HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-24 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting May 24, 1999 1. Interviews for Historic Resources Board...............88-236 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.............88-236 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................88-237 APPROVAL OF MINUTES .......................................88-237
1. Ordinance 4563 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Modify Sections 12.08.010 and 12.08.120 of Chapter 12.08, and Modify Section 12.12.020 and Add Section 12.12.030 of Chapter 12.12, of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Permits to Work in the Right-of-
Way and Permits Relating to Sidewalk Encroachment≅ ....88-238 2. Approval of Sand Hill Corridor Final Subdivision Map, Subdivision and Below Market Rate Housing Agreement, Maintenance Agreement, and an Agreement and Declaration of Covenant Restrictions Regarding Open Space for a Portion of the Stanford West Apartments Site.....................88-238
3. Ordinance 4565 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $37,750 for El Camino Real Intersection Safety Improvements Capital Project Number 19523"................................................88-238 4. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills County Fire District for Interjurisdictional Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response Service from City of Palo Alto Fire Station Number 8.................................88-238
5. Ordinance 4566 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Reenacting Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the Adoption of the 1998 California
Fire Code and Local Amendments Thereto≅ ...............88-239
05/24/99 88-234
6. Planning Commission Recommendation re Local Bus Shuttle System Service Alternatives..................................88-239
7. Resolution 7853 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not to Exceed $20,000,000 Principal Amount of Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds, 1999 Series A, Adopting Official Notice of Sale, Notice of Intention and Official Statement and
Authorizing Official Actions Related Thereto≅ .........88-254
8. Ordinance 4567 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $90,028 for Public Safety Capital Improvement Project, Number 19820".....88-257 9. Mayor Gary Fazzino re Appointment of Members to the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors ......................................................88-257 10. Vice Mayor Lanie Wheeler, Mayor Gary Fazzino, and Council Member Sandy Eakins re Amortization Extension at 2011 El Camino Real...........................................88-257 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m............88-258
05/24/99 88-235
05/24/99 88-236
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:20 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Historic Resources Board No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
05/24/99 88-237
Regular Meeting May 24, 1999 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ann Barbee, 1106 Bryant Street, spoke regarding the Historic Resources Board and Historic Preservation. Rick Ferguson, 1037 Harker Avenue, spoke regarding minutes of April 5, 1999. Michael H. Wollenweber, East Palo Alto, spoke regarding tool makers and the people. Cary-Andrew Crittenden, Halford Avenue, Santa Clara, spoke regarding funding for the Urban Ministry. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the minutes of April 5, 1999, as corrected. MOTION PASSED: 7-0-1, Eakins Αabstaining,≅ Fazzino absent. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the minutes of April 12, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Fazzino absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Mossar noted she would not participate in Item No. 2 due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4.
1. Ordinance 4563 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Modify Sections 12.08.010 and 12.08.120 of Chapter 12.08, and Modify Section 12.12.020 and Add Section 12.12.030 of Chapter 12.12, of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to Permits to Work in the Right-of-
05/24/99 88-238
Way and Permits Relating to Sidewalk Encroachment≅ (1st Reading 5/10/99, PASSED 9-0)
Ordinance 4564 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Chapter 16.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control)≅ (1st Reading 5/10/99, PASSED 9-0) 2. Approval of Sand Hill Corridor Final Subdivision Map, Subdivision and Below Market Rate Housing Agreement, Maintenance Agreement, and an Agreement and Declaration of Covenant Restrictions Regarding Open Space for a Portion of the Stanford West Apartments Site Agreement Between Subdivider and City of Palo Alto under Provisions of Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Stanford Land/Sand Hill Road, Palo Alto, California A.P.N. No. 142-02-001, 142-02-002, and 142-02-007, Tract No. 9139 Sand Hill Corridor Maintenance Agreement Agreement and Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Stanford West Apartments A.P.N. No. 142-02-007
3. Ordinance 4565 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $37,750 for El Camino Real Intersection Safety Improvements Capital Project Number 19523"
Resolution 7852 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing Execution of an Amendment to the Agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation for Modifying Traffic Signals and Performing Road Work Along El Camino Real at Arastradero Road/Charleston
Road, Maybell Avenue, and Los Robles Avenue/El Camino Way≅ Amendment No. 4-1666-A1 to Agreement No. 4-1666-C Between Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto for Modifying Traffic Signals and performing road work along El Camino real at Arastradero Road/Charleston Road, Maybell Avenue, and Los Robles Avenue/El Camino Way 4. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills County Fire District for Interjurisdictional Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response Service from City of Palo Alto Fire Station Number 8 MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Fazzino absent.
