. FINAL MINUTES Page 12 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member Cormack could reconcile her belief that the Amendment provided value and service with the concerns raised during the meeting. The City paying the capital costs directly was unusual. She highlighted points in the Staff Report that could confuse readers. The Council should not refer the Item to the Committee. Council Member Kou questioned whether GreenWaste could be considered similar to a consulting firm. Mr. Eggleston depicted the contract as a model whereby the City issued an RFP for best value and negotiated a contract that compensated GreenWaste for costs and some level of profit. Council Member Kou asked if Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) operated under the same model or provided all its own equipment. Mr. Eggleston indicated PASCO was no longer in business. Mayor Filseth asked if the model for GreenWaste was typical for refuse companies. Mr. Arp responded yes when a city did not operate its own garbage service. Mr. Shikada added that the liability for operating a garbage service was significant. GreenWaste could be considered similar to a janitorial service. The magnitude and nature of the contract were different from most contracts presented to the Council. Mr. Bobel added that GreenWaste provided services under the same model as street sweeping and construction companies. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Approve the second amended and restated Agreement for solid waste, recyclable materials, and compostable materials collection and processing services with GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc.; and B. Approve an addendum to the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration for City-wide waste hauling service as adequate and complete under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Council Member Kniss asked if the City was required to purchase the trucks. Mr. Arp answered yes. FINAL MINUTES Page 13 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member Kniss commented that the City typically did not purchase vehicles for a vendor. The amount of the contract was significant and raised concerns. GreenWaste had done an adequate job. Mayor Filseth asked if GreenWaste realistically could monitor Asian countries for good behavior. Mr. Arp agreed that monitoring would be a challenge. Katelyn Lewis, GreenWaste, reported GreenWaste would obtain information from brokers of materials and investigate the information when possible. Mayor Filseth noted the budget for FY 2020 had been increased from $29 million to $39 million and asked if the one-time cost of $9 million would be budgeted in one year. Mr. Arp explained that a projected FY 2019 surplus would be utilized for a portion of the one-time cost. Approximately $7 million and $1.8 million of the one-time cost would be budgeted in FY 2020 and FY 2021 respectively. Mayor Filseth asked if the City would need to purchase additional vehicles in a few years. Mr. Schultz advised that no new vehicles would be needed through the contract term of 2026 because new vehicles had been purchased in 2015 and 2018. Mayor Filseth understood that the City would need to purchase new vehicles as part of the RFP in 2026. He agreed that the Committee should have reviewed the Amendment; however, the Council was reviewing the Amendment in place of the Committee. Council Member Tanaka was concerned about the City purchasing vehicles and giving them to the vendor. He asked who would retain the trucks should the City terminate its contract with GreenWaste. Mr. Arp reported that under the terms of the Contract the City could purchase the vehicles for the amount not paid if the Contract terminated. Council Member Tanaka questioned the City purchasing the vehicles and then buying them from the vendor. Mr. Shikada clarified that the City would purchase the vehicles for the unpaid value of the trucks. FINAL MINUTES Page 14 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Mr. Bobel corrected previous statements in that the City would negotiate whether GreenWaste returned the vehicles or amounts paid for the vehicles if the Contract was terminated. Council Member Tanaka stated the Contract allowed GreenWaste to keep the vehicles. Mr. Arp explained that under the terms of the original Contract the City paid GreenWaste for the vehicles over eight years, and the purchase price of vehicles at termination of the Contract was reduced by the amounts paid. Under the terms of the Amendment, the purchase price at termination would be zero because the City would pay the full purchase price upfront. Mayor Filseth understood the City would receive the unused value of the trucks should the Contract be terminated. Mr. Bobel advised that GreenWaste would purchase the vehicles rather than the City. Council Member Tanaka did not understand why the vehicles would not be assigned to the City upon termination of the contract. Mr. Bobel stated the City did not want the vehicles; therefore, Staff would negotiate GreenWaste retaining the vehicles and paying the City for the vehicles' value. Mr. Schultz indicated the practice had been for GreenWaste to sell vehicles removed from service and to credit the sale price to the City. If the City reimbursed GreenWaste for the vehicles at the beginning of the Contract and if the Contract was terminated, the vehicles would belong to the City. Council Member Tanaka believed the City should have solicited bids. Council Member Kou wanted Staff to provide a report that recyclables were being handled responsibly in the future. Mr. Shikada agreed to provide reports to the Council. Palo Alto was breaking new ground in taking responsibility for the handling of recyclable materials. Council Member Kou agreed that the requirements for recyclables was innovative. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no 7. Discussion and Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto and Consideration of the Following Actions: A) Separate From Study all FINAL MINUTES Page 15 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing (Closure and Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort; B) Separate From Study the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing of the Caltrain Corridor in the Vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and Assess Feasibility in a Future Study; C) Address the Rail Committee’s Recommendation Regarding a Tunnel by Modifying the Alternative to be South of Oregon Expressway Only and Further Explore the Scope and Budget for an Alternative With Freight Trains on the Surface and Passenger Trains Underground for the Meadow and Charleston Crossings; and D) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17, 2018). Council Member Kniss advised she would not participate in this Agenda Item because she had an interest in real property located within 500 feet of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Caltrain) right-of-way. She left the meeting at 7:37 P.M. Mayor Filseth advised he would not participate in this Agenda Item because his primary residence was located within 500 feet of the Caltrain right-of- way. He left the meeting at 7:37 P.M. Vice Mayor Fine announced members of the public who addressed the Council on December 17 were unable to address the Council a second time under Council policies. Beth Minor, City Clerk, clarified that individuals of a group for whom a representative addressed the Council on December 17 were also unable to address the Council. Council took a break from 7:38 P.M. to 7:50 P.M. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager, reported Staff recommended all alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing be removed from study and included in a separate comprehensive planning effort; the bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Caltrain corridor near Loma Verde Avenue be removed from study and assessed in a future feasibility study; the Council address the Rail Committee's recommendation to limit the tunnel alternative to south of Oregon Expressway and to explore the scope and budget for an alternative tunnel with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings; and the Council adopt a modified list of grade separation alternatives for further study. At-grade crossings were located at Palo Alto Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. Currently, 92 trains traveled through Palo Alto daily. As Caltrain transitioned from diesel to electric trains, the number of trains traveling through Palo Alto was FINAL MINUTES Page 16 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 projected to increase to 114 trains per day in 2022 and 128 trains per day by 2029. The increased number of trains would impact traffic congestion significantly. The Council selected ten alternatives on May 29, 2018 and removed the Churchill Avenue hybrid and reverse hybrid alternatives on June 19, 2018. A comprehensive traffic study was underway to assess the impact of closing the Churchill Avenue crossing. Eileen Goodwin, Apex Strategies, advised that the community outreach and engagement process included a Community Advisory Panel (CAP), technical advisers, meetings with stakeholders, community meetings, and a dedicated website. CAP meetings were scheduled for February and March, and a community meeting was scheduled for the end of March. The community had expressed interest in Caltrain committing to design exceptions, Caltrain funding grade separation projects, and taxing businesses for funding. Many members of the community did not understand the impacts of at-grade crossings on traffic congestion and viewed grade separation as a Caltrain project. Mr. de Geus indicated Staff recommended a separate planning effort for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing because of significant transit and land use considerations that made the grade crossing distinct from other grade crossings. After review, Staff believed the Loma Verde pedestrian and bicycle crossing was outside the construction limits of the alternative. AECOM had identified significant constraints to constructing a Citywide tunnel. Etty Mercurio, AECOM, explained that shoofly tracks would be needed to build the north entrance of a tunnel alternative. The location of the north entrance was constrained by the Palo Alto Avenue (University Avenue) station. Utilities would need to be relocated and Embarcadero Road would need to be reconfigured during construction of a tunnel alternative. Vice Mayor Fine reiterated that property acquisition and construction disruptions would be significant for a tunnel alternative in North Palo Alto. Staff recommended the list of alternatives contain a South Palo Alto tunnel, closure of Churchill Avenue, a Meadow/Charleston trench, a Meadow/Charleston hybrid, and a Meadow/Charleston viaduct. Ed Shikada, City Manager, suggested the Council defer questions regarding the Charleston and Meadow crossings until Staff presented information for those crossings. Council Member Cormack requested the advantages and disadvantages of including Churchill in the proposed Downtown coordinated area plan. FINAL MINUTES Page 17 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Mr. de Geus related that Staff had not proposed boundaries for the coordinated area plan. Churchill Avenue was quite a distance from the Downtown area and not considered a part of Downtown. Mr. Shikada announced the traffic study pertaining to closure of Churchill would be presented in February. The recommendation regarding Palo Alto Avenue was driven by the relationship between University Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue for Downtown access. From a circulation perspective, Churchill Avenue did not provide access to Downtown. Council Member Cormack asked if the video for construction of a North tunnel was intended to help the community understand the significant difficulties of constructing a Citywide tunnel. Mr. de Geus understood the community's support for a Citywide tunnel. The