HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-24 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
February 24, 2014
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS ......................................322
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS .....................................................................322
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ............322
MINUTES APPROVAL ...............................................................................322
CONSENT CALENDAR ..............................................................................323
1. Ordinance 5236 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Close FY 2013 Budget; Close Completed Capital Improvement
Projects and Transfer Remaining Balances to Reserves; Approve the City's FY 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).” ..........323
2. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Approval of a
Construction Contract with Redgwick Construction Company in The
Amount of $7,143,031 for the California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements Project, including Waterline Replacement .....................323
3. Park Improvement Ordinance 5232 entitled “Ordinance of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project (First Reading: February 3, 2014 PASSED: 9-
0).” ..............................................................................................323
4. Approval of Contract Amendment One to Contract No. C13149364 with
4Leaf To Increase Funds Not to Exceed $1,500,000 and Approval of
Contract Amendment One to Contract No. C14139368 with Kutzmann
To Increase Funds Not to Exceed $363,000 for On-call Development
Services Consulting Services ...........................................................323
5. 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 5233
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending the Fiscal Year 2014 University Avenue Parking
Permit Fund Operating Budget to Provide Additional Appropriations of
$120,000.” ....................................................................................323
6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation for the City Council to
Approve the Revised Boards and Commission Applications ..................324
02/24/2014 114- 320
7. Approval of City Clerk Recommendation to Add to the Spring Board
and Commission Recruitment the Vacancy on the Planning &
Transportation Commission .............................................................324
8. Approval of an Agreement with Townsend Public Affairs for Up To 22
Months in an Amount not to Exceed $187,000 for State Legislative
Advocacy Services ..........................................................................324
8a. (Former Action Item No. 11) Colleagues Memo From Council Members
Berman, Burt, Holman, and Klein Regarding Creation of a Palo Alto
Business Registry ...........................................................................324
8b. (Formerly Agenda Item No. 2) Budget Amendment Ordinance 5234
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto” and Approval of a Construction Contract with Redgwick
Construction Company in The Amount of $7,143,031 for the California
Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project, including Waterline
Replacement .................................................................................324
ACTION ITEMS .......................................................................................327
9. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Recommendations. Staff
Recommends City Council Authorize Staff to Take The Following
Actions In Furtherance of a Coordinated TDM Program Aimed At
Reducing Traffic Congestion And Parking Demand: a) Solicit Proposals
to Establish A Non-Profit Transportation Management Authority (TMA);
b) Solicit Proposals For An Expanded Palo Alto Shuttle Program; c)
Solicit Proposals to Provide Car Share Services Within City-Owned
Parking Lots; and d) Evaluate Rideshare Tools, Including a Trial of the
TwoGo Rideshare App, for Coordination and Marketing By The TMA ......327
12. City Council Authorization to Staff and 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 ........................................................327
10. Direction to Staff on Lease Terms for the Renewal of the Cubberley
Lease Between City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District ....341
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. ........................348
02/24/2014 114- 321
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:06 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt arrived at 7:30 P.M., Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price,
Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Absent:
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Mayor Shepherd announced Agenda Item Numbers 9 and 12 would be
discussed as one item.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
James Keene, City Manager, reported a public meeting regarding the Newell
Road Bridge Project was scheduled for February 27, 2014. A community
meeting regarding the Magical Bridge playground was scheduled for March
1, 2014. The Ronald McDonald House expansion was ready to begin site
preparation including tree removal. Google approached Palo Alto and 33
other cities across the United States to explore ultrahigh speed internet
services. Staff would provide information to assist Google with its
evaluation. In January 2014, the Children's Theatre produced its inaugural
edition of A Children's Theatre newsletter, created for kids by kids. Artist
Judith Brown was featured in the Palo Alto Art Center's current Pencils Down
exhibition. The Palo Alto Apps Challenge entered its final week for
submission of ideas. The City of Palo Alto won a Solar Power Generation
Industry award for Best Collaboration for Streamlining Residential and Commercial Solar Array Approval Process.
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Mayor Kniss was appointed for an additional two-year term on the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District.
MINUTES APPROVAL
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
approve the Minutes of January 13, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Burt absent
02/24/2014 114- 322
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to move Agenda Item Number 11; Colleagues Memo From Council
Members Berman, Burt, Holman, and Klein Regarding Creation of a Palo Alto
Business Registry to the Consent Calendar to become number 8A.
MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Kniss, Schmid no, Burt absent
Council Member Holman registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 8.
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Klein,
third by Vice Mayor Kniss to remove Agenda Item Number 2, to become
Agenda Item Number 8B.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Price to approve Agenda Item Numbers 1, 3-8 and 8A.
1. Ordinance 5236 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto to Close FY 2013 Budget; Close Completed Capital Improvement
Projects and Transfer Remaining Balances to Reserves; Approve the
City's FY 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).”
2. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Approval of a
Construction Contract with Redgwick Construction Company in The
Amount of $7,143,031 for the California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements Project, including Waterline Replacement.
3. Park Improvement Ordinance 5232 entitled “Ordinance of the Council
of the City of Palo Alto for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
Reconfiguration Project (First Reading: February 3, 2014 PASSED: 9-
0).”
4. Approval of Contract Amendment One to Contract No. C13149364 with 4Leaf To Increase Funds Not to Exceed $1,500,000 and Approval of
Contract Amendment One to Contract No. C14139368 with Kutzmann
To Increase Funds Not to Exceed $363,000 for On-call Development
Services Consulting Services.
