HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-01 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting August 1, 2000
1. Transportation Tax Renewal Proposal to Extend One-Half Cent Sales Tax..........................................................432
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m...........................................................439
08/01/00 90-431
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:40 p.m. Present: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Kniss, Mossar Absent: Fazzino, Lytle, Ojakian Also Present: Mayor Mary Jo Borak, Menlo Park; Mayor Ira Ruskin, Redwood City; Mayor John Moss, Los Altos; Council Member Diane Howard, Redwood City; Supervisor Joe Simitian, Santa Clara County; Vice Mayor Jack Walker, Sunnyvale; Council Member Kris Casto, Los Altos; Mayor John Statton, Cupertino; Mike Evanhoe, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group; and Jim Webb, representing Mayor Gonzales, San Jose. SPECIAL MEETING 1. Transportation Tax Renewal Proposal to Extend One-Half Cent Sales Tax Mayor Kniss said the purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity to discuss the sales tax. It was important to understand what the tax and the governance regarding transportation were about. Vice Mayor Eakins said the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) was formed out of a combination of transportation agencies in Santa Clara County including the Congestion Management Agency, County Roads, and the County Bus System. The VTA was formed in the mid-1990s to take care of all transportation in Santa Clara County with the exception of local streets, county expressways, and airports, and was governed by a large board of directors including five members from the City of San Jose, two from the County of Santa Clara, and five from the small cities. One of the main tasks of the VTA during the prior 16 months was to formulate a new program for post-2006, called Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 20/20 which was a grass roots, bottoms up, cities, local area-initiated project, and went through a system of exploration, evaluation, and refinement with criteria established. The list of projects for VTP 20/20 was the basis for the new proposed sales tax project. Mayor Kniss said the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors was asked to vote on the extension on August 8, 2000. A summit meeting would be held on August 2, 2000, at the San Jose Civic Center at 2 p.m. She asked Supervisor Simitian to indicate whether or not he saw any movement in the 20-year extension to the half-cent sales tax.
08/01/00 90-432
Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian said the Board of Supervisors, at its June 27, 2000, meeting, considered the possibility of a 20-year sales tax in the amount of one-half cent. Discussion at that time also included a package of transportation improvements for Santa Clara County that might form the basis of a companion measure in the November election. He indicated at that time that the package received as a result of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group’s (Manufacturing Group) effort to provide a “placeholder” for that meeting was not something he felt he could support. Subsequently, the Manufacturing Group moved on to try to partner with the (VTA) and to use the VTP 20/20 list which was described as $3.8 billion worth of improvements. He was unable to support either plan. The plans to date were not truly regional in perspective; they did not address significant needs in the North County, nor were they equitable in terms of the distribution of tax dollars that might be derived from a sales tax. A 25-year sales tax would increase from $3.8 billion to $4.9 billion the total revenues that might be available. He attempted to craft a proposal for discussion at the following day’s workshop between the Board of Supervisors and VTA. He wanted to hear comments at that evening’s meeting before putting finishing touches on his first draft proposal. Council Member Burch said many people questioned why a decision needed to be done at the present time, rather than 2002 or 2004. Supervisor Simitian said his office was in contact with many of the local cities to find out their priorities. The timelines associated with litigation, long-range planning, and long-term construction projects were daunting, and it would be good to get a head start. Proponents were correct in asserting the time was good to begin. The economy was healthy, the traffic situation was bad, and it was a presidential election year. The timing was right. Council Member Mossar felt positive about VTA, but found it unfortunate that solving “transit shed” problems due to the county boundaries was difficult. She was concerned that there were bad feelings between San Mateo and Santa Clara counties over transit issues. She was interested in resolving existing transit infrastructure deficits and was less concerned with funding new transit services for new growth and new centers of economic vitality. Supervisor Simitian agreed with Council Member Mossar about the importance of looking across the artificial boundaries. The VTA was made up of 10 members, including two Board of Supervisor members. He was not one of the members and found it a daunting challenge to try to put forth a countywide, regional proposal.