05/24/99 88-239
MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 2, Mossar Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Ordinance 4566 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Reenacting Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the Adoption of the 1998 California
Fire Code and Local Amendments Thereto≅ (First reading
05/10/99, PASSED 9-0) Vice Mayor Wheeler opened the Public Hearing. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve the ordinance which amends Chapter 15.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and adopts the 1998 California Fire Code with Palo Alto Local Amendments 2. Approve the related Findings of Fact. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 6. Planning Commission Recommendation re Local Bus Shuttle System Service Alternatives Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said staff requested Council direction on proposed shuttle system alternatives which staff studied for the past several months. Since staff was at mid-point in the study, there was a good opportunity for Council to review and advise whether staff was proceeding in the right direction. Staff was not requesting that Council take final action that evening. The information collected from the Planning Commission and the Council would be finalized in a proposed recommendation about funding and level of service and returned to the Planning Commission and Council for implementation in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The goal of the initial shuttle system was for a program that was workable, cost-effective, and one which would provide a good pilot program. Chief Transportation Official Joseph Kott said the Comprehensive Plan called for the City to consider the establishment of a jitney
bus system similar to that of Stanford University=s Marguerite Shuttle. As a result, the Council directed staff to prepare a feasibility study for a shuttle bus system. The report to Council was a presentation of work-in-progress. Staff sought direction in 05/24/99 88-240
terms of whether or not the Council=s concerns were addressed, and staff would then further develop and refine the report using any input from the Council. Staff would return to the Council with a draft final report of findings and recommendations on July 19, 1999. The report would consist of a short-term service plan, a funding plan, and some ideas for a long-term plan; ways in which the initial shuttle service plan might be enhanced and how the
Valley Transportation Authority=s (VTA) current service could be reconfigured to better serve Palo Alto. Senior Planner Gayle Likens, Shuttle System Project Manager, said staff discovered that a long-range plan could not be developed due to existing VTA and SamTrans services in Palo Alto. Staff developed a plan to work with the VTA in the long term to re-evaluate its existing services to see how the resources could be better deployed to serve the Palo Alto area in a more productive way. The short-term plan would occur in the next year or so. The City and VTA agreed to sponsor a joint partnership in re-evaluating the routes in Palo Alto. The VTA completed the service planning for changes to occur in the fiscal year 1999-00 but would begin the planning for route changes for fiscal year 2000-01 in the fall. Staff would work with VTA over the next few months to develop some
proposals and return to the Council and the VTA on how the VTA=s resources could be redeployed and, in partnership with VTA, determine where shuttle services could be developed in Palo Alto. The goals of the short-term plan were to develop routes that would not compete with VTA services, be implemented independently and fill in gaps in the current service coverage, and have a high probability of success. Jefferey Tumlin, Senior Planner with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, a company specializing in integrated, multi-module transportation systems design, said the first task was to assess goals for a shuttle system in Palo Alto to: 1) attract people away from their cars by maximizing the intensity of service and ridership, and focusing service where transit could be competitive with the car; 2) provide coverage to all parts of the City; 3) provide mobility to seniors and the disabled; 4) support economic development, including access to jobs, shopping, hotels, and
services, and also contribute to the community=s sense of identity;
5) foster regional cooperation; and 6) minimize the City=s costs while meeting all the goals. There was a direct tension in transit planning (Goals 1 and 2) between coverage and productivity. With a limited budget and vehicles, all service could be concentrated in key corridors for high frequency or the service hours spread out to provide benefits throughout the City. Both goals were important to those who would be served, but both goals could not be accomplished. The Council needed to decide whether to focus on either Goal 1 or 2 and to what extent. The second task consisted of data collection and stakeholder communication. Many stakeholder groups went through an elaborate planning process which resulted in short-term routing alternatives that could be implemented
05/24/99 88-241
immediately, would not directly compete with VTA, would focus on unserved and under served areas in the highest density portions of the City, and would have a high chance of success. The objective was to strike a balance between coverage versus intensity with slightly more focus on intensity, trying to relieve congestion in some important areas while providing service to every neighborhood. He explained in detail the Proposed Routing Alternatives Map 5, Attachment D, of the staff report (CMR:260:99) illustrating five proposed routes that met all of the criteria. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel reiterated that the tension between coverage and productivity would continue given the anticipated funding constraints. Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce President, 325 Forest Avenue, was pleased with the goals and direction the project had taken. She said the shuttle concept should move forward with alternative means of funding such as focusing efforts on federal and state funds and grants. She heard comments with respect to special fees and taxes but felt more surveying should be done before any of those funding options became serious. She was not saying a merchant would not be willing to pay because a large part of the business community would benefit and should pay, but it needed to be demonstrated before expecting the business community to pay for a significant part of the shuttle. Over the next few years, there were many projects with high costs such as storm drain projects, infrastructure, etc. Talk of parcel and sales tax increases to fund the shuttle needed to be integrated into an overall program to address taxes and financial impacts to residents and businesses. She quoted the italicized paragraph on page 9 of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:260:99), stating that would be the best advise for the Council to focus on because Palo Alto was not always known for being modest and low-cost in its approach to things, and the shuttle program was a great opportunity to do that. Although the program was costly, she urged the Council to proceed with the Shuttle Program in the interest of convenience, productivity, and overall transportation common sense. