HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-17 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 17, 1995 1. Resolutions of Appreciation to Dream Team Advisory Committee ............................................. 75-381 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 75-382 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6 AND FEBRUARY 13, 1995 .... 75-382 2. Arastradero Creek Erosion Improvement Project - Consul-tant Scope of Work; Arastradero Lake Dam and Spillway Project -Consultant Scope of Work - Refer to Policy and Services .............................................. 75-382 3. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Janet Cox to Assist in Conducting a Public Outreach Program for Future Storm Drain Capital Improvements ... 75-383 4. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Woodward-Clyde Group, Inc. to Assist with Environmental Monitoring at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 75-383 5. The Finance and Policy and Services Committees recommend to the City Council approval of the Municipal Code changes contained in the Proposed Amendments to the Municipal Code to Implement the Mission Driven Budget and Organizational Review ...................... 75-383 6. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council adoption of the Budget Amendment Ordinance which reflected midyear adjustments to the 1994-95 budget and changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule ................. 75-383 7. Amendment to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to Provide Section 20930.3, Military Service Credit as Public Service for Police Employees Only .............. 75-383 8. Request for City Opposition to Senate Bill 176 (Alquist) and Assembly Bill 1947 (Battin) ............. 75-383
04/17/95 75-379
9. The Policy and Services Committee re Letter to the Santa Clara Valley Water District endorsing the San Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resource and Planning Steering Committee's Request for a Joint Flood and Erosion Control Study of the San Francisquito Creek by the Santa Clara Valley Water District ................. 75-384 10. The Finance Committee re San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit ..................... 75-385 11. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Fund a North County Fire Services Consolidation Study ........ 75-386 12. Funding Alternatives for the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station Area Modifications (Implementa-tion of the Dream Team Proposals) ..................... 75-387 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 75-397 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ........... 75-397
04/17/95 75-380
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:11 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolutions of Appreciation to Dream Team Advisory Committee MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the following Resolutions: Resolution 7493 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Montgomery `Monty' Anderson for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7494 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Tony Badger for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7495 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Jim Balboni for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7496 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Tony Carrasco for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7497 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Clement Chen, III for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7498 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Ellen Fletcher for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7499 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Bob Grant for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7500 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to David Jury for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7501 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Cathie Lehrberg
04/17/95 75-381
for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7502 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Emily Renzel for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Resolution 7503 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to John Van Horne for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Dream Team Advisory Committee" Clement Chen, owner, Holiday Inn, 625 El Camino Real, expressed support from the Holiday Inn for continuation of the Dream Team process and the redesign of the University Circle. He believed staff's recommendation for an incremental approach was appropriate due to current economic circumstances. He urged the City to move forward with the project. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Petersen, 228 Fulton Street, spoke regarding the Oak Tree in Parking Lot G. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding public representation (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the budget. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6 AND FEBRUARY 13, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of February 6, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of February 13, 1995, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 8. Refer 2. Arastradero Creek Erosion Improvement Project - Consultant Scope of Work; Arastradero Lake Dam and Spillway Project -Consultant Scope of Work - Refer to Policy and Services Committee
04/17/95 75-382
Action 3. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Janet Cox to Assist in Conducting a Public Outreach Program for Future Storm Drain Capital Improvements 4. Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Woodward-Clyde Group, Inc. to Assist with Environmental Monitoring at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; amendments not to exceed $25,000 during first and second years. 5. The Finance and Policy and Services Committees recommend to the City Council approval of the Municipal Code changes contained in the Proposed Amendments to the Municipal Code to Implement the Mission Driven Budget and Organizational Review. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 2.08 Relating to Officers and Departments and 2.28 Relating to Fiscal Proce-dures of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to implement Mission Driven Budgeting and the Organizational Review" 6. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council adoption of the Budget Amendment Ordinance which reflected midyear adjustments to the 1994-95 budget and changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule. Ordinance 4269 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with Recommendations in the Midyear Report" 7. Amendment to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to Provide Section 20930.3, Military Service Credit as Public Service for Police Employees Only Resolution 7504 entitled "Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto (Local Police Members)" Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (Military Service Credit for Local Police Members)" 8. Request for City Opposition to Senate Bill 176 (Alquist) and Assembly Bill 1947 (Battin) MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent.