5. 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 5233
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto Amending the Fiscal Year 2014 University Avenue Parking
Permit Fund Operating Budget to Provide Additional Appropriations of
$120,000.”
02/24/2014 114- 323
6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation for the City Council to
Approve the Revised Boards and Commission Applications.
7. Approval of City Clerk Recommendation to Add to the Spring Board
and Commission Recruitment the Vacancy on the Planning &
Transportation Commission.
8. Approval of an Agreement with Townsend Public Affairs for Up To 22
Months in an Amount not to Exceed $187,000 for State Legislative
Advocacy Services.
8a. (Former Action Item No. 11) Colleagues Memo From Council Members
Berman, Burt, Holman, and Klein Regarding Creation of a Palo Alto
Business Registry.
MOTION PASSED for 1, 3-7, and 8A: 8-0 Burt absent
MOTION PASSED for 8: 7-1 Holman no, Burt absent
Council Member Holman supported the hiring of a state lobbyist; however,
neither the Council nor a Council Committee had participated in the selection
process.
Vice Mayor Kniss did not believe the Colleague's Memo contained sufficient
detail to be placed on the Consent Calendar. She did not object to a
business registry; however, the Council should review inequities in the way
businesses paid into a registry or license. She suggested that Staff decide
who would implement a registry and provide the Council with costs.
James Keene, City Manager, indicated Staff presented the state lobbyist
Request for Proposal (RFP) to the Council in August 2013, and the Council
approved it. Staff would work through details regarding the priorities and
scope of work with the Policy and Services Committee, and then return to the Council.
Niccolo De Luca, Townsend Public Affairs, stated Townsend Public Affair's
specialty was representation of municipalities and local government to
secure public funding for priority projects.
8b. (Formerly Agenda Item No. 2) Budget Amendment Ordinance 5234
entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of
Palo Alto” and Approval of a Construction Contract with Redgwick
Construction Company in The Amount of $7,143,031 for the California
Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project, including Waterline
Replacement.
02/24/2014 114- 324
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: 1)
approve the Staff recommendation to approve and authorize the City
Manager or his designee to execute the construction contract with Redgwick
Construction Company in an amount not to exceed $6,211,331 for the Based
Bid elements of the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape
Improvement Project, CIP PL-11002; 2) authorize the City Manager or his
designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the
contract with Redgwick Construction Company for related, unforeseen work,
which may develop during the project, for a total value not to exceed
$931,700, or 10 percent of the Based Bid work, bringing the construction
contract award total to $7,143,031; and 3) adopt a Budget Amendment
Ordinance to increase funding for the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor
Streetscape Improvements Project (PL-11002) in the amount of $5,370,745
and a reduction to the Infrastructure Reserve by $4,740,745 as well as other
adjustments to the General Fund and Water Fund.
Mayor Shepherd preferred the contingency amount remain at 10 percent. If
additional funds were needed, Staff could return to the Council.
Vice Mayor Kniss was not comfortable with a contingency amount greater
than 10 percent. Staff could return to the Council as needed so that the
Council could review any issues.
Council Member Klein requested Staff comment on the wildly divergent
amounts between the Engineer's estimate and the construction bid in the
categories of general, fountain, and waterline replacement.
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, reported Staff had similar
concerns when bids were received. Generally, many projects were coming in higher than expected when compared to estimates. The bid climate
changed between the current time and the beginning of the project three
years ago. Waterline replacement was a specialized type of work for
underground utility contractors, and would result in increased costs. At the
time the bid was prepared, the contractor was awaiting bids from
subcontractors. Consequently, the contractor placed discrepancies from
subcontractors in the categories of general and fountain.
James Keene, City Manager, understood waterline replacement involved
connections to many other lines. The number of connections and work
underneath sidewalks made the project more complicated.
Council Member Klein expressed concern that the contractor was including
subcontractor discrepancies in two categories. He inquired whether Staff felt
the practice was fair and appropriate.
02/24/2014 114- 325
Mr. Rodriguez indicated Staff had to consider not the individual categories
but the sum of the project. Redgwick's bid was lower than other bids.
Typically during construction, contractors would request funds be transferred
from one category to another, such that categories balanced as construction
progressed. That would likely happen in this project.
Council Member Klein felt the contingency amount was less appropriate in
this instance than in other contracts.
Mayor Shepherd noted page 5 contained the waterline improvements of $1.3
million. The water main repair was a new item for the project. She
requested Staff comment on the need to add waterline replacement to the
project.
Mr. Rodriguez explained the City began experiencing failures in the existing
waterline over the prior year. The Utilities Department requested
replacement be included in the project to prevent construction in the same
area at a later time. Staff requested the contractor perform waterline
replacement as the first item of work.
Council Member Holman inquired whether the project had been value
engineered prior to construction.
Mr. Rodriguez responded yes. An independent consultant from the original
designer reviewed design, specifications, and opportunities to save money.
The waterline was added to the project in order to avoid an overall delay in
the project.
Council Member Price asked if Staff modified the estimate process in
recognition of a changing bid environment.