video was intended to show the impacts of constructing a Citywide tunnel. Given the significant impacts of a Citywide tunnel, Staff recommended removing it from study. Council Member Cormack wanted to understand why the no-build alternative was not under study. Mr. de Geus explained that traffic congestion would increase significantly with Caltrain electrification if crossings remained at grade. Community engagement could provide more information regarding traffic congestion and at-grade crossings. Ms. Mercurio added that the environmental impact report was required to contain an analysis of a no-build alternative; therefore, a no-build alternative did not need to be included in the list of alternatives. Council Member DuBois asked if Measure B funding could be utilized to upgrade existing grade separations. Mr. Shikada reported the topic had not been raised in discussions with Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). VTA, City of Mountain View, and City Sunnyvale had expressed interest in funding known grade separation projects. Staff would need to develop a strategy for how grade separations would be the best use of funds. Council Member DuBois inquired about options if the Council decided not to remove Palo Alto Avenue to a separate planning effort. Mr. Shikada responded closure. FINAL MINUTES Page 18 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member DuBois asked if Alma Street could be relocated to the current location of the railway and a viaduct built on the current location of the southbound lanes of Alma. Essentially the viaduct would be built between the northbound and southbound lanes. Ms. Mercurio indicated it could be studied. Council Member DuBois asked if Staff had studied the noise impacts of freight trains traveling on viaducts. Ms. Mercurio replied that a noise study had not been conducted. Mitigation measures for noise and vibration could be implemented for all the alternatives. Council Member DuBois felt a trench would be less noisy than a viaduct. Ms. Mercurio reported a noise study would investigate the radiation and reflection of noise. Council Member DuBois noted charts indicated or estimated the impacts of noise. Ms. Mercurio explained that the matrix was intended to facilitate community discussion and input. Council Member DuBois believed the video represented a worst-case scenario by beginning the boring for a trench in North Palo Alto, where the right-of-way was narrow. Ms. Mercurio advised that boring could begin in South Palo Alto. The video attempted to capture the constraints associated with constructing a bore pit, whether it was an extraction or entrance pit. Council Member DuBois asked if extraction pits could be smaller than entrance pits. Ms. Goodwin explained that using a crane to extract the boring machine would cause the project footprint to widen. The consultants attempted to limit construction to the Caltrain right-of-way. Mr. Shikada added that a ramp would be needed to bring the train from the tunnel to grade. Council Member DuBois asked if the increase in the right-of-way would cause the loss of lanes on Alma Street. FINAL MINUTES Page 19 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Mr. Shikada stated the use of dual boring machines would cause the loss of lanes. Ms. Mercurio clarified that the bore pits had to be separated by a specific distance, which caused the bore pit to be 100 feet wide and 40 feet deep. Council Member DuBois inquired regarding an alternative to close Meadow Drive. Mr. de Geus did not believe closure of Meadow had been studied. Council Member DuBois suggested the Council would benefit from understanding channelization of creeks. Ms. Mercurio would share information for Adobe and Barron Creeks in the next presentation. Vice Mayor Fine asked if the Council or Rail Committee would review priorities and processes for evaluating alternatives in the near future. Mr. Shikada reported the Council should make the decision whether to review them. The process had become a process of elimination. The criteria adopted by the Council had guided the work. The implications of each alternative were becoming clear. From a Staff perspective, a review of the criteria was not necessary. Vice Mayor Fine inquired about the potential effects of Stanford University's General Use Permit (GUP) application and Development Agreement on a coordinated area plan for Downtown. Mr. Shikada reported Stanford University representatives were interested in the planning effort for Downtown and were willing to work with Staff. Vice Mayor Fine requested Staff's opinion of the suggestion to merge the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian crossing with the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Mr. de Geus indicated Staff could discuss the matter. Vice Mayor Fine asked if a single-bore tunnel was an option. Ms. Mercurio advised that a single-bore tunnel would require more space and more depth. A single-bore tunnel required a deeper depth because more cover was needed. FINAL MINUTES Page 20 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Vice Mayor Fine asked if it was possible to push the tunnel length closer to the University Avenue and San Antonio stations. Ms. Mercurio indicated the consultants were tasked with reviewing a tunnel within the city limits. At the southern end of the tunnel, the constraining point was the station platform for San Antonio. Moving the northern end further north would impact the Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue station. Vice Mayor Fine asked if the descent at the southern end of a tunnel could begin at the city limits. Ms. Mercurio explained that that was the plan. Council Member Kou asked if Staff was negotiating Stanford University's participation and funding under the tri-area development plan. Mr. Shikada was not familiar with a tri-area development plan. Council Member Kou was referring to the uses shared among the County of Santa Clara (County), Stanford University, and the City. Mr. Shikada