08/01/00 90-433
Los Altos Council Member Kris Casto asked what items Mr. Simitian was considering adding to the list in addition to the Dumbarton Bridge. Supervisor Simitian said there were many projects, and he wanted to wait and finish the list before sharing it. The starting point was the $3.8 billion VTP 20/20 plan. Virtually, everything he looked at came from the VTP 20/20 universe of projects, which the 15 cities of Santa Clara contributed to, plus submissions from Caltrain, VTA, and the County of Santa Clara. Cupertino Mayor John Statton said people would view the item as the “Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Tax.” To not take advantage of a good favorable climate for a tax increase would be a lost opportunity. In developing the list, he suggested that Supervisor Simitian keep in mind there were other alternative means of transit locally, such as bicycles. Supervisor Simitian said his previous experience in local government indicated bicycles was an area that should be considered. Menlo Park Mayor Mary Jo Borak asked whether Mr. Simitian received a letter written by the City of Menlo Park in connection with the Dumbarton Rail. Menlo Park was on record of supporting the Dumbarton Rail with major reservations. The line backed up to a number of residential neighborhoods, and Menlo Park did not want to have the neighborhoods impacted with extra noise. Mitigation and grade crossing issues needed to be discussed. Menlo Park’s transportation staff ran numbers about time benefits, and it appeared that more people would be delayed from an at-grade crossing than the actual time that would be saved. She had a conversation with her colleague, Steven Schmidt, member of the SamTrans Board, regarding the issue of BART in San Mateo County. Concerns were “social justice” issues of not having enough money. San Mateo County had a situation where SamTrans allocated $782 million to BART to help make up for their shortfall on the San Francisco International Airport expansion project. Whatever was put together needed to include a way to assure, in tight economic situations, that transit options would be limited to people in need. Redwood City Council Member Diane Howard said the San Mateo County Transportation Authority wrestled with trying to study the reallocation of funds to see whether the funds were used to the best of their ability. She sensed San Mateo County believed it was running out of time before November. She was encouraged that Supervisor Simitian was willing to craft a plan, and he felt there was time to put the matter to the voters in November.
08/01/00 90-434
Supervisor Simitian said he was not one of the original proponents and raised significant concerns and questions as he voted to go forward on June 27, 2000. He had hoped a plan would be crafted by proponents that he could consider supporting, but that had not come forward. Proponents asked him what he would be prepared to support. He was willing to try to prepare something that would generate four votes of the Board. Ms. Howard agreed with Supervisor Simitian and respected his efforts. She attended a meeting where Supervisor Simitian talked to San Mateo County Supervisor Mike Nevin about working closer together regionally. She wanted to see the Transportation Authority and concerned members of San Mateo County meet with Supervisor Simitian to coordinate efforts. Supervisor Simitian said he received a copy of San Mateo County’s recently-released plan and was consulting the plan as he prepared his efforts to put forth a proposal to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the public for discussion. Mayor Kniss asked about the anticipated type of communication that was expected at the summit. Supervisor Simitian said the summit was described as a workshop, and Mr. Evanhoe could describe the program and how comment would be taken. The agenda did not include an action item. Redwood City Mayor Ira Ruskin noted that Council Member Howard was the chair of Redwood City’s Transportation Subcommittee. Redwood City was in favor of the Dumbarton Rail. Supervisor Simitian said great care needed to be exercised when considering a 25-year program of transportation improvements that could involve the expenditure of $4.9 billion. All the details would not be ironed out during the next week or months. The package put to the voters needed to be tightly drawn but also provide flexibility. Cupertino Mayor John Statton said his Council had not taken a formal stance, but was generally in favor of the issue. Sue Kemp, 271 Seale Avenue, favored putting the tax on the ballot. She was not happy with the plan and believed there were other items that could be included. BART should be brought to the South Bay. Transportation was a regional problem. BART could take many people off the freeways which would benefit air, congestion, and people. Robert K. Lancefield, 189 Walter Hays Drive, did not object to the extension of the sales tax. His concern was whether the plan was right. Many years ago, people voted for the extension of the sales
08/01/00 90-435