04/17/95 75-383
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 9. The Policy and Services Committee re Letter to the Santa Clara Valley Water District endorsing the San Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resource and Planning Steering Committee's Request for a Joint Flood and Erosion Control Study of the San Francisquito Creek by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County Public Works Department. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the item was a referral from the Policy and Services Committee (P&S) and represented a change of attitude and direction in treating a valuable resource to the City of Palo Alto and San Francisquito Creek (the Creek) in particular. The County Hazardous Waste Management Program (CHWMP) process had been initiated by all the stakeholders and groups interested in preserving the Creek. He emphasized the request had not come from staff nor the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), but from the consortium of people interested in the Creek who initiated a study to find alternative treatments to both control erosion and to improve flood protection along the Creek. In years past, the SCVWD's approach had been to line creeks with concrete. The alternative approach was significant because it asked to study other methods. The SCVWD had recently changed management, had adopted new attitudes, and was receptive to looking at the situation in a new light. The request did not endorse any particular treatment or action but was simply a study of alternative types of treatment. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Mr. Roberts' summation was accurate regarding the changes which had taken place, particularly in the leadership and attitude of the SCVWD. The P&S Committee was comfortable with suggesting to Council that it reverse the existing policy adopted in 1990 of not approving further studies of the Creek. An active group of citizens from a number of constituencies had been involved in studying the Creek. She urged Council to be responsive to their work as well. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler for the Policy and Services Committee moved that staff submit the proposed letter attached to the staff report (CMR:166:95) to the Santa Clara Valley Water District endorsing the San Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resource and Planning Steering Committee's request for a joint flood and erosion control study of the San Francisquito Creek by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County Public Works Department. Council Member Andersen asked if Council's position in 1990 helped to influence the change in attitude on the part of SCVWD. Council Member McCown believed it was not possible to know the reason. The spokesperson for the SCVWD, Kay Whitlock. was not employed by SCVWD in 1990 and was part of the new administration/ new management. She was unclear as to the attitude of the Board of Directors. The Board clearly indicated that absent a request from the City of Palo Alto to proceed, it would not initiate anything. She believed that the scope of the study was really
04/17/95 75-384
being defined by the CHWMP process and the City joining in that process. Council Member Kniss said the number of people involved in the process had been very persuasive; the type of constancy and unrelenting effort was what made the final difference. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. 10. The Finance Committee re San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit Council Member Rosenbaum said the basic action taken by the Finance Committee was to recommend that a decision of a prior Council be reaffirmed to convert the area to marsh rather than merely to provide for public access. Staff assured the Finance Committee that outside funds would be available to pay for the $.5 million difference in cost between marsh restoration and providing public access. The funds could come from an establishment of a mitigation bank, possibly direct payments from developers, or from grants. In order to provide time to secure the funds, the Finance Committee directed staff to apply to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for a one-year extension of the deadline for performing the original mitigation. Finally, if after one year, the funds were not available, the Finance Committee directed staff to return the issue to the Finance Committee. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum for the Finance Committee moved to: 1) direct staff to request a one-year time extension for a San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission permit to complete seven acres of marsh restoration at Harbor Point; 2) direct staff to prepare a plan to implement the project over a three-year period; 3) direct staff to pursue options which would reduce or eliminate the City's cost for marsh restoration as follows: a) seek agency approval for establishment of an environ-mental mitigation bank; and b) seek grants from other agencies and utilize $65,000 from a prior wetlands mitigation involving a private party and the U.S. Department of Justice. The mitigation funds are available from the General Fund reserve account. Further, direct staff to return the project to the Finance Committee in March 1996 if sufficient funds from outside sources had not been obtained to cover City costs in excess of the $275,000 for the public access improvement project. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said as a policy matter, she personally felt the wetlands restoration had a much higher value than public access in the City's Baylands because substantial public access already existed. Substantial marsh also existed but it was a scarce commodity baywide. She supported the Finance Committee's recommendation and believed it was a good way to preserve the option of the marsh restoration and cover the cost. She urged Council to support the motion. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent.