Mr. Rodriguez reported as projects were bid, Staff reviewed specific unit items for all bid elements and updated their own Engineer's estimate
categories. Also Staff worked with construction management firms to
compare project estimates with projects in other cities within the Bay Area.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Burt absent
02/24/2014 114- 326
ACTION ITEMS
9. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Recommendations. Staff
Recommends City Council Authorize Staff to Take The Following
Actions In Furtherance of a Coordinated TDM Program Aimed At
Reducing Traffic Congestion And Parking Demand: a) Solicit Proposals
to Establish A Non-Profit Transportation Management Authority (TMA);
b) Solicit Proposals For An Expanded Palo Alto Shuttle Program; c)
Solicit Proposals to Provide Car Share Services Within City-Owned
Parking Lots; and d) Evaluate Rideshare Tools, Including a Trial of the
TwoGo Rideshare App, for Coordination and Marketing By The TMA.
12. City Council Authorization to Staff and 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.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether she could call these items as the Council
was ahead of its published schedule.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, indicated Mayor Shepherd could proceed as the
Agenda stated the times were only estimates.
Mayor Shepherd noted Agenda Item Numbers 9 and 12 would be heard
together.
Aaron Aknin, Assistant Planning Director, provided a broad definition of
Transportation Demand Management (TDM). As discussed in the Study Session the three main components were parking supply, TDM strategies,
and Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Programs. Before building new parking
supply, the City should increase the efficiency of the existing parking supply.
Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager, reported Staff felt there was a need for a
Transportation Management Authority (TMA). The goals of a TMA were to
provide a framework for multiple constituents to identify transportation
needs and solutions; to manage and market the disparate programs and
identify needs for new ones; and to measure the effectiveness of TDM
programs. The TMA consultant assisted Staff with framing the
implementation of a TMA for Downtown.
02/24/2014 114- 327
First, Staff proposed drafting strategies for programs with the consultant
reaching out to the community and developing a Steering Committee. The
Steering Committee would be composed of business and residential interests
that had a vested interest in the success of a TMA. During phase 1, Staff
would collect data to determine a baseline for existing TDM programs.
Phase 2 would cover a two-year period wherein the Steering Committee
would develop a work plan and operating budget and identify funding
sources. Also the Steering Committee would develop regulations for new
businesses and developments to fund the TMA, develop additional programs,
and consider the actual structure of a TMA. During phase 3, the TMA would
become self-sustaining and would monitor and evaluate transportation
programs. The TMA would have a governance structure with bylaws and
membership and community outreach. The TMA could manage the shuttle
program, which supported the satellite parking concepts. She presented a
map of potential routes. A Request for Proposals (RFP) would allow
respondents to add or delete routes and to offer alternative cost-effective
solutions and performance measures. The TMA could also manage a car
sharing program. Staff identified 20 locations for prime car share leasing
opportunities. Ride share applications matched riders with drivers. Staff
engaged with SAP to pilot SAP's TwoGo ride share app. Staff recommended
providing Caltrain Go Passes to Civic Center employees who turned in their
parking passes. A nine-month trial program would cost approximately
$58,000, but could save approximately $100,000 annually over a 30-year
period.
James Keene, City Manager, indicated Staff's proposals met the action theme of Our Palo Alto. Staff was attempting to identify programs to
respond to traffic, parking, and development issues affecting the community.
In the interests of informing and engaging the public and the Council, Staff
presented these concepts to the Council for discussion. The Council could
discuss programs and take action individually or as a whole. If time was
short, the Council could forego discussion of the ride share application.
Chop Keenan believed parking supply and TDM were predicate acts to having
an effective RPP Program. Staff's proposals emphasized use of shuttles
rather than creation of parking supply. At the TDM Study Session, speakers
indicated cabs were preferred over shuttles and were financially more
advantageous.
Vice Mayor Kniss referred to Mr. Keenan's work with Contra Costa County's
TMA, and inquired if he thought a TMA in Palo Alto could function with two
employees.
02/24/2014 114- 328
Mr. Keenan reported Contra Costa County functioned with two employees
and a temporary employee. That office could also operate Palo Alto's TMA if
the Council desired.
Neilson Buchanan felt Staff's proposals were favored by neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods supported Staff's recommendation to solicit proposals for
alternative ideas. Staff's and the Council's commitment to implement RPP
Programs was important to neighborhoods.
Alice Frayne indicated people needed transportation throughout the day to
medical centers.
Phyllis Cassel, speaking for Mary Alice Thornton, League of Women Voters in
Palo Alto, stated the League of Women Voters supported measures to reduce
commuter and public dependence on private automobiles. It was important
to evaluate the effectiveness of each program. Public transportation must
be frequent and dependable. The League of Women Voters encouraged the
Council to proceed with implementation of a TDM Program.
Stephanie Munoz suggested shuttle service to medical clinics be divided by
area of the City and day of the week. Valet parking was not feasible as
there was no place to park cars. Businesses should not pay for all programs.
Ma’ayan Dembe noted shuttles were not routed to the California Avenue
business district, Menlo Park, and Mountain View. She questioned the cost
of shuttles for riders and the selection of the TwoGo ride share app.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, indicated TDM Programs were a trend in the
region, particularly in the Caltrain Corridor. The proposed programs were
good first steps. The City should survey the population to determine the
rider base. New parking revenue sources could be utilized to reduce the need to build additional parking.
Hal Mikelson, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, advocated for the use of
incentives to increase participation in TDM Programs.
Gabrielle Layton hoped measures were accompanied by strong data analysis
to prove measures were effective.
Mayor Shepherd noted Staff and the Council were in the action phase of Our
Palo Alto. She requested Staff respond to public comments.
Mr. Aknin reported Staff proposed a route to California Avenue during
construction along with one other route. Staff proposed routes based on
community feedback. The routes could be changed, and Staff would
consider routes proposed by RFP respondents.
