HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Special Meeting
February 10, 2014
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:07 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid,
Shepherd
Absent:
STUDY SESSION
1. Measure E Update: The Energy/Compost Facility Request for Proposals
(E/CF RFP) Identified Pricing for Privately-Funded Projects and
Technologies to Jointly Handle Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and
Biosolids and Considered Processing at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) and/or Using the 10-Acre Measure E Site as
Well as Export Options. A Summary of the E/CF RFP Proposals,
Integration with the Biosolids Facility Plan and a Proposed Organics
Plan are Included in this Staff Report.
Phil Bobel, Public Works Assistant Director, reported the Energy/Compost
Facility (E/CF) would handle three streams of waste: yard, food, and
biosolids. The Biosolids Facility would handle only biosolids. The Council
voted to phase out the existing incinerator at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) as soon as possible, which would result in a major
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Staff was searching for methods to
meet the goal of eliminating landfill disposal by 2021. An E/CF would
enhance the beneficial uses of organic materials and be economically
competitive. The Measure E site was undedicated as parkland for ten years.
The Council had the authority to designate it as parkland if an E/CF did not
materialize at the end of ten years. Staff released the E/CF Request for
Proposal (RFP) in March 2013, received responses in August 2013, and
continued to review responses. The technical review group, principally
composed of Staff and consultants, scored and reviewed responses. The
community review group, composed of proponents and opponents to use of
the Measure E site, reviewed documents and asked questions. Currently
commercial food scraps underwent aerobic composting in Gilroy, while
residential food scraps were not collected at all. The E/CF RFP resulted in six
proposals, which were scored 50 percent based on financial cost and 50
percent based on other goals. Two proposals did not meet the minimum
1 February 10, 2014
qualifications. One proposal was disqualified because it was simply too
expensive. The three remaining proposals were made by Harvest Power,
Synagro, and We Generation (Cambi). The Harvest Power proposal utilized
wet anaerobic digestion for food and biosolids, followed by heat drying to
produce a pelletized product used as a solid supplement fertilizer or energy.
Yard waste would be composted. All three feedstock would be processed
onsite, either at the RWQCP or the Measure E site. The facility would utilize
less than 3.8 acres of the Measure E site and 1 acre at the RWQCP. The
Harvest Power proposal would generate biogas, which was the main
advantage of using wet anaerobic digestion. Landfill gas could be added to
biogas produced at the site to produce electricity. The We Generation
(Cambi) proposal also utilized wet anaerobic digestion but preceded that
step with thermal hydrolysis, which allowed more energy to be captured.
Biosolids and food waste would be digested on the RWQCP site with yard
waste exported to Newby Island. The facility would utilize about 1/2 acre of
the RWQCP site and no area at the Measure E site. The We Generation proposal generated the most biogas, was sensitive to the pricing of energy,
and preprocessed food waste at the San Carlos facility. The Synagro
proposal would export all material for processing at another location. The
main disadvantage to the Synagro proposal was the lack of renewable
energy. Staff concluded that the best available technology was thermal
hydrolysis with wet anaerobic digestion. None of the proposals suggested
putting yard waste in wet anaerobic digestion. Aerobic composting was the
best process for yard waste. The Biosolids Facility Plan was a means to
identify technology to replace incineration. Staff considered pyrolysis and
gasification and concluded those technologies were not ready to utilize
biosolids. One option was to add thermal drying technology to process
biosolids. Another option was to export biosolids. The City needed a
dewatering and truck load-out facility as quickly as possible to handle
emergencies and urgent situations at the RWQCP regardless of which
technologies were chosen. Staff's long-term recommendation was to utilize
thermal hydrolysis with wet anaerobic digestion. The Biosolids Facility Plan
and several vendors proposed incorporating food waste to increase biogas. Staff developed a four-step plan; however, they continued to review
proposals and technology. The first step was construction of a dewatering
and truck load-out facility. The second step was utilization of wet anaerobic
digestion. The third step was identifying a technology to preprocess food
waste in order to add it to a wet anaerobic digester. The fourth step was
utilizing yard waste. The City could implement the Organics Facility Plan
without utilizing any portion of the Measure E site. Staff would continue to
evaluate and consider the Measure E site, but was not proposing to use it in
the near term. The entire project was estimated to cost more than $50
million. The proposed four-step plan would spread costs over several years
and would reduce the complexity of financial arrangements. The proposed
Page 2 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Organics Facility Plan was consistent with the recommendations from the
Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force of 2009. Next steps were a series of
community meetings and Staff returning to Council in late March or early
April 2014. Staff recommended the Council accept the proposed Organics
Facility Plan and direct Staff to: 1) begin design of the dewatering and truck
load-out facility; 2) begin pre-design work on thermal hydrolysis and wet
anaerobic digestion; 3) prepare a timeline for utilization of food and yard
waste; and 4) possibly cancel the current RFP. None of the proposals
submitted to the RFP contained all the components that Staff wanted.
Walt Hays supported the Staff recommendation. Thermal hydrolysis was a
proven technology and would produce more energy. Obtaining the needed
technology without utilization of the Measure E site was an advantage.
Paul Sellew, Harvest Power Executive Chairman, owned and operated
facilities identical to the proposed facility in Palo Alto. He urged the Council to appreciate the complexity of the project. Harvest Power was willing to
supply the capital for the facility and was open to the possibility of the City
owning and operating the facility in the future. Harvest Power's proposal
was the only one that handled waste onsite. He could have a facility
operating in two years.
Alvin Thomas, We Generation Chief Executive Officer, appreciated Staff
recognizing the benefits of the Cambi process. We Generation's proposal
covered all components Staff requested. He was willing to discuss
alternative financing arrangements. Ownership of the facility would be
transferred to the City.
Jim Stahl, MWH Vice President, teamed with Cambi with respect to
engineering. The Cambi team could mitigate risk for the City. Cambi
proposed the most efficient system to maximize green energy.
Stephen Rosenblum felt the Staff proposal was an excellent step towards an eventual solution for sewage and food scrap handling. He urged the Council
to make every effort to deal with garden waste within the City limits rather
than trucking them.
Jon Foster, speaking as an individual, supported building a facility to handle
biosolids, food scraps, and yard waste within Palo Alto and the generation of
renewable energy in the process. He expressed concern about canceling the
RFP and issuing a new one, because staff received two qualified responses.
He supported the use of either We Generation or Harvest Power.
Page 3 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Peter Drekmeier learned that wet anaerobic digestion was the best solution
for processing food and biosolids. He was concerned about the length of
time taken to reach the current discussion. Vendor financing and training
were benefits.
Kirsten Flynn believed Staff's proposal was a component of Palo Alto thriving
in the future. She supported a local solution to handling biosolids, food
waste, and yard waste.
Emily Renzel stated the Council should look closely at Staff's proposed
direction. It was important for the Council to review financing. She
concurred with Mr. Hays' comments.
Cedric de La Beaujardiere generally supported the Staff recommendation.
Thermal hydrolysis with anaerobic digestion was the best process. He
preferred an accelerated timeline and local ownership. The Council should continue to consider a proposal for yard waste.
Herb Borock indicated the Council should make the decision to reject all RFP
proposals upon Staff recommendation. A decision regarding the RFP should
be made quickly.
Bob Wenzlau was interested in keeping composting within Palo Alto. He
hoped the Council could impose a tighter timeframe on composting. He
noted that the volume of residential food waste and yard waste was
decreasing.
Wynn Grcich hoped incinerated sewer sludge would not contain copper.
Incinerated sewer sludge was used as mulch, which allowed copper to seep
into wells. When fluoride was added to the water, the mixture was toxic.
Mike Muller, Biogas Equity 2, reported his proposal covered all components
of the RFP, utilized the latest technology, and provided more energy. In addition, he proposed 100 percent financing.