04/17/95 75-385
ORDINANCES 11. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Fund a North County Fire Services Consolidation Study Fire Chief Ruben Grijalva said staff recommended approval of the Budget Amending Ordinance (BAO) to fund the City's portion of a North County Fire Services Consolidation Study for the purpose of studying the costs and benefits associated with reorganizing the North County Fire Departments and jurisdictions of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and Palo Alto to improve services and reduce costs in those jurisdictions. The staff report (CMR:201:95) spoke to reasons for consideration or change and options which might be considered by a consultant. City Manager June Fleming said Chief Grijalva had put considerable effort into working with neighboring communities to bring the concept forward. Several years ago, an attempt to consolidate services was approached from the standpoint of closing fire stations, which had not been popular. After looking for ways in which to be more efficient and more effective, staff believed communities could be provided with the same level of service through consolidation efforts. Chief Grijalva had spent a great deal of time working with neighboring cities and their city managers. She believed, through the study, the questions could at least be answered and put to rest. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked what the response, if any, had been received from the neighboring communities' Councils and what the next steps would be for Council. Mr. Grijalva said the item had already gone before the Los Altos City Council and the Los Altos Hills Fire Protection District, and the $15,000 funding had been approved for both jurisdictions. The item would be going before the City of Mountain View on April 25, 1995. All jurisdictions were on concurrent tracks in terms of timing. Staff would return to Council with an agreement among the four jurisdictions regarding the handling of funds and the hiring of a consultant. A committee would be formed representing all four groups in selection of a consultant. Once a consultant was hired, staff would return to Council within six to eight months with a recommendation. Mayor Simitian said page 2 of 7 of the staff report (CMR:201:95) indicated there was a favorable labor attitude towards consolidation and asked if that was correct. Mr. Grijalva said yes. All four unions had been involved in the discussions, and all four unions were in favor of studying the issue. Until a report was received from the consultant, he could not anticipate the unions' response. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the Ordinance.
04/17/95 75-386
Ordinance 4270 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Fund a North County Fire Services Consolidation Study" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 12. Funding Alternatives for the Palo Alto Intermodal Transporta-tion Station Area Modifications (Implementation of the Dream Team Proposals) Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the item contained funding alternatives and further direction to staff regarding the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station and the surrounding area (the Dream Team Project). The decision before Council that evening was whether or not to pursue adequate funding for further schematic design work related to the project. In March 1993, a broad and diverse spectrum of stakeholders participated in an Urban Design Charette which resulted in the creation of a unique and special vision of the City. A preliminary feasibility study was completed a year later which focused on the physical feasibility of a civic town green and a roundabout entry way including the possibility of lowering the railroad tracks. The effort resulted in a revised plan that continued to include many of the important features of the Dream Team Project (the Project) and established a rough cost estimate of $34 million for design and construction. The City hired the firm of Smith and Kempton to assess the potential of public financing of the Project. The Smith and Kempton report would be discussed later that evening by Will Kempton. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Public Works Director Glenn Roberts had been previously involved in a number of projects in the City of San Jose that had comparability in cost and magnitude of the Project. Council Member McCown asked what the time horizon would be in terms of both pursuit of/obtaining of funding and eventual implementation of the Project; would it be 10 or 20 years. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said a time line of 10 or 20 years was a realistic expectation for developing a project of that magnitude. The design effort would probably be a two- to five-year horizon before the dollars could be secured. Overall implementation for such a project could take 10 years from the development of the vision, to securing of funding, to the final design. The Downtown San Jose Transit Mall took 10 to 15 years. He said it was necessary to take the initial steps in order to secure a place in line to compete for limited funds and to develop momentum over a period of years. Council should keep in mind that the City was working towards a long-term future goal. Council Member Huber questioned once funding was secured and a schematic design was completed, would the design be usable for 20
04/17/95 75-387