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said 30 years prior, Palo Alto had its own bus system which was absorbed by the County Transit Authority with a promise to return to Palo Alto with a localized bus system, and that did not happen. He suggested implementing three of the five routes in order to obtain a sampling of what would or would not work. Two of the routes should serve the Embarcadero and Barron Park areas. He offered a few suggestions: 1) that the Citywide route, which would not serve the major industrial area along Fabian Way and Bayshore Road, extend up Charleston or Meadow Roads to Bayshore Road, returning on Loma Verde Avenue; 2) that shuttle chits be issued which could track shuttle system users such as shoppers or seniors; and 3) that frequency be at least every ten minutes during rush hour to be effective. Rick Ferguson, Project Advisory Committee member, 1037 Harker Avenue, referred to the Route table on page 8 of Attachment A of 05/24/99 88-242
the staff report (CMR:260:99) which defined the costs of the five proposed shuttle routes. He emphasized that the package of the three routes, Embarcadero/Bayshore, Citywide Circulator, and Stanford Research Park, was the compelling argument. He did not feel small bits at a time into the shuttle proposal could be taken in terms of the routes covered. The Council should think in terms of a budget of $1.2 to $1.5 million and try to make that work. The expectation of people in the community was that the shuttle looked like the special event shuttle which the Citywide Circulator resembled, but was the more costly item. On transportation issues, there was a Proposition 218 (Prop 218) connection which he discussed before the Council a few years prior. There was a
perception that the parking garage was a Downtown owners= project,
and the shuttle was the residents= project. Prop 218 would throw those projects in the same analytical bin and get the right answer once. If that was not done, a disgruntled tenant could file suit on constitutional (Prop 218) grounds and hold up the project for several years accomplishing nothing. The parking garage and the shuttle system projects generated parking impacts and benefits in a jurisdiction that was bigger than the old Downtown Parking District boundaries and which needed to be taken into consideration when considering the benefits and costs. He encouraged the Council to re-emphasize the Prop 218 implications. The money issue deserved more attention. The desired effect of the shuttle proposal was to get people out of their cars. The shuttle would do that. The same
held true with the ΑFiber to the Home≅ project which replaced car trips via communications. He urged the Council to focus on the ultimate objective in its consideration and recommendations in order to wrap up the shuttle project. Ken Poulton, 884 Los Robles Avenue, favored the Shuttle program, in particular the Citywide Circulator route. Traffic on Meadow and Charleston Roads at Alma Street was disastrous . In the prior ten years, two middle school students were killed while crossing the tracks. The focus groups identified the Citywide Circulator route as the corridor most in need of a shuttle and was the only shuttle plan that addressed the whole area. The plan tied together a large number of schools, libraries, and community centers along the route, and school traffic was the easiest to quantify 250 students going across the tracks to Jane Lathrop School and 600 going to Gunn High School. The route brought a big faction of the key destinations within Palo Alto available on one single line. Without the Citywide Circulator, residential Palo Alto would hardly be served by the shuttle plan, and residential South Palo Alto would not be served. Everyone in Palo Alto would benefit from a shuttle, specifically the benefit of a free shuttle. A feeling of ownership and ease of use was critical to the success of the plan. A suggestion was for schools to help pay for the shuttle because there would be a large number of student ridership, but school traffic was hardly not close to the majority. The problem was the
City=s and should be dealt with that way. The taxpayers would end up paying for the shuttle. Having the Palo Alto Unified School
05/24/99 88-243
District (PAUSD) pay a portion would make the process more difficult. The major question was what a steps to take. A shuttle line was an all or nothing proposition. A line had to be big enough to tie together a significant set of destinations and needed to run at least every 15 minutes. To limit the investment, a requirement could be put in place that the shuttle program be renewed after two years. He urged the Council to move forward with the Citywide Circulator route. Kathy Durham, Project Advisory Committee member, 2039 Dartmouth Street, said she was impressed with the level at which the Committee addressed the issues. She believed there was evidence that the City, PAUSD, and parents were moving toward a new partnership in traffic safety and beyond the traditional three
ΑEs,≅ enforcement, engineering, and education to encourage
alternatives. For those who were cynical about the PAUSD=s participation in such a partnership, she urged those people to learn more about the traffic safety guidelines which were just passed. Volunteers worked on trip reduction at the three schools in the Charleston/East Meadow area. The Committee hoped to work with a functioning shuttle, especially the Citywide Circulator. The Citywide Circulator was an important service to residents and should be given a fair trial with frequent service during peak hours. Commuter shuttles were needed to get cars off the road, and to give citizens an alternative to driving. She urged the Council to find a way to make the shuttle system work.
Vice Mayor Wheeler reminded the Council of Mr. Gawf=s remarks that
staff would appreciate the Council=s comments, questions, and ideas on the points listed on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:260:99). Council Member Schneider asked whether there was any discussion about using a parking facility within the City as a pick up point for the Citywide Circulator shuttle. Ms. Likens said during the public workshop in December 1998, the public suggested a Park and Ride lot east of the Bayshore that could bring people into the Downtown area. Staff pursued the Embarcadero Shuttle idea but not specifically with a Park and Ride in the exterior area. Council Member Schneider understood there would be time limits and
that shuttles would be as Αon time≅ as possible. She asked whether
that was the reason there would not be Αat will≅ stops. Ms. Likens said the idea of hailing down the shuttle was not totally discounted, especially in neighborhoods and not contrary to the objectives. The intention was to have sited stops and time points along the routes.
