Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL MINUTES Page 1 of 20 Special Meeting June 19, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:10 P.M. Present: DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff; Tanaka arrived at 8:00 P.M., Wolbach Absent: Filseth, Kniss Participating remotely: Council Member Tanaka participating from 51 Brentwood Street, Boston, MA 02134 Oral Communications None. Action Items 1. Council Rail Committee Recommends the City Council Move Forward With the Community Engagement Plan as Developed by Staff and AECOM Including the Creation of a Community Advisory Panel. Eileen Goodwin, Apex Strategies reported the City would lead public involvement with the Caltrain Joint Powers Board partnering in the screening effort. The community was encouraged to participate as users and neighbors of the proposed grade separation projects. Outreach was going to help the community understand and agree on the problem, including a preferred solution. The project team was going to propose ideas, alternatives and solutions. She thought the community should believe the process was fair and transparent and said all parties should be acknowledged and considered and should understand the tradeoffs. The community needed to understand funding constraints and opportunities. All stakeholders had to partner with the AECOM team to gather information and ideas. The engagement process had the responsibility of developing partnerships for future funding opportunities. Work on community engagement was scheduled to begin in June and July, 2018 with Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. The first community meeting and online engagement was tentatively planned for August, 2018. Outreach to targeted FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 2 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 stakeholder groups occurred in the summer/fall timeframe. The CAP was comprised of 12 community members and would advise the project team. Six CAP meetings were scheduled to occur between July and December, 2018. Ideally, the CAP acted as a project liaison, collaborating with the project team, proofing communication materials, representing different neighborhoods along the Rail Corridor, and providing honest feedback. Specific tasks for the CAP included receipt of briefings on technical issues and communication of information to members' individual networks. The Community Engagement Plan called for up to three stakeholder meetings. Topics for stakeholder meetings were tailored to the specific stakeholders. Three community meetings were planned between July and December, 2018, with the first scheduled for August 23, 2018. In response to feedback, community meeting participants were to interface with the project team and technical experts and view flyover and 3-D graphics. Surveys were conducted online and during the first and second community meetings. The second community meeting was scheduled for October, 2018 and the third for November, 2018. Additional outreach tools included a project fact sheet with frequent updates, meeting notices, the City's network of contacts and social media, press releases to relevant blogs and media, meeting comment cards, a project website, four direct mailings, a database of meeting attendees and requests for notice and a project hotline. A brief summary documenting public participation and engagement was going to be what the final report was about. Stephen Rosenblum remarked that the Community Engagement Plan was a good start to an effective outreach process. He requested clarification of the relationship between and roles of Apex Strategies and AECOM. It was not a good idea for the City Manager alone, to select members of the CAP. The CAP and TAC needed to interact frequently. Penny Ellson suggested the stakeholder group include representatives from Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council Traffic Safety Committee, the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), and Walter Hays Elementary School. She inquired about the criteria for selection of neighborhood leader representatives. Neva Yarkin suggested surveys be made available to everyone in the community, whether or not they had electronic devices or attended meetings. Etty Mercurio, AECOM advised that Apex Strategies was a sub-consultant for the AECOM team. Apex Strategies were responsible for leading public outreach. AECOM was to provide technical information through its staff and other sub-consultants. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 3 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Council Member Wolbach requested comment regarding the process for selecting neighborhood representatives. Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager indicated Staff had been meeting with small groups of highly engaged citizens, and those citizens could be members of the CAP. Representatives of groups organized around grade separations, neighborhoods across the community and PAUSD were possibly members of the CAP. James Keene, City Manager believed the right number of highly engaged and knowledgeable participants would be key. The CAP was one of many parallel streams of engagement. Community members were able to participate throughout the process by attending and speaking at the various meetings. Should the CAP shape recommendations that the Council adopted, then its members were excluded from participation. Council Member Wolbach noted the conflict of interest for people making decisions that affected them individually. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to move forward with the Community Engagement Plan as developed by Staff and AECOM including the creation of a Community Advisory Panel. Council Member Wolbach appreciated Staff providing a plan to get more people talking about grade separations. Many people in Palo Alto had no idea that grade separations were under discussion. The plan offered many opportunities for public input. Council Member Scharff noted that the City Council Rail Committee (CCRC) did not alter the Community Engagement Plan proposed by the project team. Council Member Kou inquired whether meeting participants would be able to participate in a survey without an electronic device. Ms. Goodwin advised that an individual without a device could partner with an individual with a device to record survey responses for both individuals. Council Member Kou asked if the first meeting could be moved to the end of July, 2018. Ms. Goodwin explained that the project team needed time to prepare high quality and unbiased materials and graphics for the community meeting. Council Member Kou inquired about the timing of selection of CAP members. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 4 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Ms. Goodwin wanted to seat the CAP and hold its first meeting in July, 2018 and a second meeting prior to the August 23, 2018 community meeting. CAP meetings were scheduled prior to community meetings. Council Member Kou wanted to ensure community meetings were held prior to CCRC and Council meetings so that the public could be informed about CCRC and Council topics. Mr. Keene referred to the chart showing CCRC meetings being held concurrent with CAP meetings. Mr. de Geus remarked that Staff needed citizens to disseminate information. Council Member Kou suggested Staff utilize Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) and neighborhood associations to share information. Mr. Keene wished to keep community members not selected for the CAP engaged in the process in other ways. Council Member Kou asked if PAUSD and PTA representatives would be included in the process. Ms. Goodwin answered yes. School groups, property owners and others were able to engage in stakeholder meetings. Mr. de Geus indicated PAUSD would be a member of the TAC. Council Member DuBois recalled the difficulty of engaging the community via smartphones and the concern about the phrasing of survey questions in 2017. Ms. Goodwin suggested an alternative to smartphones could be clickers. Council Member DuBois noted an amendment of the CCRC Charter to allow more meetings and outreach. The schedule needed to extend beyond November, 2018 and include more Council meetings. He inquired whether CAP members would be Palo Alto residents. Mr. Keene responded yes. It was possible to have a member that was not a Palo Alto resident but had a strong connection to Palo Alto or special knowledge. Council Member DuBois believed CAP members should be residents. The criteria for CAP membership needed to be fleshed out. Each CAP member needed to represent a group of interested people so that they could report on and magnify CAP discussions. The Rail Corridor affected a great deal of the FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 5 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 City. PAUSD and Stanford Research Park needed to be members of the stakeholder group. He asked if the CAP would produce recommendations. Ms. Goodwin reported the CAP would be an exchange of information and advisory to the project team and not necessarily be empowered to make specific recommendations or vote. Mr. Keene noted the challenges of empowering a body to make recommendations without triggering conflicts of interest. Staff did not wish to exclude anyone based on geography. With the assistance of the City Attorney's Office, Staff planned on navigating the challenges of formalizing CAP feedback. Council Member DuBois expressed concern that asking participants to broadcast information would restrict the participation and create frustration. Mr. Keene clarified that the CAP would advise the consultant team and Staff, who were empowered to present the unfolding of a series of recommendations. Council Member DuBois saw a good deal of concern expressed in posts to Nextdoor. Perhaps the project team needed to consider slowing the timeline to ensure engagement succeeded from the first meeting forward. The first community meeting needed to discuss broad topics and allow modifications if there was interest. Council Member Holman remarked that not all neighborhoods had organized associations. People Citywide were going to be affected by the grade separation project, but people along the Rail Corridor were more interested. She inquired about including Leadership Palo Alto as a participant but said the next class would not form until September, 2018. The list of participants did not include business and property owners. The Chamber of Commerce did not represent all business and property owners. She was especially pleased to find graphics as a component of the Community Engagement Plan. She inquired about the ability to ask survey questions that elicited true input. Ms. Goodwin stated typical survey respondents were motivated and cared about the topic being presented. Anything obtained through the feedback mechanism was simply a response. Survey questions sought community opinions regarding design elements or engineering components. Council Member Holman inquired whether the community would have an opportunity to respond to an open-ended question regarding funding. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 6 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Ms. Goodwin commented that funding could constrain some alternatives, and a discussion about that needed to occur. All meetings included a conversation regarding funding and best practices for funding large capital projects. Council Member Holman inquired about the time of day during which meetings would be held. Ms. Goodwin advised that community meetings would be scheduled for evenings. If technical experts were needed for CAP meetings, then the meetings needed to be held during the day. Council Member Holman asked if meetings would be broadcast, recorded and posted online. Mr. de Geus promised to consult with the Media Center regarding broadcasting, recording and posting meetings. The meetings were to be open to the public. Council Member Holman inquired about the anonymity of online feedback and online survey responses. Ms. Goodwin reported the scope of work did not include online open-ended survey questions. Responses were likely limited to one response per IP address or computer or email address. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Filseth, Kniss, Tanaka absent 2. Discussion and Potential Action to Further Narrow Possible Grade Separation Alternatives Including Rail Committee Recommendation to the City Council to Further Define the Grade Separations for Further Study in the Following Ways: a. Eliminate Churchill Avenue Hybrid (CAH) idea from consideration; b. Eliminate Churchill Avenue Reverse Hybrid (CAR) idea from consideration; c. Break out Churchill Avenue closure option into full closure and partial closure; d. Remove the language regarding widening Embarcadero Road underpass from description of Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea; and FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 7 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 e. Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area. Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official reported the AECOM team had thoroughly considered the Palo Alto Hybrid (PAH), the Churchill Avenue Hybrid (CAH) and the Churchill Avenue Reverse Hybrid (CAR) alternatives but did not perform a full-blown alternatives analysis. Etty Mercurio, AECOM advised that the Embarcadero underpass and the California Avenue Caltrain platform were major constraints for the CAH alternative. Maintaining Caltrain service during construction was another constraint and affected the offset for a shoefly. From the California Avenue platform, the rail line gradually rose to a height of 10 feet above grade at Churchill Avenue and then descended to match the grade at the Embarcadero underpass. The vertical clearance or distance between the top of the road and the bottom of a railroad structure must be 15.5 feet. If the top of rail was 10 feet above the existing grade, then the road had to be lowered approximately 12-15 feet to comply with the vertical clearance requirement. The roadway was to descend at a grade of 7.4 percent. Council Member Kou asked if the "+7.4 percent" shown on the graphic represented the descent and "-7.4 percent" represented the ascent of the roadway. Ms. Mercurio answered no, the opposite. Trees between Alma Street and the mainline tracks had to be removed for construction of the shoefly. The width of Alma Street was going to be temporarily reduced due to the shoefly; however, two traffic lanes were to be maintained. Approximately 22 residential properties were going to be impacted. Utilities had to be relocated. In the CAR alternative, from the Embarcadero underpass the rail line would descend to a depth of approximately 6 feet at Churchill. The vertical clearance between the rail and roadway structure must be 24.5 feet under Caltrain criteria and 27 feet under High Speed Rail (HSR) criteria; the study used a vertical clearance of 24.5 feet. Therefore, the roadway was approximately 22 feet above the existing grade. The grade difference for the rail line was 8 percent. Impacts included removal of trees, narrowing of Alma Street, and utility relocation. Approximately 46 residential properties were going to be impacted. Using a 2 percent grade decreased the number of impacted residences to 39 and would lower the rail line an additional 5 feet. In the PAH alternative, constraints were the Palo Alto Avenue Caltrain station, the University Avenue underpass, a historic Caltrain bridge over San Francisquito, an El Palo Alto heritage tree and the Stanford Park Hotel in Menlo Park. Staff was exploring use of the shoefly as the permanent alignment of the track and FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 8 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 abandonment of the existing train tracks because of the historic bridge. The rail embankment extended approximately 7 feet above existing grade, and the roadway descended at a 7 percent grade to approximately 15 feet at Palo Alto Avenue. Roadway construction impacted the driveways for Park condominiums. Placing the alignment on the west side of the tracks appeared to impact the Stanford Park Hotel. The proposed alignment did not appear to impact El Palo Alto but permanently impacted parking along Alma Street and required relocation of utilities. Mr. Mello recounted the City Council Rail Committee's (CCRC) recommendations. Dayton Misfeldt remarked that Churchill Avenue was created as a shortcut and would never be a thoroughfare. Churchill Avenue was not able to handle traffic. Carlin Otto felt the Council and community should consider only a tunnel for the train. A tunnel eliminated the train and transportation barriers and provided open space, parks and bike paths. She gladly paid additional taxes for construction of a tunnel. Howard Houben suggested the Council consider two phases for construction of grade separations. The first phase was to be construction of a bridge across Palo Alto for the train. The second phase was lowering the roadways. Stephen Rosenblum opposed the CCRC’s recommendation as eliminating options prior to analyzing traffic circulation impacts and said that was premature. The rail crossing issue needed to be viewed as an opportunity to increase east-west connectivity. Only a Citywide Charleston-Meadow viaduct or a tunnel was equitable for all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Council Member Scharff clarified that the three options for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing remained viable under the CCRC recommendation. Irene Lloyd opposed eminent domain and supported a tunnel for the train. Barbara Hazlett advised that residents of Embarcadero and Professorville neighborhoods would be circulating a petition opposing the widening of the Embarcadero underpass and expressed concern about the impact of increased traffic on residential streets. She supported elimination of the Churchill hybrid ideas. Widening the Embarcadero underpass was not a consideration. The Churchill crossing needed to remain open. Yoriko Kishimoto supported the Professorville petition and the CCRC’s recommendations. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 9 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Rachel Kellerman urged the Council to add "implement appropriate actions to mitigate the impact of redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods" to Part E of the CCRC’s recommendations. Rob Levitsky suggested the Council construct a pedestrian overpass or underpass from Palo Alto High School to eliminate one of the traffic signals near the Embarcadero underpass. The Churchill Avenue crossing needed to remain open. Patrice Fester commented that an elevated rail line divided the community and hurt residents' quality of life. Protections from the use of eminent domain and from the transfer of traffic among neighborhoods needed to be extended to South Palo Alto. A tunnel from East Meadow to Charleston benefited the community. Kate Moren requested the Council hold a discussion regarding the meaning and effects of eminent domain. If the Churchill crossing was closed, trains did not have to sound their horns, which reduced noise. Khurshid Gandhi noted the Hatch Mott MacDonald report projected no loss of property with a trench option. She hoped the Council would envision creative approaches to funding and crossing alternatives. Terry Holzemer supported concerns about the use of eminent domain. The partial trench and tunnel options needed to be considered seriously. The City needed to insist that the Caltrain electrification project use the single-pole option in Palo Alto. Penny Ellson suggested the Council needed to understand the relationship of traffic on Embarcadero and Churchill. A bond campaign needed to demonstrate benefits to all parts of Palo Alto. She voiced concern about the proposed 8 percent grade of streets used by bicyclists. Emily Hung supported the CCRC’s recommendations. Separating the Churchill crossing provided few benefits. Large Palo Alto companies needed to financially support grade separations. David Shen requested the Council approve the CCRC’s recommendation to eliminate Churchill hybrid options from consideration. Jason Matlof reported signers of the North Old Palo Alto petition were adamantly opposed to any solutions that called for the use of eminent domain and construction of overpasses and underpasses. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 10 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Monica Tan Brown opposed eminent domain; the hybrid solutions needed to be removed from study. Neva Yarkin asked the Council to remove eminent domain from any alternatives that affected the North Old Palo Alto and Southgate neighborhoods. Carolyn Schmarzo related reasons for opposing the use of eminent domain in Palo Alto. Parag Patkar referred to the 2014 Hatch Mott MacDonald report, which showed no use of eminent domain in a trench option. The Community Advisory Panel needed to be comprised of residents. Steve Scheenker urged the Council to consider a partial closure of the Churchill crossing because of traffic circulation. Megan Kanne supported the CCRC’s recommendations and requested more information regarding the Community Advisory Panel be posted online. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain was pleased to learn one of the workshops focused on funding and financing for grade separations. Information regarding funding needed to provide options, value capture, and the number of homes and businesses that were needed to generate funding for each alternative. Jason Stinson supported elimination of the hybrid alternatives for Churchill Avenue. Council Member Scharff did not hear any public comment in support of the hybrid options. Eliminating the hybrid options saved $500,000, which could be used to study other options. The Council was not going to decide on the closure or partial closure of the Churchill Avenue crossing at the current time. The language regarding widening the Embarcadero underpass seemed prescriptive. He suggested that if the option came forward at some future time, then it could be discussed at that time. Eliminating any other options was premature as Staff had not studied the other options. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Eliminate Churchill Avenue Hybrid (CAH) idea from consideration; B. Eliminate Churchill Avenue Reverse Hybrid (CAR) idea from consideration; FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 11 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 C. Break out Churchill Avenue closure option into full closure and partial closure; D. Remove the language regarding widening Embarcadero Road underpass from the description of the Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea; and E. Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area.” Council Member Wolbach reported the Charleston and Meadow tunnel or trench and the Citywide tunnel were to be considered and studied. Staff and the consultants did not analyzed hybrid alternatives in South Palo Alto. Council Member DuBois urged Staff to collaborate with other cities in advocating for a temporary cessation of Caltrain service during construction. A temporary cessation saved cities hundreds of millions of dollars in construction costs. Moving tracks only once also saved millions of dollars in construction costs. He asked if Staff continued to evaluate a 2 percent grade. Ms. Mercurio answered yes. Staff needed to discuss a 2 percent grade with Caltrain. Council Member DuBois understood Union Pacific, a freight operator, was insisting on a 1 percent grade. Council Member Wolbach explained that the 1 percent grade referred to the steepness of the rail line. Typically, Caltrain approved a 1 percent grade. A 2 percent grade saved costs. Council Member DuBois asked if closure was the only remaining alternative for Palo Alto Avenue. Council Member Scharff responded no. The Palo Alto Avenue hybrid and/or viaduct options remained under consideration. Council Member DuBois suggested the alternative of the existing Palo Alto crossing with a quiet zone may need to return for consideration. Mr. Mello advised that "do nothing" options remained under consideration as fallback alternatives. They needed to be analyzed as part of the environmental process. To prevent confusion, Staff removed "do nothing" options from the table of ideas, but they had not been eliminated as alternatives. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 12 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Council Member DuBois noted traffic impacts had not been discussed. He wanted clearer criteria for decision-making. If the Council considered the 2 percent option in South Palo Alto, then they needed to consider the short trench at Churchill with a 2 percent grade. The Council needed to eliminate hybrid options consistently and concurrently. Traffic circulation and transference needed to be considered for each option. The crossings at Churchill and Embarcadero and at Palo Alto Avenue and University needed to be considered together. The Council needed to develop a shared, community approach. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to: A. Eliminate all hybrid ideas from consideration; B. Break out Churchill Avenue closure option into full closure and partial closure; C. Study additional options for addressing traffic on Embarcadero Road and University Avenue, particularly at the intersections with Alma Street; and D. Consider a short trench at Churchill Avenue at a 2 percent grade. Council Member DuBois remarked that the Council needed to think about a clear process and clear criteria for discussing options. A short trench addressed many issues. Council Member Kou clarified that she opposed the recommendations during the CCRC meeting because there was no study of road impacts with partial or full closures. Transferring traffic from one street to another was not acceptable. Traffic impacts needed to be considered carefully. Alternatives needed to be considered Citywide because they affected the entire City. James Keene, City Manager indicated the City developed criteria for evaluation of projects, and Staff attempted to apply the criteria during the decision- making process. The process was designed to be iterative and to reduce the amount of funds spent on studies. Theoretically, alternatives were not permanently eliminated until the Council approved the preferred alternative. Eliminating all hybrid alternatives appeared to be counter to the process. Staff had reviewed and analyzed to some degree the Churchill hybrid alternatives but not other hybrid alternatives. He did not see any harm in making decisions repeatedly rather than simultaneously. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 13 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Council Member Scharff agreed that the Council had created a repeated process so that it could review and narrow options for further study. Eliminating all hybrid options was an ill-considered move and left only trench or viaduct options. He requested Council Member DuBois comment on his statement about taking eminent domain off the table. Council Member DuBois commented that Staff had studied eminent domain in South Palo Alto. If the reason for eliminating hybrid options was the use of eminent domain, then it should be done consistently. The Substitute Motion was designed to point out his perception of an illogical process. If the criterion was eminent domain, the Substitute Motion was an attempt to achieve that. Council Member Scharff did not believe the criterion was eminent domain. The criteria were a range of site-specific issues. The Substitute Motion forced the closure of Charleston and Meadow. He requested Staff offer the reasons for eliminating the trench option at Churchill Avenue. Mr. Mello reported the short trench option at Churchill was eliminated because of the Embarcadero undercrossing and the California Avenue Caltrain platform. Based on comments from the CCRC, Ms. Mercurio reviewed a 2 percent hybrid at Churchill, which did not reduce the impacts as much as expected. Ms. Mercurio advised that the 2 percent grade could not be achieved. The maximum grade that the model achieved was 1.5 percent because of vertical and tangent curves and entry and exit grades. The maximum grade achievable for the trench from Embarcadero to the California Avenue station was 7 percent. Given the vertical clearance requirements for a road over a rail track, the roadway was going to be 22 feet above grade. Changing the grade to 2 percent decreased the real property loss from 46 properties to 39 properties. The railroad was not able to be fully depressed in a trench at Churchill. Council Member DuBois asked if Staff reviewed the trench without connections and with closure of cross streets. Ms. Mercurio replied no. Converting Mariposa to a cul de sac reduced the impacts somewhat. Keeping Alma Street as a structure likely provided the same impacts as shown. Council Member DuBois referred to an earlier analysis, which showed the impacts varied quite a bit, maintaining the connection to Alma. He thought Mariposa, Kellogg and Coleridge could all be converted to cul de sacs, which minimized impacts. Staff seemed to have performed a worst-case analysis. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 14 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Ms. Mercurio stated the analysis was high level and could be performed for variations of the scenario. Council Member Tanaka was sympathetic to Council Member DuBois' efforts to eliminate the use of eminent domain. He suggested that perhaps Part A of the Substitute Motion could state "eliminate all ideas that require full eminent domain." The Substitute Motion was an attempt to respond to community concerns about eminent domain. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Substitute Motion Part A, “that require full eminent domain” after “all hybrid.” Council Member Tanaka concurred with not pushing traffic from one neighborhood to another. He requested clarification of Part C of the Substitute Motion and wanted to ensure Part C would not push traffic onto Embarcadero. Council Member DuBois explained that Part C called for improvements to the intersections with Alma. Council Member Tanaka suggested Part C include language of "to avoid pushing additional traffic onto Embarcadero." Council Member DuBois stated 9,000 car trips would go somewhere. Council Member Scharff did not believe that was factually accurate. Jason Matlof referred to the Mott MacDonald Traffic Circulation Study. Nine thousand cars traversed Churchill, but only 25 percent of the cars crossed the train tracks. Half of that traffic traveled west and impacted the Professorville neighborhood. Council Member DuBois reiterated the need for consistent data. The language of the Substitute Motion was not intended to force traffic onto side streets. Council Member Holman requested Staff address the numbers. Mr. Mello remarked that the recommendation was to narrow the number of ideas from ten to eight. As the process continued, Staff conducted thorough traffic analyses of alternatives selected for study. Traffic impacts and mitigation measures for each of the alternatives were going to be clearly identified. At that point, the Council was able to discuss impacts to neighborhoods, transference of traffic and improvements that may or may not be required to mitigate traffic impacts. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 15 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Mr. Keene reiterated that the process was designed to evolve and to be iterative. If the Council wished to block all options except the tunnel, then Staff was able to discuss money and a 2 percent grade and collaboration with other jurisdictions. He asked Council Members to trust the process as they had designed it. Council Member DuBois requested clarification of not using data. The traffic counts were taken from a Study commissioned in 2017. Mr. Keene referred to Council Member Tanaka's comments regarding not redirecting traffic. Council Member DuBois felt the Council should utilize the data it had. Mr. Keene suggested the Council's action was to narrow the focus for more study. Council Member Tanaka believed the Substitute Motion was an attempt to reduce the cost of studying alternatives by eliminating alternatives that the community opposed. The Council was able to direct Staff to study the hybrid alternatives at a future time. He inquired whether the Council needed to direct Staff to conduct a fiscal analysis of a tunnel alternative. Mr. Keene reported the Council had generally discussed various options around a tunnel alternative. The Council ultimately directed Staff to conduct a fiscal analysis because it involved many other policy issues for the City. Council Member Scharff asked Council Member Tanaka to clarify the fiscal analysis he sought. Council Member Tanaka wanted to know the amount of funding required to underground Caltrain so that community members could decide whether they wanted a tunnel. Council Member DuBois did not accept an Amendment as the topic was neither funding nor a tunnel option. Mr. Keene clarified that the tunnel option remained on the list of alternatives to study. Funding was a factor in a future Council discussion of the tunnel option. Molly Stump, City Attorney added that funding was not a component of the topic noticed to the public. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 16 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to study value capture or other options to finance a tunnel.” AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Scharff suggested the Substitute Motion should eliminate eminent domain rather than all hybrid alternatives. Council Member DuBois explained that partial purchases for eminent domain may be necessary. Ms. Stump reported the City always attempted to acquire property from a private owner through a voluntary transaction. That attempt was often successful. She inquired whether the intention was to eliminate any option that involved purchasing a full parcel or to eliminate any option if a parcel could not be obtained through a voluntary transaction. Mr. Keene added that some projects required the acquisition of property but did not involve a home. Council Member DuBois believed "full" eminent domain involved a home. AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace in the Motion Part A, “full eminent domain” with “a complete eminent domain action on a residential property.” Ms. Stump inquired whether the language included an invitation to enter into a voluntary sale transaction. The Motion was not to review any option that would require property acquisition. Council Member Holman requested Staff provide language. Ms. Stump reiterated that Staff could not know unless and until specific properties were identified as needed for a public project and conversations had occurred between the City and the property owners. Mr. Keene thought the Council could be better informed if eminent domain was discussed in the context of a specific alternative with design maps. Council Member DuBois inquired whether Staff anticipated maps for alternatives to be wildly different from those viewed in the past. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 17 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager advised that Staff had provided information for Churchill Avenue that demonstrated the hybrid alternatives were not acceptable given the property impacts. Staff was able to prepare the same information for Meadow and Charleston and present a preliminary analysis of property impacts. Mr. Mello commented that Staff needed to perform additional due diligence on hybrid alternatives for Meadow and Charleston because the context was quite different. AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Holman stated it was difficult to consider crossings individually. Staff needed to provide language for Part A, which would help Council Members accomplish their goal regarding eminent domain. Taking an action that addressed only the Churchill Avenue area was viewed as Council partiality to North Palo Alto. Mr. Keene offered language for Part A of the Motion, which was: "direct Staff to return to the Council in August, 2018 with reports regarding the impacts of the hybrid options on properties at Meadow and Charleston." SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to analyze and return to Council in August with a report on the impacts to properties at Charleston Road and Meadow Drive.” (New Part F) AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace in the Motion Part E, “underpass area” with “and University Avenue, particularly at the intersections with Alma Street.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER Council Member Scharff questioned whether the Council could practically consider hybrid alternatives for a crossing without knowing the property impacts of all alternatives for that crossing. Mr. Mello recognized that hybrid alternatives were needed for further investigation because they could have significant property impacts. Mr. Keene indicated Staff would do their best to provide property impacts of all alternatives for a crossing. FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 18 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Council Member Fine believed Council Member DuBois' concept of equity across neighborhoods was helpful. The Council did not understand traffic as a system; therefore, the Council needed to acknowledge that Staff would conduct traffic impact studies on any and all options selected. Eminent domain was not the only priority and criterion; it was only one criterion on the list of criteria adopted by the Council. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part F, “at Charleston Road and Meadow Drive” with “for hybrid options for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive.” Council Member Kou inquired whether the study in Part E of the Motion included neighborhood streets, Middlefield and University. Mr. Mello reported the previous study was a high-level review of what might or might not happen with closures and/or grade separations. As the Council identified alternatives for analysis, a more detailed traffic analysis was to be conducted so that the Council could discuss impacts and potential mitigations. Council Member Kou asked if the language of Part E limited the scope of the traffic study. Mr. Mello responded no. Staff only advanced things that addressed the impacts of a particular idea. Mr. Keene commented that Parts D and E ensured the analysis of impacts was comprehensive. Council Member Kou was adamant that selections not compound traffic circulation problems. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion Part E, “and implement appropriate actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts.” Council Member Holman remarked that sometimes mitigations could be worse than the impact. The Amendment was an attempt to minimize impacts rather than mitigate them. AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part E, “including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 19 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion Part F, “that minimize eminent domain” after “hybrid options.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion Part E, “and safety” after “addressing traffic.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Eliminate Churchill Avenue Hybrid (CAH) idea from consideration; B. Eliminate Churchill Avenue Reverse Hybrid (CAR) idea from consideration; C. Break out Churchill Avenue closure option into full closure and partial closure; D. Remove the language regarding widening Embarcadero Road underpass from the description of the Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea; E. Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts; and F. Direct Staff to analyze and return to Council in August or earlier with a report on the impacts to properties for hybrid options for Charleston Road and Meadow Drive. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no, Filseth, Kniss absent 3. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities. None. NO ACTION TAKEN FINAL SENSE MINUTES Page 20 of 20 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 6/19/18 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 P.M.