or 30 years. Mr. Overway said the design of such a project evolved over time. The longer the time, the more the external conditions changed. A base would have been provided for the next round of design work. The Project would constantly be refined and redefined through the design stages as conditions changed, new laws were enacted, new requirements were put on the Project, and people's opinions changed. He did not believe any of the initial design phases would be wasted. Council Member Huber confirmed that a cost factor would be associated with the changes. Mr. Overway said the longer it took to design and build a project, the higher the cost would be. City Attorney Ariel Calonne expressed concern for a process issue for Council. The recommendation in the staff report (CMR:213:95) identified the issue as further incremental development of the proposal. The Dream Team group was a group that had not been subjected to the Open Meeting law, any political reform requirements, and no Council public hearing had taken place which normally took place with a land use proposal. In that context, the notion of incremental development needed to be watched carefully because the incremental development might back Council into a commitment it might or might not be prepared to make. He did not believe that was the result nor was there concern it would happen, but he believed it was necessary to reflect on the unusual process. Council Member Kniss asked what the actual probability was of obtaining funding from the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) and/or the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for such a project. Mr. Overway said the two funding sources were possibilities with low probabilities. The PVEA funding had been introduced by Assemblyman Byron Sher as a possibility for Palo Alto, had progressed through the Transportation Committee, and was going to the Appropriations Committee. All projects requesting funds were put in the same "pot." The Governor picked projects for a third of the account, the Senate picked projects for a third, and the Assembly picked projects for a third. The demand for the funds far outweighed the resources. The MTC funding had not previously been pursued. MTC did give grants for special projects of regional significance. The probability was limited, but the opportunity would be pursued. Other funding sources would be pursued as they came forward. Council Member Kniss asked when looking at other cities, other than Mountain View that had pursued an ambitious project which included such a transportation process, what was seen as precedent setting in terms of looking for funding. Mr. Roberts said two examples came to mind: 1) the Downtown San Jose Transit Mall, where the City of San Jose secured a number of
04/17/95 75-388
state and federal grant sources over a 10-year period; and 2) the City of Santa Clara rerouted El Camino Real from The Alameda around the University of Santa Clara and secured state and federal money over 10 to 15 years. Both efforts began with similar types of processes and discussions such as the Project. He believed making the Project known to the agencies to secure some status and place it line over time and generating interest was what it was all about. It was important to move the Project forward technically, but it was more important to develop enough of the vision to market the Project to others to garner support. Will Kempton, Smith & Kempton, said he was hired to do a financial feasibility study with respect to looking for funding alternatives for the Project. Smith & Kempton looked at a comprehensive array of financial options available to the City to pursue the Project including typical funding available through the state and federal government as well as categorical funding. A summary was provided along with the availability of programs in terms of providing dollars as well as a sense of a value of whether it was worth pursuing the sources or not. Unfortunately, both at the state and federal levels, significant funding shortfalls existed. The state picture was the worst it had been in 24 years. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) had a shortfall of $5 to $7 billion. The 1992 STIP had been stretch an additional two years in 1994 and would probably be stretched again in 1996. In order to do the Project work, $5 billion in new revenues were needed to pay for what was already promised and programmed before beginning to talk about new programs. The picture was very bleak at the state level. Significant shifts in transportation funding were occurring at the federal level. Budget, taxes, and deficit reduction were issues which would have a significant impact on the availability of federal funds for transportation projects. Following the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was what was being called "NEXTEA," an update of the federal transportation authorizations coming in 1996/97. An opportunity for input in shaping programs which would help provide available funding for the Project might occur during that time. The most significant source of local funding which had funded approximately one half of infrastructure development on the transportation system in the state was local sales taxes. In a pending case, if the Supreme Court upheld the Appellant Court ruling that declared the tax invalid, it would have a significant impact on the ability of local governments to raise funding for transportation. For every year Santa Clara County did not have that funding source, $90 million was lost. Finally, on the Project development side, those projects that continued to make their way through the Project development process would be in the best position to take advantage of funds when they were available. Assemblyman Sher had introduced Assembly Bill 970 that included a request for PVEA funds which would allow the City to take the next step in terms of doing the schematic design for the Project. He recommended that Council endorse the effort. There were two distinct processes he had seen over the past 15 years to develop a project such as the one under discussion. First, there had been a substantial reliance on state and federal dollars for development of projects such as the San Jose Transit Mall, Union Station in
04/17/95 75-389