02/24/2014 114- 329
Mayor Shepherd requested the City Manager address the Council's handling
of the proposed programs.
Mr. Keene recalled Staff's recommendations from the March 18, 2013
Council meeting and Council actions regarding public-private partnerships,
restriction of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) related to parking, and
RPP Programs. In general Staff did not believe the proposals obligated the
Council to specific actions. Staff would return to the Council with specific
proposals after receiving RFP responses and community input. SAP
developed and deployed the TwoGo app. Staff could continue to review
other apps. By using TwoGo, Staff would have access to SAP analytics and
experience in developing a ride share program for its workers.
Council Member Klein noted the City Manager could have directed Staff to
proceed with developing proposals; however, the Council directed Staff to
return for evaluation of proposals. He asked who would be deciding routes,
number of buses, and such. It appeared the TMA would have more authority
than the Council was comfortable with.
Mr. Aknin explained that in the initial stage, the City would have control of
the shuttle system. The ultimate goal was for the TMA to be a self-
sustaining organization. As the TMA became self-sustaining and if the
shuttle system fell within its purview, the TMA would have more independent
authority.
Mr. Keene could work more easily with $1.3 million as a City expenditure
rather than an ongoing City expense.
Council Member Klein recalled the Council directed Staff to identify any local
or regional governments with TDM Districts, and requested Staff comment on those.
Ms. Sullivan indicated Staff reviewed a number of other jurisdictions that
implemented fairly successful TMAs, including Emeryville, Mission Bay,
Portland, North Natomas, and the San Mateo Rail Corridor.
Council Member Klein asked if Staff spoke with Mountain View regarding its
program.
Ms. Sullivan was scheduled to speak with Mountain View on February 27,
2014.
Council Member Klein inquired whether TDM proposals would meet the goal
of being operational in January 2015.
02/24/2014 114- 330
Mr. Aknin understood the ultimate goal was to have an RPP Ordinance and a
potential program for Downtown in effect by January 1, 2015. Hopefully
additional TDM-type measures would be in effect at that time. It was not
realistic to think a full TMA could be established within that timeframe.
Council Member Klein asked which measures could be implemented to
prevent chaos when the RPP Program was initiated.
Mr. Aknin believed an aggressive timeline would allow implementation of an
expanded shuttle system to a satellite lot. As Staff developed the RPP
Program, they could determine the number of parking spaces needed for
commercial-bound vehicles and allow some supply for them within the RPP
District. The successful valet program at one lot could be expanded to other
lots. A car share program could be in effect by January 2015.
Mr. Keene felt increased usage of parking garages would be a reasonable
achievement in 2014; however, that would not solve the problem.
Council Member Klein suggested Staff work backwards and determine which
measures could be implemented by January 2015. He inquired whether City
funds could be utilized to implement a bus program for school children.
Mr. Keene understood the Council wished to invest reallocated money
directly into measures that made a difference in the community. He could
hold discussions with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) regarding
expanded and improved shuttle access to schools, which was a key traffic
problem in the mornings.
Council Member Klein did not know if a school bus program would be
feasible. One of the main traffic problems was traffic at the beginning and
end of school.
Mr. Keene broached the subject with PAUSD's Superintendant a few months
ago and did not receive a response that it was categorically not possible.
Mayor Shepherd recalled that Santa Clara was sued to allow PAUSD to
charge for busing children to school. After charges were instituted, ridership
declined to the point it was not cost effective to operate buses.
Council Member Klein asked if it would be useful for the City to be in the
school bus business.
Mr. Keene reported PAUSD expressed some interest; therefore, a school bus
program should be considered.
02/24/2014 114- 331
Council Member Klein was amazed by the suggestion that a car share
organization would provide some level of profit sharing with the City as part
of an agreement. He asked if those organizations were sharing profits with
any other jurisdictions.
Ms. Sullivan indicated profit sharing was a possibility with some of the big
providers. Some organizations had expressed interest in operating in the
region for quite some time. Staff wanted to explore the possibility.
Council Member Klein asked if employees working at the Civic Center could
receive Go Passes regardless of their turning in parking permits.
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, explained that Staff did not
recommend that, because Staff attempted to respond to the Council's
direction to free up Civic Center parking spaces. Staff could not release
more parking permits for the Civic Center until permits were returned.
Mr. Keene stated that as Staff attempted to add incentives, there was the
potential for more intensive labor engagement and/or the need to deal with
other questions such as changing the pricing structure for parking to incent
more people to use passes.
Council Member Klein wondered if Google had sophisticated analytics that
could determine the number of permit parking spaces that could be made
available.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to direct Staff to take actions to implement a coordinated
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program aimed at reducing
traffic congestion and parking demand in Palo Alto, and to solicit proposals
to establish a non-profit Transportation Management Authority (TMA).
Council Member Klein believed a TMA was a good concept, but it would need
refinements which Staff could present to the Council.
Council Member Scharff agreed that Staff should work backwards from
January 2015 to implement as many options as possible. He assumed
shuttle routes could be changed, and suggested Staff coordinate routes with
the Marguerite system.
Mayor Shepherd indicated the Motion concerned TDM and TMA rather than
shuttles.
Council Member Scharff noted Council Member Klein discussed all the
measures.
02/24/2014 114- 332
Mayor Shepherd reiterated that a Motion was on the floor.
Council Member Burt wished to discuss all measures concurrently as some
Council comments would not fall within a specific recommendation.
Mayor Shepherd reported the Council had an option to discuss all
recommendations under a single Motion; however, the Motion covered only
one recommendation. Council discussion would be limited to the
recommendation contained within the Motion.
