Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-02 City Council (24)ofeo o TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DATE: SUBJECT: AUGUST 2, 1999 CMR:333:99 LOCAL SHUTTLE STUDY - RECOMMENDED INITIAL SHUTTLE PROJECT REPORT IN BRIEF At its May 24 meeting, the City Council reviewed the status report on the local shuttle project short-term service alternatives and long range planning strategy. The Council adopted a motion providing guidance on the service characteristics and funding parameters of the shuttle program. Staff subsequently developed a recommended initial project which was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 14 meeting. This report transmits the Planning Commission recommendation, and requests that Council direct staffto proceed with implementation of an initial shuttle project. The initial shuttle project proposed by staff would: (a) provide good geographic coverage of the community, (b) serve a variety of market segments, (c) attract reasonable ridership, and (d) be relatively straightforward to implement and manage. Despite the modest scope of the initial start-up program, staff is confident the project will substantially enhance mobility within the community, and allow the community to test various shuttle alternatives. The shuttle project provides the opportunity to evaluate the project goals and objectives, market analysis and ridership assumptions developed during the shuttle study, and to assess community support for a locally operated shuttle. It is quite possible that the shuttle may be modified in the future as the community develops more experience. In addition, the initial shuttle project would provide time to seek and secure additional resources for shuttle operations through parmerships and grant funding sources, as well as develop a master plan for transit service in Palo Alto in cooperation with Stanford University, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA), Samtrans, and other entities. CMR:333:99 Page 1 of 8 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1.Proceed to secure funding to implement the Optimum Shuttle Pilot Project (Alternative 4, as described in Attachment 1 to the Planning Commission staff report). If funding cannot be found to implement Alternative 4, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Alternative l, the staff-recommended pilot project. Staff recommends that the City Council: Approve the Negative Declaration (included as Attachment 4 to the Planning Commission staff report), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impact. Direct staff to proceed to implement a start-up shuttle project as described in the Planning Commission staff report as Alternative 1. Direct staff to develop partnerships and apply for grant funding to augment City resources during and after the initial period. Particular attention will be. given to relationships with SCVTA, Stanford University, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the private sector, the Cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, and Palo Alto Unified School District. In addition, staff will: a) b) c) Develop, in collaboration with the above organizations and others, a Transit Master Plan for Palo Alto to improve and augment transit services in the community over a five to ten year period, and an associated funding plan. Work with SCVTA to modify Line 88 prior to the start of school in September to serve Barron Park on selected morning and afternoon trips to serve the east/west trips from the neighborhood to JLS Middle School and Hoover School. Continue to work with Stanford to extend the Marguerite Express further into the Downtown. BACKGROUND On May 24, the City Council considered the interim status report (CMR260:99) on the short- term service alternatives and long range planning strategy for a local shuttle system in Palo Alto. The interim report identified five potential short-term shuttle routes, including analysis of service costs and ridership projections: (1) Embarcadero/Bayshore shuttle, (2) Citywide CMR:333:99 Page 2 of 8 Circulator, (3) improved Deer Creek shuttle, (4) improved San Antonio shuttle, and (5) extension of the Downtown Marguerite Express (see Map 1). The report recommended as a long-term plan that the City embark upon a planning process with the SCVTA to evaluate and adjust SCVTA services in Palo Alto - routes, frequencies and vehicles - to better meet local transit needs in combination with local shuttle routes. The Council adopted a motion providing the following direction to staff: In the short-term, 1) design a system with not more than lO-to 15-minute headways; 2) design a s.vstem that is f!’ee to the user," 3) utilize Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered or electric powered vehicles," 4) utilize TEA -21 grant funds as a funding source in thejqrst year," and 5) utilize no more than $100, O00 fi’om the CiO, ’s General Fund to support the system in years 2 through 5. In the long-term 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 have a fare system and the use of Eco passes or other techniques to transfer between providers; and 3) pursue partnerships not onl.v with existing transit agencies and surrounding cities but also with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PA USD) to identify collaboration possibilities. Subsequent to the Council meeting, staff developed a recommended start-up project as detailed in the attached report to the Planning Commission dated July 14, 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS At its July 14 meeting, the Commission accepted public testimony and discussed the start-up project recommended by staff. The Commissioners expressed concern that the pilot was under-funded and reservations about the likelihood of the success of the limited pilot proposed by staff. The majority of the Commission indicated its preference for a project that included all-day service on the Citywide Circulator route as identified in Alternative 4, that could serve a wider geographic area, including service to Barron Park during the morning and afternoon commute periods. Several Commissioners felt the staff proposal made the most effective use of the funding by maximizing the effectiveness of the resources of the t~vo buses funded during the initial 18 month period. However other Commissioners indicated that the proposed scaled-down project didn’t serve any one route adequately. Commissioners also expressed support for providing shuttle service to address the needs of the school community. It was noted that the Embarcadero/Bayshore Route would provide an alternative commute mode for students traveling to Palo Alto High School, but the project would not serve the JLSiHoover school commute because the Circulator would be limited to midday trips. CMR:333:99 Page 3 of 8 The majority of the Commission supported moving forward with implementation of the shuttle program, and in the absence of supplemental funding, that staff’s recommendation was a reasonable first step. Two members of the Commission could not support the proposed start-up project since, in their opinion, it was not likely to succeed. Following public testimony and Commission discussion, the Commissioners recommended that the City Council seek funding for Alternative 4 (the optimum pilot project). The motion passed 6-0-0-1, (Schink absent). The Commissioners also recommended City Council approval of Alternative 1 (staff recommended pilot project and other associated recommendations) if funding could not be found to implement Alternative 4. That motion was approved, 4-2-0-1 (Byrd and Bialson opposed, Schink absent). Draft minutes of the Planning Commission are included as Attachment E. DISCUSSION The proposed start-up project, as recommended.by staff, is envisioned as a first incremental step in the shuttle program. While staff is confident that the proposed start-up project will provide a successful test evaluation of the project goals and objectives, the market analysis and ridership assumptions developed through the shuttle study process, and community support for a locally operated shuttle. It is quite possible that the start-up project is not and will not necessarily be selected as the preferred route or routes the City will wish to continue after the initial period. Staff also believes that the City is not experienced in shuttle operations or management, and therefore it would be prudent to start with a modest shuttle project which is manageable and straightforward to implement from a fiscal and operational standpoint. The City will gain valuable experience during the initial project that will inform future decision-making with regard to service routing and planning for possible service expansion. In addition, this start-up period of shuttle development will provide time to seek and secure additional resources for shuttle operations through the development of funding partnerships and pursuit of grants and private sector funding opportunities. Within the funding parameters set by Council direction, staff fashioned an initial shuttle project that would: (a) provide good geographic coverage of the community, (b) test a variety of market segments, (c) attract reasonable ridership, and (d) comply with the spirit of the Council direction with regard to the City funding in the first two years of service. Geographic Coverage: The start-up project serves north and south Palo Alto, and additionally provides full east/west service for the first time in north Palo Alto along Embarcadero Road. However, it would not extend shuttle service to the southwest quadrant of the city west of Alma Street. CMR:333:99 Page 4 of 8 Market Segments: The initial project will test a variety of market segments, including the peak period commuter and school commute markets served by the Embarcadero/Bayshore route, as well as the midday shopper and senior market and the weekend (Saturday) shopper and recreational markets served by the Circulator route. : Ridership/Performance: Based on the ridership projections for all nine alternatives discussed in the Planning Commission report Table 1, the proposed start-up project has the third highest ridership, exceeded only by the more costly Alternatives 4 and 8 for the Citywide Circulator, and the second best cost effectiveness, as measured by the low per passenger trip cost. The project will test these ridership assumptions and provide staff and the Council with real performance data and operational experience from which the service can be evaluated and refined as needed. Budget/Funding: The budget for the project utilizes the funding authorized by Council for Year 1 ($256,000 in TEA-21 grant funds) and Year 2 through 5 ($100,000 in General Funds) supplemented by outside grant funding from Caltrain and possible private sector contributions (see discussion under Resource Impact). Table 1 provides a summary o}’the 5-year plan of expenditures and revenues for the program, and identifies elements of the initial program that are fully funded over five years, or partially funded, as well as other options that are not presently included or funded in the start-up program. Only the Embarcadero/Bayshore shuttle route can be sustained in Years 3 through 5 with the level of ongoing City funding ($100,000/year) approved by Council at the May 28 meeting. One alternative that was not presented to the Planning Commission, but could be funded annually, would be to run the shortened Circulator on Saturdays at 15-minute frequency during Years 3 through 5. At the designated level of ongoing City funding set by Council, it is imperative that staff aggressively pursue and evaluate other long-term funding strategies during the first year of the shuttle program and return to Council with options prior to the conclusion of the start up. Chief among the funding strategies are: Partnership with SCVTA: Staff has already begun discussions with SCVTA on ways to move more people by transit in Palo Alto. In the immediate term, staff will work with SCVTA staff to reroute Line 88 on selected morning and afternoon trips into Barron Park to serve the east/west school commute trips between the neighborhood and JLS and Hoover School. In the longer term, staff will work with SCVTA staff to reevaluate and restructure Lines 86 and 88 in Palo Alto to better serve the community’s needs, improve intercity bus connections to Tasman Light Rail, explore use of smaller, clean-fueled buses by SCVTA in Palo Alto and joint funding of local shuttle services. CMR:333:99 Page 5 of 8 Partnership with Stanford Marguerite: Staff is negotiating with Stanford officials to extend the midday Marguerite shuttle further into the Downtown. Stanford would extend the midday Marguerite from Lytton Plaza to Webster Street or Middlefield Road. The shuttle would loop around the Downtown via Hamilton Avenue and Lytton Avenue. Stanford would endeavor to initiate service in early Winter 2000. It is proposed that the extension would continue for at least five years, pending annual performance evaluation. No additional General Fund resources would be called upon. Extending the Marguerite Express could be the precusor to potential extension beyond the Downtown into East Palo Alto to link the University Circle and Gateway 101 projects with Palo Alto and Stanford. Such an effort would be explored in cooperation with the the sub-regional partnership of local agencies, Stanford and private sector interests. Sub-Regional Multi-Jurisdiction Partnership: Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo. Park are all currently conducting local shuttle studies. These studies are currently focusing on intra-city mobility needs. However, the larger issues of local inter- community transit needs and service coordination con best be addressed through a multi-jurisdictional consortium of the10cal agencies. Nelson\Nygaard identified a number of governance and management organizational models for joint shuttle operations, including a public/private Transportation-Management Association (TMA), Joint Powers Agency (JPA) and Special District. (See Attached Chapter 5 from Nelson\Nygaard’s Working Paper 1). Local Public and Private Contributions: Successful shuttle programs in other communities have relied on private sector contributions from the business community. Among the duties of the City’s new Commute Coordinator will be marketing the shuttle program and promoting business sponsorship and financial partnership with the City in the program. This outreach effort would also extend to the Palo Alto Unified School District, as another potential partner. City. (Non-General Fund) Funding: NelsonkNygaard identified potential sources of revenue to fund the shuttle in the long term. One of particular merit is a citywide traffic impact fee usable for a range of congestion mitigation measures. Some of these same sources are also being considered for a variety of unfunded City projects. Any long-term funding for shuttle services will need to be considered carefully by the Council as part of a comprehensive financing package for all outstanding City projects that do not have identified funding for them. A long-term financial planning report is currently being prepared by Administrative Services, and will be brought to the Finance C.ommittee in the September/October time frame. CMR:333:99 Page 6 of 8 Staff’will pursue these initiatives and return to Council prior to the conclusion of the initial project with a full Transit Master Plan for Palo Alto (including shuttle, SCVTA, Samtrans, and Marguerite services) and an associated funding plan and partnership commitments. RESOURCE IMPACT . The 1999-2000 operating budget includes $256,000 in a pass-through of TEA-21 funds from the Congestion Management Program of the Valley Transportation Agency for the initial start up of the shuttle project. In addition, the Council has indicated that up to $100,000 in General Fund monies would be available in the years two through five of the shuttle project. The proposed start-up project would utilize City and TEA-21 grant funding of $356,000 and Caltrain grant funding of approximately $104,000. Table 2 FIVE YEAR SHUTTLE PROGRAM REVENUES Funding FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 City Funding Committed TEA 21 Grant General Funds Caltrain Grant Private Sector Funds Total $256,000 0 $40,500 TBD $296,500 0 $100,000 $63,500 TBD $163,500 0 $100,000 *$69,000 TBD $169,000 0 $100,000 *$69,000 TBD $169,000 FY 2004 0 $100,000 *$69,000 TBD $169,000 * Assumes annual renewal of Caltrain Shuttle grant ALTERNATIVES Council may consider adding, deleting or changing elements of the proposed start-up program from among the alternatives on Table 1 of the Planning Commission report or may consider other alternatives not discussed therein. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Assessment recommending a Negative Declaration, supporting a finding that the project will not have a significant environmental impact, has been completed and is provided as Attachment 4 to Planning Commission staff report. ATTACHMENTS A. Five Year Shuttle Program Budget B Map 1, Short-term Service Alternatives C.Map 2, Proposed Palo Alto Pilot Project D.Planning Commission Staff Report E.Chapter 5 of Working Paper 1, Local Shuttle System Plan F.Draft Excerpt of July 14, 1999 Planning Commissic~n Minutes CMR:333:99 Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Gayle Likens, Senior Planner Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: G. EDWARD ~WF Director of Planning and Commun ~nment C~ty Project Advisory Committee Project mailing List Peter Cipolla, Valley Transportation Authority Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce Chris Christofferson, Stanford University Larry Horton, Stanford University Jan Dolan, City of Menlo Park Monika Hudson, City of East Palo Alto Donald Phillips, PAUSD CMR:333:99 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT A I I I I I I I I I I I I I Transit Routes Existing or proposed SamTrans service Existing or proposed Marguerite Existing or proposed VTA New services Freeway Transit Intensity Service better than every S minutes all day Service every 1S minutes all day Service every half hour all day Hourly or irregular service Lytton Gardens Senior Center Stanford She School Stanford ~ ~ ~ Expanded ~f~ ~ .~c%~ ~ Downtown Express r~~ Improved Deer ~ Creek Shu~le New citywide circulator Ave Station Stanford~esearch Park VA Medical Improved San Antonio connector Extend line 35 to Mtn View & pursue 15 minute frequency Center ’StevensonHouse San Antonio Station San Antonio Shopping Center Terman ~ mCenter ~ JewishCommunity Center Medium Density Commercialor Residential Area Higher Density Commercial orResidential Area PALO ALTO Short-term Service Alternatives Map 1 Not to Scale elson\ny laard ¢ons~ltin~ associates Transit Routes Existing or proposed SamTrans service Existing or proposed Marguerite Existing or proposed VTA New services Freewc~, Weekday peak-hour Embarcadero Bayshore shuttle Boyshore Transit Intensity Service better than every 15 minutes all day Service every 1S minutes all day Service every half hour all day Hourly or irregular service Lytton Gardens Senior Center Station Stanford Sho Center StanfordHospital 50c/v Main Quad Medium Density Commercialor Residential Area Hiaher Density Commercial or l~esidenfial Area School ~ MitchelP Midday and Saturday Downtown/ Mitchell Park circulator California Ave Station Stanford esearch Park ~\_ Center ~tevenson House San Antonio Station San AntonloShopping Center PALO ALTO Proposed Palo Alto Pilot Project shuttle routes Map 2 Not to Scale PLANNING ATTACHMENT D COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Gayle Likens DEPARTMENT:Planning AGENDA DATE: July 14, 1999 SUBJECT:Palo Alto Shuttle Study - Recommended Shuttle Pilot Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the following staff recommendations regarding the Local Shuttle pilot project and provide comments, recommendations or modifications. The comments will be forwarded to the City Council for further action and deliberation. The shuttle pilot program would consist of the following elements: 1. ROUTES (See Map 2 attached) No Embarcadero/Bayshore Shuttle (Weekda.vs, Morning and Evening Peak) Runs every 15 minutes Serves Palo Alto Caltrain Station Palo Alto High, Town and Country Village, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Main Librar),, Art Center Embarcadero/East Bayshore businesses, Municipal Services Center No Shortened Ci .tywide Circulator (Midday Weekdays, All day Saturday) Runs every 30 minutes Serves Palo Alto Caltrain Station, Downtown, Art Center. Main Libra~T, Midtown, several Senior housing facilities, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, JLS Middle School Marguerite Shuttle Extension Through Downtown Subject to discussion with Stanford University 2.OPERATIONS Duration:18 month Pilot, (after pilot period, service modification may be made to reflect experience and funding) s:\plan\pladiv~,pcsr\shtl2.wpd Page 1 of 8 ¯Days/Hours:Weekdays, 12 hours a day, 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. Saturdays, 10 hours a day, 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. ¯Free to Rider - No Fares o Small airport shuttle type vehicles, ADA accessible o Development of pilot project performance measures for City Council review prior to implementation of the shuttle pilot o Quarterly monitoring reports to the Planning/Transportation Commission and City Council during the course of the pilot project. OTHER ACTIONS Exploration of funding and implementation of a clean fuel (CNG or electric) bus demonstration Recommend to VTA immediate modification of Line 88 to serve Bah’on Park on selected rooming and afternoon trips to serve the east/west trips from the neighborhood to JLS Middle School and Hoover School. Study and evaluation of the most appropriate long-ten’n funding mechanism for the shuttle program and report back within one year of the start of the shuttle project. Staff also requests that the Planning Commission designate a member to represent the Commission at the August 2, 1999 City Council meeting. BACKGROUND In May, the City Council considered the interim status report (CMR260:99) on the short- term service alternatives and long range planning strategy for the local shuttle system in Palo Alto. The interim report identified five potential short-telrn shuttle routes, including analysis of service costs and fidership projections: (1) Embarcadero/Bayshore Shuttle, (2) Citywide Circulator, (3) Improved Deer Creek Shuttle, (4) Improved San Antonio Shuttle, and (5) Extension of the Downtown Marguerite Express (see Map 1). The report recommended as a long-term plan that the City embark upon a planning process with the Valley Transportation Authority to evaluate and adjust VTA services in Palo Alto - routes, frequencies and vehicles - to better meet local transit needs in combination with local shuttle routes. The report further identified the need for the Council to identify a longer term funding strategy that could sustain the shuttle program if it continues in the longer term. At the May 24 meeting, the City Council reviewed the status report on the local shuttle project short-term service alternatives and long range planning strategy. The Council adopted a motion providing guidance: In the short-term, direct staff to: 1) design a system with not more than ]O-to ]5-minute headways; 2) design a system that is free to the user; 3) utilize Compressed Natural s:\plan\pladiv\pcsrkshtl2.wpd Page 2 of 8 Gas (CNG) powered or electric powered vehicles; 4) utilize TEA -21 Grant funds as a funding source in thefirstyear; and 5) utilize no more than $100, O00from the City’s General Fund to support the system in years two through five. 