Los Angeles, and an Intermodal Station in Modesto. The money was obtained through existing programs and special grants. He did not believe those options would be as readily available over the next several years and other sources would be needed. Second, there were projects which had been built with local funds, primarily through sales tax efforts. Stations and upgrades had been provided through a sales tax initiative approved by the voters. The second example had application for Palo Alto, especially for the Project, because substantial state and federal dollars would not be available over the next several years. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked where the City was regarding a proposal to construct undergrade crossings for bicycles and pedestrians at the three railroad crossing intersections. She questioned whether there were potential sources of state or federal funding for three crossings, was that project in direct competition for funds for the Project, or would Palo Alto qualify for different state or federal programs. Mr. Overway said presently there were four at-grade crossings of the CalTrain tracks with City of Palo Alto streets. The City had gone through a preliminary process of establishing a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project which would fund a feasibility study to investigate providing pedestrian/bicycle grade separations under Alma Street and the CalTrain tracks. By definition, the step had already been taken that the City did not expect to provide vehicle grade separations either above or below the tracks or to raise or lower the tracks. In San Mateo County, funds from a countywide tax measure were being used to build vehicle grade separations and/or to raise CalTrain tracks. Palo Alto was headed in the direction of accepting the fact that cars would still cross at-grade but in a safer, more well-designed process that allowed pedestrians, school children, and bicyclists to cross the tracks easily. The cost estimate was $4 to $5 million per intersection but would not necessarily be done at all three or four locations. However, compared to a vehicle grade separation, the process was three or four times less costly. The scope of work under the CIP had been prepared and a study committee was being established. The Project would then be sent to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee for review. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked if the City were competing for the same kinds of funds for the Project or whether there might be the potential for a different pot of money. Mr. Kempton said it was possible that projects could utilize the same source of funds as the Project, but generally the answer was "no." A different source of funding could be used for the bicycle grade separations such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. CMAQ funds were a source of monies that could readily be applied for both categories of projects, but the amount of available dollars would lend themselves more to the smaller projects. Assemblyman Sher had introduced Assembly Bill 414 which
04/17/95 75-390
allowed for a broader use of vehicle registration fees collected by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and bicycle projects would be more eligible for the use of those funds. Mr. Schreiber said another aspect was the local match. When projects were submitted to the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for CMAQ or other funding, the City was working with the CMA with a 20 percent minimum local match. It was not necessarily a federal or state rule but was essentially an indication of local sincerity for a particular project. Sometimes, the part of the local share came from a non-local source such as grants; however, much of it came from true local revenues. The other aspect was how much local match the City would be able to come up with over the next 10 to 20 years for the programs. Council Member McCown understood Mr. Kempton's answer that a greater emphasis on local funding sources rather than state and federal sources was necessary in the next three years. She asked if the same would be true if the goal were a longer time horizon, perhaps five or ten years. Mr. Kempton said the answer changed a little. He believed the focus would again turn to transportation as a major need and pressure to increase transportation revenues would occur. The political will was currently not there in the legislature. Survey work had not indicated the kind of focus on transportation by the public which would warrant support for significant increases in transportation funding. The picture would change with increased traffic congestion and the inability to move around. Whether that occurred in the next three,five, or seven years was speculative. Vice Mayor Wheeler questioned, assuming funding was secured for the design work, if the funding picture did not clarify itself within the time frame that it took to move forward with the real "guts" of the Project, would the design work still be relevant, good, and applicable when the funding picture sorted itself out. Mr. Kempton said usually schematic or conceptual design work had a long shelf life; however, environmental review did not. If an environmental analysis of the Project occurred and nothing happened for three or four years, another investment in environmental review would be necessary before proceeding with the Project. Assuming circumstances would not change and the transportation system remained the same around the station, the design effort had a long shelf life. Mayor Simitian wanted to address the broader, long-range funding possibilities and asked what the possible solution would be to fill the $4 to $5 billion dollar funding gap over the next ten years. Mr. Kempton said if a solution occurred in the next three years, it would be a traditional unit gas tax type of mechanism. If a solution did not occur and was longer term in nature, a solution would be based on a congestion pricing model. Transportation fees
04/17/95 75-391