was not aware of a tri-development plan. The City, VTA, and Stanford University were parties to agreements concerning the Transit Center. Council Member Kou asked if the City had a tri-party plan for municipal services. Mr. Shikada would look into any tri-party agreements. Council Member Kou asked if the City had responded to the letter from the Mayor of Menlo Park. Perhaps Menlo Park would be willing to consider a tunnel through Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Ms. Goodwin related that the Menlo Park City Council had reviewed the topic and were considering changes for three grade crossings. Vice Mayor Fine suggested Council Member Kou was referring to the Tri- Party Municipal Services Agreement. Council Member Kou hoped Staff would present the tunnel video to the CAP for review and explain assumptions used in designing the alternatives. FINAL MINUTES Page 21 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Ms. Mercurio explained that the design utilized Caltrain design criteria. The tunnel required a 2-percent grade, which Caltrain would have to approve. Otherwise, the consultants utilized industry protocols and design standards. Mr. Shikada noted additional assumptions were continued operation of the rail line during construction; a property that would lose access due to a shoofly was considered a full acquisition; and street closures would be a component of construction. Council Member Kou felt, based on her observation of construction of the Transbay Terminal, the video exaggerated the number of property acquisitions and road closures. She had hoped the Council would have more scenarios to review. Ms. Mercurio clarified that the Transbay Terminal did not serve trains, and its construction required a temporary terminal and considerable street closures. The construction methodology for the Transbay Terminal was not the same as the construction methodology for a Palo Alto tunnel. Council Member Kou inquired about the need to cover the tunnel during construction. Ms. Mercurio explained that the distance between grade and the final depth of the tunnel was a trench configuration. Boring would not begin until the trench reached the depth needed for the tunnel. Council Member Kou asked how the Central subway was constructed. Ms. Mercurio advised that a tunnel boring machine and a cut-and-cover method were used. At the new Chinatown station, a shaft was mined to the depth of boring, and a boring machine was dropped into the shaft to begin boring. The project did not involve an active railroad. Council Member Kou suggested shoofly tracks be located on each side of the tunnel so that the tunnel could be centered in the right-of-way. A traffic study should be comprehensive rather than segmented. Mr. de Geus reported a comprehensive study had to be broken into smaller components so that Staff could perform the work. Council Member Kou suggested that the area around Palo Alto Avenue should be included in a traffic study to provide context. Mr. de Geus reiterated that boundaries had not been defined for the coordinated area plan. FINAL MINUTES Page 22 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member Tanaka requested the point at which the rail line would begin its descent in North Palo Alto. Ms. Mercurio indicated the descent would begin right after the Palo Alto Station platform. Council Member Tanaka requested the rationale for not locating the Palo Alto Avenue station underground. Ms. Mercurio explained the rail line would be submerged only a few feet at the Palo Alto Station if the descent began at the city limits. The grade of the rail line had to be constant at a station platform. Extending the platform length to 1,000 feet would hinder the geometry of the tunnel. Council Member Tanaka asked how the elimination of freight trains would affect the tunnel. Ms. Mercurio advised that the elimination of freight trains had not been fully explored. Council Member Tanaka asked if Staff had spoken with Mountain View or Menlo Park about the tunnel beginning in Mountain View or Menlo Park. Mr. Shikada indicated specific locations for a tunnel had not been discussed. Council Member Tanaka asked if the tunnel could begin at the San Antonio Station. Mr. Shikada related that concept was being evaluated. Ms. Mercurio added that the constraint was the San Antonio Station. The Caltrain right-of-way just before the platform was located within the Palo Alto city limits. Council Member Tanaka noted a tunnel project in Los Angeles was constructed at a cost of $10 million per mile. He inquired about potential reductions in cost based on technological advances. Ms. Mercurio reported tunneling was dependent on geotechnical properties, the groundwater table, the final use, and many other factors. All of those factors contributed to the cost of a tunnel. Therefore, the cost of each tunnel was different. Council Member Tanaka suggested the cost could decrease over the next ten years, and the project probably would not be constructed in the next ten years. He asked if the cost of tunneling was falling. FINAL MINUTES Page 23 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Ms. Mercurio reported construction costs were increasing. Historically, postponing projects only increased the cost. Council Member Tanaka remarked that unconventional thinking could change the possibilities. Mr. Shikada related his instructions to the team had been to present practical and buildable options while remaining open to different ideas. The discussion should focus on viable options. Council Member Cormack requested clarification of a partial closure for Churchill Avenue. Mr. de Geus explained that partial closure meant vehicles could cross Churchill at grade during specific times of the day or week when the number of trains would be lower. Staff continued to explore the possibility of a partial closure. Council Member Cormack seemed to recall Caltrain representatives stating a partial closure was not possible. Mr. de Geus clarified closure as meaning vehicles