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 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 (PA USD) to identify collaboration possibilities. On June 28, the City Council adopted the 1999-2001 operating budget which contains $256,000 for the local shuttle project in 1999-2000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Transportation Element of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains numerous policies related to improving transit services in Palo Alto. Among the policies and programs related to a potential shuttle program are the following: Policy T-4, Provide local transit in Palo Alto; Program T-J3, Establish a jitney bus system similar to Stanford University’s Marguerite Shuttle; Policy T-6, Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those within Palo Alto; Policy T-8, Encourage employers to develop shuttle services connecting employment area with the multi-modal transit stations and business districts; and Policy T-9, Work towards integrating public school cormnuting into the local transit system. DISCUSSION Given Council’s direction with regmd to service frequency and budgetary parameters for the shuttle project, staff has prepared a shuttle demonstration or "pilot" project which could be initiated within the next six months and operate as a pilot for 18 months. This approach would also respond to interest expressed by members of the public, Project Advisory Committee and Council that the shuttle project begin before the holiday season if possible. The short- range plan of five shuttle routes (see Map 1) for the program will be deferred pending discussions with the VTA staff on restructuring of VTA services in Palo Alto this Fall, discussions with Stanford University regarding the downtown Marguerite, and coordination with the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto regarding their respective shuttle studies, as all these initiatives would impact the short and long range plans for shuttle services in Palo Alto. The importance of selecting a good, successful pilot project to begin Palo Alto’s shuttle program cannot be understated. The shuttle pilot may be many residents’ first experience with public transit service and, in particular, a community-based bus program. The ideal pilot project would operate at 15 minute frequency all day, provide good geographic coverage to all parts of the city, serve diverse user groups including seniors, workers, school students, shoppers, etc., integrate and link to existing regional rail and ta’ansit. The route would attract high ridership and galvanize broad-based public support. s:\plan\pladiv\pcsr’,shtl2.wpd Page 3 of 8 Staff recommends the pilot project be 18 months in length in order to allow adequate time for start up and development of interest, support and patronage. Typically, new bus services take some time to be visible in the community and to attract riders, especially those discretionary riders who are not transit dependent. A high visibility marketing campaign and sustained publicity about the service will be important components of the pilot project. However, staffis balancing the recommendation of 10-15 minute headways with the shuttle budget of $256,000 in the first year and $100,000 in the second through fifth years. Typically, it costs approximately $120,000 to operate one bus annually for 12 hours a day, 5 days a week. A shuttle route operating at 15 minute headways with only one limits each one way trip to no more than 7 ½ minutes. Most shuttle routes considered thus far in this study are longer one way trips that require a minimum of 2 buses (Embarcadero Shuttle) up to 5 buses (Citywide Circulator) to maintain 15 minute headways. The first year budget of $256,000 would fund the Embarcadero/Bayshore Shuttle for 11 months and the Citywide Circulator for 5 months. The second year budget of $100,000, notwithstanding potential grants or private sector contributions, would not fully fund one bus for an entire year. In the immediate term, the only outside funding available to use to leverage the City’s contribution is the existing Caltrain grant (approximately $69,000) for the City employee (Baylands) Caltrain shuttle from the California Avenue Caltrain station to the East Bayshore/Embarcadero area. Caltrain staff has indicated that these funds could be transferred to the City to use to expand the Baylands shuttle service along Embarcadero Road. Consequently, in order to implement a modest but meaningful and representative pilot project with reasonable expectations for success, staff is proposing that the pilot project utilize the combined resources of the first and second year budgets to provide $356,000 for an 18 month demonstration project. PILOT PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Staffhas identified a range of alternative pilot projects which could be implemented over a 18 month period: (1) a recommended plan, with two possible service enhancements (add alternatives), (2) alternatives that conform to Council direction relative to service frequency, (3) an optimum pilot project, and (4) other possible service alternatives. A summary table of these is provided as Table 1. The table provides information on the service parameters for each, total cost for 12 and 18 months of services, estimated outside funding and net City cost, annual ridership and estimated cost per rider. Recommended Pilot Project Routes Based on the input received from the public, Project Advisory Commit-tee, and Council, staff recommends that the pilot include aspects of the Embarcadero Shuttle and the Citywide Circulator. The pilot project would utilize two buses running 12 hours a day (6 a.m. to 6 p.m), weekdays and 10 horns (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), Saturdays. Monday through Friday, during the morning and evening peak periods, the shuttle would operate at 15 minute frequency along the Embarcadero/Bayshore route from the Downtown Caltrain station to the Municipal s:\plan\pladiv\pcsrkshtl2.wpd Page 4 of 8 Services Center. During the midday, the service along Embarcadero Road would cease and these same two buses would be redeployed along a shortened Citywide Circulator route from Downtown to Charleston Road. The shuttle would operate all day Saturdays on the shortened Circulator route (See Map 2). Dm-ing this pilot project, Barron Park would not be served by the Circulator. Because the Circulator is a longer route, the buses would need to run at 30 minute frequency. The pilot would serve a variety of market segments and provides good geographic coverage for the city: Route Geographic Markets/Populations Serviced Coverage Embarcadero/Bayshore Peak Periods (6 a.m. - 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. - 6 p.m.) Citp, vide Circulator Middays/Saturday (9 a.m. - 3 p.m., weekdays 8 a.m. - 6 p.m., Saturdays) (no service to Barron Park) North Palo Alto: Downtown, Embarcadero, Baylands North & South Palo Alto: Downtown, Midtown, Meadow/Charleston Caltrain, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Allo High, Town and Country Village, Art Center, Main Library, East Bayshore business park Do\vntown Business District, Senior Center and multiple senior housing facilities (Lytton Gardens, Stevenson House, Channing House, Webster House), Midtown and Charleston Shopping Centers, Main Library, Art Center, Mitchell Park The major drawbacks to this proposal are that (a) the pilot project will not serve Bah’on Park, nor provide assistance to the school commute from Bah’on Park to JLS and Hoover Schools and (b) the midday and Saturday headways are longer than Council requested. To address the school commute in the short te~xn, staff recommends that the City request that VTA deviate selected Line 88 runs through Barron Park during the morning and afternoon school commute periods to fill this need, while staff and VTA work on the more comprehensive reassessment of VTA service in Palo Alto. Secondly, while the midday headways are longer than Council directed, staff and the City’s consultant feel that the longer headways midday will be adequate, at least during this demonsn’ation period, to serve the needs of seniors, shoppers and general non-commute trips. Staff anticipates that this route would operate like the Menlo Park midday shuttle which runs at 45 minute frequency, yet enjoys popular support and draws high ridership. Staff is recommending Saturday service, to assess the market for weekend service to shopping destinations, youth sports activities, community centers, etc. Demand for such trips, based on limited existing weekend transit services is difficult to assess. Shuttles for special events on the weekend (e.g. Downtown Art Fair) have had robust ridership, and staff anticipates Saturday shuttle service during the holiday season will be successful, but throughout the year it is less certain. Operating Budget The pilot project will utilize two buses. As indicated in Table 1, the total cost of the pilot for 18 months would be approximately $460,000. Approximately $104,000 would be subsidized by the continuation of the existing Calta’ain grant for the Baylands Shuttle, which Caltrain has agreed to fund for another year. Staff is assuming that this grant would be extended again in FY 2000-01. For the purposes of this maalysis, staffhas not assumed any s:\plan\pladiv\pcsrkshtl2.wpd Page 5 of 8 private sector contributions, however, through the outreach and marketing efforts of the Commute Coordinator during the pilot project, staff anticipates a modest level of employer support from businesses along the route. : The remaining net cost to the City for contracted’ service for the 18 month pilot project is $334,000. This balance of $22,000 from the proposed $356,000 in City funds should be reserved for non-contract costs such as marketing, promotion and installation of bus stop amenities. In summary, staff recommends that the 18-month pilot project budget of $356,000 be utilized as follows: Recommended 18 Month Pilot Program Budget Expenditures Total Basic Weekday Pilot Project Contract Costs $375,000 Peak Period Embarcadero/Bayshore Shuttle and Midday Citywide Circulator (without Bah’on Park) Saturday Circulator $ 63,000 Total Operator Costs $438,000 Cir. Cost $271,000 $63,000 $334,000 ¯Non-Contract Operating Costs $ 22 000 $22,000 Total Cost $460,000 $35~000 Funding City General Funds Caltrain Shuttle Grant Private Sector Contributions Total Revenue $356,000 $104,000 TBD $460,000 Project Start Up Schedule Staff’proposes to aim for start up of the service in November 1999, should Council give staff approval at the August 2 meeting. This is an ambitious time line for preparation and issuance of a Request for Proposal, negotiation with the successful vendor, award of contract and vendor mobilization. A key variable in this time line is the availability of buses for this new service. Should the vendors need to acquire additional vehicles for this contract, it could delay start up by 3-6 monthg. However, since this pilot project only requires two dedicated vehicles (plus backup vekicles), the City’s consultant believes this will not be the case. Staff has already begun to make informal inquiries of prospective operators to ascertain the availability of equipment for the shuttle service. Alternatives to Recommended Pilot Project Staff has identified other alternatives for consideration in lieu of the recommended plan: s:\plan\pladiv\pcsrkshtl2.wpd Page 6 of 8 No Projects Confolvning Strictly to Council Direction Options 2 and 3 on Table 1 are service alternatives for the Embarcadero/Bayshore shuttle that operate at either peak only (No. 2) or all day (No. 3) with 15 minute services. Staff did not recommend these routes as a pilot project because they offer more narrow geographic coverage and relatively high per passenger costs, and do not serve as broad a spectrum of the community interests as the recommended plan. However, it should be noted that Alternative 2 can be sustained at a level of $100,000 per year in City subsidy in years two through five, and is the only alternative that strictly complies with the Council’s five-year budget. No Optimum .Pilot On the other end of the spectrum, the optimal pilot project in staff’s view, were financing not a limiting issue, would be to operate the Citywide Circulator at 15 minute frequency during the peak periods, and 30 minute frequency during the off- peak midday (Option 4 on Table 1). This route serves two middle schools and shopping districts, community facilities, and many senior housing facilities. It would draw the highest ridership of the alternatives under consideration, at a low cost per rider. However, it would requfie fotu buses at a cost of $666,400 to the City, as the prospects for outside funding from the private sector or grant sources is less likely. C.Other Alternatives - Other alternatives considered by staff are identified on Table 1, for discussion purposes. Vehicle Type and Fuels During the pilot project, the City would contract for service from an operator who would provide the vehicles and drivers based on a rate per vehicle hour of service. Most shuttle contractors operate small 25-30 passenger diesel-powered buses. Staff is pursuing Council direction to look into the use of clean fueled vehicles, including electric and/or compressed natural gas (CNG) for the shuttle vehicles, and will provide further infoxrnation on this subject at the August Council meeting. The Electric Utility Public Benefit Prognam or Gas Utility budget could be the source of capital funding for electric or CNG vehicles. However, should use of alternative fueled vehicles not be technically or financially feasible during the initial pilot, staffrecommends proceeding with the pilot project with diesel-fueled vehicles. Options at End of Pilot Project/Long-term Funding Issues At the end of the pilot project, the Planning/Transportation Commission and City Council will be presented with a complete evaluation of the pilot project. At that point, Council will need to direct staff to consider one or more of the following courses of action: 1.Cut back the pilot project to a level consistent with a $100,000 City general fund contribution, 2.Discontinue the project 3.Secure sufficient funding fiom other non-City sources, such as grants, private sector contributions or public transit agency support, to sustain the same level of service 4. Direct staff to pursue steps to identify a long-term City funding strategy. s:\plan\pladiv\pcsrkshtl2.~vpd Page 7 of 8 FISCAL IMPACT The 1999-2000 operating budget includes $256,000 in a pass-through of TEA-21 funds from the Congestion Management Program of the Valley Transportation Agency for the initial pilot project for the shuttle project. In addition the Council has indicated that up to $100,000 in general fund monies would be available in the years two through five of the shuttle project. The proposed 18 month demonstration project would utilize the combined two-year City funding of $356,000 and Caltrain grant funding of approximately $104,000. This budget would sustain the project from November 1999 to approximately May 200 I. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of the Planning Commission review of the recommended pilot project was provided by the publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, copies of this were sent to members of the study advisory committee, and meeting notices were mailed to neighborhood associations, business associations and persons who participated in the public meetings or corresponded with staff on this subject. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental assessment recommending a Negative Declaration, supporting a finding that the project will not have a significant environmental impact, has been completed and i~ provided as Attachment 3. NEXT STEPS The Council is scheduled to discuss the staff and Planning Commission recommendations on the local shuttle pilot program on August 2. It is anticipate that the pilot project, if approved, would commence in late November or early December. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: 1.Table 1, Pilot Project Service Alternatives 2.Map 1: Short Range Shuttle Plan 3.Map 2: Shuttle Pilot Program 4.Environmental Assessment COURTESY COPIES: Project Advisory Committee Peter Cipolla, Valley Transportation Authority Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce Chris Christofferson, Stanford University Donald Phillips, PAUSD Prepared by: Gayle Likens, Senior Planner, Transportation J~ph K4(3tt, Chief Transportation Official s:\plan\pladiv\pcsrkshtl2.wpd Page 8 of 8 ._~._._= E E E E oo o , o ~ o o E o o Transit Routes Existing or proposed SamTrans service Existing or proposed Marguerite Existing or proposed V’I"A New services Freeway ] O] Bayshore- Embarcadero- PAMF-Paly shuttle Bayshore Transit Intensity Service better than every 15 minutes all day Service every 15 minutes all day Service every half hour all day Hourly or irregular service Stanford Lytton Gardens Senior Center Stati StanfordHospital Expanded Downtown Express ~""""~II~, Mitch~@ / o ~:~. New city.vide Center School ,.Ave House ~F-~) ~ountry Station ¯Stanford ~useum~~IResec "oh Medium Density Commercial ~ or Residential Area Higher Density Commercialj orResidential Area .~rman .~ u0 ~VA Medical ~ Jewish Improved Deer i Community Creek Shuttle Gun Center Improved San Antonio connector Extend line 35 ,, to Mtn View &" pursue 15 minute 11 frequency i.I San Antonio Station San Antonio Shopping Center o ;.’~ . PJ~LO ALTO Short-term Service Alternatives Map 1 Not to Scale Transit Routes Existing or proposed SamTrans service Existing or proposed Marguerite Existing or proposed VTA New services Transit Intensity Service better than every 1S minutes all day Service every 15 minutes all day Service every half hour aft day Hourly o~ irregular service Freewch, 101 Bayshore Weekday peak-hour Embarcadero ~’~ Bayshore shuttle .