and charges would need to be assessed differently and work better than the current system. The unit per-gallon gas tax was not a particularly reliable source of transportation funding and was the reason it was continually changed or adjusted to meet the needs. The answer depended upon the time frame for the solution. There was also tremendous pressure to develop alternative fuels which did not carry fuel tax revenues. If 25 percent of the vehicle fleet were operated by alternative fuel sources by the year 2000, 25 percent of the population would not be paying taxes even though it would still be using the roads and causing wear and tear on the highway system. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the City Attorney had made a good point in that there had not been the traditional public venting of the Project. However, during the process itself, there were 40 stakeholders who had participated and were excited about the outcome of the process. Everyone had reservations and special interests in the Project design, but there had been public exposure to the idea. As co-chair of the Dream Team Citizens Advisory Committee (the Committee), she read a letter from her and co-chair Tony Carrasco (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office) which urged Council to support further incremental development of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station. The Committee also supported direction to staff to secure funding for the required schematic design development work. The Dream Team concept took a comprehensive look at an area that had become fragmented and isolated by various changes over the last 50 years. The Project offered an opportunity to unify the Stanford University campus, Stanford Shopping Center, and Downtown Palo Alto and to address in an integrated way public and private transportation needs. The proposed town green could provide a civic focal point and enhance surrounding properties. All of the concepts largely depended upon the reconfiguration of the CalTrain overcrossing, a major project which would require significant outside funding. In order to pursue the funding, the schematic design development work needed to be completed. She urged Council to direct staff to pursue the next step as recommended in the staff report. Bill Petersen, 228 Fulton Street, supported the Project as a win-win situation for Palo Alto as a way to look to the future and leverage funds. Palo Alto was famous for its positive attitude, and the Project reflected such an attitude, which could only reflect well on the City in the future. Catherine Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, thanked Council Member McCown, who had been Mayor when the Committee was formed, for recognizing that the downstream neighbors from the Project were important stakeholders in the process and for including residents both from Downtown North and Crescent Park on the Committee. One of the attractions of the Project for Crescent Park was that it encouraged alternative transportation without encouraging auto traffic. It was important that the principles continue while moving into the design phase and that all stakeholders continue to have the opportunity for review and input.
04/17/95 75-392
Historic Resources Board Chairperson Monty Anderson, 423 8th Avenue, Menlo Park, said the concept was not new. The founding fathers thought the area would be one of the most beautiful spots along the El Camino Real, the juncture into Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford University. Along the way, something had gone horribly wrong. The Project picked up on what the founding fathers thought could be a big possibility for the area. He was excited about the concepts that were developed. The Project was an urban develop-ment-type project that involved a grade change and went far beyond where other cities had gone. The Project could be a big boost to the Downtown and round out the initial vision of the founding fathers. He urged Council to support the Project and thanked Council Member McCown for assembling a great group of people who had many good ideas. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the Project would be competing with other transportation projects in the City for the 20 percent match of local funds regardless of the alternative sources of federal and state funds that might be available. As the Project had gone forward, Stanford University (Stanford) had spent approximately the same amount of money as Palo Alto. If the City were going to be contributing upward of $100,000, it seemed Stanford should match the amount. Regarding transportation projects, mitigations were needed for development in different parts of the City. As development had intensified, the necessity for mitigating transportation congestion problems had resulted. Choices needed to be made such as which parts of the City and which landowners would benefit from those transportation mitigations. Inevitably, that would mean a choice of which parts of the City and which landowners would have more intensive development allowed. The same kind of intense land use could not be provided in different parts of the City if enough transportation mitigation money were only available for some of it. The intersection improvements at Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road in Midtown had been at the top of the list at one time to be improved with traffic impact fees from the Stanford Research Park. The intersection was moved lower and lower on the list. He believed it would be difficult for the improvements ever to be made if more important, higher priority projects were continually found which competed with spending local matching funds. Council needed to take that into consideration as staff and property owners in Midtown brought proposals forward to intensify development in the area. He presented examples on overhead transparencies which depicted how the funding for Midtown had dropped lower on the list as other transportation priorities were found. While a small, incremental step would be taken for the Project, it would constrain what could be done in other parts of the City because of the limited amount of local funds. David Neuman, Associate Vice Provost for Planning/University Architect, Stanford University, said he also represented the Stanford Management Company and the Stanford University Medical Center because they uniformly supported the Project. He briefly summarized a letter (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office) which was included in Council's packet. As a major user of the transit center, Stanford supported incremental implementation for