Council Member Price encouraged Staff not to cancel the RFP. Instead she
suggested Staff consider requesting a joint proposal from the top two firms.
A joint proposal could be complicated. Staff should consider having the
proposers design, build, and operate a facility such that the City would
obtain a fully operational facility with fewer risks.
Council Member Schmid expressed concern about financing. He was unclear
regarding a basis for rejecting RFP proposals. He questioned whether the
term "outside feedstock" meant feedstock imported from outside the City
Page 4 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
and requested details about the use of outside feedstock. Early discussions
with RWQCP partners were needed. Staff should address the 31 acres of fill
for Byxbee Park.
Council Member Holman inquired whether increased levee protections would
be part of any project at the RWQCP.
Mr. Bobel reported Staff depended upon the regional program to develop
levee protections.
Council Member Holman felt levee protections would be a part of the
discussion and cost-split with partner agencies.
James Keene, City Manager, clarified that issues with regard to levee
protection existed whether or not a facility was constructed.
Council Member Holman recommended Staff consider developing a home-
based composting program. She inquired whether importing feedstock was
a consideration as it also had a greenhouse gas implication.
Mr. Bobel indicated Staff did not rely on importing feedstock. If more
feedstock was available, more energy could be produced. No neighboring
communities expressed interest in participating.
Council Member Holman requested Staff comment on the 34 acres of fill for
Byxbee Park.
Mike Sartor, Public Works Director, stated on January 14, 2013 Staff
presented the Council with a contract to design and install a partial cap on
34 acres of Byxbee Park and postponed the cap on the remaining 17 acres
for a total of over 51 acres.
Mr. Bobel added that capping the area had begun.
Mr. Keene noted the capping work was not a part of the agendized item.
Council Member Holman asked if Staff had any comments with respect to
home-based composting.
Mr. Bobel agreed that home composting was the best method from the
standpoint of greenhouse gas emissions. Staff promoted home composting
as much as possible. Only a small percentage of residents utilized
composting.
Page 5 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Council Member Holman wanted to see a more aggressive residential
composting program.
Council Member Berman requested Staff provide a thorough analysis and
explanation of advantages and disadvantages of proposals from We
Generation and Harvest Power. In addition, he wished to have the next
Staff report ten days prior to the Council meeting, if possible, for proposers
to submit their opinions of the Staff recommendation and for Council
Members to ask questions.
Council Member Scharff referenced We Generation's letter regarding a
different dewatering process for the thermal hydrolysis process. He
requested Staff address the differences in dewatering processes and the
possibility of building the dewatering plant incorrectly.
Dave Green, CH2MHill, stated a dewatering facility could be constructed that served current purposes and had value for implementing the thermal
hydrolysis process. Some features would need to be incorporated into the
dewatering facility.
Drew Whitlock, CH2MHill, agreed there were two different types of
dewatering processes required for thermal hydrolysis. A thicker type of
dewatering process was utilized for the anaerobic digestion process. A
second dewatering process was utilized afterwards. A facility compatible
with a future Cambi process could be constructed. The quantity of material
could be different, but that was also affected by the waste streams upfront.
Staff needed to understand the quantity of waste streams including food
waste in order to define and develop a facility.
Mr. Bobel concurred that pre-design work was needed to determine amounts
of feedstock and other data in order to design the dewatering facility to be
fully compatible with thermal hydrolysis.
Council Member Scharff understood the Staff report to recommend building
the dewatering and load-out truck facility without having a plan for the
entire process first.
Mr. Bobel reported Staff needed to perform some pre-design work prior to
designing the dewatering facility. Pre-design work would provide more data
on the sizing question. Staff did not need pre-design work regarding energy
pricing and financing plan.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether Staff would have sufficient data
prior to returning to the Council for action.
Page 6 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Mr. Bobel explained that Staff would request Council authorization to
proceed with design of the dewatering facility, not to build it. Staff would
continue to answer some questions during the design process. Staff would
not present a design to the Council in April 2014.
Council Member Scharff asked if Staff would have sufficient time to obtain
needed data during the design process.
Mr. Bobel stated Staff would take sufficient time to design the facility
correctly.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether Harvest Power and We Generation
utilized the same technology or proprietary technology.
Mr. Bobel remarked that thermal hydrolysis was a general term, while Cambi was a proprietary term. Harvest Power could utilize thermal hydrolysis.
Council Member Scharff asked if the second stage of dewatering applied only
to the Cambi process or to any thermal hydrolysis process.
Mr. Whitlock explained that all technologies required a similar dewatering
process prior to thermal hydrolysis.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the process was the same such
that a facility could be designed prior to deciding which technology to
implement.
Mr. Bobel reported Staff would have to determine the technology during the
design process.
Council Member Scharff inquired about the advantages and disadvantages of
rejecting the RFP proposals and issuing another RFP.
Mr. Bobel indicated Staff would return with a timeline. Staff did not analyze
cost and did not address cost in the presentation. Purchasing procedures did
not allow Staff to reveal cost information until negotiations were complete.
Cost information would have an important bearing on whether the Council
wished to proceed with proposals.
Council Member Scharff asked if Staff would have cost information by March
or April 2014.
Page 7 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Mr. Bobel answered yes. Staff planned to provide cost information at the
same time they made recommendations. The Council would not be able to
make a decision regarding a facility without cost information.
Council Member Scharff inquired about the purpose of the Study Session.
Mr. Bobel wished to provide the Council with the technical information of
proposals as the issue was complex.
Council Member Scharff clarified that Staff was attempting to educate the
Council, and inquired whether Staff would make any irreversible decisions
based on Council comments.
Mr. Bobel replied no. Staff would continue to analyze and consider
additional information. Staff did not expect Council direction at the current
time.
Mr. Keene added that Staff could return to the Council with a
recommendation to reject proposals. Staff felt they should provide
information to the Council prior to making a formal recommendation.
Council Member Klein asked when the present incinerators would be utilized
as backup.
Mr. Bobel commented that incinerators would be utilized as backup only
while defects in the dewatering facility were being resolved, perhaps a six-
month period.
Council Member Klein inquired about the final disposition of the incinerators.
James Allen, Manager Water Quality Control Plant reported Staff planned to
take down the incinerators and demolish the building to create more space
to properly install the anaerobic digestion system.
Council Member Klein requested Staff provide additional details regarding
categories and possible subcategories, timing, relationships with and
reactions of partner agencies, and the potential for conflicts of interest.
Council Member Burt believed removal of the incinerators would be
necessary to create space for the next phase of construction. The City
wished to utilize a third party if an unproven technology was chosen. He
inquired whether Bob Wenzlau mentioned less food waste and more biosolid
waste was being produced in Palo Alto.
Page 8 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Mr. Bobel indicated Mr. Wenzlau stated less food and less yard waste. Staff
continued to refine those numbers.
Council Member Burt inquired whether there was a clear distinction between
the current treatment of food waste and the importing of supplemental food
waste to add an additional energy source for biogas.
Mr. Bobel explained that food waste from garbage had a much higher
component of plastic and junk than food waste from a garbage disposal.
Council Member Burt requested Staff comment on the similarities between
wet anaerobic digestion and technologies utilized by the RWQCP for decades.
Mr. Bobel noted when first considering all technologies, Staff believed an
outside vendor would be best suited to operate and assume the risk of new
technology. However, the sewage treatment plant industry had a very long history with wet anaerobic digestion. As Staff moved toward selecting wet
anaerobic digestion, they could look to other communities and see that wet
anaerobic digestion was a low risk situation. The City could receive long-
term low-interest loans from the State.
Mr. Allan reported Cambi technology was utilized at 40 installations
worldwide, with 38 of the 40 installations being owner operated. Most
installations utilized food waste with biosolids.