~ Lytton Gardens ~DT Senior Center Stati Stanford Sh0~ ~ Country Medium Density Commercialor Residential Area Higher Densi+ty Commercial orResidenfia Area School Midday and Saturday Downtown/ Mitchell Park circulator San Antonio Station San AntonioShopping Center PPJ-O ALTO Proposed Palo Alto Pilot Project shuttle routes PNot to Scale ~elson\n~/gaard ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT 4 Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Palo Alto Shuttle Pilot Project City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Paio Alto, CA 94301 Gayle Likens, Senior Planner, 650-329-2136 Shuttle service on various local, collector and arterial streets in Palo Alto o o 10. Application Number(s): not applicable Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 General Plan Designation:Local, Collector, Residential Arterial and Major Arterial Streets; Zoning:R1 Single Family Residential; Multiple Family Residential; CC Community Commercial; CN Neighborhood Commercial Description of the Project: This project consists of implementation of a pilot shuttle bus service in Palo Alto. The basic shuttle pilot service would operate Monday through Friday along two routes: (1) during the morning and evening peak periods on weekdays, the Embarcadero/East Bayshore shuttle would operate from the Palo Alto Caltrain station to the East Bayshore business park via El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, and East Bayshore Road running approximately every 15 minutes, and (2) on Saturdays and during the midday on weekdays, the Citywide Circulator shuttle would operate from Downtown Palo Alto to Charleston Road via Lytton, Webster, Homer, Channing, Newell, North California, Middlefield, Colorado, Waverley, East Meadow Carlson Circle, Redwood Circle, and Bryant, running approximately every 30 minutes. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The proposed shuttle pilot would operate along various local collector and arterial streets in commercial and residential areas. Ishuttlelchecklist. wpd [7/7/99]] 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None . ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic Agricu~u~ Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or ~ mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner Director of Planning and Community Environment Date Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that bn effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 7) 8) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant ~SSLle~ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Impact !. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1 X 1 Xb) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 1,2,3 X X X II1.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1,2 1,2 1,2 X X d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,2 X concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 1,2 X number of people? X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) c) d) e) f) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policiesor ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,2 (N-1 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 1,2 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.57 1,2 (L-7) 1,2 (L-8) X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotentiallYsignlficantSignificantP°tentiallYLess Thansignificant~1 INl~pa~tl ~1 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,2 X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1,2 X outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 1,2 X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I)4 XRupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1 (N-5, N-8, N-10) (N-8, N,10) X X iv) Landslides?1,2 X (N-S) b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of NA X topsoil? c)xBe located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and-potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 1 (N-5) NA NAe)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ¯ of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ~ VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1,2 1,2 1,2 NA NA NA 1,2 (N-7) 1,2 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated b)X Significant INto°pact Impact d) e) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) I) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1 (N-2) NA NA X X X X X X X j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1 X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?1,2 X 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant pact Impact b)1,2,3 XConflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan 1,2 X or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 1 X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) e) f) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 1,2 (N-3) 1,2 NA NA X X X X X ]0 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact a)1,2 b) c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2 1,2 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 XlV. RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2 1,2 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: X X X ]! Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant INto° Impact a)XCause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,5 (T4, T-7,T-S) .2 X c)NA X d)NA X e)1,2 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?1,2 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)1,2 X b)1,2 X Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)1,2 1,2 X Xd) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? _/2 e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1,2 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 1,2 X capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1,2 X regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X SOURCE REFERENCES: 1.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 and Maps L-7,L-8,N-1,N-2,N-5,N-7,N-8,N-10, T-4,T-7,T-8 2.Planner’s general knowledge of project 3.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18 -Zoning Ordinance 4.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map 5.Local Shuttle Study Working Papers 1-3, and Service Alternatives Paper, Nelson\Nygaard 1999 6.Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items I-XVI of this environmental checklist EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: - Explain choice of impact category. I.AESTHETICS a The proposed shuttle pilot project will include two shuttle routes, the Embarcadero/Bayshore route and the Downtown- Mitchell Park Circulator. Segments of these routes include streets that currently do not have shuttle or public transit service. These streets include: Webster, Newell, North California, Waverley, Colorado, El Dorado, East Meadow, Bryant, ]3 Carlson Circle, and Redwood Circle. The operation of shuttle buses on streets may be viewed as an undesirable effect by some residents. The shuttles will be small "airport shuttle" type buses, 20’-30’ long, and will operate at 15-30 minute frequencies on a 12 hour schedule.. The maximum number of shuttle buses traveling on any segment of street would be 4 per hour. Even on a very low volume street, this number of buses would represent a very low percentage of vehicular trips. The project will include additional signing, which on selected local streets without significant signing, may be noticeable in the street scape. In past installations in Palo Alto, the aesthetic impact of bus stop signs has not been sufficiently disruptive to be considered significant. Mitigation Measures Required: None II1. AIR QUALITY e The choice of fueling for the shuttle vehicles will be determined during the selection process for a shuttle operator. The City will be exploring use of alternative clean air fuels, including compresses natural gas (CNG) and electric, power for the future, but in the short term it may be necessary to use diesel fueled vehicles for the shuttle for the pilot project. Diesel fueled vehicles create odors that some people find objectionable. The shuttle demonstration project will be limited in scope (4;8 trips per hour on any given street segment) and should not alter the general conditions along public streets used for the shuttle route. Mitigation Measures: None required Xi. NOISE d For the most part the shuttle buses on the Embarcadero/Bayshore and Circulator routes will operate on collector, residential arterial and major arterial streets where substantial vehicular traffic, truck traffic and transit services currently exist. This project will not impact the ambient noise pattern on these streets. The Circulator shuttle will also operate on local streets including segments of Webster, Newell, Colorado, Waverley, El Dorado, East Meadow, Bryant, Carlson Circle, and Redwood, which do not have existing bus routes. For some residents, the presence of new bus traffic on these streets may create a noticeable temporary increase in the ambient noise level. However, these episodes will be limited to a maximum of 4 bus trips per hour during 6 midday hours weekdays or 10 daytime hours on Saturdays, and will be a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES a Impact on Schools: This item is checked "No Impact". The project provide access to Palo Alto High, Jordan Middle School, Castilleja School, Fairmeadow School and Hoover School. The shuttle will have the potential to attract students to commute to school who otherwise might be driven by parents or participate in carpool. Use of the shuttle by students will have the potential to reduce congestion on and around these school campuses during the morning and afternoon commute periods. Mitigation Measures: None Required XIV. RECREATION a The demonstration project will improve access to Mitchell Park, Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, Gamble Gardens, and Rinconada Park, and will provide transportation options to these facilities to persons who might not otherwise have access, including seniors and school students. The number of new patrons to the park facilities is not expected to increase demand above the capacity of these facilities. To some extent, the shuttle may attract park users who would otherwise drive, thus decreasing parking demand at these facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required. ]4 XV. TRANSPORTATION a A maximum of 8 shuttle bus trips will be generated per hour during the morning and afternoon peak periods (6 a.m. to 9:00 an and 3:00 pm. to 6:00 p.m.) along the Embarcadero/Bayshore route. The bus trips will occur on collector, residential arterial and major arterial streets with existing traffic volumes in excess of 9,000 vehicles per day. The increase in vehicles trips will be insignificant, to by this project. Only 4 shuttle bus trips will be generated during the midday and on Saturdays along the Circulator route. The Circulator route travels primarily on collector streets and some local streets, with existing volumes estimated between 500 and 12,000 ADT. The increase is not substantial in relation to the existing volumes. ATTACHMENT E CHAPTER 5.GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS I I I I TOWARD DEVELOPING AN OPERATING PLAN This chapter discusses alternatives for high-level management and oversight of a shuttle as well as options for day-to-day operations. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented with emphasis on the operating cost and funding implications. Management Oversight Experience suggests that for a small transit operation such as a potential Palo Alto service, concentrating responsibility under one managing agency helps ensure responsiveness. Having a single overseeing body allows various service stakeholders, such as local business leaders, transit riders and the service operator, to have one focal point for mediating service problems. The question of who will manage the proposed shuttle service is an important consideration. It is worthwhile noting that the management of the shuttle operation is independent from the operation of the service. The managing agency serves as "lead agency" and provides the following primary tasks: Managing the Operating Contract: This includes operator contract oversight responsibilities, evaluation of contractor performance and assessing whether incentive payments apply. Marketing the Service: All services require an effective public information and marketing campaign. This includes developing brochures, creating a distribution network and preparing other marketing materials and informational pieces. Applying for Funds: There are a number of opportunities for securing public and private funding sources to help finance the service. Applying for funds, coordinating with other local agencies and businesses, following through with funding requests, and securing funding agreements is a major responsibility of the lead agency. Refine Schedule and Make Routing Adjustments: It is recognized that the proposed local shuttle service would require periodic schedule adjustments as new development projects are built., land-uses change and existing uses are updated. There are five short-term possibilities for the lead agency: the City of Palo Alto A new Transportation Management Association CTMA) that might include local employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Stanford University, the City of Menlo Park, among others NELSONINYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 43 MARCH 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER 1 o A Nonprofit Agency ¯VTA °Stanford University In addition, there are two other models that might be considered at some future date: ¯A new JPA o A new Special District All these various options are discussed below: City of Palo Alto Although it does not have experience operating shuttles, the city’s Transportation Division may be interested in overseeing this potential new service. Since the department currently operates with a lean staff, it would require additional funding to hire the personnel necessary to administer a shuttle service. Likely, a minimum of two additional FTEs would be required from the start. There are many advantages for the City of Palo Alto to assume the management oversight function. First, many of the potential sources to fund the service require that a public agency a.pply for and receive funds, an area in which the City has extensive experience. The division’s general funding stability and its prior experience managing various contracts are other major advantages for the City to assume this management role. Possible disadvantages of having the City of Palo Alto serving as the sole lead agency include the fact that oversight by the City may limit participation from businesses, neighborhood groups and community associations, resulting in much of the decision-making resting solely with the City. These concerns could be mitigated by establishing a Shuttle Advisory Committee consisting of the major shuttle stakeholders and users. In the short run, the City of Palo Alto is the most effective lead agency for a local transit system, and it may remain so over the long run. A new Transportation Management Association (TMA) In Emeryville, a highly effective TMA oversees their transit services, and it is comprised of the City and various employers, merchants and developers throughout Emeryville. The TMA has taken over administration and marketing of the Emery-Go-Round from the City of Emeryville. The City initially served as the administrator of the service with the intention of transferring this responsibility to another entity. The transition from the City of Emeryville to the TMA occurred after about two years of Emery Go-Round service. NELSON~NYGAARD CONSULTING A$SOCIATES 44 MARCH 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER 1 A TMA is typically a private, nonprofit organization. Usually:TMAs are run by a Board of Directors with a small administrative staff - typically 1 - 3 people. They are public-private partnerships formed to address transportation, traffic and air quality issues, and they generally strive to improve the local business environment. TMAs are proactive organizations whose members may include employers, developers, building owners, residential communities and public agencies. Besides operating local transit services, a Transportation Management Association could develop and market an array of community wide transportation programs, as well as advocate for local and regional transportation planning issues. Generally TMAs have a broad mandate to do everything possible to help people find alternative forms of transportation. A TMA, for example, could also promote bicycle or carpooling projects. TMAs are eligible for a variety of public funding sources, but their power is their ability to leverage private money through direct oversight by private-sector interests. TMAs are unique in that they allow private developers and employers to seek public funds, while providing an avenue for public agencies to seek private funds. In the Bay Area, TMAs compete very successfully for AB 434 funds allocated by the Air District, as well as Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) funds allocated by Caltrans. In fact, Caltrans has helped fund over 50 TMAs in California. Besides Emeryville, successful TMAs have been formed in Downtown San Francisco, the Berkeley Gateway area and northern San Mateo County. In the long run, a TMA may be the most effective oversight agency for a local transit system. Nonprofit Agency There are a number of non-profit agencies in Palo Alto that may be interested in and qualified to serve as the lead agency for the shuttle service -- or at least some portion of it. In Santa Barbara, for example, the private, non-profit organization Easy-Lift provides extensive demand- responsive transit services for seniors and the disabled. In Palo Alto, there are several community service organizations that already provide some form of transportation for their clients. Given the myriad of roles and responsibilities of a lead agency, however, it may be difficult to identify an organization that has both experience and interest in managing a shuttle service. The major advantage of a non-profit organization serving as the lead agency is the potential to secure labor at below market rates -- that is, by employing volunteers. Another advantage is that a local nonprofit agency would intimately understand the particular needs of certain transit market segments. A major disadvantage is that a private organization will not be eligible to apply for some public funds, and may not have direct experience in full-scale "transit" operations. NELSONINYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOClATES 45 MARCH 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATiON DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER 1 A non-profit agency might be useful for serving certain niche.markets, but it is likely not the best choice for a city-wide system. Brokerage arrangements should be explored among the city’s existing demand-responsive service providers. VTA VTA already provides extensive bus service in Palo Alto, and it may well be interested in tailoring its existing routes to meet the city’s desires, provided the city or some other source covers the cost increase. While VTA has a high level of experience in providing quality transit operations, it also has a number of disadvantages including: o significantly higher operating costs than private contractors, and restrictions in its labor agreements that forbid the agency to contract out for service. a lack of experience in managing purely community-serving routes, including maintaining timed transfers and making regular route and schedule adjustments based on community input. o a stated desire to focus its efforts on improving regional connectivity. ~It is worth further exploration with VTA to determine how they wish to be involved in local Palo Alto transit. Stanford University With its highly successful Marguerite shuttle system, Stanford is a local expert in providing efficient, finely tailored local transit. While the City could simply pay Stanford to expand the Marguerite throughout Palo Alto, such an arrangement is not recommended. The interests of the University and the City of Palo Alto are sometimes in conflict, especially over transportation matters. The city will certainly want to retain control over how its transit dollars are spent. While the City may be interested in contracting with Stanford to operate service, Palo Alto should remain as the lead agency. OPERATING THE SERVICE Oversight of the system is very different from system operations. The organization that oversees the service does not necessary have to drive the buses. That is, city staff can maintain control of all policy matters and routing and scheduling details but contract out for the buses, drivers, fueling and maintenance. Below we explore these two operational options: do-it-all-yourself, and contracting out. NELSONINYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 46 MARCH 1999 CITY OF: PALO ,ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER I Self-operated Most large transit agencies are self-operated. That is, drivers, mechanics, schedulers, planners and policymakers are all a part of a single agency. This arrangement simplifies reporting relationships, ensures organizational stability and allows for streamlined communication among all the groups running the system. The disadvantage with self-operations is that it requires a significant capital