Council Member Scharff supported a TMA.
Council Member Holman supported the Staff recommendation and the
statement to solicit a proposal to establish a nonprofit TMA. A TMA should
not be part of another organization with limited membership. She asked
how the City would maintain authority or input once the TMA became self-
sustaining. She also inquired about the selection process for and the
composition of the Steering Committee.
Mr. Aknin indicated initially the City would actively participate within the
Steering Committee, which would be Staff appointed. As in other cities, the
City would have a position on the TMA Board in order to provide input to the
TMA Board.
Ms. Sullivan added that the third-party consultant would be responsible for
phase 1 community outreach to identify members for the working group.
Council Member Holman asked if meetings of the Steering Committee would
be open to the public.
Ms. Sullivan responded yes.
Council Member Price noted a majority of emails to the Council were positive
regarding implementation of a TMA. Because many cities with TMA Programs were similar to Palo Alto, Staff could utilize those models to speed
the process. She concurred with having an anticipated timeline so that the
business community, residents, and commuters could be aware of
implementation dates. The City's TMA could have a collaborative
relationship with other TMAs.
Council Member Berman felt a TMA could be the most effective of all TDM
Programs if set up properly. A TMA would create a platform of tools that all
Downtown businesses were interested in and willing to use. Obtaining
baseline data to determine effectiveness and to set goals was incredibly
important. He encouraged Staff to consider new participants for the
Steering Committee.
02/24/2014 114- 333
Council Member Burt stated the various initiatives in the TMA and the
broader TDM Program could be framed around three benefit categories:
reduction of traffic, mitigation of parking, and supplying amenities to the
community. The Council was considering major investments in programs
without considering the value provided by expenditures. Staff should give
more thought and reach out to the broader members of interested parties
for suggestions on the composition of the Steering Committee, and then
submit suggestions to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
for review.
Mayor Shepherd requested the City Attorney address the nature of
comments that Council Members could make regarding the Steering
Committee.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, understood Staff to indicate Steering Committee
meetings would be open and public. If meetings were informal, then the
committee would not be a Brown Act committee. Otherwise, the committee
would have to comply with Brown Act requirements. The Council could give
general directions and comments. If the Council included within a Motion
any type of establishment of that Committee, then the Committee would be
a Brown Act committee.
Mr. Keene reported Staff would reach out to a broad section of the
community for suggestions on both constituencies and individuals.
Council Member Burt suggested Staff include transit nonprofit agencies,
schools, and Stanford University. The responsibilities of the TMA covered a
wide breadth. He understood Staff to state that Go Passes were not being
considered for all employees, because that would not guarantee parking spaces would be made available. However, the proposed measure did not
guarantee parking spaces would be made available.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Council Member Burt was speaking to
Item Number 12, Go Passes.
Council Member Burt was speaking to incentive programs as a component of
a TMA. He wanted to ensure Staff reevaluated a Go Pass program. The Staff
Report referenced the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Eco
Pass in an evaluation of options. He questioned why the Staff Report
presented options as either/or situations.
Mayor Shepherd indicated Council Member comments would focus on the
Motion once Council Member Burt's question was answered.
02/24/2014 114- 334
Council Member Burt explained that his questions concerned issues of a
TMA.
Mr. Rodriguez explained that the Eco Pass program would probably cost
more than $18,000 if offered to all City employees. The Go Pass proposal
was to offer Go Passes to Civic Center employees only.
Council Member Burt asked why Eco Passes would be given to all City
employees; whereas, Go Passes would be limited to Downtown employees.
Mr. Rodriguez reported a Go Pass program could be focused to Civic Center
employees at a cost of $19,000-$20,000.
Council Member Burt inquired about the number of Civic Center employees.
Mr. Rodriguez replied 525 employees. Staff did not recommend an Eco Pass
program initially, because Staff wanted to offer a program that would
respond to the City Council's request to reduce permit demand. Slightly
more than 50 employees utilized the Caltrain program. Two regular
employees who were not employed at the Civic Center utilized Eco Passes.
As TDM programs for City employees expanded, Staff should consider the
Eco Pass program. In this specific instance for Downtown parking, the Eco
Pass was not a logical choice.
Mr. Keene added that Staff made a forced choice in identifying a program
that would reduce parking permit demand. Given the unfamiliar nature of
taking the bus rather than Caltrain, employees might not choose to swap
parking permits for bus passes.
Council Member Burt recommended Staff survey employees to determine
their anticipated actions. TMA responsibilities included bicycling; however,
the Downtown area was not bike friendly. He wanted Downtown bike improvements added to the initiative.
Council Member Schmid believed a TMA program was a positive step forward
and a good long-term investment. Parking was a major issue in land use.
The Council was beginning the discussion with the parking issue rather than
the contextual pieces of the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown CAP
Study. The Council did not have basic data.
Mayor Shepherd requested Council Member Schmid address his comments
to the Motion.
Council Member Schmid noted Staff provided various models of TDM
Districts, but the models led the Council in very different directions. The
Council did not have a context of which model was appropriate for Palo Alto.
02/24/2014 114- 335
The cost to the General Fund was approximately $550,000. Key
stakeholders were residents. He questioned the benefits that a TMA would
provide residents. Staff should return with a recommendation that provided
some context. The development cap should be integrated with a TMA.
Mr. Keene felt Staff advanced the right methodology. If Staff explored
potential context, then Staff would need three years to provide a
recommendation. Staff would invite the marketplace to provide alternatives.