could not cross Churchill at any time. Council Member Cormack asked why partial closure was not an option for other crossings. Mr. de Geus reported Staff was consulting with jurisdictions and agencies that had authority in the area to provide an answer. Vice Mayor Fine recalled that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) opposed a partial closure. At some point, the CPUC could require closure. Council Member Cormack asked if a partial closure would be temporary. Vice Mayor Fine seemed to recall that closing Churchill during the day only was not possible. Ms. Mercurio reported the November community meeting focused on the trench, hybrid, and viaduct alternatives for Meadow/Charleston. The alternatives utilized published design criteria and regulations. Caltrain design criteria included a maximum 1-percent grade for the railroad, a minimum vertical clearance of 24.5 feet when trains ran below a structure, and a minimum vertical clearance of 15.5 feet when the roadway ran below a railroad. For a trench option, plans need to include drainage, relocation of FINAL MINUTES Page 24 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 utilities, shoofly tracks, and pumping of surface runoff and groundwater. A trench would be 37 feet deep at the deepest point and more than a mile long. The first step was constructing a temporary shoofly between the existing tracks and Alma Street. The trench would need tie-backs for structural support. Standards limited the types of vegetation that could be planted above structural elements. Once the trench was constructed, the shoofly would be removed. For a hybrid option, plans would include a temporary shoofly and an embankment varying between 0 feet and 14 feet tall and 5,000 feet long. Raising the rail line would not impact creeks. Construction of a viaduct option would not require a temporary shoofly or relocation of utilities and would not disrupt traffic on Alma Street, Meadow Drive, or Charleston Road. The viaduct would be constructed between the existing tracks and Alma Street. The matrix evaluated the alternatives based on the Council-adopted criteria and included notes for each alternative. A separate matrix provided the engineering impacts for each alternative. Ms. Goodwin advised that community identified likes for the trench alternative were bike and pedestrian patterns were similar to the existing patterns; a potential reduction in rail noise; and fewer visual impacts. Community identified dislikes for the trench alternative were easements for support structures; limitations on landscaping over support structures; potential flooding and noise impacts related to pumping stations; and closure of Charleston Road while Meadow Drive was under construction and vice versa. Community identified likes for the hybrid alternative were minimal right-of-way impacts and an opportunity to restore landscaping. Community identified dislikes for the hybrid alternative were visual and noise impacts and traffic disruptions during construction. Community identified likes for the viaduct option were the lack of impacts on private property; minimal traffic disruptions during construction; and opportunities for landscaping. Community identified dislikes for the viaduct alternative were visual and noise impacts. David Shen advocated for quickly choosing a final alternative and beginning construction in order to limit the impact of an increased number of trains on traffic. David Herzl noted 500 citizens signed a petition opposing raised rail alternatives. The City should remove raised options and begin work on a tunnel alternative. Personally, he supported a trench alternative. The matrix comparing alternatives was flawed, and more weight should be assigned to certain criteria. FINAL MINUTES Page 25 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Neva Yarkin wanted a solution that allowed pedestrians and bicyclists to travel along Churchill Avenue safely. More solutions were needed for the Churchill crossing. Steven Rosenblum remarked that Staff proposed eliminating the Citywide tunnel before the Rail Committee and the community had discussed it. Crossings had been discussed independently rather than comprehensively. The process should be slowed until Staff could be hired and become familiar with the alternatives. Keith Bennett noted trench alternatives would have significant impacts to groundwater and groundwater flows. If allowed, the land above a rail tunnel could support a large number of high-density housing units. Jason Matloff supported a coordinated area plan for Downtown. Churchill Avenue should not be included in the coordinated area plan. Rachel Kellerman supported a coordinated area plan for Palo Alto Avenue with the caveat that traffic should be studied comprehensively. Young–Jeh Oh opposed the inclusion of Churchill Avenue in the coordinated area plan because residents and the Council supported a full or partial closure of the Churchill crossing and Churchill Avenue was not a part of Downtown. Monica Tan Brown supported closure and construction of a pedestrian crossing of the Churchill Avenue crossing. Barbara Hazlett remarked that North Palo Alto streets and rail crossings should not be closed until robust traffic studies were completed and vetted with the public. Closing the Churchill Avenue crossing would unfairly burden other neighborhoods and eliminate an east-west conduit. Kerry Yarkin opposed inclusion of Churchill Avenue in the coordinated area plan. She shared safety concerns regarding the Churchill crossing. Winter Dellenbach supported inclusion of the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian crossing in the NVCAP. Measure B funding could be used for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Arthur Keller suggested extending the ascent for reverse hybrid, trench, and tunnel alternatives to south of Adobe Creek and north of Barron Creek in order to avoid the creeks. He questioned whether a trench would be narrower than a tunnel; whether tracks could be