05/24/99 88-244
Council Member Schneider supported Mr. Moss=s idea of issuing shuttle chits because Downtown businesses would probably not be willing to pay unless there was proof that business was being brought in by the shuttle. She asked about the size and capacity of the proposed busses. Ms. Likens said staff was looking into different size vehicles and capacity issues. Mr. Tumlin said with the Citywide Circulator, every bus run at peak hour would be filled with students. Picking the right size vehicle became the same difficult challenge VTA had, and VTA chose the largest possible vehicle they would need. Contrary to that, the
neighborhood=s desires were to have smaller vehicles that were quieter and caused less vibrations. The right vehicle and what frequency to run the shuttle in order to provide sufficient capacity, was one of the challenging issues that required the
Council=s direction. Council Member Schneider said when she lived on Waverley Street, the VTA route went down that street. The large bus was a convenience, but the noise and fumes were undesirable. Mr. Tumlin said during the first year of service, the smaller van conversion vehicles, similar to the small Marguerite vehicles, would be used because that was what was available in the shuttle contract market. Council Member Mossar referred to the $256,000 source of revenue 1999-00 Budget item for the shuttle and asked for clarification of the source of that revenue and whether or not those funds were received. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said the proposed TEA-21 funds were not received yet as part of the 1999-00 Budget. Council Member Mossar asked whether the City was guaranteed to receive the funds. Mr. Yeats said yes. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff was comfortable with funds being used for operation of the shuttle system. Mr. Yeats said there was still preparation work to do, but staff was comfortable. One of the factors was traffic mitigation and calming which staff felt applied. Council Member Huber said his principal concern was long-term funding. The options were the same as other issues in the City, some of which came to fruition and most of which would not. The
05/24/99 88-245
fundamental question was how realistic was it that the City would ever be in a position of being able to fund a shuttle long term. Mr. Kott said funding a long-term shuttle would be difficult to fund a shuttle long term using federal or state operating assistance because it was competitively sought after. The reasonable option would be to secure a funding source that was dependable and not competitively sought after. There were a number of alternatives such as formation of a Mello-Roos district, increases in hotel taxes, and parking permit fees. A work program item for the year 2000 was to look at a traffic impact fee which currently applied to two areas in Palo Alto: Stanford Research Park and an area around San Antonio Road. Expanding the scope, the uses of the impact fee might include alternative modes and cover the entire City. There were related issues that staff needed to make sure the impact fees imposed had a rationale connection to what created the impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Board provided money mainly for commute shuttles. The City obtained money for the Bayshore shuttle but did not receive much of an increase.
Council Member Rosenbaum said there was an ΑAlice in Wonderland≅ quality to the shuttle project because of the financial issue. One approach would be that a certain amount of money would be available for the shuttle system in 1999-00, and existing General Fund revenues would not be used. He asked staff how the issue would be approached. City Manager June Fleming said the issue was a challenge, and staff could not guarantee definite funding. Staff felt comfortable that the $256,000 allocated for 1999-00 would be available. Staff needed guidance from the Council as to what kind of shuttle system was desired and whether or not there should be phasing. Staff would put together a report and do further study as to what type of
grants, etc., were available. Staff=s final recommendations would be presented. Currently, staff did not have a guaranteed source of funding, nor did staff have a recommendation, because it was not known as yet what sources for funding would be more likely than others. Staff needed to have a better idea of the type of program desired which would dictate where the funding may or may not be available. Staff was instructed by the Council to put a plan together which included funding but was not able to positively identify the funding element as yet. Council Member Rosenbaum said the reality was that the fiscal year was starting soon and asked whether staff planned to start something with respect to funding in the year 1999-00. Ms. Fleming said there were a few options. One would be to start
in the fiscal year where some commitment for the City=s grant could be obtained in addition to the money from TEA-21 funds which she was optimistic about. Because staff would not go to the Council
05/24/99 88-246
until July 1999, it should not be expected that the shuttle program would run the full first fiscal year. When staff understood what the granting commitments were, it could then give the Council a time line for implementation. The decisions needed to be in place so staff knew where to go for funding. Another option might be to start with a more modest approach and have the options ready if the funding became available. Council Member Rosenbaum said several members of the public supported the shuttle, particularly the expensive Citywide Circulator. He asked whether staff would make a statement regarding that or ask for policy guidance to the effect that no General Fund revenues would be spent on the shuttle system for the existing revenue sources. Ms. Fleming said at some point, she would advise the Council of her recommendation based on what the Council wanted and in the shuttle program. She hoped to do that in July, but there were many competing projects. The optimum would be to have the biggest and best right away which might or might not be reasonable or there might be some delay. Staff would look at the entire mix and hoped the schedule of projects and funding would be ready. Council Member Rosenbaum said if the money was there, the Council would do it all with the evaluation that it was worthwhile. He was not sure there would be much guidance. Ms. Fleming understood, but having some indication from the Council as to what its preferences were in terms of beginnings, staging, areas most interested in, and what kind of frequency would be helpful. Staff asked for reactions and not any binding information. Staff did not want to overlook something, bring back a plan, and have the Council ask for something that was not included. The difficult question was how to fund the shuttle system or what could be given up to fund it, which was a Council decision. Mr. Gawf said the start-up date would be after July 1, 1999. The City discussed the issue for a number of years, and it was time to put together the information, analyze it, and return to the Council with options. Staff knew it was premature because the money and implementation were key issues, but staff came to the Council to make sure that the range of shuttle alternatives that were developed were on track. A pilot program needed to be established that might have more City involvement, special grants, and federal or local funding included at the beginning which would prove itself over a period of time and be less dependent upon outside funds. Emeryville started with a city-funded pilot shuttle program, and, over the years, cut back city funding which was currently supported by merchants. Council Member Ojakian said Emeryville was a different situation than Palo Alto because it was extensively commercial with very 05/24/99 88-247
little residential. He asked about Menlo Park=s efforts with regard to a shuttle system. Mr. Tumlin said Menlo Park had an existing series of commuter-oriented shuttles in place, and they recently added a mid-day route aimed at the senior citizen population that received ridership at ten times what he would have projected and was very successful. Menlo Park was currently undergoing an almost identical city