The Council would modify and improve any recommendation Staff could
make. The best approach was to obtain as many ideas and options as
possible and allow the Council to apply context and values.
Vice Mayor Kniss indicated the Council had made significant progress since it
began the discussion a year previously. Communications to the Council
were positive, with only minor changes proposed.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to: 1) solicit proposals to provide car share
services within city-owned parking lots; 2) evaluate rideshare tools,
including a trial of the “TwoGo” Rideshare App, for coordination and
marketing by the TMA; and 3) authorize the City Manager to enter into an
agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to participate in
the Caltrain Go Pass Program.
Council Member Scharff requested time to address the Go Pass issue.
Mayor Shepherd hoped Staff would hold a rigorous conversation with the
Business Improvement District (BID) to quantify the number of people, as a
TMA was designed for employers with 1 to 1,000 workers. Staff noted
SB 1339 provided pretax incentives for companies with more than 50 employees. One of the most important parts of the Contra Costa TMA was
the ability to create revenue streams from the TMA to support the concepts
and components inside the TMA. At some point the TMA would be self-
supporting. She had difficulty understanding why a City employee waiting
for a parking permit at the Civic Center could not obtain a Go Pass and
remove his name from the waiting list.
Council Member Scharff could accept a trial period of nine months to
evaluate participation in a Go Pass program. If the City offered Go Passes to
all employees, then Staff should consider employees who worked past the
last train departure. Employees could be given three months to determine
whether they liked using the Go Pass, then the trial period could move into
the next six-month phase. He asked if there was a waiting list for the Civic
Center garage.
02/24/2014 114- 336
Mr. Rodriguez indicated there was a waiting list of approximately 50 people.
Council Member Scharff expressed concern that Staff focused on selling too
many permits. However, he was more concerned that there were unused
spaces in the parking garage. The Council should not be prescriptive.
Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff surveyed City employees to
determine the number who would use a Go Pass. It appeared as if the City
would pay $58,000 if half the employees used Go Passes.
Mr. Rodriguez reported Staff was limited in the amount of outreach they
could perform, because it was a meet-and-confer issue between bargaining
units and the City. Staff relied on available data to develop
recommendations.
Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff considered charging for
parking permits to further incentivize employees to use Go Passes.
Mr. Rodriguez stated that again would be a meet-and-confer item between
the City and bargaining units.
Council Member Holman asked if $58,000 was the cost no matter the
number of employees who utilized Go Passes.
Mr. Rodriguez explained the cost was fixed because it was based on the
number of employees at the Civic Center site. The cost of $58,000 covered
the nine-month trial period.
Mr. Keene remarked that if the cost to construct one parking space was
$50,000 and if one parking space was made available, then Staff would have
bought one year of a parking garage for one person. Over 20-30 years, the
program would more than pay for itself.
Council Member Holman considered savings in one program as funds made available for another program.
Council Member Berman suggested a trial period of a Go Pass program could
encourage employees to take a full-year Go Pass and return their parking
permits. During a trial period, the City could provide a Go Pass and $200 to
employees who remitted their parking permits. Starting in 2015, the City
could offer Go Passes in exchange for employees' parking permits.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct
Staff to solicit proposals for an expanded Palo Alto Shuttle Program.
02/24/2014 114- 337
Mayor Shepherd asked if the map of shuttle routes was suggested routes
only.
Ms. Sullivan answered yes, routes were open to discussion. Staff developed
the routes marked in red through discussions with other municipalities and
constituents.
Mr. Keene wanted to have sufficient details in the RFP to provide the City's
perspective and to build in metrics and a performance basis in order to
evaluate ridership return.
Mayor Shepherd requested Staff consider a route connecting with the ACE
Train or AC Transit bus and suggested shuttles coordinate with school
routes. Staff should reduce redundant routes.
Council Member Price supported expansion of shuttle service. PAUSD
provided busing for pay for students from Los Altos Hills and Stanford.
Some corporate shuttles in Mountain View were occasionally available to the
public, and Staff should consider those when examining shuttle routes. She
suggested Staff consider partnering with corporate shuttles to increase
ridership.
Council Member Holman noted the map of proposed routes did not contain a
connection along El Camino Real to Mountain View. Working with Google
and Marguerite was a great idea. Staff should work with PAUSD and
consider cost sharing. She did not favor expanding the shuttle to
Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, because she did not support
satellite parking there. She asked why the west shuttle route between south
Palo Alto and Stanford Shopping Center did not go into the Downtown area.
Mr. Rodriguez explained that the west shuttle route did not include a direct connection into Downtown, because of the headway time. Staff attempted
to limit headway time to one hour, and adding Downtown to the west route
would increase headway time to 1 hour 10 minutes.
Council Member Holman hoped the Council would have an opportunity to
mention a few housekeeping items at the end of the discussion.
Council Member Scharff was excited about expanding shuttle service.
Shuttle routes could be modified rapidly and as needed to respond to
ridership. He supported the use of metrics and partnering with PAUSD. He
did not find a route to Stanford Hospital among the proposed routes.
02/24/2014 114- 338
Mr. Rodriguez indicated Staff developed the west route in 2011 as part of a
community outreach process. Outreach participants requested service to
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and Palo Alto Medical
Foundation.
Council Member Scharff suggested Staff provide outreach to Facebook.