shifted west and a trench or tunnel constructed on the east side of the tracks; and whether a 12-foot FINAL MINUTES Page 26 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 vertical clearance was sufficient for Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) buses. Rita Vrhel remarked that Embarcadero Road should be included in the coordinated area plan if Churchill was included in the plan; however, she opposed including Churchill Avenue in the coordinated area plan. Elevated alternatives could be acceptable if electric trains were quieter than diesel trains. Rob Levitsky opposed the closure of the Churchill Avenue crossing because the impact of additional trains on traffic would not be as great as stated. Roland LeBrun expressed concerns about some technical information that was not supported by facts. A tunnel entrance did not need to be 100 feet wide. Shoofly tracks could be constructed within the right-of-way if the right-of-way was at least 80 feet wide. Council took a break from 10:28 P.M. to 10:35 P.M. Council Member Kou requested clarification of the ability for tracks to clear the creeks. Ms. Mercurio explained that the Hatch Mott MacDonald study proposed beginning a tunnel within Mountain View city limits. Therefore, the Hatch Mott MacDonald study stated a tunnel could clear the creeks. The current Charleston/Meadow trench alternative did not extend beyond Palo Alto city limits and did not clear creeks. Council Member Kou asked why the trench alternative could not be located in the center. Caltrain was installing poles and shoofly tracks in the location of the existing track. Constructing a trench in the middle would reduce costs. Mr. Shikada clarified that Caltrain was not utilizing shoofly tracks for its electrification project. Caltrain was building poles around the existing rail. The Caltrain project did not have the complexities of grade separations. Council Member Kou did not understand the need to construct shoofly tracks in order to build a trench. Mr. Shikada reiterated that shoofly tracks would be needed to continue train service while grade separations were constructed. Council Member Kou suggested story poles be installed for elevated alternatives. FINAL MINUTES Page 27 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member Cormack realized the complexity of grade separations required a serial process for considering alternatives. The visualizations of alternatives helped the Council and community understand the tradeoffs of alternatives. She asked Staff to address any disadvantages to a tunnel alternative in South Palo Alto only with freight trains above ground and passenger trains below ground. Ms. Goodwin indicated the alternative should create an actual grade separation in order to obtain funding. If freight trains continued to operate on the surface, the alternative would likely not be a true grade separation. Mr. de Geus added that the savings from separating the two could offset any outside funding. Council Member Cormack remarked that a decision regarding Churchill Avenue should incorporate Embarcadero Road. The scope of study for Churchill Avenue was unclear. The difference between the hybrid alternative and viaduct alternative for Charleston/Meadow was only 5 feet; therefore, the impacts of the hybrid alternative would be similar to the impacts of the viaduct alternative. The Council and community needed a better understanding of noise impacts. Fencing around a trench would not be attractive. She was not willing to remove the viaduct alternative until she understood construction problems. More meetings and comprehensive technical information were needed. Council Member DuBois inquired about the possibility of building the trench in the location of the viaduct while trains continued to operate on existing tracks and swapping City road right-of-way for Caltrain right-of-way. Ms. Mercurio explained that the footprint of a trench and the length of shoofly tracks would need to be studied in order to determine the practicality of such a configuration. Council Member DuBois requested the consultants consider the possibility. The tie-backs would be located underneath rights-of-way rather than underneath private property. Eliminating shoofly tracks would reduce construction costs. He requested an updated schedule for the next 12 months. Waiting for development of a coordinated area plan for Palo Alto Avenue would delay the process quite a bit. The Council should revisit the evaluation criteria, and the criteria for maintaining local access and reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets should be reinstated. Alternatives should not be removed at the current time. The process should review alternatives comprehensively rather than individually. Stanford University needed to be involved in the process. At some point, voter approval may be needed. The Council needed to consider traffic impacts in groupings such as FINAL MINUTES Page 28 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Palo Alto Avenue with University Avenue, Churchill Avenue with Embarcadero Road, Meadow Drive with Oregon Expressway, and Charleston Road with San Antonio Road. This approach could influence the City's ability to obtain funding. Perhaps the closure of Meadow Drive should be an option. It would be premature to eliminate a tunnel alternative or a viaduct alternative. He could support developing a coordinated area plan for Palo Alto Avenue if the timing for a concept of the coordinated area plan aligned with other scenarios. The community's suggestions for Palo Alto Avenue should be vetted. Council Member Tanaka requested the depth of a trench at the Palo Alto Station if the trench had a 2-percent grade and began at the border with Menlo Park. Ms. Mercurio answered a couple of feet. A vertical curve was needed to account for train speed and other factors. Council Member Tanaka related that the consultant stated the tunnels had to be 100 feet apart. Ms. Mercurio clarified that the portal would be 100 feet wide. The