shuttle study; and after meeting with Menlo Park=s project manager for its study regarding coordination issues, he felt there were many interesting possibilities for coordination including forming a Transportation Management Association which could be a joint effort among Palo Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and Stanford local employers in order to build support for funding coordination and joint operations of a subregional shuttle network. Council Member Ojakian asked how Menlo Park funded its operation, why the extent of the ridership on the senior mid-day shuttle surprised him, and why that program worked. Mr. Tumlin said the commuter shuttles were funded primarily by the BAAQMD, the Caltrain shuttle grant program, local employers, and the City of Menlo Park. Part of the mid-day shuttle was funded by the Redevelopment Agency for service in the east Menlo Park area which included some city general funds and Transportation For Clean Air (TFCA) grant funding. He was unsure as to how Menlo Park would
fund expansions of those services. Menlo Park=s shuttle services were successful due to several reasons, one being a city-operated, free service which removed the stigma associated with the public bus, and anyone would ride it. There was no difference in quality, routing, or demographics, but being locally operated and free made
a difference. Another important factor of Menlo Park=s success was its marketing program: brochures were distributed, and the midday
shuttle with everyone along the route was developed. Menlo Park=s shuttle was the most convoluted shuttle he had designed. The shuttle took everyone where they wanted to go and took some time to get from Point A to Point B, but it focused on its target market well and served multiple trip segments along the way. A recent survey found a significant number of riders recorded the same origin and destination, for instance, seniors would just take the loop around for social reasons. Ms. Fleming talked to Menlo Park about its shuttle, and funding came from the Redevelopment Agency and merchant participation. The shuttle started out with a goal of taking care of senior needs and, as it evolved, everyone rode the shuttle. The shuttle became a social event; and for some people, riding the shuttle was their only outing. Menlo Park had three or four funding sources. Palo Alto did not have a Redevelopment Agency. Council Member Ojakian said the staff report (CMR:260:99) mentioned several cities that had shuttle programs. He asked how those
05/24/99 88-248
programs typically ramped up because he was sure most people in those cities would express the same concerns Council Member Rosenbaum expressed earlier. There would be a point at which much had to be done to get the shuttle going at a certain level and continue to the next level. Mr. Tumlin said most cities started reasonably small to ensure the success of their pilot programs, then became large enough to leverage support from merchants, public agencies, and other sources of funding. He could not tell the Council what the right balance would be for Palo Alto. Palo Alto was geographically challenged in that it was fairly large, and as much of the City had to be served as possible which worked out mathematically to be a lot of money. Council Member Ojakian said there were suggestions regarding routes from the public, and he asked how the program could be ramped up. Mr. Tumlin said questions how much money was available with Caltrain and City monies, and how the existing routes could be trimmed back and run less frequently during non-peak hours. Some specific recommendations of what could be accomplished would go to the Council at a later date, but the focus that evening was general priorities and recommendations. The $256,000 was enough to accomplish something worthwhile. Council Member Ojakian said his concern was that the $256,000 was not enough to do any one particular route to the full extent. Mr. Tumlin said a credible package could be put together for $256,000. Mr. Fleming agreed that something could be done. The Council knew what everyone preferred. It was at a point where financially the City could not do everything desired and choices had to be made. As discussed, a beginning could be made with what was available through the TEA-21 funds which was not ideal and would not meet
everyone=s needs. A plan was needed as to whether to stop, stop and evaluate, or move forward. Staff would return to Council in July with a plan. Council Member Kniss recalled discussing a trial period which she did not see in the staff report (CMR:260:99.) She asked whether the shuttle project would be on a trial basis or long-term. Mr. Tumlin said the beauty of a shuttle program was that it be flexible. A trial was always part of the plan since getting solid baseline data was difficult. He felt proposing whatever was done as an experiment was worthwhile, something that would need to be revised in the future, and perhaps canceled if productively standards were not met.
05/24/99 88-249
Council Member Kniss said while there were concerns about long-term funding, she was concerned whether the shuttle would actually work. The original challenge was what to do about parking, extra traffic, and particularly the problem with school children being dropped off every day. She asked about what kinds of things made riding a bus appealing other than what was already discussed. She was not talking about marketing but what made someone want to ride the bus or gave it appeal. Mr. Tumlin said the question was how an image could be created that made transit useful. The critical factors were frequency and reliability. The frequency had to be often enough to be useful to riders with the exception of students and seniors. The majority of people in Palo Alto had the option to drive. In order to compete against the car and its convenience, there needed to be frequency for the shuttle to be appealing. The way to get around frequency would be reliability. Council Member Kniss said the City hoped to obtain frequency and reliability. The Stanford Marguerite and the San Francisco cable cars had their own appeal. She asked what the City could do to make a person go out of his/her way regardless of frequency or reliability. Mr. Tumlin said there were options to choose from in order to make the shuttle more fun and appealing. No amount of appeal would take away from a lack of frequency or reliability. For example, the historic street cars were run on the surface of Market Street which replaced the No. 8 Market Street bus. There was no improvement in frequency or service, but ridership doubled. With regard to the Marguerite shuttle, it was not that special but had a big logo on the outside which identified it as something different; a driver that was seen every day; it was free, frequent, and ran all day. Naming the shuttle should be added to the list. Ms. Fleming said there needed to be incentives and disincentives. Disincentives to taking a car and incentives to get on the shuttle. The shuttle needed to be appealing, have the Palo Alto image, be well marketed well, well maintained, reliable. What needed to be recognized was the market the City was trying to reach which was a variety. There were those motivated because the shuttle would help the environment and those who could not drive. The challenge was there would be a period of time on the bus when a mix of children and adults had to be managed. She did not feel the shuttle would be a hard sell in Palo Alto, but it would have to be clean, well maintained, and easily accessible. Council Member Kniss asked whether the type of vehicle was discussed. Currently, she was intrigued with electric vehicles. Mr. Tumlin said electric vehicles could be considered in the long run, but gasoline or diesel would be used for start up in the
05/24/99 88-250