investment in buses, office space, maintenance equipment and so on, and the hiring of large numbers of employees. Besides entailing high up-front costs, these capital and personnel investments make the system fairly inflexible; adding or reducing service means wasting or overextending your investment. Personnel issues may in fact make it impossible to add or reduce service quickly in response to changing markets. Contracting out Smaller shuttle systems, where flexibility is critical, almost always contract out for their service operations. Stanford and Emeryville both contract out operations, along with most Caltrain shuttles. The Bay Area is fortunate that there are.already a large number of firms that offer shuttle services at competitive rates. Generally, the firms offer an inclusive package of drivers, vehicles and maintenance at a fixed hourly rate. Depending on the quality of the vehicle, the hours of service per day and the duration of the contract, the rate generally ranges from $35 to $100 an hour. All-day service is cheaper than peak-only service, where the agency must pay drivers to remain idle during the midday period. Contracting out for service allows communities to minimize their risk as they experiment with new transit services. Contractors are willing to sign transit service contracts for a year or less, allowing cities to pursue pilot projects with little up-front investment. If the city wants more service, contractors can generally respond very quickly. If the system does not meet performance targets, the program can be canceled when the contract runs out. For all of these reasons, we strongly recommend that the city put its recommended system alternative out to bid and have a qualified local contractor provide buses, drivers and maintenance. At a later stage of the planning process, we will provide detailed guidance for writing Requests for Proposals, negotiating contracts, and overseeing contract service providers. ADDITIONAL LONG TERM ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS Should Palo Alto want to join with Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and/or other neighboring cities to form a sub-regional transit system, it will likely want a more complex organizational model in order to protect the interests of the constituent members. Because of its limited eligibility for public funds, informal distribution of responsibility and liability, and incapability of raising bonds or pursuing tax revenues, a TMA may not be an adequate organizational model for all time. For reference purposes, the following section describes the two most promising choices NELSONINYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 47 MARCH 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER 1 the city and its neighbors might want to pursue some day should they want a clearly defined subregional transit system. These models are a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or a Special District. JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES California Government Code provides for the joint exercise of powers of two or more public agencies, if authorized by their governing bodies. The enabling contract is called a Joint Powers agreement. The Joint Powers agreement can create an entity that is separate from the participating parties and is responsible for the administration of the agreement. Such an entity holds the power to su~ and to be sued, separate from the agreement’s participating parties. Most agreements designate the new entity as the liable party; however, unless the agreement makes this distinction, the debts, liabilities and obligations of the JPA are the responsibility of the participating parties, similar to the partners in a general partnership. The powers of the entity resulting from a JPA agreement are specified by the agreement itself, and can be very broad or very limited. Generally, the statute restricts the powers of the entity resulting from aJPA to those activities common to the contracting parties. These often include powers to: ¯Employ agents and employees.- .Make and enter contracts. o Apply for grants, and receive and administer grant funds. °Own, maintain, operate, lease, contract for and operate services and facilities within and outside the respective boundaries of the participating parties. ¯Acquire, construct, manage, maintain, oroperate any building or improvements. ¯Acquire, hold or dispose of property. ¯Incur debts, liabilities or obligations, including issuance of bonds. ¯Exercise eminent domain. Creating a Joint Powers Authority The Joint Powers agreement is relatively easy to create and provides the participating parties a tremendous amount of flexibility to meet the needs of any organization. The agreement must define how the organization will operate and how responsibilities will be divided and exercised. Typically, the participating parties’ legal counsels will be involved in the final review of the agreement, but they are not required for the agreements conceptualization or drafting. NELSON~NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOClATES 48 MARCH 1999 ~ITY OF PALO AL TO TeA NSPOR TA TION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER I If the Joint Powers agreement creates a separate Joint Powers Authority, the JPA must file notice of the agreement with the Secretary of State within 30 days of being signed by all of the participant parties. Until this filing is complete, no agency or entity administering the JPA agreement can exercise any of its powers nor issue bonds or incur indebtedness of any kind. Dissolving a Joint Powers Authority The agreement is created and maintained at the will of the participating parties, it can designate a termination date at the time of signing or continue in force until rescinded or terminated by the participating parties. Although recommended, the agreement is not required to state terms or methods of termination. Many JPA’s contain clauses that make it difficult to secede at will. For example, the JPA forming the Regional Transit Agency in San Luis Obispo County requires a "super-majority" or two-thirds vote to allow a member to either enter or leave the JPA. Governing Boards No requirements are stated under law regarding the formation or composition of a JPA’s governing boards, and there are many different examples of board structures. Law does allow for the service of elected official on the board, but the board is not required to be limited to members who are elected representatives. Funding Options JPAs are allowed to incur debt and issue bonds, subject to its governing board’s approval and any other restrictions placed on the individual participating agencies. Unlike special districts, JPAs cannot propose tax measures, or levy taxes directly. JPAs can however, expend tax revenues if appropriated from member entities through voluntary agreement. Advantages and Constraints of Joint Powers Formation for Palo Alto The Joint Powers Agreement may be appropriate for Palo Alto if it wants to form a strong partnership with neighboring jurisdictions. The flexible JPA agreement can put into place the infrastructure required for contracting or hiring staff directly - staff that may or may not be employees of the constituent cities - and for receiving grant funds, which does not exist -through an MOU. JPA agreements are flexible and can include provisions for entering or exiting the agreement that make it possible to do both short range and long range planning. Advantages: One of the biggest advantages of the JPA is its ease of formation. The agreement can be drafted by any mutually-agreed upon agent, or a committee of the various agencies involved. No special legislation is required, which is not true for special district formation. The only paperwork required is the filing of a statement with the Secretary of State and routine audits NELSONINYCAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 49 MARCH 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER 1 of the new entity. Dissolution is at the will of the participants and no official action is required to dissolve the JPA other than mutual consent of the parties. ioint Powers agreements are flexible, joint Powers agreements can include and exclude any powers that are common to the participating parties. They can be short-term, with discreet functions, or continued indefinitely. JPA governing boards can have any composition agreed upon by the participating parties. Voting rights can be determined by formula-for example, votes could be "weighted" by population, or by the amount of funding contributed, or could be simply "one member one vote." ]PAs can reduce risk offiabifity. JPAs protect the participating parties from potential lawsuit. By creating a separate entity, the participating parties are no longer liable for actions made exclusively by the Joint Powers Authority. However, protection from legal action does not apply if the Joint Powers agreement only commits the parties to working together and not to the creation of a distinct body. Additionally, the parties continue to be responsible for the debts, liabilities and obligations of the JPA unless the agreement specifies otherwise. Joint Powers agreements can provide a higher level of commitment to joint efforts than couldl~e accomplished under an MOU. While in force, Joint Powers agreements define the level and scope of contribution made by each participating party. Signatories are obliged to adhere to commitments to the extent provided for in the signed agreement. Constraints: ]PAs have no authority to raise their own tax revenue. JPAs are dependant on the agreements reached with participating parties combined with fares or other user fees associated with JPA activities. While the JPA can apply for and administer grants and can receive tax revenues or other funding from participating jurisdictions, it cannot introduce tax measures for financing its work. This constraint can be viewed as an advantage, as there may be reluctance to enter into an agency that has the power to initiate tax measures, even if there is no immediate intention to do so. ]PAs cannotpass ordinances. JPAs have no power to pass ordinances in cities or counties for the accomplishment of its tasks. It is, therefore, less powerful than a special district. ?,gain, this may be seen as an advantage as well as a constraint, since there is no threat that the JPA will overstep its intended authority. IPAs can have less pul~fic accountal~ifity. Public officials are not required by law to sit on a JPA’s governing board. Without elected official participation, a JPA Board is not directly accountable to its constituents. This disadvantage can be addressed by requiring in the agreement that the JPA’s governing board members be public officials or their alternates. NELSON~NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 50 MARCH 1999 ~ITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER 1 SPECIAL DISTRICTS State law defines a special district as "any agency of the State for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries." In other words, a special district is a separate, limited purpose, local governmental agency that delivers public services to specific communities. Once formed, special districts are considered autonomous governmental entities and are accountable only to the voters or constituents they serve. However, special districts are overseen by the State in several ways. For example, special districts must submit annual financial .reports to the State Controller, and they must follow State laws pertaining to public health, bonded debt, record keeping, and elections. Special districts have the same governing powers as other local governments. In addition to the powers available to JPAs, special districts can also issue debt, tax, levy assessments, and charge fees for their services. When residents want new services or higher levels of existing services, they can form a special district to pay for them. In this way, special districts localize the costs and benefits of public services. Special districts deliver a wide range of services.1 Some can serve just a single purpose, such as sewage treatment, and others can address a multiplicity of needs, as in the case of community service districts. Districts’ service areas can range from a single city block to extensive areas that cross city and county lines. Types of Special Districts There are several different types of special districts operating in California. characterized in the following ways: They can be Single Function versus Multi-Function Districts: Single function districts provide only one service, such as water, sewage, or fire protection. Multi-function districts provide two or more services, although some only offer a few of the services they are authorized to provide. The powers which a district is authorized to use but does not currently employ are called latent powers. A very common example of this is the power of taxation. A district may have the authority to levy taxes, but may in fact not do so. To introduce a tax, the enabling agreement may require going back to the voters for approval or may require only a affirmative vote of the board. Enterprise versus Non-enterprise Districts: Enterprise districts render services that are run like a business enterprise; they provide services which are used by individual customers. Non- ~ For example, services provided by special districts in California include: transit, bridge and highway, county water, closed captioned television, mosquito abatement, fire protection, recreation and parks, irrigation, and storm water drainag~ and flood control. NELSONINYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 51 MARCH 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER 1 enterprise districts provide services which don’t lend themselves to fees. A Transit District collects fees for services provided, and is generally considered an enterprise district. Dependent versus Independent Districts: Dependent districts are governed by existing legislative bodies, typically a city council or a county board of supervisors. Independent districts are governed by separate boards of directors elected by the district’s own voters. A Palo Alto Regional District would most likely be an independent district. Larger independent districts often have a professional manager, similar to a city manager, to assist the elected board members with the technical aspects of their duties. The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transit District is an example of an independent district which is governed by elected officials from member jurisdictions, but which takes actions independent of approval by the larger policy boards of its members. District Formation There is no generic State code governing the special district formation process. However, most special districts are formed one of two ways, either through application with the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) or through legislation drafted by a State senator or assembly representative. Districts that involve multiple counties - as in teaming with Menlo Park or East Palo Alto - are typically formed by special legislation. This requires the support and participation of at least one key State politician who sponsors the bill for legislative approval. The entire process usually takes about a year. Given the complexities of adding Federal agencies to the District, implementation would require at least one year after drafting appropriate legislation. District Dissolution The District’s enabling legislation defines the mechanism for dissolution. It is possible for the special district simply to cease functioning without formally dissolving. In order to formally repeal the special district’s authority, a second act of legislation is required. Governing Boards About two-thirds of California’s special districts are independent, meaning they have independently elected or appointed boards of directors. Most governing boards have five members who serve staggered four-year terms. Others can vary from three to 11 members. Representatives to a Palo Alto-area transit board would either be appointed by member jurisdictions or could be elected independently. Funding Special districts may generate revenue from several sources, including sources not available to a J PA. NELSONINYGAARD CONSULTING A$$OCIATES 52 MARCH 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER I ¯Fees and Assessments: User fees or assessments can be charged only to pay for projects or services that directly benefit those paying the fee. The amount of the assessment must be directly related to the benefit they receive. ¯Bonds: Districts can issue bonds to pay for capital improvements. Special districts’ general obligation bonds are backed by property taxes and require 213 voter approval. Special districts’ revenue bonds are paid from user fees and do not necessarily need voter approval. ¯Taxes: Special districts can introduce tax initiatives but cannot tax without voter consent. Proposition 13 and State law require 2/3 voter approval for "special taxes." o Certificates of Participation:2 Special districts are experimenting with innovative financing methods including Certificates of Participation (COPS). COPS are a form of borrowing that uses long-term lease arrangements. COPS are attractive to local governments because they don’t count against constitutional debt limits; they don’t require voter approval; and their interest is exempt from Federal income tax. Advantages and Constraints of Special District Formation Special Districts are designed to directly link the cost of providing services to those that benefit from those services. By creating a district that generates revenue for needed services directly from beneficiaries of that service, special districts offer a highly accountable form of governance. Special.Districts are a far more complex organizational model than the JPA. The following summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the special district model. Advantages: Special districts can tailor its jurisdictional boundaries to coincide with service beneficiaries. For example, it would be possible to establish a transit district whose borders excluded low- density residential areas that would be difficult to serve. These areas would then not have to pay for service they didn’t get. Special districts link costs to benefits. Only those who benefit from district services pay directly for them. Special districts have greater funding flexibility. Special districts can levy taxes and issue tax revenue bonds, although district formation does not eliminate the need to go back to the voters for approval of taxation measures. 2 California has used COPS since 1933, with a large upsurge since Proposition 13. A $9.8 million COPS default by Richmond Unified School District in 1991, however, brought increased scrutiny of local agencies’ use of COPS. Some concerns include intentional circumvention of the voters and local governments’ inability to pay their COPS. NELSON~NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 53 MARCH 1999 CITY OF PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION LOCAL BUS SYSTEM PLAN WORKING PAPER 1 Constraints: Special district formation would require a minimum of one year after aft details have been decided. Formation takes a minimum of six months to go through the legislature and, once signed by the Governor, typically doesn’t go into effect until the following January. Special district formation requires the cooperation of State and potentially federal politicians. Although the participating parties can decide on the special district’s powers parties must convince a State legislator to support their formation and translate agreements into legislation. Special districts are less flexible. Changes to district membership or powers requires additional legislation whereas a JPA simply requires mutual consent of participating parties to amend the original JPA agreement. NELSON~NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIA TES 54 MARCH 1999 DRAFT EXCERPT Planning Commission July 14 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT F REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. Palo Alto Shuttle Stu,dy - Recommend Shuttle Pilot Project: Request for Planning Commission review of the recommendations for a Shuttle Pilot Project. I’ll ask that there be a report from Staffand then I will open up an opportunity for public comment before there is Commission discussion. Eric, will you introduce this? Mr. Eric Riel, Chief Ptanning Official: Mr. Kott, the Chief Transportation Official will be making a presentation on this. Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Chairman Byrd, member of the Planning Commission, good evening. This item appeared in an earlier agenda of yours at which time Staff presented five potential shuttle routes. There was a discussion and we received some guidance from the Planning Commission at that time. We followed with a presentation to City Council and City Council reviewed and provided Us some additional guidance. The guidance included a directive to go back and design a shuttle program that would fit within the budget constraint which the Council specified as initially $256,000, and some Federal 221 funds for addition years at $100,000 in general funds. The second constraint was that the shuttle provide service at a level of no less than 15 minute frequency. Staff Went back working with our consultant to try to fit a shuttle program that could within those resource and time constraints. Briefly about objectives, Staff looked at the five routes that we reviewed last meeting, considered the importance of coverage versus efficiency and productivity. We looked at coverage as well as productivity. Coverage in the sense of serving as much of the community as possible within the resource constraints. Productivity is at least addressing commute needs on one corridor. So the proposed program that we have in our Staff report is a combination of a trimmed down version of what you saw last time as a cross town circulator and a continuation of an improvement of a commute service that is now in place which connects the Bayshore employment area to Downtown Palo Alto and the Cal Train station. The Staff report in front of you Contains a table listed as Attachment 1 which provides considerable detail on our recommended project. We call it a pilot project and some enhancements or alternatives to that pilot project. We envision within those resource constraints we received direction on from Council, using the federal funds available the first year and combining those funds with the second year’s $100,000 allocation, and realized we couldn’t start up until about the middle of this current fiscal year. We expect to start up sometime in November. We will be able to fund our project at roughly a $356,000 level for 18 months. So the important policy consideration tonight as you consider our proposal is just that. We think we have at least in [productivical] form a starter shuttle system for the City of Palo Alto. What we don’t have is a solution for long-term funding. We have funding in hand of $356,000. It’s possible that we may be able to raise some additional funding from the private sector. I wouldn’t hold out a lot of hope for that particularly in consideration of the nature of the cross town route which is really not a commuter route. After 18 months there is a policy decision about what to do, at least with Planning Commission and Council accepting Staff recommendation. Council was very clear on giving us guidance on the need to raise additional funding. So we are proceeding to work with VTA, with Stanford, we will be working once our commute coordinator program starts up fairly intensively with private employers. We’ve been talking with [Air Board] and Cal Train staffwhich has access to grant funds. We’re beginning the process of essentially raising additional funding for this service. The alternatives longer term may involve an existing transit provider taking over the cross town route. We’re proposing only the Embarcadero, the commuter route. Or it could involve the City being successful in acquiring additional funding from one source or another. That question is by no means settled and it’s an important thing to bear in mind right now. I should say in our pilot project which has two components, a city-wide circulator and what we call the Embarcadero and Bayshore route, we have not complied strictly with Council directive. The reason is we can afford two buses. So there would be two buses during peak period along the Embarcadero/Bayshore route for commuters. Then taking those two buses, off peak, in the midday and deploying them along the city-wide circulator route, which itself is shorted due to cost consideration. The shortened version of the city-wide circulator, and this is an important point to make, does not include service in and around the Barron Park neighborhood as we had envisioned in our first proposal to you last time we discussed this with you. We have included 15 minute frequency on the commute route along the Embarcadero and that does comply with Council’s minimum of frequency. But we cannot afford, under the constraints facing us, anything more than 30 minute service offpeak on the longer route using two buses. So we depart from Council directive in that. That’s a policy consideration. We simply have said that it is our best judgment that we cannot do that. It is certainly within the purview of this Commission to recommend to Council other altematives. It is certainly the Council’s prerogative to say it wants that done but there still is an issue about resources to do it. There are other alternatives to our proposal that more or less meet Council directive. The more or less is all in the details where the double are in Attachment 1. The very lowest cost measures would simply be to continue the existing Bayshore to Downtown commuter route, perhaps extending another six or eight blocks. Other alternatives tend to cost more I should say that with the cross town and with the proposal generally. We’re envisioning this proposal as being a first stage, a start up is you will, which is expandable in at least three different dimensions. One is it is expandable in terms of hours of service. In other words, not just off peak and midday but the whole day, given the resources. It’s expandable in terms of route coverage, going longer, going further, going into and around Barron Park for example. Doing a better job of serving that important corridor. The third dimension of course would be in frequency of service. We are as frustrated as many advocates of the shuttle program are at the cost of doing a shuttle and the resource constraints that we face. We certainly would prefer a much more frequent service, 15 minute or better. We see the expandability in terms of frequency being possible with resources. Over time, if we are successful and that’s an if, we have no promises. We can’t give any commitments or promises. It depends on other people’s decisions, other organizations, other entities decisions. If we are successful at raising additional ftmding this expandability can occur. Another possible issue is quite clearly starting out with a service which has something like a 30 minute frequency and which doesn’t have broad coverage during the entire day. Will this dampen initial demand? Will this enthusiasm? We hope not. We prefer to think optimistically and hope that this will whet people’s appetite for shuttle service. We may find much more support for the shuttle program within the City and among agencies that operate in the City or have a stake in the City of Palo Alto. That’s a broad overview. I should say our service objectives or market objectives given the constraints I’ve discussed are to provide a reasonable commute alternative to an important employment area in Palo Alto and thereby relieving some of our traffic congestion. It is not a silver bullet by any means. The second objective is to serve the senior citizen market and those who prefer to shop during the day and also on Saturday. By the way, the Saturday service is all day service and we expect to have a broad spectrum of the community at least within the service corridor of the cross town circulator to University service, at least try it out. It is, by the way, proposed to be free. Those are the two principal markets. We get at the margins some students but we are not able to provide the kind of student commute service that was initially envisioned for the cross town because of the limitations we have on money. We are not able to serve the school commute just like we are not able to serve the employee commute period during the hours of operation that we are proposing for .the shuttle. I’ll be happy to entertain any questions or comments now. After that I’d like to introduce Gayle Likens and our consultant Jeffery Tumlin is also available for questions on a lot of detail of the shuttle proposal. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. I think what I’d like to do is hold comments but invite Commission questions of Staff at this time. Commissioner Beecham: I understand the Council’s direction in their last action on this was to set a limit of continuing operating expenses of $100,000 per year. I presume that after that time Staff came up with a cost per bus, I think a 12 hour day use of bus and operator, at $120,000 per year. Mr. Kott: About $120,000 per year per bus. Commissioner Beecham: Is there any way to do a feasible shuttle system with one bus? Mr. Koti: In our opinion, no. It is very difficult to maintain 15 minute frequencies on any conceivable route with one bus. The second issue has to do with the lack of a stand-by vehicle in the event of a breakdown. It is, generally speaking, inadvisable to run a transit service with such a slender vehicle base. Commissioner Beecham: Also on the Embarcadero run, who will be the main users of that? Mr. Kott: The Embarcadero service will be a commute service primarily. It will serve the commuters who work, generally speaking, in the Bayshore area of Palo Alto. It will take them to their jobs and back to the train station. We don’t expect a lot of other users for that particular service. We would like to see some but in terms of the peak hours that’s what it will likely be. Commissioner Beecham: In the case of commuters, I presume that for every commuter that takes that there is one less car trip. Do you think most of those people would otherwise be driving on Embarcadero or would they be coming up on 101 or some other route? Mr. Kott: Most of those people would be driving on the Embarcadero and a fair number would also be using 101. Just in terms of context if I may, singling out one part of the solution to a complicated problem is I think overloading that solution. The way we see transit developing is transit is an important piece of a larger mosaic. We would like to see a shuttle system, more of a bus shuttle system. We would like to see considerable improvements in VTA service. Improvements in the sense of more investment of buses and operating hours by VTA in Palo Alto. We of course would like to see more Cal Train service. We would like to see our travel demand management, out so-called commute coordinator program take off, particularly Downtown to help employers leverage altemative commuting. We would like to see more use of the bike station. We’d like to see improvements in the bike-way system in Palo Alto. We will be discussing this during our discussion on the parking garage I believe. We are starting a master plan for our bike-way system in Palo Alto. These things take time to evolve. We were asked last time, by Commissioners and Council, the likely affect of a shuttle like this on traffic congestion in the City. I think by itself the effect will be marginal but in context with the travel demand management program with a lot more emphasis on bikability and walkability I think we’ll begin to see some real changes and real improvements in commute conditions. Chairman Byrd: Other questions? Commissioner Burt: I have a question as a follow on to Bern’s regarding the Embarcadero route. You’d stated some initial objectives of the system. Can you explain how the goals and the objectives are aligned with the choice of that Embarcadero route to serve those commuters? Secondarily, you had said that you had expected most of the users of that route would be folks who would otherwise be driving on Embarcadero but I thought I understood you to say previously that the riders would primarily be going from the train station down to their work sites by Bayshore. I didn’t understand this. Mr. Kott: Well, lacking a good bus transit connection they wouldn’t be using Cal Train they would be driving. That’s certainly been the experience in Palo Alto with work-sites and research parks that don’t have good connections with train service. Once those bus connections are established then train service becomes a viable option. Commissioner Burt: So then would those trip reductions really be reductions from 101 as opposed to being reductions from Embarcadero? Mr. Kott: We haven’t done that kind of analysis but my best guess, and that’s all it is is a guess, is that we have a combination. As we all know both need relief. We need the relief both on 101 and on Embarcadero Road. Commissioner Burt: Then as far as how the Embarcadero route aligns with the stated objectives of the highest goals of the shuttle program? Mr. Kott: Well, the Embarcadero route itself does serve a segment, a small segment, of the commuter market in Palo Alto. The commute market makes a fairly sizeable contribution to the peak period congestion. That’s not to say that everyone in rush hour happens to be a commuter that doesn’t live in Palo Alto but there is a clear effect. We would certainly like more services as a shuttle system become established and allowed to expand. More services to that market because that market is an important one from the standpoint of mobility on all streets and roads during peak periods. Commissioner Cassel: It might be helpful if you can put up the map that shows the altematives and what this route is so that people can have some visualization. We currently have a brand new shuttle that is serving the Bayshore area from the Cal Trans station that runs down Embarcadero. This one that is being proposed is going to go over to Pally and up to Town & Country and up through Palo Alto Medical Foundation. You want to explain how you understand that will be used by people other than the Cal Train people? Mr. Kott: I put a lot of emphasis on the Cal Train commuters because I think they are a very significant part of this market. I think this may be a good time to pass the baton on t Gayle .Likens who really can discuss this in a lot finer grain detail than I am able to about other market segments served by the Embarcadero. Market segments for that matter serve the senior citizens by the cross town. Gayle Likens is a Senior Planner in the Transportation Division who’s responsibilities have primarily been transit, transit planning and coordination, and bike and pedestrian planning. Ms. Gayle Likens, Senior Planner: Phyllis, I’ll have to ask you restate the question. Commissioner Cassel: I thought it would be helpful if you explained the difference between the shuttle that has just started and the intent of the shuttle that is being proposed because it goes farther and my understanding was that it was intended to pickup more than just shuttle people going back and forth between their job and the train station. Ms. Likens: You’re speaking of what we now have as the Bay Land Shuttle which runs from California Avenue Cal Train station out to the east of Bayshore area which is really the City employee shuttle and serves the east Bayshore businesses. That route basically travels on Oregon Expressway and doesn’t pick up and drop off anybody between the train station and the business park area. What we propose to do is take the resources of that bus, that one bus that if funded for at least the peak hours through the Cal Train grant, and supplement that with a second bus. So we are leveraging the funding from the existing Cal Train grant and to run that bus on the Embarcadero from the Downtown station. That will serve a variety of purposes. It will take people from the Cal Train station out to the Bayshore Park area, to the MSC, and it will also stop at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto High School, Town 8,: Country shopping center in the east bound direction. In the west bound direction coming back we anticipate that it will collect students coming to Palo Alto High School coming from the adjacent residential communities and bring them down. Our consultant estimated that about over 12,000 annual trips would school student trips. That’s about a fifth of the approximately 55,000-60,000 annual trips that would be along the Embarcadero corridor in that shuttle. So we think that is the market that we’ll be able to tap during the peak hour in the morning and in the afternoon. We can adjust the schedule to do that. What we won’t achieve is the midday operations because those two buses would be diverted to the circulator. Does that answer your question? Commissioner Cassel: Yes you did. Since we are having this generdl discussion I’d hoped that would raised. The other point that needs to be made on the circulator that is rimming during the day is the one that was explained to the advisory committee concerning what was happening in Menlo Park on their midday shuttle. Ms. Likens: Yes, as Joe mentioned by taking those two buses during the midday and serving a different market which is the market, people who want to make discretionary trips within the City to City facilities, to get Downtown to go shopping, people who have a little bit more time, because we don’t have enough bus resources to run that service at 15 minutes. A similar service in Menlo Park which is the midday shuttle which connects senior facilities, the Downtown, Safeway, and Stanford shopping center I believe in Menlo Park, runs at 45 minute headways and has a very robust ridership. It is a very successful route. Our consultant has indicated that weekends our route would be more successful because we even hit more activity centers and senior facilities and attractors for trips, shopping centers. So that was the rationale for looking at how we could serve a different segment of the community not just the employment segment but the midday market where we think there would be more ridership than along the Embarcadero corridor and don’t anticipate that high a ridership if we were to keep those two buses on the Embarcadero corridor. Commissioner Bialson: With the regard to the Menlo Park experience, you say the ridership ahs been robust. What are the characteristics of the riders? Are they senior citizens? Ms. Likens: I haven’t spoken to Menlo Park Staff directly but from the report they have given, they started out as anticipating that it would just be a senior shuttle. Because it does serve a variety of destinations that other would need, the Downtown market and the shopping center, it has grown to be a service that people of all different ages use. It is not just a senior facility. Commissioner Bialson: Do we have any figures? Ms. Likens: We have ridership but I don’t have a demographic breakdown of their ridership. We can certainly get that. Commissioner Bialson: But by robust you are saying that the buses are at least half full or three- quarters full as they circulate? Ms. Likens: They are running full part of the time. Let me double check with our consultants. Mr. Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson/Nygaard: The buses run from either completely full to about half full and the ridership base is still primarily senior citizens but because it serves the Boys & Girls Center and a job training center there is a pretty good mix of riders. The Boys 8: Girls Club has been using it to get Downtown and to the Cal Train station. People from throughout Menlo Park neighborhoods have been using it to get to a job training center on the border of East Palo Alto. Commissioner Bialson: Great.. I have a couple more questions. What is the ridership of the present shuttle between the Cal Train station and the Bayshore community? We have the shuttle so I’m just wondering. Ms. Likens: I’m afraid I can’t answer that question. I tried to get that answer today anticipating that might be a question. It started off relatively low. We can find that information out and get back to you. Commissioner Bialson: How long has it been nmning? Ms. Likens: It started in April. Commissioner Bialson: It was low initially but it is now? Ms. Likens: I can’t answer that question. I’m sorry. Commissioner Bialson: With regard to the city-wide circulator was there thought given to putting all our resources there and perhaps expanding the time that it served the community so that for instance a student population could use it? What I’m looking to is what has the greatest impact on some of our citizenry and I think a lot of people would appreciate having some way other than getting in their car and driving their children to schools. I was just looking at the 9:00 a.m. start for that not serving very many schools that begin earlier than that. Was that looked at as perhaps not doing the Embarcadero~ayshore and doing the city-wide circulator? Ms. Likens: We looked at all those alternatives. I’m not sure if that is on your table. The issue is how can you take the buses that we have, two buses, and utilize those in an efficient way. The budget we have doesn’t allow for ihree or four buses. So we decided that it might be more productive to use those two buses at more frequent service to serve the commute along Embarcadero Road. Those two buses could be used at half-hour frequency along the circulator route, however, that might not be that beneficial to the school commute or any other commute along that long route. There is not only Jordan, there is JLS, and you can only schedule 30 minute frequency and you cannot necessarily meet all the objectives if it were tailored to meet the school commute. Commissioner Bialson: So if we had additional funding, another $120,000 for an additional bus, we could do the city-wide circulator route with three buses perhaps and better serve Palo Alto citizens? Was that looked at as a possibility or were we so resource constrained that we didn’t look at that? Ms. Likens: We didn’t look at three buses. We looked at permutations of four buses but not three. Three would buy you more frequency than the 30 minute but it wouldn’t get you down to 15 minute on that shortened circulator. One thing I do want to note is the shortened circulator does not serve that constituency of students from Barron Park crossing Alma, E1 Camino, and the railroad tracks. The close circulator to run at 15 minute frequency requires five vehicles. Commissioner Bialson: That’s to achieve 15 minutes? Ms. Likens: Right. Commissioner Bialson: Thanks so much. Commissioner Beecham: A follow up on Annette’s question. If you were to do a circulator nmning across Alma and El Camino all day long at 15 minutes headway, how many buses would that take? Ms. Likens: The full circulator route? Commissioner Beecham: Yes. Ms. Likens: At 15 minute headways five buses. Commissioner Cassel: Gayle, in the alternative that the Staff recommended you picked a switchover time of 3:00 p.m. I would presume that’s not a rigidly set time at this point because it may be possible to serve the high school or the junior high slightly differently if those times could slide some and you probably don’t know those time just yet. Ms. Likens: No, we don’t know. That time could be 2:30, it could be 2:45, it is very flexible. We haven’t gotten down to actually doing detailed scheduling. But there would be a switchover and we would certainly look at the school commute times very closely and check with the employers in the area to see what there time constraints are as well. We would very closely try to time that to achieving a better school commute in the morning and the afternoon. Commissioner Cassel: I was thinking also there is a junior high just south of the comer of Embarcadero and Middlefield. That circulator is running north and south and when do you start picking up the high school and what are there time schedules, and how they work together. Ms. Likens: We’ll have to look closely at that at a later date. Chairman Byrd: Other questions for Staff at this time? Is there additional Staff or consultant presentation? Ms. Likens: Not at this time unless there is any interest in going through the alternatives. Chairman Byrd: We may come back to you when we have out discussion. Thank you very much. Although this was technically noticed as a report from officials, as I said earlier I do want to open up an opportunity here for the public to comment on the Staff report and the report we’ve heard tonight. I’ve got five cards on this subject. If other people have interest go ahead and give a card to the clerk. You’ll have up to five minutes to comment. Please come forward when you are called. The first speaker is Coryn Campbell to be followed by Edward Holland. Ms. Coryn Campbell, 3198 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: I would like to comment about the proposed shuttle route. If I’m reading the map correctly, and I think I am, the circulatory route that goes to Mitchell Park will follow a route that includes several residential streets. First, let me say that I’m verb’ supportive of the shuttle. ! think it is a great idea and I think it is one that will improve the quality of life for Palo Alto and for senior especiall~, in Palo Alto. I’m disturbed by the proposed route for this particular shuttle based on the shuttles and bus services that are already in existence and the impact the proposed route will have on residents who live along the route. Though I cannot speak knowledgeably about all the residentially streets, I can speak for the street that I live on. Waverley Street is first and foremost a residential street. It is lined with homes and children playing. It is a quiet street and one that will be negatively impacted by the increased traffic noise and pollution that this particular route presents. As the environmental impact documents indicates, the traffic on Waverley and the other residential streets along the route will be increased and I expect that it will increase noise, traffic, and pollution, and could significantly disturb residents. Second, and perhaps a bigger concem of mine is that running a shuttle along the residential streets creates a further safety hazard for children. Many children that live on Waverley Street, as with children throughout Palo Alto, play games on the street including roller hockey, baseball, catch, etc. More traffic makes the problem worse. I know the goal is to decrease traffic in Palo Alto as a rule and I think it will do that but on the particular residential streets in questions I think that traffic may be increased. We already have too many traffic accidents involving children on foot or on bicycles. The safety problem is exacerbated because Waverley Street ends at a school complex that includes JLS, Ben Meadow and Hoover schools. As a result many, many children use Waverley to get to school on foot and by bicycle. The local children do not need a shuttle to get them three to six blocks to school, they do however need safe, low-traffic streets. Traffic belongs on traffic ready streets. May I suggest that Middlefield Road on which the shuttle will run north of Colorado is a more appropriate street. It is also more centrally located in the residential section between Bayshore and Alma. In closing I would just make the following requests. One, to keep the shuttle on non- residential streets and two, before finalizing the route distribute the maps of the proposed route to the residents who live along the proposed route. It would be best in that way if it were an open and well publicized point of discussion on which the entire community agrees. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Edward Holland to be followed by Irvin Dawid. Mr. Edward R. Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, Palo Alto: I’ve lived in Palo Alto for over 40 years now. We live in the community center area. I think the shuttle you’ve proposed down Embarcadero is really a good idea. The thing I think you haven’t thought about is the advantage that this would provide for people getting to the new location of the Palo Alto Clinic. As that moves over onto E1 Camino the convenience of being able to walk to it is pretty much gone for a lot of us that live in the City. Although the proposal of running it only during commute hours would not provide that service. I really would like to suggest that in your plan as a test case that you do a serious amount of service so that it is areal test. I think as the proposal we have here either one of these routes would be a good test. I think that trying to do them both this way would probably not get the ridership. The people who are going to work during the commute hours and then not providing back up service during the middle of day, if something comes up and they need to leave, they are stranded there. So yes, you want to have 15 minutes in the morning and in the night but I think you should keep having half hour ones during the middle of the day. :Again, I think that there are ways to get money. I think we should get enough money to do a serious job about it. So I’d like to see it given a real good try. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Irvin Dawid to be followed by Susan Frank. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, Palo Alto: Thank you. I’d like to start by saying I’m very supportive of the shuttle. I think Commissioner Bialson asked some very good questions right offthe bat by asking for a comparison to Menlo Park. The fact that we really didn’t have the answers I think is very significant. When the Police Department was authorized to do a study on residential parking permit programs what they did is they went to nine, ten, maybe even more cities and they prepared an extensive analysis of how other cities ran their residential parking programs. I strongly suggest that the Commission authorize Staff or request the Council to have Staff do the same. Some of the things you really need to look at are things like: who do these shuttles serve, commuters or residents; how are these shuttles funded? In addition to Menlo Park which I believe rtms two shuttles, one sort of a senior shuttle and the other one is an extension ~fthe Marguerite which really isn’t all that different from the other line that you have there. I just have to put my plug in, I like that yellow line. Working off of an existing system, I think, makes sense. You already have built-in ridership. You’re going to be sharing your costs. It just seems to me that from an economic perspective it is a good safe bet to go with. You’re not starting up something from new. You’re starting an existing, very successful one that only runs midday, and you’re going to run it all day. I think it is a sure bet winner. It is probably one of your least costly and it is a great place to start. The other ones are something that I think you can work into once you get more funding. To me that’s really the limiting factor here - funding. Where are you going to get the funding from? Let me go back to the other cities. I’d like you to look at two cities. Some cities I know a little bit about. First, the city that I often compare to Palo Alto, the City of Burlingame. It is a very progressive city. It is socio-economically very similar, the demographics. They are a very progressive city. They have a shuttle called the, "Freebie Shuttle." I believe to a great extent it is funded from hotels and work centers. I’ve seen the signs, it’s the same Marguerite type system. I’ve seen some of the promos for it and it looks very good. The shuttle that I’m most familiar with because I’ve taken it and I know it is highly successful is the "Dash Shuttle." I wish I could have brought you some schedules. It is run through the City of San Jose. It is primarily for commuters. In essence it actually competes with the VTA buses at the Cal Train station. It is free. It’s packed. It’s very successful. It is much more successful than they originally had planned for. They’ve expanded it. What’s really interesting is that VTA is one of the sponsors of it. You can get schedules because the VTA actually puts out the schedule. It is a free shuttle. So those are two cities I’d love you take a look at. Finally, I end my short presentation by simply saying that funding is the key here. The reason why Stanford’s shuttle, the Marguerite, is so successful is because it ties in with parking. Parking on the campus is very limited and it’s very expensive. You have a built-in market. In theory those funds that they get from parking from those people to ctioose to drive their car and park their car which is a perfectly okay American right, when they pay for it it becomes really American, in essence they can provide the funds for people to have the free shuttle. That’s really what this City needs to look at on the long-term basis. This topic that you are talking about tonight really ties in with the next topic that you’re talking about because we’re doing it wrong. We are doing the exact opposite of Stanford. Stanford charges for the parking and takes those funds and channels it into the shuttles. What do we do? We build parking and for the most part we make it free, and then when we do charge for it we use this ridiculous permit system that is a telTible way to go about it. Those funds only pay a fraction of the maintenance that is required for the garage let alone providing an alternative. So this City really needs to get its act together in terms of transportation. This shuttle should be connected to parking. They go hand-in-hand. Unfortunately that’s not what’s happening. The long term solution is to connect parking and shuttle. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Susan Frank to be followed by Yoriko Kishimoto. Ms. Susan Frank, President, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto: I love following Irvin. I agree with him. It is interesting and fitting that you have both of these items on your agenda tonight. Although I know a couple of you are not going to have the opportunity to discuss the next item. I’m really just here to say that I’m pleased to see the shuttle program moving forward. Many of us who worked actively to bring special event shuttles to this community and seeing the success there I know are pleased to see something here. I think that’s the key. I imagine everyone is going to have a slightly different approach on how to handle this, a slightly different route to consider, a longer one, a shorter one, a different one, a more expensive one. But we have nothing now and this is something. So I hope that there won’t be too much further study. And that in fact we can put something into place that the expert Staff that you have, and they are expert, and the consultants that have been hired are recommending that you can put into place and then modify. How better to test this than to get something in place and see what kind of ridership you have. And to have something that has been studied already hopefully be successful. I hope that you will move this forward for consideration by the Council, add some tweaks to it if you must, but let’s get this going. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Yoriko Kishimoto to be followed by Will Beckett. Ms. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto: I love following Susan. I am also happy to be agreeing with her this time in wholeheartedly supporting the shuttle. I live on Embarcadero and I would welcome the shuttle on my street. I think it fits in beautifully with the whole traffic calming study that is going on for Embarcadero. I do have to point to one danger sign that I’ve heard about which doesn’t fit in. That is that the City is leaning towards adding that double left hand turn onto Embarcadero which I think will invite more automobile traffic down Embarcadero. So I’d like for the City to think comprehensively about Embarcadero as kind of a multi-modal street. I don’t have much comment on-the routes. I haven’t studied them very much. I do have some comments on funding possibilities, I think I agree Irvin that we have to think creatively. One suggestion that I have is that we think of kind of comprehensive transportation assessment districts. Possibly convert the parking assessment districts into transportation assessment districts. That could be for Downtown or for the Embarcadero business district on the east side of 101. Since we are talking about the parking garages later this evening, I happen to have some figures with me. So I believe that they plan to assess $1.6 million a year for the two structures. I’d like to ask City Staff what they could do with $1.6 million toward the shuttle. That $1.6 million would pay for, I think the number is, 730 new spaces. Depending on the calculations you do it comes to $8-10 per day per space. I think that compares very favorably with $2-4 per ride that you are talking about for the shuttle. So now that you are a Transportation and Planning Commission I would like for you to think comprehensively about that. Also to remember that probably one of the top goals in the new Comp Plan is reducing reliance on the automobile. So to do that I think we have to change a lot of structural things around here including financing and transportation. Thanks very much. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Will Beckett to be followed by Kathy Durham. Mr. Will Beckett, 4189 Baker, Pato Alto: I’ll continue this, I love following Yoriko. I’ve been serving as a member of the local shuttle committee but have some personal comments to make. would like to begin by saying how impressed I’ve been by the process, how quickly we’ve been able to define routes which meets the goals and conditions we were asked to help define with the help of Nelson/Nygaard and this City Staff. However, I’m deeply concerned that our progress has now been short-circuited by financial limitations prematurely placed on us by the City Council. It is my personal belief that the shuttle will not be successful based on the current constraints. I feel it is important to define a system, regardless of small, that can be sustained over time and have some degree of guaranteed success. I would also suggest that the City of Palo Alto is beyond thepilot stage and should have the goal of beginning the shuttle service. Having said this, there needs to be a basic commitment to fund the beginning of a system over a reasonable time which will allow Staff to find additional money so that there will be no interruption of service. A service does not one bus make. The current funding suggested by the Council will not even come close to supporting a bus system let alone one bus. The suggestion that the Council will allocate up to $100,000 each of the second through fifth year is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It is important to understand why I feel this way. First, let’s make sure we understand the cost of a shuttle system. To run one bus, one year, 12 hours a day, five days a week costs $120,000. It is mostly the expense of the driver but these figures are derived from contracted bus services similar to the Stanford Marguerite. Council has asked that this system be not more than 10 to 15 minute headways. Where this does help to insure the success of the system, it would require that one bus could travel only five to seven minutes before it would need to turn around and return from where it came. I cannot see how this minimum start would ever have an opportunity for success. How far do you think this bus will be able to travel in five to seven minutes including stops to pickup passengers. The point is, in my opinion, that it will take a commitment of at least $240,000 per year for three to five years to insure a good start to a shuttle system for Palo Alto. Maybe that can be reduced by grant money but let’s not limit the system from the start by assuring that there will be at least this minimum level of commitment. There is already $275,000 for the first year from the T-12 grant which would allow us the start-up costs, before the year’s allotment was available. It would be nice to see the Council commit to $240,000 per year for five years and then if grants were not found to cover for those years there would be a system at least in place and guaranteed. The anticipation was that we would be able to find grant money. This would assure that once the system was begun it would not stop abruptly due to a lack of funding. If long term funding were found beyond this then it might be possible to expand the system once the money was identified as available for long-term The proposal for a pilot, as suggested by Staff, does not give me the assurance that the shuttle will be staged for success. I would hope that what you send to the Council is a recommendation that gives the opportunity for a minimum system that we know from the start will have enough funding for a long enough period so that the additional funding can be found to continue at least the minimum system over the long term. It is my feeling that if this is not agreeable then we should not waste everyone’s time or jeopardize the possibility of a future proposal for a successful shuttle by moving forward with Staff recommendations for an 18 month pilot. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Thank you Mr. Beckett. Kathy Durham to be followed by Ken Poulton. Ms. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth, Palo Alto: Good evening. I just wanted to start by saying last time were hear I think you heard a real vision for a shuttle system that could begin to move us in the direction of the Comprehensive Plan that our City is committed to. We do seem dependent on cars and supporting commute alternatives. Today’s startup proposal as is now quite obvious to I’m sure is a very modest start in that direction. In fact, to be honest our committee struggled to come up with anything that could by any creative definition be called inline with the Council direction that we could actually call a viable feasibility phase for this shuttle if it’s going to be a real pilot. Even with our creativity about the 18 months and so on, and with bringing in the funding from the Cal Train Shuttle, we had to make some agonizing choices. Many of us faced, for example in my own particular case my neighborhood, College Terrace will not benefit from this pilot at all. I’m not here to argue for that at all. I think what we came up with is a start but I want to make a couple of comments. One is that the Embarcadero route, I think thatwe may be underselling what is going to happen in that reverse direction from the commuters. I believe that many seats will be filled with Pally students. There is an early bird class that starts at 6:55 in the morning, start time is 7:50 and second period starts at 8:45. A lot of kids are there for water polo, swim classes, diving classes, etc. early. So it’s less [Post] .than middle school. It is more spread out. Upper classmen may not be there until second period. A lot of kids stay after school a lot more than at middle school for various sports teams, newspaper, activities, and so on. So I believe that between 7:30 and 9:00 and anytime after 3:00 up to 6:00 there will be a steady stream of Pally students that take this. I’m asserting that if we provide it, will they ride it? I think we have evidence from what happened with the Marguerite shuttle running to Jordan for those three years. Also I sent out an e-mail to the parents of one-half of the Jordan eighth graders, that is the incoming ninth graders at Pally, and without going into the details I got back an astonishingly strong interest from these parents. This is in the after-school period when people’s minds are on other things. Very strong interest, and the ones who said they were interested said the kids would be interested ’always’ or ’often’ riding the shuttle. The ones who said no, that they wouldn’t ride the shuttle is because they either lived further from.Embarcadero than they did from Pally,"or they were on another route. Based on commutes this would be a godsend. We’ve been trying to figure out how we were going to do this as we have in order to pay Palo Alto mortgages the stay-at-home soccer mom is going by the wayside. So I think that the 12,000 a year or one-fifth of the ridership on the Embarcadero Road may be a very conservative estimate. I think we are maybe talking well over 60 a day. Also I want to speak to the needs of the middle school students. I met last night with PTA traffic safety rep from JLS and the new PTA trip reduction coordinator. I want to share with you a document approved by the City’s School Traffic Safety Committee about a school-based trip reduction program. I have a copy for each of you. Basically we have begun to move very strongly in the direction of promoting alternatives. We need your help particularly at the middle school level. JLS in 1991 when it was opened had 870 students. This week JLS registration reached 1,200 students. They’ve closed it. All additional kids are going to be overflowed to Jordan. The last time JLS had this number of students there were nine buses taking kids to that school. That was in the pre-1991 period. So please, if there is a way that we can move creatively to include the middle school commute particularly at JLS from Barron Park, move as fast as possible. There are some really tough decisions and I personally know about seven kids who have been knocked off their bikes by cars last year on the East Meadow route. So I hope we can move from a tiny beginning to something that is a real feasibility test. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. The last card is from Ken Poukon. If anyone else wants to speak to this item please put in a card to the clerk. Mr. Ken Poulton, 884 Los Robles Avenue, Palo Alto: A quick note on traffic impacts. We’re talking two to eight extra vehicle trips per hour on these streets and this is simply insignificant. The routes that were chosen in the original report are good ones. I only wish that the route that was proposed for my street was going to be funded. The proposals that we have here are really hamstrung by the Council’s apparent disinterest in the whole idea. They have provided only a small fraction of the funding that is really needed to make a real system here. That’s in the first year. In the second year they said we’ll provide even less. Based on that the proposed system here doesn’t achieve critical mass. The buses don’t run long enough and they have headways that all of our information shows are too long to be effective. The proposal also omits serving one of two key corridors identified by all the studies and focus groups, the east!west corridor along Charleston, Arastradero, and Meadow. The ’serve Downtown first’ pattem is really just another thing that has been persisting for years and years. To summarize, the current plan really is just dabbling. As a trial, it is likely dooming itself to failure. I hope that you, the Planning Commission, will send a message to the Council that this isn’t enough. Thanks. Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Having no other cards I will close the public hearing portion of this item and return the discussion back to the Planning Commission. I know Commissioner Cassel has made a greater investment of time than the rest of us on this subject recently. Perhaps I could invite her to open our discussion. Commissioner Cassel: I also served on this advisory committee which has been an awful lot of fun with a lot of interesting people who have been working hard in various ways and have various interests in developing a shuttle bus system. The meeting with City Council was very difficult because it was a total surprise that we were going to reach the limits we had. We had expected a much more general discussion of what their preferences would be. That left us, at our next meeting, trying to decide what to do next. We didn’t elect someone to speak for the committee. We just gave information as we had it to Staff and they developed the most effective plan that they could develop with the funding that they had. It was my sense of the meeting that everyone was extremely disappointed that we had to limit the funding. It seemed at least to me and I think most other people that the circulator rome, which you can see in your plan, would give us the best effective coverage for the City. It would cover many more people, many more people’ would use it according to the estimates that were done by our experts, and the average cost per person would be lower. That seemed like a place to start. Having said that, I also feel the need to express to the Council the fact that that would be a better route to start with and that we should continue to look for money. I am not going to agree with Will that we shouldn’t go ahead with what is being proposed to us because I think we will get more than we expect. But I certainly would prefer, and I think we should tell the Council that we prefer, to use the circulator route. I would like to comment on why the circulator is running what looks like a circuitous system here. That is they deliver. We have a 35 bus that runs every half and hour up and down Middlefield Road and to duplicate that service wouldn’t make any sense even though that costs some money. If we ran a free rome up and down Middlefield Road we would then be competing and who’s going to take the bus that costs you $1.25 when you can take the free one. We would then lose what is really a good service. This rome, if you look at it carefully, every time you look at it you can find another spot, another node of transportation, another node of drop off. It runs by Hoover Park. It runs by a catholic school. So there are lots and lots of places that aren’t even listed on our map. It runs down streets such as Cowper and Waverley and Colorado because it deliberately wants to pick up children and take them to JLS and other schools and other nodes on that site. People in that area tend to go some north and some south to the junior high and it would help keep some of those children off the street and make it possible. One of the things we need the most is to find someway to lessen the traffic around the junior high and some of the other schools. This rome isn’t going to quickly enough. It isn’t a school bus. It isn’t going to meet every need we have to pick up every kid going to those schools. It hopefully will help. One of the reasons for wanting to do the circulator and do the full circulator is that we will meet the greatest of those needs. Having said that, I think I should tell you a couple of the good things about the alternative route that the City Staff selected to bring to us. One of the big concerns in developing a system is that we need to cross Alma and E1 Camino. The VTA system has the 22 that runs up and down El Camino, as most of you know it runs every 10 minmes during the day and less often at night but runs all night, is a very heavy carrier of people and one of the best systems that the VTA has. It connects all the way through to East San Jose. The Middlefield Road bus, the 35, runs every half hour and it needs to run more frequently. We need to negotiate it to run more frequently. It not runs out to Foothill and it will run to the light rail. It will run every 15 minutes in Mountain View for some reason but not in Palo Alto. There are very few ways to get across town. To get from the Middlefield run to the E1 Camino run. From the schools on one side to the systems that are on the other side of town. So the Embarcadero Road run gives us one more opportunity to do that. You can do it with the 88, it does go down Charleston, it does pickup students that are getting out late at Gunn. It doesn’t run frequently enough to really be a good service there but it runs and it does pickup some people. This will run and pickup people in the morning as the Staff said and it will pickup people on the reverse for the schools. It will connect to our library and to Rincinada Park and some of those services. I think it will make that bridge across. The alternate also includes that midday service and several of us asked questions about that. I was impressed with the material we received about how well the Menlo Park service was nmning midday. They are tracking people to see how good that system is. What was interesting was that people, apparently, get on it and ride that system around and never get off the bus at any particular stop just because it is a fun trip to take around town. It is an extremely irregular pattern. It’s the kind of pattern and timeframe, every 45 minutes, that would be difficult to keep track of. Apparently it still works. So based on that and based on the fact that we need some way to get people between spots midday, and we aren’t going to pickup a lot of people midday, I think we should use the alternative. That would be the midday run for what we get out of it. I think we get more out of that than if we ran it midday up and down Embarcadero. The Saturday is great. That is where we will get people to Downtown on a day when we really need it, especially in the Fall. The worst day for traffic on Middlefield Road is Saturday morning. You can say all you want about through traffic but I have to get onto Middlefield Road to get out of my house. I can get out of the house, I can get down the street, but I can’t get any place unless ! get on Middlefield Road if I’m in the car. Saturday morning is the worst. It’s us, we’re doing the traveling and we’re clogging that road on Saturday morning. Since we have the money, I think this is an interesting place to start that. Chairman Byrd: Other initial comments? Mr. Beecham. Commissioner Beecham: I think as I said earlier, nobody is satisfied with the budget that came out of the Council earlier for this regarding the $100,000 as a recurring expense limit. I think also that at that time Council did not have the numbers that we have tonight on how truly limited $100,000 is. I don’t think Council intended to say let’s have a one bus shuttle system. So I think from our point of view we need to just go on and work from Council’s other directives which do talk about 15 minute headways and to have a realistic pilot. So I would certainly like to recommend clearly to Council that the pilot consist not necessarily of a dollar limited amount but of a bus limited amount. From what I understand from Staff, buses seem to come in increments of 12-hour days because if you pay the driver shorter than that you pay nearly as much and you don’t get the benefit. So if we think about 12-hour day buses, a minimum of two can make a minimally realistic pilot program for us. I think that should be one of our recommendations to the Council. Whether it is on Embarcadero Road or some other route, I do trust that Staff has assessed bang for the buck. I expect we’ll get the most riders earliest on Embarcadero, I think Staffhas done a good job in assessing what to do with the buses in the midday where ridership on Embarcadero is low, and find another place where there is some benefit even if it’s not a realistic test of that other route, to say that a more thorough shuttle would work or not. I do have a question on Embarcadero as far as what is the value to Palo Alto of that route. I do expect that a lot ofpeopte using it will be commuters from outside. I don’t know at this point how many of those commuters would otherwise take Embarcadero, So I wonder about what the City is going to gain from this. Certainly it does help regional transit if any commuter takes it. Also I think Kathy talked about, there are a lot of students who potentially could use this or other shuttles. I think schools as Phyllis was talking about has to be a key target for the clientele for any shuttle system we do. In my mind that is actually one of the biggest places for bang for the buck. Every student goes in the morning during rush hour and has to be picked up in the evening. They are often separate trips. More and more parents don’t trust the environment to have the students go by themselves. Parents letting kids off at school create a great traffic jam. If we can avoid that and work with the school district to set up a realistic service for schools I think that is a great use of a shuttle system here. Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with a lot of what has been said. I think that we would all like to see more money put into this pilot project at this time. I do think it is a pilot but I think it would be more likely to succeed if it had a little more money behind it. However, I think we all complimented the consultant and the Staff and the colnmittee when they initially brought alternatives to us a few months ago. They did an outstanding job. I think they’ve done an outstanding job of trying to make a reasonable start at this with a very limited budget. Going two directions in Palo Alto, getting visual exposure to a variety of people throughout the whole City. I think they’ve done as good a job as possible of trying to really make this work with this limited budget. I would like to see this go ahead. I would love to see more money. It has been mentioned that the school population is a population that is a great target - educate them early about using transit and give them good options. That said, I would like to see us go ahead with what’s here and just hope that the Council would find additional funding to make both of those routes, or more routes, work. Or that we will have great success and more money will come our way. Colnmissioner Bialson: I realize that everything that we do is somewhat of a compromise due to financial constraints and the other constraints imposed by whatever system we are dealing with however, though I commend the efforts that have been put into the proposal before us, I do not feel I can support it. I think I tend more towards Will Beckett’s position than many of my fellow Commissioners. I think we are setting up a pilot that is going to fail. I think that ridership will not come immediately. I think it will take awhile for people to see these buses travelling around town and to think of getting on one. I think that 18 months may sound like a long time right nov, but I think it will probably take six to nine months for people to feel that the system is going to be here and somehow modify how they communicate with others in this community by getting into the car and rather get on the shuttle. So I feel that what we need to have if we do want some sort of pilot or demonstration program is a well targeted, well funded, effort. Otherwise we may find ourselves having a program which is setup for failure in the beginning and it poisons the system for ever trying another shuttle-type of proposal. I would like to see one route targeted. I understand using the Embarcadero as the primary one because ofthe.subsidized funds that we would be receiving and the ridership we’re going to immediately gain and the ability to use the buses during the off times for the circulator. I think the citizens of Palo Alto are the ones paying for this and they deserve to be served by it. I think the citizens have a concern with regard to how seniors in-our community get aronnd town, how their children get to school, and how they can relieve the traffic on our streets by providing some altemative means of transport. I think that with those sort of targets we’ve got to look at the city-wide circulator as being the route that will best serve the citizens. I also feel a 15 minute headway is necessary to make this a desirable sort of shuttle. Menlo Park is showing us that they’ve gone up to 45 minutes. I think we do have to go back to City Council and say, "You’re just not giving us enough money. Give us more money and perhaps look at how much good we’ll be able to do now that we’ve done a thorough study," which I thank the consultants and the committee for. This is what we can offer you - a circulator that is to a large extent the one that is now being proposed, perhaps modified so that it picks up part of the Embarcadero Road route so it can perhaps serve Palo Alto Medical Clinic and the Pally students, and have perhaps a 20-25 minute headway. Go back to Council with that sort of program and say this is what we propose. I think this would justify an increase in the budget you’ve given us an d look at it in that light. I can’t support the proposal that is presently before us. Commissioner Burt: Owen, is this the time that we can ask follow up questions of Staff or just comments? Joe, I have a couple of questions that might best be directed to you. What do you think is the likelihood of the success of this pilot program? Mr. Kott: I think the pilot program will likely attain modest success. Commissioner Burt: How would you characterize modest success? Mr. Kott: I think the ridership estimates that we’ve been given are ones that will not be exceeded. They are on Attachment 1. Commissioner Burt: Among the alternative funding sources, i.e., grants, assessment district, etc., have you identified the variety of potential sources and do you have an estimate of the likelihood that we would be able to attain significant funding through some combination of sources? Mr. Kott: We began with an inventory by our consultant of funding mechanisms and funding sources. It’s a fairly exhaustive list but as those lists go, as you just pointed out Commissioner Burt, it all depends on the probability of getting money from any entity on that list. It seems to me that one very productive way to go is working with VTA to get more resources back into Palo Alto from VTA. At present, as you well know, the City of Palo Alto is a significant source of sales tax revenues for VTA’s transit operations. The City of Palo Alto does not realize a return back anywhere near equal the revenues provided. Stanford University is another potential source. Stanford is now engaged in dialogue on renewal of their general use permit. Stanford has considerable concerns about traffic congestion mitigation. We’ve had some discussions already with Stanford University Staff. We’ve made plain that we feel that an investment in a shuttle bus service, including in a city-wide circulator, would be a very good investment for Stanford too. We’d certainly like to see Stanford extend the Marguerite shuttle on their own initiative. We think that is a direct benefit to Stanford and Staff. There are other sources that are possible including [air] district money. We’re proposing using almost $100,000 in an [air] district grant, that gets sort of mediated by Cal Train and given to us, in combination with City money to make the reroute from the Oregon Expressway to the Embarcadero route work for us financially and in terms of service. We think that air district may be source of money in the future. It is not now, it is very competitive. Employer grants maybe, there may be some. Hewlett Packard has offered a little bit of money, it’s not much. We may get other solicitations. We may solicit other money. It is difficult to talk about but longer term it could very well be that some scheme is on fees and taxes would provide us a sustainable source. This year we are doing a study on expanding our traffic impact fees in Palo Alto beyond the Research Park, City-wide, but also expanding them functionally so that we can fund not only intersection improvements, we can fund a shuttle bus system. Benefits district which would tax people on a property basis, on a service area of the shuttle is another idea. The consultants have provided a list of those things. In terms of the probabilities my sense is that the VTA and Stanford and the Air Board are the three most probable, within a two