Vice Mayor Adrian Fine, who chairs the council's Rail Committee, and council members Alison Cormack, Tom DuBois and Lydia Kou approved the postponement; Greg Tanaka was absent while Mayor Eric Filseth and Councilwoman Liz Kniss were both recused.
To get the work to completion, the council also agreed to add $500,000 to the city's contract with the engineering firm Aecom, which is managing the process, and to set up a new working group to consider the big question of funding.
The working group — which will likely include local businesses, representatives from Stanford Research Park and members of the current "community working group" that is working with consultants on analyzing grade-separation alternatives — is the biggest change to the years-long process.
Councilman Tom DuBois argued that such a group would be necessary to conduct outreach and get "buy-in" from the community for a possible ballot measure to fund any chosen alternative.
While council members had often alluded to the prospect of a business tax in 2020 to pay for the grade separations, which could cost more than $1 billion, some in the business community protested on Monday that they'd been excluded from the discussion.
Judy Kleinberg, president of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, urged the council not to make any decisions about funding until it hears from businesses. To date, she said the chamber and business community members "have not been asked to participate in discussions on either grade separations or how to fund them."
Council members also agreed that the city needs to do far more outreach, including polling and focus groups, before it reaches the critical decision. Councilwoman Alison Cormack urged the creation of a "dynamic model" that will allow residents to weigh the trade-offs between different alternatives.
"I'm not going to be prepared to make a decision to support a final decision on an alternative unless I understand how likely the community is to support a financing program for it," Cormack said.
The funding plan is further complicated by uncertainty over regional funding. The city, along with Mountain View and Sunnyvale, is eligible for a portion of $700 million from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) Measure B, a tax measure that voters passed in 2016. City officials have long acknowledged that Palo Alto is far behind the other cities in deciding on a grade-separation plan (Mountain View has already prepared its environmental documents for its projects at the Castro Street and Rengstorff Avenue crossings and is set to receive $31 million), which may make it harder for the city to receive bond funding.
Last week, City Manager Ed Shikada requested $4 million from the VTA to aid the city's ongoing efforts: $1 million to support a "coordinated area plan" around the Palo Alto Avenue crossing and $3 million for work at the Churchill Avenue, Charleston Road and Meadow Drive crossings.
Shikada noted that residents' preferred grade-separation alternative may depend on the funding sources.
"We will get great polling results if someone else is picking up the tab," Shikada said. "At the same time, if there were a share and we need to narrow the assumption on the share that could be a general tax for Palo Alto taxpayers, that might very well change the outcome."
Shikada also noted that assembling the new working group will be a complex endeavor that will require more staff work and expenditures. Even so, DuBois argued that creating a new group would be a critical step to getting community buy-in on the complex project, which is likely to affect property ownership and traffic patterns.
"A working group is a key issue," DuBois said. "How will we get to something that a community will support?"
The council's vote this week to postpone the decision came in response to two options presented by Shikada: move the decision to June or to October. In choosing the latter option, the group acknowledged the magnitude of the project, which everyone agreed requires far more traffic analysis and community input.
Those points were underscored at Monday's meeting, which dozens of residents attended to offer their own ideas and request more study of the seven options currently on the table. Some urged council members to eliminate all options that could involve property seizures. Other said they were concerned about the proposal to close Churchill Avenue to traffic, which they argued would shift more cars to the Professorville neighborhood.
Several residents of Professorville also chafed at a recent traffic analysis of this option, which did not consider the intersection of Emerson Street and Embaradero Road. (Even Shikada noted that the study needs more work.)
The closure of Churchill is one of six proposals currently on the table (the council had previously agreed to pull the northernmost crossing, Palo Alto Avenue, out of the discussion and to consider it as part of a Downtown Specific Plan). The options include a tunnel in south Palo Alto; closure of Churchill; a citywide tunnel; and three alternatives for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road options: a trench, a viaduct and a "hybrid" that involves the lowering of the roads and the raising of the tracks.
This story contains 923 words.
Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.
If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.