tax with the idea that the benefits would go to San Jose and South County. He questioned BART’s technology, which he found to be unique and not very reliable. Caltrain was a better alternative. Building consensus was important. Elsie Begle, 501 Forest Avenue, said the project needed major engineering. The major consideration of a subway system should be reviewed seriously. Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, appreciated the effort that was put forth to develop an equitable, useful plan. Bringing BART to San Jose was a good idea. Much money would be spent to extend BART. San Mateo County experienced an overrun bringing BART to the San Francisco Airport. Caltrain should be considered, and grade separations and express tracks should be provided in order to allow more people to take Caltrain to San Francisco and San Jose. There were opportunities for road improvements such as a traffic light at the San Antonio Road/Highway 101 offramp. The Highway 85/101 interchange needed to be completed. The Palo Alto Shuttle could be extended into Mountain View to connect with the Light Rail. Irwin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, #126, said the current meeting was the first for the County on the subject, and the following day’s meeting would be the second and last public meeting prior to the Board of Supervisor’s decision. At a recent Council meeting, Council Member Kleinberg moved to table a motion to put something on the ballot which related to changing the composition of the Council. The motion passed because people felt the Council wanted time for further study. The voting citizens of Santa Clara County needed the same type of study from the supervisors. A plan could not be put together in one weekend. The study “Working Together BART Extension to San Jose/Santa Clara” that was released on July 27, 2000, had not been released by the VTA. The Chairperson of the VTA was opposed to the initiative. He asked that consideration be given prior to deciding whether the issue should go on the ballot. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, referred to a list of projects to be funded by the tax which was recently published in the San Jose Mercury News. She was bothered by the preponderance of automotive expansion such as the number of added lanes and expanded interchanges. Pedestrian and bicycle enhancements were only $50 million. She wanted to see more pedestrian and bicycle expenditures. She applauded the amount of money for rail and believed the electrification of Caltrain, grade separation, and Palo Alto Transit System were good things. She was concerned that with a 20- or 25-year tax horizon, the funds would not be seen until year 2019 or 2024. The North County could not wait that long. David Coale, Bay Area Action and Transportation Land Use Coalition, 766 Josina Avenue, said no one answered how BART’s operating costs
08/01/00 90-436
would be paid for, the buy-in cost or the potentially large overrun costs. The costs could effectively double the price tag of the project. Other BART counties paid a permanent one half-cent sales tax in addition to paying for operating costs. There was little or no money for pedestrian or bike safety, expanding bus service, increasing night or weekend service, transit-oriented development, and seniors or people with disabilities. The plan included more money for sound walls than for pedestrian safety. The process was rushed. A cost-effective plan and public input were needed prior to voting on the issue. Jeral Poskey, Advanced Transit Association, 4292 Wilkie Way, said any tax proposal, 20- to 25-years out, that required good economic conditions in year one to get approved terrified him. Construction costs were subject to overrun, and there were other uncertainties such as buy-in costs, operating costs, and other factors that left citizens wondering what the eventual cost would be. Citizens were asked to undertake a plan without all the information. There were too many questions and too few answers. Alexander Eulenberg, 255 S. Rengstorff Avenue, Apt. 41, Mountain View, echoed concerns about the timing of the issue. He did not believe it was necessary to put the issue on the ballot at the current time. There were too many questions. Even the people who were in favor of passing the ballot had reservations. Sally Probst, League of Women Voters County Transportation Committee member, 735 Coastland Drive, said the committee looked seriously at the issue for many weeks. A meeting was held the prior night for all the county league members. Agreement was looked for at the various league boards in Santa Clara County. Concern was expressed about solo drivers and removing congestion. The League knew there was general agreement that there would be more jobs and more people in the area. The League supported a cost-effective, balanced transportation system with interconnected systems and with equity and regionalism. Andy Chow, 1157 Fairview Avenue, Redwood City, said the problem with the tax was that it was a total surprise to people. He questioned whether BART was the best system and said there were no adequate stories. More time and information were needed. Andy Coe, Director of Community Relations, Stanford University, did not have a position as to timing or what the package should look like but said Stanford University was interested in transportation alternative solutions. Stanford University rarely endorsed initiatives but did endorse the last sales tax initiative. He anticipated it would be a package that Stanford University could support in the future. Three programs were of particular interest:
08/01/00 90-437
1) Caltrain service; 2) Dumbarton rail crossing; and 3) the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center project. Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, was a rider of BART and Caltrain and was more interested in doing more with Caltrain. She realized there were many people interested in a BART connection. She did not understand why Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group tried to rush everyone into doing something they were not ready to do. She was interested in the Dumbarton Rail project and additional Caltrain service. People who wanted BART should put money up front in order to have a consultant to review the issue. She was not willing to vote for something that was not equitable to all the cities. Mike Bullock, 21831 Hermosa Avenue, Cupertino, felt BART should have circled the Bay and gone into San Jose. BART would make his neighborhood a better place to live and would be a feature enjoyed by many people. The common perception of outsiders was that BART was a good thing. The insider, conventional view was that BART was not reasonable to discuss and was too expensive. Mayor Gonsalez’s urge to get something done as soon as possible was a surprise to many people. He commended the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group for wanting the truth and finding out what the voters wanted. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, favored extending the sales tax for transportation purposes but felt BART was an expensive solution for the South Bay traffic jam. If combined with conventional rail programs, he would vote for it. Specific remedies for North County traffic congestion along with BART were needed. He advocated three projects: 1) triple track the Caltrain to facilitate the mini-bullet concept; 2) electrifying Caltrain to increase speeds and decrease noise; and 3) reactivate the Dumbarton rail connection. Greg Perry, Mountain View, was concerned about the tax because a detailed comparative study could not be done in seven days. It was worth spending the money for a comparative study to get actual numbers. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said 10 years prior he was on the Transportation 2000 Committee, and approximately 50 people spent months studying comprehensively the transportation and traffic issues in Santa Clara County. Options were considered and recommendations resulted. The recommendations did not involve extending BART to San Jose or Santa Clara County. The committee thought the extension was uneconomical and a poor use of taxpayers money. Nothing happened during the prior ten years to change his mind. He suggested reconvening the Transportation 2000 Task Force and take a comprehensive look at how the problems should be solved prior to considering a tax increase or extension of taxes. Putting BART into San Jose would not do anything for Page Mill Road between 7 and 11 a.m. BART would bring people into San Jose, and he did not
08/01/00 90-438
want his tax dollars to help rebuild downtown San Jose. He asked that the issue not be put on the November ballot. Mike Evanhoe, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, encouraged everyone to attend the following day’s summit which would be opened with an overview presentation by staff with input from elected officials. The summit was structured to research consensus rather than adopt a plan. Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, provided material describing the ten reasons why the Manufacturing Group wanted to move forward expeditiously. Many open meetings were held during the prior 16 months as VTP 20/20 was put together. When the VTA Board met on July 23, 2000, the vote was 10 to 1, with all the city representatives voting “yes” to move ahead in November 2000. The only no vote was the chair of the Board. The commuters in the county could not afford to wait, and working families should not have to wait. Moving forward at the present time would mean moving forward four years ahead of schedule. The proposal was to extend BART from Fremont, to three stops in Milpitas, several stops in San Jose, and terminating in Santa Clara. That proposal was so popular, according to an independent poll of the San Jose Mercury, that 7 out of 10 county residents were willing to tax themselves for 20 years for any plan that included BART. Sunnyvale Vice Mayor Jack Walker said Sunnyvale had not taken an official position but were generally in support of putting the initiative on the ballot. Redwood City Council Member Ira Ruskin said the concerns were regional in nature, and opportunities to listen to people in a different county was interesting, helpful, and enlightening. Mr. Guardino believed the measure was a good starting point as long as the VTP 20/20 process was honored, and other ideas for the additional five years worth of revenue would be appropriate. He believed that private citizens willing to help lead such an effort would look favorable on such an effort. Mayor Kniss said the matter would be brought to the Palo Alto City Council the following week. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
08/01/00 90-439
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
08/01/00 90-440