year timeframe. Commissioner Burt: Has there been some state legislation proposed, I seem to recall, that would provide some additional school transit funding? Mr. Kott: Yes, in fact I just got an e-mail on that recently. That’s a source we hadn’t considered. Any source we would immediately pounce on. There is no doubt about that. My expectation though, quite frankly, is that as concerns transit operating monies of any kind those sorts of monies are very hungrily sought after. Just as a point of reference, the Bay Area has 26 transit operators, and there are other entities that run different kinds of transit services beyond that. Even new sources of funds state-wide will be very competitively sought after. Commissioner Burt: Have you also looked at something that I think we had discussed in the context of the parking garages, which is that we currently have in-lieu fees for creation of parking spots, those fees are not stipulated in their destination by the assessment district but instead by Council ordinance or I’m not sure what the mechanism is, have we looked at the potential for those fees being fees for alternatives to parking as opposed to in-lieu of onsite parking, as well as there has been some discussion of increases in parking needs resulting from change in uses Downtown such as shops turning into restaurants. Mr. Kott: There are some constraints on the use of the fees that fund parking structures. Gayle, I think, is better informed about that than I am. We’ve had meetings internally with City Finance Staff and the consultant has also done some work investigating that avenue. That strikes me as being difficult but I’ll ask Gayle to give a little more detail. I should say, speaking only for self, I’m very sympathetic to the idea of cashing out parking and using parking as a resource. But in specific funding smactures there are a lot of constraints. Gayle? Ms. Likens: I don’t believe we looked specifically at fees. We did explore the availability of parking district funding. That, we determined was not feasible because of the way those funds are collected from the property owners. Commissioner Burt: Understood, and that’s what made the in-lieu fees much more viable as a funding alternative. I think we discussed it at our last meeting on the parking garages. Ms. Likens: We’d have to pursue that and check. Commissioner Burr: Great. Perhaps Jeffery would be the best one to answer this next question. Do we know how many trips to Stanford are generated by Palo Alto residents per day? Mr. Tumlin: Yes. Do I know that off the top of my head? No. I’m going to have to take a wild guess at this but I’m going to say it’s on the order of 5,000 trips per day. It’s a big number. Please don’t quote me on that but Stanford definitely has those statistics and knows almost exactly what the number is. Commissioner Burt: So if Stanford is potentially facing constraints on development if there are greater restrictions on the generation of trips to campus, do you think that it would be cost effective for them to make significant contributions to shuttles that would further serve the campus? Mr. Tumlin: I can tell you that there are a lot of trips back and forth across the Stanford - Palo Alto border every day and that is a terrific market for shuttles, not just serving Stanford students and employees but people from Stanford going into Palo Alto, yes. Some of those numbers are in the first working paper. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. One final question of Gayle. The issue of whether Middlefield or Waverley is the best route for that particuldr shuttle has been raised this evening. Can you further explain the reasons why Middlefield is not the best route? Ms. Likens: Yes. One reason is that there is existing transit there that we did not want to duplicate. We were looking at coverage and trying to provide service in corridors that currently didn’t have transit nearby. We looked at the area between Middlefield and Alma Street as being an area that, it’s a very long walk from Alma Street where there is higher density development all the way to Middlefield, it is really not what we would at as within a quarter-mile of the transit walking distance. So we looked at how we could bring that route into an area that isn’t well served by transit now, closer to Alma. Unfortunately the rest of the street in that part of Palo Alto are not through streets with the exception of Cowper and Waverley. So we looked at how we could bring that down closer to Alma and Waverley was the appropriate route. In the scheme of things with a full-service city-wide circulator that route would provide direct access, school commute access, to JLS and Hoover in that area. In the configuration we’re proposing it is a midday service but it still would bring the bus closer to the higher density development along Alma than presently exists. Mr. Kott: May I add on the subject of buses nmning on residential sffeets, it certainly is the intent of the committee, Staff and consultants to deploy smaller vehicles. Not the kind of line haul vehicles, the 45 foot vehicles that SamTrans and VTA uses, but vehicles in the range of perhaps 25 feet that would carry 22 to 25 passengers. It would also be our hope to deploy vehicles that are alternative fuel vehicles. We can’t promise that but we have had some discussion with people about it. Commissioner Burt: Joe, in your expertise would you venture a guess as to whether the implementation of the shuttle on say Waverley one of those two, Waverley and Cowper being the only streets that do run uninterrupted in that area, would it have a net increase on the traffic impact on those streets to have that shuttle or net decrease or neutral? Any estimation from you? Mr. Kott: It would have a very marginal decrease in traffic on either street. Chairman Byrd: Pat, do you want to go ahead and make your comments now since just about everybody has? Commissioner Butt: Well I concur with my colleagues that the system that we have proposed is really under-funded and does jeopardize the potential success of the pilot program. I would like to see a very aggressive approach toward identifying the alternative fimding sources that could expand this program. I think that it’s Staff’s intention to do so and I’m very encouraged by that. I think that we may want to encourage Council to increase the interim funding to give us a bridge until we can identify these alternative funding sources and thereby have a somewhat expanded program over the next two years. The other realization that I’ve had on the use of the Embarcadero corridor and its impact on serving student populations has prompted two thoughts. One is I long back to the days not too long ago when every city had a shuttle system and that was the public school system. The school buses. We really haven’t had a lot of civic dialogue over the significance of the loss of that transportation system primarily resulting from Prop 13 funding constraints. The school buses have multiple benefits, not only do they provide for a trip reduction, but it’s really a multiple trip reduction. Every time a parent drives a child to school, they drive them to school and back and then in the afternoon to school and back. Whereas another trip where someone goes Downatown for the day it is only one round trip that has been eliminated by the use of the shuttle. In addition, we have to other safety benefits. One of the child trying to get to school, and we all know that high schoolers and junior high schoolers riding their bikes are a fairly anxious and reckless crowd. So I think they pose a great safety hazard to themselves. There may be other ways that we can help mitigate that problem but this is certainly one of them. Finally, we these great congestion problems at the schools which are not only safety problems but they are pollution problems because we have oodles of idling cars. So I think benefiting the school population has multiple benefits for a single use that exceeds some of the other benefits that are also very important ones. As we add them up I’m becoming more convinced that that’s on a bang for the buck basis that’s one of our greatest benefits we can achieve. I’d finally like to really explore these alternatives with Stanford. That seems like a tremendous oppommity as they are entering into their own constraints, they dovetail with our desires. I hope that we can aggressively pursue those alternatives. Chairman Byrd: For most of this decade, this has been one of the most popular ideas in theory in this community. We have spent I don’t know how much money and time and energy trying to get a shuttle on the street. Now it comes down to this. I think the Staff and the consultants have done a fantastic job of stretching scarce resources into the maximum amount of coverage and headway that they could achieve. I have absolutely no criticism of the Staff result given the constraints that you were given. Having said that, let me be more blunt than Commissioner Bialson, I think this stinks! I can’t believe after all these years and all these meetings and all this effort that we’re going to start out with something that is doomed to fail. It has been sandbagged by its own constraints and I think we would do our community a great service by taking the bold step of recommending doing nothing over recommending doing something that is destined to fail. This just makes no sense to me. I certainly hope that Council will take Commissioner Beecham’s approach and do it on a per bus basis and not a per dollar basis and maybe that analysis will result in more dollars. But at the end of the day it is dollars, and there is just not enough dollars here to make this a workable system. Whether you support the shuttle because you want to ride it yourself or you support the shuttle because you sure hope the guy in front of you will get off the road and ride the shuttle so you can drive faster, whatever your motivation, this isn’t going to serve your need. These 30 minute headways are hardly going to .serve anyone. We had this headway conversation last time. I think 15 minute headways are too long. I think in this speeded up Silicon Valley culture there are very few people who are going to wait at the corner for 15 minutes to catch the bus. I think we need 5-10 minute headways. I’d rather see one route, probably the city-wide circulator, at significantly reduced headways even at the expense of doing the very good work that the Embarcadero route would do. I’d rather see at least one route succeed than see two routes fail. Having said that, I do think we have to look for other sources of funding. I believe the Staff and their expertise have pursued every vein there is, ! think it comes back to us. I think this is a General Fund issue which exceeds the authority of this Commission but which has got to be addressed by Council. Over time I think we need to look more comprehensively at how we spend our transportation dollars and whether we are spending them to subsidize and automobile culture instead of shifting back towards traditional methods of transportation such as transit. So whether we use our existing funds more wisely or whether we decide that this is enough of a community priority to shift funds from non-transportation uses, we’ve just got to assemble the resources to do this right or it’s not worth doing at all. Having said that, I do think we have a burden before us to come to closure on a recommendation from this Commission to the Council on what we have been presented with. I’ve heard a variety of voices here tonight. So I would entertain a motion that we could then discuss. Commissioner Cassel: I was going to recommend a motion that we recommend that we would prefer doing the circulator route but that we would take the second route as an altemative. I would suggest that we break that into two pieces. That we first vote on what we think would be the ideal route to start with. Then vote on whether we think the City Council should proceed with what is recommended. Chairman Byrd: Are you making that suggestion within the context of the existing funding constraint? Commissioner Cassel: In other words, ideally what we would like to see knowing we don’t have a funding constraint, my sense is that we would like to see the circulator route funded, and we would like to send that message. Some of us don’t want to vote for anything because we think it is killing it and some of us may not agree with that. I thought it might make a stronger motion if it was done in two pieces. What I would like to do is move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council proceed with trying to find the funding to fund the circulator route, I think it is described as number four here. Chairman Byrd: We have a motion that we recommend the optimum pilot project which is alternative four. Is there a second? Commissioner Bialson: Second. Chairman Byrd: There has been a motion and a second. Would you like to speak to your motion? Commissioner Cassel: I think this is probably the ideal route for us to start as a pilot route. I would like to send a message that we should do that. I would then further have a second motion that would say that if that could not happen would we support the Staff recommendation. Chairman Byrd: Comment of the second? Commissioner Bialson: I can support the first part or phase of the motion. I cannot support the second part of the motion. I think I explained why. Chairman Byrd: We have one motion on the floor right now which is just whether or not to recommend the optimum pilot project, alternative four. Commissioner Bialson: That I absolutely agree with. Chairman Byrd: Other discussion? For clarification, this motion is a recommendation as opposed to Staff recommendation. Commissioner Cassel: With the understanding that there isn’t funding at this time. That we want to pursue that funding. Chairman Byrd: But right now, we have the recommended pilot project which is altemative one, which is the Staff recommendation. ’ Commissioner Cassel: Right, and what I would do is make a second motion that if funding can’t be found for the first one that we would pursue it. Chairman Byrd: Okay, we’ve had a motion, a second, and discussion that the first priority be to pursue alternative four. All those in favor? (ayes) Those opposed? That passes on a 6-0 vote Another motion. Commissioner Cassel: I make a motion that if funding cannot be found to implement alternative four that we then support the recommendation that has been made to us in the Staff report. That would be number one. Chairman Byrd: Is there a second? Commissioner Beecham: Second. Chairman Byrd: It’s been moved and seconded. Do you want to speak to your motion? Commissioner Cassel: I know there is some disagreement about whether we think this will work or not. I think we should try this second motion if we can’t get the funding. I think we need to work hard for the other and we need to see where we can go with it. So I would like to see us keep working on it. One of the problems in these discussions is that every day you hear a rumor here or there but rumors aren’t something you can talk about. I would like to see us keep working on this first one but I don’t want to see us not have the alternative to start up and do the Embarcadero route and the midday circulator if we can’t fund the other one. Commissioner Beecham: I think it is clear we all preferred option four. Thinking about a fallback, I think the probability of finding funding for option four is minimal. Owen talked about this needs to be an operation funds expense. I think the probability of that as a start is also minimal. I do not believe that’s going to be an expense the City is going to take on without more experience and without more practice at what ought to be done to run a shuttle system. I also know that some members of the public would see the Staff recommendation as being doomed tO failure. I don’t believe that’s so. I think success has to be carefully defined, the objectives have to be defined, and it’s up to Staff to really insure that we know beforehand what we expect out of the system and have a way to measure and come up at the end and say did we meet it. I think that will be a very valuable system to us. As I mentioned before, I think Embarcadero is not necessarily that beneficial to the City itself, but it is useful to the region and we cannot mm our backs on that. So I know it is a difficult situation but I will support to have the Staff option if it is not possible to go with option four. Commissioner Bialson: I’m going to speak in opposition to the motion. I think that this is a bad compromise. I think it is a waste of the money and a waste of an opportunity to get Palo Alto behind a shuttle program. Many of the speakers have spoken to the fact that we have to think comprehensively about transportation as the new Transportation Commission as well as Planning, I think we have got to be very careful how we tread in thisarea. The effect of having a poor compromise at this point, I think is too devastating to ever getting a good program in place. While we may not want to start addressing how we get those people who park to pay for a system for those who decide not to use their private automobiles, that may be a long term sort of more theoretical discussion, I think we’ve got to acknowledge the fact that we have to tread carefully here until we get the political and financial will in this community we should not start something just so we can say Palo Alto has a shuttle. That is not our objective here. I don’t think that we want to get something started that does not have a good chance of surviving. I think the proposal put forth right now is doomed to failure. Commissioner Schmidt: We all agree it would be wonderful if we could put more money into this. I think iftl~e Council is unwilling to do it at this moment in time, I absolutely think we should start something. We will learn something. This is a pilot project. We will learn something about operating it. We will learn who is willing to ride it. We will be able to interest people and we’ll be able to show that we do have shuttle buses on the street, not just to say that Palo Alto has a shuttle, but again to entice people onto this or to get people to ask for more. In a pilot situation it seems to me it can be modified if things are not working appropriately then changes can be made. It is not like building a building where you can’t move it or change it. This is something that can be modified easily and it can be modified to increase if funds come along midway. Commissioner Burt: While I share the concerns of some of the Commissioners regarding the viability of this program in its limited version as proposed, I’m inclined to defer to the real strong expertise that we have in the consultants and in our Staff now. We have brought to our City Staff a Chief Transportation Official who has a great deal of background in alternative transportation and we have an excellent consulting group who has spent a long period of time developing this. If they believe it is viable as proposed even though we all know it is not their preference either to have such a limited program, then I think I’m inclined to go forward. I concur with Kathy that the community would really like to see something started. Hopefully it is something that we can modify and build upon as opposed to something that if it’s imperfect will be judged to be a failure. I think if we go into it with the understanding that there will be aspects - of it that will be not adequate and we will have to learn from them and adjust to them and hopefully have a program that we can not only improve upon but expand through additional funding, then I’m for going ahead with this program as Staff has proposed. Chairman Byrd: It is no surprise that I will join Commissioner Bialson in opposing this motion. I don’t think we’re going to get enough bang for our buck here to make the effort worthwhile. $375,000 could buy a big fleet of bikes. With that we will call the question. All those in favor? (ayes) Those Opposed? (nos) Motion passes on 4-2 vote. Are there any other extremely brief final comments that Commissioners want to add to these two motions as these recommendations are forwarded to Council? We heard about a number of other second issues from the public. Does anyone else have further comments? Commissioner Cassel: I think we need to thank the Staff for a job well done. There are four working papers out, for those of you who don’t have them, on varioug aspects of the shuttle, i.e., funding issues, other models in other communities. I’m sure you can get a hold of those from the Staff if you wish to see them. Commissioner Bialson: I would just ask that the Council just look at perhaps modifying the circulator route as presently put forth in the number four alternative to include Palo Alto Medical Clinic and Pally. Chairman Byrd: Good. That concludes that item. We need a representative from the Commission for this for August 2nd. Commissioner Cassel? Commissioner Cassel: I can do that.