Vice Mayor Kniss aligned her comments with those of Council Member
Berman. She heard three concerns during the discussion: cost, sequencing,
and timing.
Mayor Shepherd understood the composting of yard waste would not be part
of the facility. She inquired whether people would purchase yard waste
compost from the City if it continued to do that and whether trucking
compost would provide a net gain.
Mr. Bobel agreed that selling compost locally could be a positive feature.
Typically a community that had compost would provide a certain amount
free of charge. Palo Alto residents could go to Sunnyvale and receive free
compost.
Vice Mayor Shepherd felt there would be some greenhouse gas savings by
not sending purchasers farther away.
NO ACTION TAKEN
Page 9 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Council took a break at 7:57 P.M. and reconvened at 8:09 P.M.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
James Keene, City Manager, reported Agenda Item Numbers 4 and 6 would
be removed from the Agenda and heard at a later date. Agenda Item
Number 2 was continued to February 24, 2014 at Staff’s request.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
James Keene, City Manager, announced that Planning Staff released a
consultant report the prior week related to the storage and handling of
hazardous waste at the CPI site. Staff scheduled a public meeting for
February 20, 2014. In honor of Fire Prevention Week, the Palo Alto Fire
Department was hosting a Youth Fire Safety Poster Contest. Later in the
week, the Palo Alto Fire Department, the Santa Clara County Fire Chief's Association, and El Camino Hospital would announce countywide deployment
of the Pulse Point Citizen Responder app. Palo Alto ranked seventh
nationwide for the highest number of solar systems installed per utility
customer. The State of the City address would be held February 11, 2014 at
the Lucie Stern ballroom.
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Price reported the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) Board was asked to participate in a friend of the court brief
on behalf of the Caltrain Modernization Program. If she failed to support
Caltrain, it would cast serious doubt on her personal credibility for any sort
of position of influence with Caltrain. To be as effective as possible in
representing the City of Palo Alto and the north county cities, she exercised
her best judgment by supporting Caltrain and VTA on protecting
modernization funding for Caltrain.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Wynn Grcich stated Stanford University had a contract to spray chemtrails,
which were toxic to humans. She also spoke regarding global warming and
genetically modified food.
Omar Chatty felt the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) vote
to support the amicus brief was inappropriate. Council Member Price did not
vote on the Motion to override the Brown Act review period; however, she
voted to support the amicus brief. Palo Alto should not have supported the
amicus brief and should not support the blended system.
Page 10 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Herb Borock noted the Council's position regarding rail issues was to place a
representative on the Caltrain Joint Powers Board. A representative might
not represent the position of the Palo Alto City Council.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, thanked Council Member Price for
supporting the blended system and Caltrain electrification. A blended
system would increase capacity, speed, and the number of stops. An
efficient, electrified Caltrain would be important to Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies.
MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to approve the Minutes of January 6, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Members
Scharff and Berman to remove Agenda Item Number 5.
James Keene, City Manager, felt the item could be heard at the end of the
Agenda. If time constraints prevented the Council from hearing it at the end
of the Agenda, it would be continued to February 24, 2014.
Mayor Shepherd moved Agenda Item Number 5 to the end of meeting to
become Agenda Item Number 9A.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 3, and 7-8.
2. Approval of Contract with Standard Parking Corporation in the Amount
of $120,000 for Operation of the Lot R Parking Garage Attendant
Program and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance Amending
the Fiscal Year 2014 University Avenue Parking Permit Fund Operating
Budget to Provide Additional Appropriations of $120,000 (Staff request
this item be continued to February 24, 2014).
3. Resolution 9396 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Determining that a Target for the City of Palo Alto Utilities to
Procure Energy Storage Systems is Not Appropriate Due to Lack of
Cost-effective Options”.
Page 11 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
4. Approval of Nine On-Call Planning and Environmental Consulting
Services Contracts for the Department of Planning and Community
Environment to Support Current Planning, Special Projects, Advance
Planning, and Environmental Review as Follows: Planning Services - 1)
Dudek, 2) Arnold Mammarella, Architecture and Consulting, 3) The
Planning Center/DC&E, 4) Metropolitan Planning Group; Environmental
Services - 5) Dudek, 6) URS Corporation, 7) ICF International, 8)
Turnstone Consulting, and 9) David J Powers & Associates in Amounts
Not to Exceed $930,000.
6. Development Impact Fees: List of Public Facilities Capital Needs.
7. Approval of a Contract With Spencon Construction, Inc. in The Amount
of $2,170,412 for The FY 2014 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repairs
Project.
8. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract with MV Transportation to
Extend the Term Until June 30, 2014 and Add $75,000 for Provision of
Regular Shuttle Services for Crosstown Route and Additional Shuttle Service During the Construction of California Avenue Streetscape
Project.
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Numbers 3, 7-8: 9-0
ACTION ITEMS
9. Parking Supply Recommendations. Staff recommends that Council
accept the Final Report on the Downtown Parking Garage Study and
authorize staff to take the following actions aimed at increasing the
parking supply in the University Avenue and California Avenue Business
Districts: 1) authorize staff to begin design and environmental review
of a new parking garage (240 car capacity) on Lot G located on Gilman
Avenue; 2) authorize staff to solicit qualification statements for public-
private partnerships to increase parking supplies on at least one existing
surface parking lot in the University Avenue area and one in the
California Avenue Business District; 3) authorize staff to pursue
planning grants and begin planning work for a new transit mall expansion with a 478-space parking garage on Urban Lane, in
partnership with the property owner and the Joint Powers Authority; 4)
authorize staff to begin design and environmental review of a 200-space
satellite parking facility along Embarcadero Road – East of Geng Road -
Faber Place and in the Bay Lands Athletic Center parking lot or a
comparable alternate location(s), with supporting shuttle service to the
University Avenue Business District; 5) authorize staff to expand
parking permit sales to South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Business District
Page 12 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Employees at the Lot CC – Civic Center and Lot CW – Cowper
Street/Webster Street parking garages; and 6) authorize staff to solicit
proposals for the installation of parking garage access and revenue
controls aimed at collecting “real time” data on parking lot and garage
occupancy, introducing flexibility for transferable permits between
employees, and to support payment options for downtown visitors who
park longer than three hours.
Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reported
parking supply was one of three related issues. Neighborhood parking
restrictions were discussed on January 27, 2014, and Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures were scheduled for discussion on
February 24, 2014. All actions were intended to address traffic and parking
demand resulting from prosperity. Staff asked the Council to accept the
study regarding Downtown parking garages and provided a series of six
recommendations. The first recommendation sought Council authorization to proceed with design and environmental review of a new parking structure
on Lot G. The second recommendation sought Council authorization to issue
a Request for Qualifications. The third recommendation was related to
pursuit of planning and grant opportunities related to Urban Lane. The
fourth recommendation was related to the design and environmental review
of potential satellite lots served by shuttle service. The fifth
recommendation sought Council authorization regarding the sale of parking
permits. Staff welcomed public and Council suggestions regarding additional
strategies.
James Keene, City Manager, recognized that alternatives to Staff
recommendations existed. Staff recommendations were based on particular
factors. Staff was open to Council feedback regarding the
recommendations.
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, noted the parking feasibility
study began about a year ago. Staff obtained Council feedback in May 2013. The study considered five surface parking lots located within the Downtown
core and one lot located along Urban Lane. Six parking structures were
located in the Downtown core, four of which were owned by the City. A total
of 13 surface parking lots were owned by the City. The two parking lots on
Gilman Street were considered as a combined parking structure, which
would yield approximately 166 structured parking spaces over five floors.
Below-grade parking at the site would yield an additional 30 spaces.