rule of thumb for distance between twin bores was one diameter of the tunnel. The geotechnical and geological conditions specific to the location were also factors in determining the distance between bores. Council Member Tanaka requested a response to the public speaker's comment regarding shoofly tracks. Ms. Mercurio explained that locating a construction area between two active rail tracks was not ideal because the construction equipment would need an at-grade crossing to access the area. In addition, splitting the track would result in a wider footprint because of the need to maintain a minimum 10-foot clearance from center line of track to a construction barrier. Council Member Tanaka agreed it would be premature to eliminate alternatives, especially a tunnel alternative. An alternative without freight trains should be studied. The process should focus on funding strategies. More extensive polling of the community should be conducted. The Council should strive to ensure traffic did not shift among neighborhoods. Eminent domain should be a last resort. Crossings should be studied comprehensively. Council Member Kou suggested the Council consider adding criteria regarding specific noise levels. FINAL MINUTES Page 29 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Vice Mayor Fine inquired regarding the number of future CAP meetings. Mr. de Geus advised that CAP meetings had been scheduled for February 13 and March 13. Mr. Shikada noted the schedule of CAP meetings had been extended. The Council's feedback and direction would help define a schedule for the CAP. Extending the schedule further could result in the loss of CAP members. Vice Mayor Fine remarked that the Council and community had questions regarding the assumptions contained in the tunnel alternative; therefore, more study was needed before a tunnel alternative could be eliminated. A strategy for engaging Stanford University and VTA was needed. He could support a coordinated area plan for the Palo Alto Avenue area but had concerns about the schedule for a planning project. He suggested a future Rail Committee or Council meeting include discussion of the CAP, evaluation criteria, schedule, and polling of residents. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Direct Staff to separate from study all alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing (closure and hybrid) and include Palo Alto Avenue in a separate comprehensive planning effort; B. Direct Staff to separate from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Caltrain corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and incorporate this into the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan process; C. Direct Staff to present the tunnel alternative at the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and March Community meeting, and outline assumptions and alternatives for a citywide tunnel and further explore (the Scope and Budget) for an alternative with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground (for the Meadow and Charleston crossings); D. Adopt a modified list of grade separation alternatives: 1. South Palo Alto | Rail Tunnel; 2. Churchill Avenue | Full or Partial Closure and add Improvements (CAX); 3. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Hybrid (MCL); 4. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Rail Trench (MCT); FINAL MINUTES Page 30 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 5. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Viaduct (MCV); 6. Citywide Tunnel (WBP); E. Direct Staff to return to Council with a strategy for Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Stanford University, especially around funding; and F. Direct Staff to study multi-modal mitigations for existing grade separations, taking into consideration both current conditions and future impacts. Vice Mayor Fine indicated the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian crossing was not part of the grade separation process. By adding the Citywide tunnel alternative to a CAP meeting, the Council and community could review the parameters of a Citywide tunnel. The Council needed to address the impacts that alternatives caused for existing crossings. Part F of the Motion addressed the suggestion to pair streets for study. Hopefully, a coordinated area plan for Palo Alto Avenue would result in options for the crossing. Additional information could reveal reasons for eliminating the Citywide tunnel as an alternative. Mr. Shikada advised that the Agenda Item was intended to continue the process of elimination and to narrow the number of alternatives. He suggested the Council visualize what it would take to reach a decision when none of the alternatives was an obvious favorite. Staff had identified significant issues with a Citywide tunnel alternative. Components of all alternatives would garner community opposition. The Motion allowed Staff to make some progress and provided areas for focus. Vice Mayor Fine commented that reviewing the process could aid decision- making. While he could support eliminating some of the alternatives, the time was not right to eliminate alternatives. Council Member DuBois hoped the alternatives could be modified to address concerns or generate support. Providing more details specific to Palo Alto could aid decision-making. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to restore ‘maintain or improve local access’ evaluation criteria.” (New Part G). INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to return to Council soon to review evaluation criteria and timeline.” (New Part H). FINAL MINUTES Page 31 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member DuBois requested a timeline for developing a coordinated area plan for Palo Alto Avenue. Mr. Shikada reported funding and Staff capacity would affect a timeline for the project. Staff had discussed a strategy but would follow any Council direction. Council Member DuBois asked if grade separation and transportation could be separated from a coordinated area plan. Mr. Shikada advised that Staff could define the scope for a project so that the project focused on access to the station, the Downtown, and Stanford University. Council Member DuBois related that planning for the area between the station and Stanford University should occur but with a higher priority for the grade separation issue. He asked if the Council could direct Staff to vet grade separation issues sooner, assuming a coordinated area plan project would require a couple of years. Mr. Shikada reported Staff could make it a priority and work on it as quickly as possible. Vice Mayor Fine suggested the coordinated area plan project could be phased. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “with a priority on transportation.” Vice Mayor Fine suggested Staff identify transportation improvements or alternatives and present them to the Council as a first step. Council Member Kou felt Embarcadero Road and perhaps Churchill Avenue should be included in the coordinated area plan. Council Member DuBois indicated Part F of the Motion captured that. Council Member Kou asked if Part F pertained to traffic studies only. Vice Mayor Fine clarified that Part F pertained to multimodal traffic. He did not include Embarcadero Road and Churchill Avenue in the coordinated area plan because that area would encompass a large part of the City and introduce land use issues. FINAL MINUTES Page 32 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Council Member Kou reiterated that boundaries for a coordinated area plan had not been identified. Mr. Shikada remarked that the traffic study could guide a decision regarding the boundaries. Council Member Cormack inquired about merging Parts A and E. Vice Mayor Fine explained that VTA and Stanford University should be engaged in the coordinated area plan, but they should also be engaged in all grade separations. Council Member Cormack requested clarification of Part F. Vice Mayor Fine clarified that the four existing crossings would be examined to determine existing traffic issues and improvements. The four existing crossings should also be considered in all grade separation topics. Council Member Cormack inquired whether Part H meant prioritize evaluation criteria and the timeline for making a decision or conducting a poll. The criteria had evolved over time. Council Member DuBois stated Part H meant the Council would discuss evaluation criteria. Vice Mayor Fine indicated the timeline in Part H referred to the timeline for the process, potentially for the coordinated area plan, and the frequency that items returned to the Council. Council Member Cormack suggested the timeline could refer to an approach for the Council to make a decision or an approach that involved the community broadly. Council Member Tanaka agreed that the language of Part H should be more precise. Perhaps the language could include a funding strategy and a poll of residents. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part H, “with a funding and polling strategy.” Vice Mayor Fine commented that the discussion would include updating evaluation criteria, updating the timeline, conducting more community outreach and polling, and funding. FINAL MINUTES Page 33 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 Mr. Shikada advised that Staff likely would not return to the Council with that discussion prior to CAP and community meetings in March. Budget considerations would also be presented to the Council. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Direct Staff to separate from study all alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing (closure and hybrid) and include Palo Alto Avenue in a separate comprehensive planning effort with a priority on transportation; B. Direct Staff to separate from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Caltrain corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and incorporate this into the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan process; C. Direct Staff to present the tunnel alternative at the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and March Community meeting, and outline assumptions and alternatives for a citywide tunnel and further explore (the Scope and Budget) for an alternative with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground (for the Meadow and Charleston crossings); D. Adopt a modified list of grade separation alternatives: 1. South Palo Alto | Rail Tunnel; 2. Churchill Avenue | Full or Partial Closure and add Improvements (CAX); 3. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Hybrid (MCL); 4. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Rail Trench (MCT); 5. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Viaduct (MCV); 6. Citywide Tunnel (WBP); E. Direct Staff to return to Council with a strategy for Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Stanford University, especially around funding; F. Direct Staff to study multi-modal mitigations for existing grade separations, taking into consideration both current conditions and future impacts; FINAL MINUTES Page 34 of 34 City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 1/22/2019 G. Direct Staff to restore “maintain or improve local access” evaluation criteria; and H. Direct Staff to return to Council soon to review evaluation criteria and timeline with a funding and polling strategy. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-0 Filseth, Kniss absent State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Kou announced the Chinese New Year celebration was scheduled for February 24 at Mitchell Park. Council Member Cormack reported her attendance at the California League of Cities training. She had offered the City's condolences to colleagues in Davis and Williams on the death of Officer Corona. The Council did not have a policy regarding the presence of personal electronic devices on the dais. She shared takeaways from the training. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:52 P.M.