winter based on what was currently available in the market place. There were many funding sources for alternative vehicles. Council Member Eakins asked whether staff recalled the No. 88 bus route as a replacement for school buses after Cubberley School was closed. She asked whether the students were riding the No. 88 bus to Gunn High School. Ms. Likens said the answer to the second question was yes, and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) sometimes added a second bus. The history of the No. 88 route was there were two planned routes, the first, a north Palo Alto circulator that ran up and down Embarcadero Road through the Downtown, and the second, the No. 88 route. The north Palo Alto route would have precedence, but Cubberley closed and the Council decided to recommend that the south Palo Alto circulator be implemented first which became the No. 88 route. The north Palo Alto circulator route was similar to part of the Embarcadero Shuttle being proposed which did not come about. Council Member Eakins said based on that, students would take the bus. She asked whether students after 16 years of age took the bus. Ms. Likens said staff anticipated that the market in the high school was primarily the freshman/sophomore age group, and the numbers would drop off as students obtained their drivers licenses. The middle school experienced bus service in the past when the No. 84 ran down Waverley Street and stopped at JLS was the only middle school at that time. The route was well used. Council Member Eakins said the fact that students would use the shuttle increased her confidence. Because she sat on the VTA Board, she was aware of what appeared to be magic in funding. She asked whether staff was planning on working closely with VTA to take advantage of the funding expertise. Mr. Kott said yes, staff would work with VTA. The expectation was that getting operating assistance would be difficult. Council Member Eakins asked whether most grants were for rolling stock and not operating. Mr. Kott said Ms. Fleming mentioned capital funds and money from rolling stock would not be hard to retain, whereas operating assistance was. Council Member Eakins said the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) tried to get Congress to look at operating subsidies as well as rolling stock. She asked for a short overview of Emeryville, even though different from Palo Alto.
05/24/99 88-251
Linda Rhine, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, responsible for writing the funding portion of the report, said she worked on the Emeryville Shuttle which had been running for the past four years. It began with city interest because there were existing shuttles. Emeryville wanted to look at the feasibility of consolidating one service for the residents and employees, and linking up with the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. A feasibility study was done, a citywide shuttle plan recommended, and the plan was adopted. A public/private partnership was recommended for funding, and ultimately the decision was made for a start up service with city funds representing approximately 50 percent of the operating costs for the first year which was matched by employers and developers. Over the next year when the service was successful, many employers and retail businesses realized the full benefit of
the service; and over time, the City of Emeryville=s contribution lessened and private developers and employers contributions increased so that the service was currently almost exclusively funded with private dollars. The city contributed in-kind services by donating reduced printing costs, office space, and staff services, but no longer contributed actual dollars. Vice Mayor Wheeler said in order for the shuttle service to be used, particularly the residential service, the shuttle had to run a fairly convoluted route within a time frame that people would give up the convenience of their own cars to utilize. Even in the worst of traffic times going south to north, it rarely took more than 15 minutes. She asked whether modeling was done to see how long it would take to go from the farthest point south to City Hall. Mr. Tumlin said trip time was calculated as part of the costing and also measuring performance. With regard to the Citywide Circulator, the expectation was that no one would ride the entire route. Transferring to other routes which ran more frequently would sometimes result in a faster trip. The Citywide Circulator pieced together about 12 key origin destination pairs and were fairly small segments. There would be some desire to go from Downtown to the Main Library and Mitchell Park which would probably be the longest trip. All the other services would be time competitive with driving because there were not too many stops along the routes. The shuttle would only stop if people were waiting or a stop was requested. VTA was approached regarding increasing frequency on some of its routes. Vice Mayor Wheeler said there were differences of opinion as to how ambitious the City should be initially and asked whether it was possible for the City to be programmatically ambitious initially without committing to a substantial capital investment which might disappear if the program were unsuccessful. Mr. Tumlin said yes. Another appeal of funding shuttle programs was that the capital and operating costs were merged into a flat
05/24/99 88-252
hourly rate. For any of the shuttles, the only capital investment would be some bus stop signs and marketing materials. Anything else was an operating expense that could disappear, shrink, or grow
depending on the Council=s desires. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified that the operator selected would not
buy vehicles specifically for the City=s program. Mr. Tumlin said that was an unknown factor. For a program the size
of Palo Alto=s, there were providers in Palo Alto that had an existing fleet or would be glad to acquire additional new vehicles and accept the risk that the program might not be successful. Mayor Wheeler asked regarding the potential for flexibility on the various routes, whether there was a way to make the program more affordable by mixing and matching some of the routing and assignment of drivers and vehicles. Mr. Tumlin said yes. The problem in Palo Alto was that the employment morning peak ran at the same time as the school morning peak. The afternoon peak was more spread out which was easier to deal with. The necessary target was the capacity of the system. When contracting out shuttle service, if only peak hour service was run, the billing was at a much higher rate than running all day service because the contractor had to provide for the vehicle and driver. What was discovered in Menlo Park was that adding the midday service was essentially free. If there were needs to be met, finding useful things to do with midday buses was important. After the Council decided its focus on what to pursue, the detailed scheduling magic would start. He had some ideals with regard to the Citywide Circulator. There were five buses which could be started off at different points along the line in order to focus on the key school commute trips and, hopefully have two runs serving each school from two different directions. Council Member Mossar said she was coming from the premise that the shuttle was an idea that the Council and the community supported and that staff needed some core guidance, particularly as it pertained to financial resources in order to return to the Council with a program to be approved. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to provide guidance to staff in two stages. In the short-term, direct staff to: 1) design a system with not more than 10- to 15-minute headways; 2) design a system that is free to the user; 3) utilize Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered or electric powered vehicles; 4) utilize Grant funds as a funding source in the first year; and
5) utilize no more than $100,000 from the City=s General Fund to support the system in years 2 through 5. In the long-term, direct staff to: 1) explore all funding possibilities not only with existing transit agencies but also with the private sector to identify 20 to 25 percent of funding; 2)evaluate whether or not to
05/24/99 88-253