Attendant parking at the site would yield an additional 44 spaces. Lot G had
the potential to provide 240 parking spaces for the community. In May
2013, Staff discussed the concept of public-private partnerships to build
garages. Stanford University leased a site for 30-50 years, and then with a
Page 13 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
partner built a garage. That would be the basic concept for developing a
public-private partnership. All sites studied and generally all sites in the
Downtown or California Avenue areas would accommodate a public-private
partnership. Stanford University owned the site along Urban Lane and
leased it to Caltrain. The site currently offered 164 parking spaces and
served as a lot for Caltrain. The feasibility study proposed expanding the
transit mall as a means to increase parking supply and to implement TDM
strategies. Expansion would yield an additional 17 bus bays and provide a
parking structure containing 478 spaces. The project would be complicated
by the need for partnerships with Caltrain and Stanford University.
Currently, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) offered two grants which could
be utilized to develop the Urban Lane site. The Council requested Staff
consider satellite parking facilities. A key strategy for satellite parking was
ensuring transportation from satellite facilities to business districts. Staff
reviewed current shuttle services and considered additional and/or redundant shuttle services. Staff sought authority to develop and release a
Request for Proposal (RFP) to design and study the possibility of restriping
and adding parking to Embarcadero Road east of Faber Place. The concept
was to reduce traffic lanes from four to two and add parking to the south
side of the street. Another short-term action was the sale of parking permits
at the Civic Center garage and Cowper/Webster garage to people working in
the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Business District. The final
recommendation concerned the development and release of an RFP to
implement parking technology solutions for the Downtown core. A Parking
Guidance System (PGS) would include dynamic way-finding signs located
around Downtown to highlight locations and the number of spaces available
for parking. Adding access and revenue controls as part of PGS would
provide greater flexibility in distributing parking permits. Access and
revenue controls would allow employers to have a direct account with the
City and would remove the cap of permit sales. The business community
expressed interest in access and revenue controls.
Ms. Gitelman indicated Attachment D provided data regarding parking supply
and demand. Staff quantified the historical deficit utilizing a baseline dating
to 1988. In 1988 the City quantified the Downtown parking deficit. The
deficit fluctuated over time due to the addition of parking spaces and the
granting of parking exemptions. Attachment D contained a snapshot of
garage and on-street parking supply occupancy. The data was likely skewed
by the number of employees who held permits at the time of the survey but
were not using those permits. The change in occupancy data would be
reflected in the next occupancy survey. In addition Staff would collect
employee density information from the Downtown CAP Study. Staff hoped
to have that information in May or June 2014. None of the recommended
Page 14 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
steps needed to wait for perfect data. She suggested the Council discuss the
recommendations separately due to Council Member conflicts.
Chop Keenan noted the lack of a Council liaison to meetings of the Business
Improvement District Parking Committee. He supported Item Numbers 3
and 4. Construction of a parking garage could occur at Lot G and/or Lot O.
With respect to Item Number 5, there should be a priority for employees in
the district. Gated parking structures should be avoided because they
implied no admittance.
Allen Akin indicated more than 4,000 cars passed his house daily, with peaks
at 8:00 a.m., noon, and 5:00 p.m. Building a garage on Gilman Street
would likely increase traffic on Bryant and Waverly. Garages in Downtown
were neither attractive nor the most economically sound use of real
property. He suggested priority be given to the Urban Lane and
Embarcadero Road proposals rather than Downtown core garages.
Bill Phillips, Stanford University Land, Buildings and Real Estate, reported
that Stanford University, the Joint Powers Board (JPB), the City of Palo Alto,
Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and the adjoining property owner would be
part of any negotiations regarding Urban Lane. Stanford University would
not accept an identified alternative of parking rather than transit uses on the
ground floor. As the transit center relied on infrastructure from 27
University Avenue and the Arts and Innovation District, developing a
proposal for Urban Lane could be premature.
Tommy Derrick asked the Council to reaffirm the January date which would
necessitate Staff providing a proposal to the Council by July. The California
Avenue core was rapidly approaching the same level of parking demand;
therefore, it should be included in parking considerations.
Robert Moss preferred a garage be located on Lot E so as not to displace the
Farmers Market. Before changing Embarcadero Road, Staff should ensure remote parking was effective. Restricting parking in neighborhoods and
requiring employees to park in garages should be implemented prior to
building garages. Encouraging the use of public transportation and/or
carpools should be a part of parking efforts.
Eric Filseth thanked the Council for directing Staff to proceed with the
Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program and delineating the January 1
schedule. Implementation of RPP Programs should not be tied to other
parking efforts.
Page 15 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Michael Hodos felt the inconsistent application of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the cumulative impact of dozens of
Negative Declarations contributed to the lack of parking. He urged the
Council to consider requiring a CEQA review for any and all commercial
projects and requiring the dedication of parking in-lieu fees to replacement
parking and/or TDM programs.
Neilson Buchanan believed the proposals were a good start to resolving
parking issues. He asked the Council to consider and scrutinize all
possibilities. He noted inconsistencies between the maps in Attachment D
and the information he had.
Herb Borock indicated the Council needed to solve parking issues in
residential areas prior to considering solutions for Downtown parking.
Parking in-lieu fees should be utilized to provide parking, not to fund studies.
The Urban Lane proposal was the worst place for a parking structure.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, urged the Council not to decide on
expensive investments until there was a better sense of resulting efficiencies
and reductions from other solutions. She questioned whether Staff spoke
with potential users to determine whether they would utilize satellite parking
lots. The partnership structure of a private entity making money from
parking revenue was risky. The Council should consider metered parking
and the use of pricing to incent short-term and long-term parking.
Elaine Uang recommended the Council remember all three issues as it
discussed each issue. She encouraged the use of technology in hopes that
some progress could be made quickly. She wondered whether the process
for obtaining parking permits and information about them could be
simplified.
Cedric de la Beaujardiere noted Citywide improvements for bicycle travel
that could be implemented for significantly less cost than parking garages. He did not wish to lose the Downtown Farmers Market.
Barbara Gross believed RPP Programs should be implemented concurrently
with other solutions. RPP Programs would have a large impact on
businesses.
John Hackmann felt the three categories of parking users should be handled
differently. Private management of garages could be a benefit. Data
regarding pricing and use of spaces could provide needed information.
Smart parking meters could modify prices according to use or lack of use.
Page 16 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
The City should charge a fee per employee for transportation. Parking
should be underground.
Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff talked with the Farmers Market Manager
regarding Lot G and assured him Staff would discuss alternative sites for the
market if the Council chose to proceed with review of a parking structure on
Lot G. Staff received comments regarding safety at satellite parking
locations. Staff was open to comments regarding technology and paid
parking. Staff concurred with comments regarding better use of existing
garage capacity. Implementation of neighborhood parking restrictions would
increase garage capacity. Parking was not a new issue, but dated to 1988
as data demonstrated.
Mr. Keene believed the Council would want to discuss some options in more
detail than others and would have suggestions. Staff's recommendations
were predicate actions to subsequent decisions. Discussions and actions related to RPP Programs, garages and TDM had to occur in parallel. Data
presented in Attachment D was lower than data from other sources. He
discussed with Staff real-time assessment rather than periodic surveys in
order to make adjustments to the number of parking permits.
Mayor Shepherd noted the possibility of Council Member conflicts of interest,
and inquired whether conflicts should be stated at the current time.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported three Council Members had conflicts of
interest regarding components of the total package. Council Member Scharff
and Mayor Shepherd should recuse themselves regarding Lot CW. Council
Member Klein should recuse himself regarding the Urban Lane proposal.
Staff segregated those two items to allow the full Council to discuss
remaining items. She cautioned Council Members not to discuss those two
items in the general discussion.
Mayor Shepherd clarified that she could discuss Lot CC but not Lot CW, even though the recommendation concerned both lots.
Ms. Stump concurred.