04/17/95 75-393
the Project and agreed a technical design was needed to verify all aspects of the physical solution and associated costs. Stanford supported the Project and would continue to do so both statewide and regionally while working toward its completion. Stanford believed in the tenants of mutual connection, safety, convenience, and public space. Stanford would proceed to develop a programmatic cost benefit study because in addition to the aesthetic effects which were frequently discussed, the technical effects which were included in the resolution before Council indicated strong programmatic cost benefits particularly in terms of transit ridership that he believed would accrue from the Project's implementation. There would also be significant benefits for the public in terms of environmental quality and real estate. Stanford would continue to look for alternative revenue sources to support the Project. Council Member Kniss asked if Stanford considered contributing to the Project or had it ever been asked to do so. Mr. Neuman said a public agency had to submit for public funding, and Stanford could not be an applicant. Stanford contributed in a number of ways: through the Stanford Research Park, through a transportation fee, and through the resolution of transportation problems in the vicinity. Stanford voluntarily took part in what could be considered a match in terms of the available expertise through the faculty and graduate students to develop the programmatic cost benefit analysis. Council Member McCown asked if any aspect of the specific schematic design development work would be directed toward further evaluation of funding sources. Mr. Overway said the design development work was primarily directed toward the planning and technical design, but it would help to better understand segmentation of the Project. As funding sources came along that might be eligible for pieces of the Project, staff would have a better picture of how to apply for funds for certain components. He did not believe the Project would be funded from a single source but a combination of sources over time. An example was the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) retrofitting that was in progress. It was unlikely the amount of money being spent by CalTrain would effectively be used to build upon the Project because there was not the understanding of how the Project would evolve over time. Opportunities to apply for enhancement funds and pedestrian/bicycle funds were small elements of how the Project could be put together in pieces, how it would qualify for various different funding sources, and was the only means by which the City would be competitive for any future funding sources either on a small or large scale. Council Member McCown asked whether the next phase of work would break the Project out into different components so that if some elements were more readily accomplishable either because of funding sources or the very nature of what they were, it would be possible to do.
04/17/95 75-394
Mr. Overway said that would be an important objective for the next level of effort. Council Member McCown asked what the timing was for seeking current MTC funds for the $300,000 to $400,000 design phase if PVEA funds were not available. Mr. Overway said staff had hesitated in pursuing that course until receiving direction from Council. Mr. Kempton said funds from MTC were from the State Transit Assistance Program and followed a budgetary fiscal year cycle. If Council gave direction that evening, discussions with MTC would be pursued. It was not the typical way to proceed. Some funds had been obtained which allowed for the development of a strategic plan for the 1992 Measure A program. It was a source which should be explored. The Project was very competitive and an attractive project for the type of funding and the timing was right. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to support the further incremental development of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station (Dream Team) Project and direct staff to take necessary and appropriate steps to secure adequate funding ($300,000 to $400,000) for the required further schematic design development work, including the possibility of a local funding share on the order of 20 percent, if necessary. Council Member McCown assumed staff would pursue Assemblyman Sher's bill and MTC funding as appropriate next steps. She believed, as staff recommended, the Project needed to be taken one step at a time. If attempts to obtain some funds from outside the City failed, Council would need to reconsider what it wanted to do. She agreed with Mr. Borock's comments regarding the need to evaluate long-term how the Project related to the City's priorities, not how it would be competitive with state or federal projects. It was a fair question to consider along the way when committing City funds. Successes such as Supervisor Ron Dieridon's transit accomplishments in the Santa Clara Valley over a long period of years had largely been done with dogged, persistent pursuit of things over the long term. The City had not pursued that type of project before, but she believed the Project was a worthy one. Vice Mayor Wheeler concurred with Council Member McCown's comments. She was one of the attendees at many of the Dream Team working sessions and believed the Project was one from which the City would benefit. Her questions and concerns regarding competing federal funds were raised in the spirit of knowing there were many objectives in terms of planning long-term transportation policies as Council went through the new Comprehensive Plan's Goals, Policies, and Programs. Council would have to balance the various needs at the local level. She was encouraged by Mr. Kempton's answer that the study would be useful whenever the Project was achievable. She supported the motion.