Council Member Burt did not hear Staff comment regarding the historic
experience of Palo Alto's shuttle program, and was concerned that Staff and
the Council were using anecdotal information. Benches and awnings at
shuttle stops were needed. Proposed shuttle routes should be presented to
the PTC for full review. He inquired about the headway time for the VTA 22
and 522 bus lines on El Camino Real.
Mr. Rodriguez did not have VTA headway information with him.
Council Member Burt believed the headway was 12-15 minutes. He asked
about the headway time for the proposed west shuttle route.
Mr. Rodriguez replied one hour for the route shown in red only.
Council Member Burt added that the VTA bus stopped frequently along the
22 and 522 routes.
Mr. Rodriguez remarked that the VTA route did not serve the Palo Alto
community as intended within the west shuttle route.
Council Member Burt felt the City should market the VTA service in Palo Alto
rather than increasing service along El Camino Real.
Mr. Aknin added that respondents would opine on cost efficiencies and
review redundancy in service during the RFP process. VTA headway along El
Camino Real could improve when Bus Rapid Transit was implemented in a
few years.
Council Member Burt asked if that would be Bus Rapid Transit rather than
dedication of a lane of El Camino Real.
Mr. Aknin responded yes.
Council Member Burt understood the headway would be 10 minutes under
Bus Rapid Transit.
Mr. Aknin concurred.
02/24/2014 114- 339
Council Member Burt stated the Council should have that information when
reviewing the program.
Council Member Scharff wished to hear Mr. Rodriguez's response as to why
Staff proposed the west shuttle route.
Mr. Rodriguez reported the purpose of the west shuttle route was to provide
a link between south Palo Alto and north Palo Alto within SUMC and Stanford
Shopping Center. VTA bus service did not offer that benefit for the
community. Palo Alto shuttles would provide a different service even though
it would share a small portion of the route with VTA.
Council Member Burt commented that the bulk of the route was shared. The
Council needed to consider whom it wished to serve and provide
transparency on those objectives. He would not support Staff's suggestion
that the City's payment to PAUSD for not developing Cubberley be
reallocated to shuttle service.
Mayor Shepherd understood the City Manager eliminated that proposal.
Council Member Burt inquired whether PAUSD contributed $50,000 per year
toward the City's shuttle service early in the program.
Mr. Rodriguez did not know the history of payments between PAUSD and the
City.
Council Member Burt believed Staff needed to include historic context in
discussion of topics. Coordination of shuttle service with PAUSD should
focus on traffic issues related to magnet schools and overflow.
Council Member Schmid indicated the Council should first identify who was
being served by shuttle service. If the purpose of the shuttle was to
transport workers to companies, then workers or companies should pay for shuttle service. If the purpose was a richer ridership, then the focus should
be on corridors. Staff should look carefully at goals and experimental
options that might be available.
Council Member Berman loved the shuttle concept and the idea of working
with other cities to develop routes for commuters. He inquired about the
possibility of a shuttle route including the Fremont Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) station or the Dumbarton Express and the San Antonio Caltrain
station.
02/24/2014 114- 340
Mr. Rodriguez noted the Dumbarton Express traveled to the Union City BART
station. Staff was attempting to develop a route that traveled specifically to
Fremont while bypassing Menlo Park. The community did not ask for a route
to the San Antonio Caltrain station during the outreach meetings held in
2011.
Council Member Berman asked if Staff received emails concerning the San
Antonio Caltrain station.
Mr. Rodriguez had not received those emails.
Vice Mayor Kniss felt people preferred to ride fun transit. It was important
for the Council to consider subtle details. Staff should keep in mind the
goals of moving people around the community and removing cars from the
road while considering the real life aspects of public transportation.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
10. Direction to Staff on Lease Terms for the Renewal of the Cubberley
Lease Between City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District.
Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Real Property Manager, reported the City signed the
lease in 1989 and exercised an option for an additional 10 years. The lease
term expired December 31, 2014 with a month-to-month holdover tenancy
available thereafter. The projected cost for 2014 was approximately
$7,150,000. From 1989 through 2013, the City paid Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) approximately $136 million. Assuming the City renewed
the lease for 20 years, the City would pay approximately $106 million, not
including the Covenant not to Develop and Consumer Price Index (CPI)
increases.
James Keene, City Manager, indicated he and PAUSD Superintendent Skelly had explored ideas and options; however, eliminating the Covenant not to
Develop and CPI increases was impeding discussions. He was seeking
explicit Council direction regarding terms for a future lease. The purpose of
the Covenant not to Develop no longer existed. The condition of the
facilities was degenerating faster than the CPI increased. A longer lease
term would allow the City to plan for the site as well as provide flexibility for
PAUSD. Funds currently directed to the Covenant not to Develop could be
redirected to needed investments at Cubberley facilities including those
contained within PAUSD's portion of the site. Reconfiguring the City's 8
acres within the Cubberley site could allow the City to develop a viable, long-
term community center.
02/24/2014 114- 341
Eliminating the buy-back/repurchase clause for the Ventura site could allow
the City to reinvest in that facility. The child care program would continue
according to the terms and conditions of the existing lease. The playing
fields would likely fall within PAUSD's portion of the Cubberley site. The City
should not be paying rent for property it owned. The Council should
consider discussing adjustment of the rent paid to PAUSD if the City lost
anchor tenants. Also for Council discussion was the possibility of an
enhanced sharing of PAUSD facilities with the City or the community at
large. Explicit Council direction would be the most expeditious method for
Staff to continue lease negotiations.
Janice Shaul, Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) Executive Director,
remarked that the Ventura site was overdue for significant improvements.