Mayor Shepherd indicated Council Members could not discuss the Urban
Lane or Lot CW recommendations until she, Council Member Scharff, and
Council Member Klein left the room.
Council Member Scharff inquired about Staff's reasons for choosing Lot G for
a parking structure.
Page 17 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Mr. Rodriguez explained that the feasibility study applied constructability
factors to each site. Lot D was a wonderful site for a garage or a mixed-use
project; however, construction at Lot D would have significant impacts to
surrounding businesses. Therefore, Lot D ranked lower than Lot G on that
priority and was not recommended.
Council Member Scharff asked where the ranking of lots was presented in
the Staff Report.
Ms. Gitelman reported the rankings were presented in Figure Number 2 in
the study. The rankings of lots were very similar; thus, Staff was open to
Council suggestions for alternate sites.
Council Member Scharff noted Lot EG scored far better on the scale. He
asked why Lot EG was not considered.
Mr. Rodriguez reported Staff interpreted Council Member comments in May
2013 as indicating a parking structure at Lot EG was not a consistent use in
relation to existing properties.
Council Member Scharff asked if the bridge over the street was the issue.
Mr. Rodriguez answered yes.
Council Member Scharff requested clarification regarding whether the
Council could open all garages to people in SOFA.
Ms. Stump explained that the City utilized tax exempt municipal bonds as
the funding mechanism for garages. The bonds required the garages to be
used for a public purpose. The City's current policies and practices
comported with federal tax rules and provided some flexibility for the City to
administer those public facilities. The City had a long history and practice of
working collaboratively with the Assessment District in administering those garages. Staff's recommendation was to take an incremental step to open
the administration of a few lots. As a policy matter, she did not believe Staff
was recommending a wholesale change in the administration of lots.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether this was a policy decision that the
Council could change to open garages to everyone.
Mr. Keene indicated the City Attorney's legal analysis would support the
Council having flexibility to make a policy decision to be more expansive or
to move more quickly than the Staff recommendation. Staff felt the Council
had the authority to open the sale of permits.
Page 18 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Ms. Gitelman believed Staff's recommendation was a cautious first step in
the direction Council Member Scharff was heading. If the Council was
interested in considering more garages, Staff would want to have more
outreach to current permit holders and business interests.
Mr. Keene stated a broader policy statement could be worthwhile. Staff's
role was to move ahead with each constituent group as much in unison as
possible.
Council Member Scharff felt the City should have a location for cars
displaced by RPP Programs to park. He asked when satellite parking could
be available if the Council approved it.
Mr. Rodriguez remarked that the environmental assessment and design
could be completed prior to the end of the summer. Staff could request Council approval of the design as early as the fall of 2014. After Council
approval of the design, construction improvements would be coordinated
with the Public Works Department and the street resurfacing program. In
theory, satellite parking could be implemented prior to the end of the
calendar year.
Council Member Scharff inquired whether the shuttle and parking would be
free.
Ms. Gitelman responded yes.
Council Member Scharff asked if satellite parking should be implemented
concurrently with RPP Programs.
Ms. Gitelman agreed that all parking components should be coordinated.
Staff would present an expansion of shuttle service on February 24, 2014,
which would need to be implemented concurrently with satellite parking.
Council Member Scharff asked if satellite parking could be implemented in
the stated schedule for RPP Programs.
Ms. Gitelman replied yes.
Council Member Scharff suggested Staff consider the 200-car parking lot at
the Golf Course as offsite parking while the Golf Course was closed.
Mr. Rodriguez would review that option as part of the design process.
Page 19 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Council Member Scharff noted occupancy data indicated several garages had
available spaces. He was unclear about the effects on parking permits of
seven employers leaving the Downtown area. He inquired about the
frequency of parking surveys.
Mr. Rodriguez explained that occupancy data was affected by the time when
surveys were performed and by the lag between an employer returning
parking permits and Staff reselling them. The lag time between receiving
and reselling permits could improve with implementation of garage
management technology.
Council Member Scharff was frustrated by ongoing vacancies in garages. He
wanted Staff to check occupancy more often and, if occupancy rates fell
below 85 percent, Staff should sell more permits. He requested Staff
suggest language incorporating that concept into a Motion.
Ms. Gitelman suggested language in paragraph 4 "to take steps necessary to
release additional permits on an ongoing basis."
Council Member Scharff stated Staff currently had that authority. He
questioned the frequency Staff should perform surveys and the percentage
of occupancy that would result in Staff selling more permits.
Mr. Rodriguez suggested a Motion require Staff to perform monthly
monitoring and set a threshold of 85 percent. With monthly monitoring over
the next few months, Staff could provide a firm recommendation in June
2014. The Council should be aware that Staff was reviewing installation of
solar panel systems at almost all Downtown garages and the addition of
electric vehicle charging stations. Both projects would change parking
permit demand.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
direct Staff to: 1) solicit Proposals for Design & Environmental Review of a Garage on Lot D for discussion & possible award in June, 2) solicit
Statements of Interest/Qualifications for Public-Private Partnerships to
increase Parking Supplies on City-owned lots for discussion and direction in
August, 3) solicit Proposals for Design & Environmental Review of 200-
spaces of Satellite Parking for discussion & possible award in June, 4)
authorize permit sales to SOFA Employees at Lot CC – Civic Center
immediately, 5) solicit Proposals For Parking Technology – Access & Revenue
Control Equipment and Parking Guidance System for discussion and possible
award in August, and 6) to conduct monthly monitoring of permit parking.
Page 20 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Council Member Scharff believed a garage at Lot D was more logical,
because rankings of Lot D and Lot G were similar, people used Lot D more
than Lot G, and more spaces could be constructed at Lot D at a lower cost
per space. Monthly monitoring was extremely important.
Council Member Klein urged the Mayor to divide the Motion into five parts.
Vice Mayor Kniss remarked that parking issues would interfere with Palo
Alto's economic prosperity. Coordinating parking solutions with RPP
Programs was essential. She considered technology as one of the most
important aspects of the recommendations. The City needed to increase
sales of parking permits, because of the perception of vacant garages.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to divide the Motion into six separate Motions.
Council Member Klein stated dividing the Motion would allow for a more
cohesive and rational discussion of the recommendations.
Council Member Price concurred with Council Member Klein's comments.
Mayor Shepherd did not believe dividing the Motion would be more effective
or efficient. When Staff returned, the Council would have more substantive
discussion.
Council Member Burt indicated the recommendations were distinct subjects
in many regards. Colleagues would agree with some recommendations and
disagree with others. A single Motion was inefficient and problematic.
Council Member Scharff expressed concern about the amount of time that
would be required to discuss separate Motions. He preferred discussing
topics altogether and splitting the Motion for a vote. He inquired whether
the Amendment was to split the Motion and have six rounds of discussion and separate votes or to split the Motion only for voting.
Council Member Klein wanted to have six Motions. Council Members did not
have to comment on each Motion.
Council Member Holman suggested Council Member comments could be
abbreviated through splitting the Motion.
Vice Mayor Kniss opposed the Amendment. She requested Mayor Shepherd
check the time.
Page 21 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Mayor Shepherd noted the time was 10:00 p.m., and no new topics would
be taken up after 10:30 p.m. She was unsure whether acceptance of the
Final Report could be considered with one of the enumerated items.
Vice Mayor Kniss urged Colleagues to consider the time and speak briefly.
Mr. Keene believed it was highly unlikely the Council would take up Item
Number 9A (formerly Item Number 5).
AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-2 Kniss, Shepherd no
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Council needed to accept the Final
Report separately from the enumerated items.
Ms. Gitelman reported proposed Motions related to actions and directions
Staff needed from the Council.
Mayor Shepherd reiterated the Council did not need to accept the Final
Report.
Ms. Gitelman explained that Staff's recommended Motion accepted the
Report and directed Staff to act as indicated.