04/17/95 75-395
Council Member Andersen said when he first came on the Council, he was surprised at the level of enthusiasm that existed among the planners and that enthusiasm was particularly evident when the Dream Team effort came along. He believed some of the enthusiasm also resulted from Council Members' encouragement for the Project and the next step was to lay out the money. He did not believe the Project would sectionalize the City. He had a strong interest in South Palo Alto, and Midtown was definitely on his high list of priorities. The City could not pass up the opportunity to continue the process, and he heartily supported the motion. Council Member Kniss supported the motion. She commended consul-tant Will Kempton for his work. The shocking reality was that cities would be more and more on their own and looking less to Sacramento and to Washington, D.C., for support. There was a foreboding in the air. Palo Alto would need to look within as it went forth. She also heard Mr. Borock's comments on the other parts of town. It was important to not concentrate on one part of town to the exclusion of others. Mayor Simitian asked if Council needed to take formal action that evening to endorse Assemblyman Sher's legislation. Mr. Overway said staff was proceeding with the representation to the legislature that Palo Alto supported the legislation which had been communicated through a letter signed by Mayor Simitian. The process would be monitored to assure if testimony were required someone from the Council or staff would be there to do that. He did not believe specific action from Council was necessary. Mr. Calonne recalled that Assemblyman Sher described the bills as a series of placeholders for more money than was there, to be followed by a free-for-all sometime late in the session. Mr. Kempton said Mr. Calonne gave a perfect description of the situation. The bill would be referred to what was called "suspense" and would be dealt with in late May during the budget process. Mayor Simitian asked whether there was any value in formal action by Council. Mr. Calonne said alliances were needed and building the broadest base of support possible. Council was better able to accomplish that through the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities. Council Member McCown said Mr. Overway was going to follow up on what the other competing bills were and how and what alliances were possible in terms of the best place to lobby for support. More important than Palo Alto supporting its own bill was Palo Alto finding other people who would lobby for Palo Alto's piece of the pie. Mayor Simitian asked staff to bring the matter back to either the
04/17/95 75-396
Mayor or Council if there were other projects or applicants that Palo Alto should align itself with. He said there was a reference on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:213:95) that the local funding share was 20 percent of $300,000 to $400,000. On page 3 there was a reference of $60,000 to $100,000 in terms of local contributions. There was value, as discussed, in taking the matter incrementally because it allowed for a series of decisions. However, there was a danger to becoming more incrementalized along the path than anticipated. He asked if there would be a problem in putting a "not to exceed" $80,000 local funding cap without further Council authorization or would staff need to come back to Council for authorization to spend the money. Mr. Overway said if the City received any part of the funds or Council approved the motion that evening, staff would come back to the Finance and P&S Committees to approve a Scope of Services and eventually to Council for contract approval. He said the question had been raised by an analyst in Sacramento if local funds had been leveraged or if local funding were included. While there was no specific requirement for a local funding match for PVEA funds, it would be a consideration. He believed MTC would see it the same way. He did not know what the percentage of the funds would be; staff had used 20 percent. Mayor Simitian asked the maker and seconder to incorporate into the motion not to exceed $80,000 without further authorization from Council. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION a clause at the end of the motion which reads "not to exceed $80,000." Council Member Andersen asked staff to inform Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin of the Assemblyman Sher's legislation so it could be brought to the Legislative Task Force of the Santa Clara County Cities Association. Mayor Simitian saw the issue as a long-term "long shot" but certainly worth doing. Possibilities were oftentimes not pursued because the chance for success seemed modest at best, which resulted in no chance of success. The potential for success was substantial and worth the effort. He concurred with Council Member McCown's comment that something different from or less than the vision might be realized but would be equally valuable for the City. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kniss read a poem by Longfellow in recognition of Paul Revere's 200th anniversary of the "Ride" and also recognized Boston Marathon runners Palo Alto Unified School District's Jim Brown and John Northway.
04/17/95 75-397
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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.
04/17/95 75-398