have a fare system and the use of eco passes or other techniques to transfer between providers; and 3) pursue partnerships not only with existing transit agencies and surrounding cities but also with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to identify collaboration possibilities. Council Member Mossar commended the staff for the paragraph in italics on page 9 of Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:260:99) which clearly stated the trade-offs. By starting small and carefully evaluating opportunities for partnerships and funding, over time the community could realize a shuttle transit system that would provide easy access to alternatives to driving. Council Member Eakins asked whether the motion included any priorities for routes. Council Member Mossar said no, she believed the financial parameter was the constrictor. Council Member Eakins said regarding the proposed routing alternatives shown on Map 5 attached to the staff report (CMR:260:99), there were two kinds of routes and potential users. Half of the users were residents, in particular students and non-drivers. The other half were employment or commuter users. The two categories were a useful way of analyzing approaching priorities. There were many advantages in having a shuttle: congestion reduction, convenience, lifeline service, and access to community services. She was in agreement with the advantages. She believed the most the City would gain from the short-term trial were intangibles, which would be valuable whether or not the shuttle idea gained acceptance and information about whether what was being done was right or wrong. She suggested, as part of the marketing package, that customer surveys be done from the start. VTA did an excellent job of surveying customers and would be a good resource for help in marketing customer satisfaction. The City made it as easy as possible to park, but one of the biggest incentives for using shuttles and community acceptance for shuttles was for parking to be unnecessary. Those were conflicting policies that deserved some long-range community discussion about how to deal with parking availability. Finding a way to approach funding should be on a parallel track with everything else, both short-term and long-term, and whether or not the Council became experts or defined the experts to be used. Funding should be sought from the start. She supported the motion. Council Member Huber supported the motion. He emphasized that the shuttle program was a trial which he would be willing to spend City monies on. In the long run, he believed it would be difficult to convince people that the shuttle would be worthwhile with the ultimate cost that Palo Alto taxpayers would have to pay. In order to convince the voters, coverage had to be obtained. Unless the community was convinced that the shuttle was a good thing and should be paid for, it would not happen. There was a two-thirds 05/24/99 88-254
vote requirement for a tax increase which was what it would take. In the best of circumstances, fare boxes paid 20 to 25 percent maximum. The shuttle would be a constant and forever subsidy which had to be realized. As long as there was a mind set to get into a car, there would be trouble with transit. Council Member Schneider supported the motion. She had confidence in the ability of the shuttle project to work, particularly with the start of the Citywide Circulator. The Council and community for years had asked for a shuttle. Once the shuttle was in operation, there would be no way to discontinue service. She believed the City would find additional funding services not yet considered.
Council Member Kniss supported Council Member Huber=s comments. She served on the Santa Clara County Transportation Commission for 4 or 5 years and strongly promoted County transit which no one used. Council Member Ojakian said some items he wanted to see return to the Council in July were ridership expectations, breakout on what other cities had done, and timing on routes. Because parking in Palo Alto during mid-day was maximized, information using Palo
Alto=s demographics could be gathered to fashion some of the routes toward alleviating the parking impact. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. RECESS: 9:40 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. RESOLUTIONS
7. Resolution 7853 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not to Exceed $20,000,000 Principal Amount of Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds, 1999 Series A, Adopting Official Notice of Sale, Notice of Intention and Official Statement and
Authorizing Official Actions Related Thereto≅ Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said staff could not say the City received another triple A rating from Standard and
Poor=s and Moody=s because it could only be received one time; but
the City did receive the same high rating from Standard and Poor=s
and Moody=s on the Golf Course Debt issuance. Senior Financial Analyst Joe Saccio introduced a finance plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Incinerator Rehabilitation. Staff asked the Council to pass a Resolution to authorize staff to raise up to $20 million for the Utility Revenue and Refunding Bonds, adopt legal documents related to the bond sale, and authorize staff to sign the documents. Financing for the
05/24/99 88-255
RWQCP Incinerator Improvements would be $7.5 million including the design and construction costs. There were three outstanding bond issues with Utilities, the 1990, 1992, and 1995 Series A Utility Revenue Bonds. Staff proposed refinancing the 1990 (wastewater treatment) and 1992 (storm drainage) Bonds, and the outstanding principal on both combined was $9.6 million. He explained the economic and operational benefits of extending the bonds through the year 2024 as found in the staff report (CMR:254:99). Presently staff did not recommend refinancing the 1995 Bonds. Staff did not expect to use the full $20 million. If the Debt Service Reserve was not issued, the amount would be approximately $18 million. As a result of Proposition 218 and other voter initiatives, the terrain changed and the covenant reflected in the indenture reflected a change in the covenant from prior bond issuances. With the old issuances, the City could use the strength of its Enterprise Funds as collateral for fund debt issuance. The City was not able to use those net revenues such as the Water or Electric Fund. Together with the financial advisor and the bond counsel, the covenant would be less restrictive, but it would also draw on the strength of the Utility Funds. The City, in its covenant, promised to maintain its available reserves, Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:254:99). There were more than adequate reserves available and, over time, those reserves would be maintained at a relatively healthy level. The reserves would only be used as a temporary loan and not as a permanent backup to any debt service payment that might be missed. Staff expected to receive double A ratings which were good. On June 15, 1999, staff hoped to get bids on the bonds and proceeds on June 29, 1999, in order to do the incinerator improvements. Council Member Rosenbaum expressed concern for an $800,000 expense on a $20 million issue which seemed high. Mr. Saccio said included in that expense was the financial advisor, bond counsel, and a premium on a call for the bonds in order to get the bonds back and refinance them. Council Member Rosenbaum said the net present advantage relative to the size of the bond issue was about 3 percent for each refunding, and normally, one would look to 5 percent before a refunding was done. Mr. Saccio said 2 or 3 percent was estimated. Staff was glad to see the net present value savings, but was also struck by the non-economic savings. There were two crucial features: 1) the wastewater treatment issuances which allowed an even debt service without an increase in rates, and 2) the storm drainage issuance which allowed a $128,000 cash flow savings. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the calculations with respect to the net present value were based on current rates.