Mayor Shepherd requested Council Members comment on acceptance of the
Final Report.
Council Member Scharff stated acceptance of the Final Report was not
contained within the Motion.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Council Member Scharff wished to include
acceptance of the Final Report in the Motion.
Council Member Scharff felt acceptance of the Final Report was a waste of time.
Ms. Gitelman suggested acceptance of the Final Report was not a critical
component of the discussion.
MOTION #1: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Kniss to direct Staff to solicit proposals for design & environmental review of
a garage on Lot D for discussion and possible award in June.
Council Member Berman recalled the project at 3159 El Camino Real planned
to create 196 parking spaces underground using 11 puzzle parking lifts. He
Page 22 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
inquired whether Staff considered puzzle lifts and inquired about reasons for
including or not including them in the Staff Report.
Mr. Rodriguez reported the Staff Report reviewed underground parking, but
did not reach the level of detail to consider puzzle lifts. Design of any
parking facility would consider puzzle lifts to ensure efficient use of space.
Council Member Berman stated the use of underground parking lifts would
dramatically alter proposals. He could support construction of a garage on
either Lot D or Lot G based on the report regarding puzzle lifts.
Incorporating puzzle lifts was likely less expensive and would require fewer
levels for a parking garage. He related his experience with condensed
parking garages in South Africa and suggested one parking garage be
limited to sedans. The Farmers Market was a positive enterprise for the
community.
Council Member Price requested the design of a parking garage include
potential installation of car lifts after the fact. She supported use of Lot G
and Lot D.
Council Member Holman felt it was premature to consider a parking garage
at the current time and reviewed her many reasons for not proceeding with
a parking garage. She did not believe the community wanted five-story
parking garages above ground.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by
Council Member XXX to not pursue a downtown parking garage at this time.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Burt shared a number of Council Member Holman's
concerns. He requested an explanation of Mr. Rodriguez's reference to
parking lifts in the context of underground parking only.
Mr. Rodriguez explained that Staff focused strictly on subterranean floors of
parking and did not consider the concept of an all-lift system.
Council Member Burt asked if lifts could be utilized whether parking was
above or below ground.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated Staff would pursue either option as part of the
design process.
Page 23 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Council Member Burt recalled decisions regarding the High Street and Bryant
Street garages were carefully considered and discussed with the public over
several years. Making a decision in one meeting did not allow for errors.
The Council's decision would be based upon Staff input found in one table,
which contained multiple, serious flaws in the fundamental basis for ranking
lots. He reviewed net space gain and corresponding ranking for lots. He
asked why the cost per space per added space was the same for all lots.
Ron Sanzo, Sandis Engineering, provided preliminary estimates of the cost
per space. After discussions with City Staff, he determined it would be best
to utilize a consistent number across the lots.
Council Member Burt requested an explanation of the ranking for net space
gain.
Mr. Sanzo explained that the net space gain was somewhat qualitative. Several lots achieved the ranking of 10.
Council Member Burt stated the net space gain should not be qualitative but
quantitative.
Mr. Sanzo felt ranking all lots as 10 was warranted, because the constraint
ranked sufficiently high.
Council Member Burt believed the Council did not have accurate information
to make such an important decision.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council
Member Klein to direct Staff to return with additional reviewed information
on the choices based upon Council input tonight, and to provide a narrowing
to three recommendations as well as consideration of the updated
information on how many additional spaces are required.
Mr. Keene reported Staff would provide updated information as best as they
could. He doubted the next Council discussion would be the final one, as the
process would be iterative.
Council Member Burt clarified that Staff should provide an update of the best
information available at the time Staff returned to the Council.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff could provide an update using other information.
Staff wanted the benefit of the Council's thoughts. A five-story garage could
work more easily in one location than in other locations.
Page 24 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Council Member Burt believed Staff would receive additional input from
Council Members on related issues that would inform direction regarding a
parking garage. He recommended Staff determine outreach methods to
obtain feedback. There was a sense of urgency to proceed; however, the
Council had to vet concepts better.
Council Member Klein agreed that a parking garage was a major decision for
the community. He expressed concern that a parking structure at Lot D
would provide more spaces than needed; thus, the City would spend more
money than needed. Implementing solutions simultaneously was not
possible. He inquired whether 18 months would elapse between Council
direction to Staff and Staff having plans in place for a garage.
Mr. Keene replied yes.
Council Member Klein reported in that time, the City would obtain more information regarding the success of RPP Programs, TDM strategies, and
satellite parking. Should a parking garage not be needed, the expenditure
of $1.5 million for plans would not be a waste of funds. The Infrastructure
Committee would recommend one parking structure at a cost of
approximately $12 million. Funding of infrastructure projects would
ultimately depend on the amount the Council decided to spend for a parking
garage. The size of a parking structure could not be determined in isolation.
Council Member Schmid especially liked the idea of investigating the number
of parking spaces needed. Attachment D did not provide the amount of the
current deficit. Using 3.5 million square feet of office space in Downtown
and the number of available parking spaces, he calculated a deficit of 6,000
parking spaces. Knowing the amount of the deficit and who was responsible
for it was important. He questioned who would own, control, and be
responsible for a new parking garage, and who would allocate parking
spaces within the garage.
Ms. Gitelman reported Staff had not considered who would build and own a
new garage, because financing options were a factor in those decisions.
Council Member Schmid asked if the use of in-lieu parking fees would create
legal constraints on who controlled the spaces.
Ms. Gitelman replied no, that would be part of the funding strategy. She
inquired whether Council Member Schmid thought the parking deficit was
4,000-6,000 spaces.
Page 25 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Council Member Schmid had heard public comments to that regard. 3.5
million square feet of office space translated to 14,000 parking spaces.
Mr. Keene hoped an exact number for the parking deficit would not be
required. Staff acknowledged the existing deficit of 962 spaces did not
factor in more workers occupying existing square footage in Downtown. If
an RPP Program was to be effective, at least one garage would be beneficial.
Council Member Schmid agreed the exact number was not important, but
the scale of the problem was important. Numbers from the City's November
2013 parking survey were about 30 percent lower than numbers provided by
residents. Hundreds of empty parking spaces in garages indicated the
pricing component of the parking model was not effective. The Council
should discuss ownership, control, and allocation of spaces when Staff
returned with a proposal on parking lots.
Council Member Berman recommended Staff consider parking puzzles. The
Council needed a more comprehensive analysis of alternatives at different
locations to make an informed decision.
CALL THE QUESTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council
Member Klein to call the question.
CALL THE QUESTION PASSED: 6-3 Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd no
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Shepherd no
MOTION #2: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Kniss to direct Staff to solicit Statements of Interest/Qualifications for public-
private partnerships to increase parking supplies on City-owned lots for
discussion and direction in August.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid not to take action on Staff Recommendation
Number 2 based upon the Substitute Motion that just passed.
Mr. Keene reported Staff was requesting authority to solicit Statements of
Interest and Qualifications from interested parties.
Council Member Holman requested Staff describe a public-private
partnership.
Ms. Gitelman wanted to solicit ideas from private partners who would be
interested in constructing additional parking on City-owned lots. Projects
Page 26 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
could take the form of a parking structure or a mixed-used project that
added to parking supply and achieved other objectives.
Council Member Holman felt soliciting Statements of Interest would be
inconsistent with action taken on Item Number 1.
Council Member Schmid believed surrendering control of existing parking
lots to a partnership was premature.
Mayor Shepherd noted the Staff Report indicated proposals would apply to
University Avenue and California Avenue, but that was not stated in the
proposed Motion.
Ms. Gitelman reported the recommended Motion was not specific to location.
This strategy could be used at a number of locations in the City. She
reiterated that this was an effort to solicit ideas, to get more information to make a wise decision on all types of parking supply strategies. The Council
was not making a commitment by directing Staff to proceed.
Council Member Klein stated the proposal was innocuous, and the Council
should proceed.
Council Member Scharff agreed there was no harm in soliciting proposals.
Council Member Berman wished to ensure Staff prioritized important items
over unimportant items. Soliciting interest in public-private partnerships
was fairly unimportant.
Mayor Shepherd agreed the Council should solicit interest. She suggested
Staff consider soliciting interest in the use of private parking lots.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-7 Holman, Schmid yes
MOTION #2 PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Schmid no
MOTION #3: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Kniss to direct Staff to solicit proposals for design and environmental review
of spaces of satellite parking for discussion and possible award in June.
Council Member Burt was skeptical about satellite parking other than during
construction periods or bridge periods. He inquired whether Staff surveyed
the public to determine interest in and use of satellite parking.
Page 27 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff had not performed any surveys. Satellite
parking was mentioned in discussion of an RPP Program, and Staff felt it was
worth a trial.
Council Member Burt stated a survey would inform the decision of whether
to try an idea. Staff should perform a survey to determine if there would be
any participation.
Mr. Keene remarked that survey results would shift based on circumstances.
Survey results could differ between the current time and the implementation
of an RPP Program.
Council Member Burt suspected a survey would find weak participation at the
current time. Staff did not mention that the intersection of East Bayshore
Road and Embarcadero Road was already a Level F. Embarcadero Road east
of Faber Place could be better utilized as it was an extremely wide street with low traffic volume. There could be complications with using the
Baylands Athletic Center parking lot. He asked if the parking lots were
located on parkland.
Mr. Rodriguez did not know.
Council Member Burt encouraged Staff to ensure such a use was permitted.
Mr. Keene commented that Staff was attempting to be prepared for
opportunities as they arose. The Motion was to solicit proposals for design
and review for possible discussion and award. The advantage of soliciting
proposals was that it could determine if satellite parking was inexpensive per
space. Soliciting proposals did not obligate the City to any course of action.
Council Member Burt did not interpret the Staff Report in that light. He
would not support a Motion directing Staff to begin design and
environmental review, but would support the Motion as stated.
Council Member Holman noted that the International School utilized the
Baylands Athletic Center parking lot for pick-up and delivery of children
because of congestion on East Bayshore Road. Construction projects coming
online would create additional traffic along Embarcadero Road.
Implementing satellite parking would transfer traffic impacts from one area
to another, create conflicts, and urbanize Embarcadero Road.
Council Member Klein disagreed that Embarcadero Road would be urbanized.
Embarcadero Road was underutilized. The intersection at East Bayshore
Road was Level F traveling north-south, not east-west. A shuttle would
Page 28 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
travel east-west. The City needed an alternative parking solution when an
RPP Program was instituted. Embarcadero Road was an appropriate place
for satellite parking. He questioned the need to solicit proposals, and asked
if design and environmental review could be performed by City Staff. The
primary area of parking would be along Embarcadero Road. The number of
parking spaces at the Baylands Athletic Center was trivial compared to the
number of spaces along Embarcadero Road.
Mr. Rodriguez wanted an outside perspective regarding environmental
assessment impacts, specifically around the issue of traffic.
Council Member Klein indicated that was an analysis of environmental
impact, not solicitation of a proposal. Soliciting proposals implied Staff was
looking for someone outside the organization.
Mr. Rodriguez agreed that Staff wanted an outside party to perform the design and complete the environmental assessment.
Council Member Klein felt the environmental assessment should be
straightforward.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated the design was relatively complete. An
environmental assessment was needed to validate the design.
Ms. Gitelman reported Council Members indicated a desire to consider
alternative sites. With Staff's current workload, additional resources for
some items were needed to complete work within the timeframes specified
by the Council. Staff felt outside review would be efficient.
Council Member Klein did not want implementation of an RPP Program
delayed due to contracts for satellite parking.
Council Member Scharff wanted alternative parking available when an RPP Program was instituted.
Council Member Klein suggested the number of parking spaces not be
limited to 200.
Council Member Scharff agreed to revise the language of the Motion to
"environmental review of spaces." More than 200 parking spaces could be
identified, and the Golf Course parking lot could be utilized as an interim
measure.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff could proceed with the language as revised.
Page 29 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Council Member Scharff asked if 90 degree diagonal parking was
perpendicular parking.
Mr. Rodriguez responded yes. Staff's design for Embarcadero Road would
provide 132 parking spaces, and parking at the Baylands Athletic Center
would provide 66 spaces for a total of 198. Staff would validate the ability
to use parking lots at the Baylands Athletic Center.
Council Member Schmid believed the description of transferring impacts was
accurate and correct. Outside commuters would benefit, while residents
would bear the cost. He recommended Staff ask the public for their opinion
of the idea.
Mayor Shepherd stated this was the most unattractive proposal. Commuters
traveling from the train to Embarcadero Road could use the shuttle. If more playing fields were located in that area, then traffic would be stressed when
fields were active.
MOTION #3 RESTATED AS AMENDED: Council Member Scharff moved,
seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to Direct Staff to solicit proposals for
environmental review of spaces of satellite parking for discussion and
possible award in June.
MOTION #3 PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Schmid no
MOTION #4: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Kniss to authorize permit sales to SOFA Employees at Lot CC – Civic Center
immediately.
Council Member Holman inquired about public access for the 800 High Street
parking garage.
Mr. Rodriguez reported 53 parking spaces were available for permit use
during the day, and 10 parking spaces were available for hourly parking. A
wait list of approximately 71 people was prioritized for employees in SOFA.
Council Member Holman asked if the garage closed at 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated permit parking was allowed between 8:00 A.M. and
5:00 P.M. After that, spaces reverted to resident use.
MOTION #4 PASSED: 9-0
Page 30 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
MOTION #5: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Kniss to direct Staff to solicit proposals for parking technology – access &
revenue control equipment and parking guidance system for discussion and
possible award in August.
Council Member Holman asked if the timeline could be moved up to June.
Ms. Gitelman remarked that discussing the RFP thoroughly with stakeholders
would be beneficial and would require additional time. Staff wished to
review RFP responses and analyze options before presenting them to the
Council. August 2014 was realistic.
Council Member Berman stated technology should have been implemented
previously. He was pleased the City was reviewing technology, but was
frustrated that the process was not further along. He recommended Staff consider the use of apps to guide visitors to parking garages. He suggested
not renewing permits for people who did not regularly use them and
providing a financial incentive for companies who left the area to return
permits promptly.
Council Member Klein felt the City needed marketing assistance to get
people to use parking garages. He was interested in other cities'
experiences and a comparison of Palo Alto's vacancy rate with theirs.
Mr. Keene would do so. He recalled Staff met with Streetline regarding
parking apps. The business model was not feasible, because the City did not
price for parking. Marketing parking would be easier when the City
instituted demand pricing.
Council Member Scharff preferred to sell permits to people who utilized them
only once a year and thought the City should sell 600 percent of permits.
Because the cap on permit sales was artificially low, he asked Staff to focus on permit sales. There was not a marketing issue when garages had waiting
lists for permits. People would want permits once an RPP Program was
instituted.
Council Member Schmid felt monitoring was a key component in obtaining
data. Utilizing technology effectively was the basis of any decision.
Mayor Shepherd wished to ensure the Council chose the right technology,
such that it would not deter use of parking. The number of parking spaces
was calculated based on 250 square feet of built environment. She inquired
when the Council could consider revising that calculation.
Page 31 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Ms. Gitelman reported the Downtown CAP Study was reviewing the 250
square feet per employee standard. In May or June 2014 Staff should have
better data on whether that figure was a representative average of
employment density. At that point the Council could consider adjusting the
figure.