05/24/99 88-256
Ed Schilling, Stone and Youngberg, said interest rates increased during the prior weeks, and the original 3 percent which was reflected in the staff report (CMR:254:99) had the net present value savings which was now approximately 2 percent. The bond
issue was run on today=s interest rates in order to prepare for the meeting that evening. There were present value savings on both the refunding components of the financing. The reasons for doing the refunding were economic. More importantly, the restructuring accomplished some objectives that were important to the City. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether interest rates were higher on June 15, 1999, and would delaying the sale be considered or was there an obligation to accept bids. Mr. Schilling said the bid form was structured as such that the City could decline to accept any bids. Moving forward with the project was important. There was a contract to be awarded, and the proceeds from that were needed. If the City could not do better than break even in terms of better value savings, staff would have to return to the Council to discuss that component. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that one alternative was to move forward with the new financing. Mr. Schilling said that could be done. The City was currently paying $990,000 a year along with the partners for wastewater debt service through 2006. If that was layered upon, the $500,000 required to amortize the $7 million of new project costs, that would increase to $1.4 or $1.5 million. What was being proposed with restructuring, the wastewater debt service would decrease to $940,000 achieving a cash flow savings while doing a $7 million project which should be avoided. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that would be like extending the length of a mortgage. The only advantage was if the interest rates were sufficiently lower, and there was some net present value. Mr. Schilling said there were other approaches if the point was reached where there were no economic savings to be realized. Council Member Rosenbaum hoped the Council would see a breakdown of the costs at some point; the components of the $800,000. Mr. Saccio said staff could do that. Vice Mayor Wheeler assumed the new element of the refunding of the old debt was not taken into account when the budgets for the Enterprise Funds were put together. The refunding was not included in the budget action the Finance Committee took when the Enterprise Funds were discussed.
05/24/99 88-257
Mr. Saccio said said and the savings for the storm drainage fund was factored into the budget. His interpretation of new was something the Council did not see in previous reports. It had not been coupled with the RWQCP improvements previously. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve a Resolution Approving, Authorizing, and Directing Execution of Certain Bond Financing Documents, Approving Official Notice of Sale, Approving a Preliminary Official Statement, and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. 2. Authorize staff to implement the sale of utility revenue bonds up to an amount not to exceed $20,000,000 to finance improvements to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) incinerators and to refund and refinance the 1990 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds for sewer system improvements and 1992 Utility Revenue Bonds for storm drainage system improvements. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. ORDINANCES
8. Ordinance 4567 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $90,028 for Public Safety Capital Improvement Project, Number 19820" Council Member Mossar noted she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $90,028 to cover the costs associated with a supplemental split-facility study ($47,500) , fiscal impact analysis of four potential sites ($27,800), and additional public outreach meetings ($14,728); 2. Approve a revised scope of services for the contract with Ross/Drulis Architects and Planners that includes these additional tasks; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to sign the contract amendment consistent with the revised scope of services and fee schedule.
05/24/99 88-258
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Mossar "not participating," Fazzino, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Mayor Gary Fazzino re Appointment of Members to the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to appoint Council Member Mossar as the Palo Alto voting member and Mayor Fazzino as the alternate member to the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. 10. Vice Mayor Lanie Wheeler, Mayor Gary Fazzino, and Council Member Sandy Eakins re Amortization Extension at 2011 El Camino Real Vice Mayor Wheeler said the Colleagues Memo gave some background on the property and issue. She reiterated that Council action did not imply support or approval of the extension. Rather, it was the mechanism by which the Council directed staff to do the necessary research, prepare necessary documentation, and set the issue for
public hearing, and the Council=s subsequent consideration of whether or not to grant the amortization request. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to direct staff to evaluate the request for an extension of the amortization and to set a public hearing for Council consideration of the extension. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
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.
05/24/99 88-259
05/24/99 88-260