Mayor Shepherd asked if a project would have to provide more parking
based on Council's revision of the figure regardless of State regulations.
Ms. Gitelman was not aware of any State regulation governing office
parking.
MOTION #5 PASSED: 9-0
MOTION #6: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct Staff to conduct monthly monitoring of permit parking.
Council Member Burt reiterated that top floors of garages were the last
floors to be filled. The solution to filling garages was simpler than stated in
that the City could simply issue more permits.
Mayor Shepherd indicated intermittent vacancies at garages were a mystery.
MOTION #6 PASSED: 9-0
Mayor Shepherd announced the next item for discussion was to authorize
Staff to pursue planning grants and begin planning work for a new transit
mall expansion with a 478-space parking garage on Urban Lane, in
partnership with the property owner and the Joint Powers Authority.
Council Member Klein recused himself from the item as his wife was a
member of the Stanford University faculty.
Vice Mayor Kniss believed the item was premature because of the number of
agencies involved. The depiction of a garage was out of scale and did not fit
the area.
Council Member Scharff was concerned that Staff had not articulated the
item correctly. There seemed to be two components: improving the transit
mall and adding parking. He inquired about Staff's objectives for the site.
Ms. Gitelman explained that Staff wished to make improvements to transit
and to increase parking supply. Staff could review other options for scale of
Page 32 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
the building. Staff believed the Urban Lane site merited pursuit of grants
and outreach to partner agencies.
Council Member Scharff asked if there were smaller design options.
Mr. Keene answered yes. Other design solutions could provide more
parking. Staff requested direction to explore this as a possibility. There
would be complications regarding jurisdiction and cost. This item related to
previous Council direction for Staff to return with alternatives for parking
garages. This item was separated from the general discussion because of a
conflict of interest.
Council Member Scharff understood the previous Motion directed Staff to
return with three options for the Downtown core parking lots. With the
many other parking options available, a large parking garage at Urban Lane
was not needed at the current time. However, he did not want to forego the opportunity to apply for grants to study the issue.
Ms. Gitelman hoped to obtain Council approval to submit a grant request. If
the City received the grant, then Staff could perform work that would inform
a Study Session.
Council Member Scharff asked if the grant would fund only planning
activities.
Ms. Gitelman responded planning and coordination activities.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
direct Staff to have the ability to pursue planning grants with Stanford/
Caltrain for Urban Lane Transit Mall and Parking Garage, and returning to
Council in a Study Session or Action Item if a grant was obtained.
Mr. Keene reiterated that Staff was requesting authority to pursue grants as a possibility. If the City obtained grant funding to perform planning work,
then that information could be used in a Study Session.
Council Member Scharff concurred with planning the area; however, he
needed to understand the transit component that could be incorporated into
TDM strategies.
Mr. Keene reported the Council's direction would allow Staff to plan for a
parking garage and TDM strategies if the City obtained a grant.
Vice Mayor Kniss inquired about agencies providing grants.
Page 33 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Mr. Rodriguez indicated Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) had
an active call for projects, and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) would
soon release a similar planning grant.
Council Member Price noted One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) options remained
available. The Council could not consider the proposal too soon because of
the number of stakeholders. The site's proximity to 27 University Avenue
would have important implications for infrastructure.
Council Member Burt stated the Council first needed to perform long range
planning in terms of what the Council and community wanted in the area.
The Council implemented a planning process for the 27 University Avenue
area and it was ongoing. That planning process and the Downtown CAP
Study should inform the pursuit of any future grant. These were not one-
time grant opportunities. The Council should reconsider the Motion.
Council Member Berman inquired about the ways grant funds could be
utilized.
Ms. Gitelman explained that grant funding could be utilized for planning and
feasibility studies to determine the best configuration to enhance transit and
TDM services at the site and to add parking.
Council Member Berman asked how development of Urban Lane would
coincide with plans for Downtown.
Mr. Keene remarked that the City had a real parking problem. Staff scurried
to provide many possible options for parking solutions. Staff acknowledged
that the options were incomplete. The Urban Lane site was complicated
given the jurisdictional aspects. He urged the Council to consider delaying
action on Staff's recommendation. The Council should not launch the project
simply because a grant was available.
MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER
Mr. Keene had concerns prior to the discussion, and those concerns became
more serious as the discussion progressed. The Council would lose more
than it gained by proceeding with the Staff recommendation.
Mayor Shepherd recalled prior Council comments supported a garage at
Urban Lane, which seemed to contradict the current discussion. She
requested Staff explain the process for grants.
Page 34 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Mr. Rodriguez reported planning grants targeted land use and compatibility
with surrounding uses. Grants were offered for cities to pursue projects for
which they would not normally have funds. Planning grants were usually
offered every few years and in advance of larger capital grant programs.
Planning grants allowed cities to determine whether they wished to proceed
with a project through capital grants.
Mayor Shepherd reiterated that the City could study a project through a
planning grant and determine whether to proceed with the project when
capital grants were offered. She inquired about the frequency of grants.
Mr. Rodriguez explained that the cycle for grants changed due to the OBAG
process. Typically grants were offered every four to five years. Another
grant would not be offered until 2017 or 2018. The 27 University Avenue
project introduced discussions between partner agencies, wherein the San
Mateo County Transportation Authority (SamTrans) indicated it would not plan the site without partner agencies.
Council Member Berman inquired about the amount of grant funds being
offered.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated VTA was offering slightly more than $2 million for
Santa Clara County. MTC required minimum requests of $500,000. The
Urban Lane site would meet that requirement.
Council Member Berman asked if the City could fund planning studies.
Mr. Keene replied yes.
Council Member Berman noted the Urban Lane site would be a component of
Comprehensive Plan discussions if the Council chose to pursue it.
Council Member Burt recalled Council direction was for Staff to develop a community design process for the area. Staff should have applied for a
grant for that planning work. He urged the Council to remember the
Council's official action regarding the area.
Mr. Keene believed the Council's direction concerned the whole 27 University
Avenue site, including the site for the Arrillaga Project, the connectors, and
the transit center. Staff attempted to respond to a request for parking
solutions. At this particular site, the parking solution connected to both
jurisdictional and transit issues.
Page 35 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
Mayor Shepherd announced the meeting would be turned over to Vice Mayor
Kniss for discussion to authorize Staff to expand parking permit sales to
South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Business District Employees at the Lot CC –
Civic Center and Lot CW – Cowper Street/Webster Street parking garages.
Mayor Shepherd recused herself from a discussion of Lot CW – Cowper
Street/Webster Street parking garages as her husband had a lease close to
the garage.
Council Member Scharff recused himself from a discussion of Lot CW –
Cowper Street/Webster Street parking garages because he owned property
near the garage.
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to direct Staff to authorize permit sales to South of Forest Avenue
(SOFA) Employees at Lot CW – Cowper/Webster immediately.
Council Member Burt requested that Staff elaborate on reasons for including
Lot CW.
Mr. Keene reported the City had more flexibility with respect to opening up
permit sales for garages, but a series of stakeholder conversations was
needed. Lots CC and CW were City garages and not part of the Assessment
District. That was the main reason for suggesting both of them.
Ms. Gitelman added that Lot CC had a waiting list, while Lot CW did not.
Pairing the two would be useful.
Council Member Holman asked if permit sharing could be utilized at Lot CW.
Ms. Gitelman indicated permit sharing would not be available until
technology solutions were implemented.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Scharff, Shepherd not participating
Due to the time constraints it was determined that Item Number 9A
(formerly Item Number 5) would be heard at a later date.
9A. (Former Agenda Item No. 5) Staff Recommends that City Council
Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to Introduce the Caltrain Go
Pass into the Civic Center Transportation Demand Management
Program.
Page 36 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 12:00 A.M.
Page 37 of 37
City Council Meeting
Minutes: 2/10/14