PACCC was excited by the potential of a long-term lease and of partnering
with the City in making improvements.
Robert Moss was delighted that Staff recommended eliminating the
Covenant not to Develop. Funds for the Covenant not to Develop should not
be redirected to maintenance of the facility. PAUSD should be responsible
for maintenance. A 10-year term with a renewal option would be sufficient.
PAUSD could need both the Cubberley and Ventura sites for schools.
Diane Reklis felt Staff recommended terms for negotiations between
adversaries rather than bodies with common interests. The recommended
terms benefited only the City.
Stephanie Munoz endorsed Ms. Reklis' comments. The City and PAUSD were
not competitors. The City's portion of the Cubberley site could be utilized to
house teachers.
Mr. Keene remarked that the characterization of a one-sided negotiation was
unfair. Staff recommended the majority of funding continue. The high cost
and scarcity of land were shared problems. When PAUSD needed a new
school site, they would build a school on the Cubberley site. The City
utilized its 8 acres of the Cubberley site and additional space to provide
community needs that were in high demand. The City had a programmatic,
fiduciary, and community responsibility to meet needs. The negotiation with
PAUSD was an opportunity to reprogram money to meet those needs.
Council Member Klein favored a provision that would adjust rent paid to
PAUSD in consideration of adjustments not taken at the time the City
purchased the 8 acres at the Cubberley site. He asked if Staff rejected that
provision.
02/24/2014 114- 342
Mr. Ghaemmaghami explained that when the City exchanged the Terman
site for the Cubberley site, the rent paid to PAUSD was reduced by the
amount that was received from Jewish Community Center for the rent of
Terman. The methodology was flawed. The rent should have been reduced
by the amount of rent the City was paying for the 8 acres at Cubberley. The
difference was approximately $543,000. Bringing that amount to today's
value from 2001, the amount would be approximately $1 million.
Council Member Klein asked if that amount was cumulative or annual.
Mr. Ghaemmaghami indicated the $543,000 amount was annual.
Council Member Klein stated the City's lease amount for Cubberley was $4.7
million.
Mr. Ghaemmaghami agreed.
Council Member Klein recalled that the prior Council specifically allowed the
rent to be computed on the lower basis. He inquired whether the rent would
be $4.2 million if it was computed as Mr. Ghaemmaghami indicated.
Mr. Ghaemmaghami believed the rent amount would be in that range.
Mr. Keene felt Council Member Klein's intention was to determine the
rationale for the calculation rather than the specific amount.
Council Member Klein was interested in the parameter of the amount. It
seemed only fair that the City should be charged rent on the same basis as
the entire 35 acres. He asked if there was a reason Staff did not include
that discussion in the Staff Report.
Mr. Keene preferred the Council direct Staff to include that component in
calculations of the future lease and report the amount.
Council Member Schmid remarked that the City and PAUSD had a joint interest in Cubberley as it benefited the City and PAUSD. The City should
utilize funds from the Covenant not to Develop to invest in the maintenance
of Cubberley facilities. PAUSD had an interest in the property being
maintained and investments being made in child-related activities. If the
City wanted to search for a tenant to replace Foothill College, then it had to
improve the facility. The City could sign a 20-year lease which would allow
it to make improvements and to charge a higher rental rate. The City had
an interest in developing its 8 acres at Cubberley to provide more activities
than could be housed at the current facilities. He would not support
removing the buy-back option for Ventura unless PAUSD clearly stated it did
not want the site for a school.
02/24/2014 114- 343
Vice Mayor Kniss explained that the lease with PAUSD was negotiated in
order to channel funds to PAUSD. The existing Cubberley facility was in bad
shape and could not be utilized for a school. She could not envision the
Ventura site becoming an elementary school. It was unusual for a City to
have a long-term lease for a deserted school.
Council Member Scharff felt the City should continue to negotiate
cooperatively with PAUSD; however, eliminating the Covenant not to
Develop was necessary. Any impact to PAUSD from loss of those funds
would be softened by the continued increase in property values and property
taxes. The community would benefit from PACCC improving the Ventura
site. PAUSD must state whether it would need Ventura or Cubberley for
school sites.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to accept Staff recommendation to authorize the City Manager to
negotiate with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Superintendent
to execute a new lease agreement based on the following terms and
conditions. These terms are intended to provide a balance of flexibility and
certainty to both City and PAUSD for the Cubberley site, in the near term
and the long term, while enabling most effective investment of public funds.
Suggested terms for consideration:
1. Eliminate the Covenant not to Develop from the lease. Reallocate that
funding towards investment in the Cubberley facilities for long
neglected and ongoing maintenance. Consider inclusion of Ventura
Community Center site for reinvestment dollars.
2. Eliminate the Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual increases.
3. Create a longer term lease (20 years) with PAUSD to allow creation of
a long-term plan for the City owned 8-acre site, investment in facility
improvements and public access to playing fields.
4. Explore new terms with PAUSD to allow potential reconfiguration of the
City’s 8 acres within the Cubberley site.
5. Eliminate the language allowing PAUSD to purchase the City’s 8 acres.
6. Eliminate the buy-back/repurchase option clause that allows PAUSD to
repurchase Ventura.
7. Continue Child Care program per terms and conditions of the existing
lease.
02/24/2014 114- 344
8. Allow for use of the playing fields at Cubberley for maximum time
period possible.
Council Member Scharff hoped the City and PAUSD could reach a resolution
quickly. He encouraged the City and PAUSD to develop a sensible timeline
as the Superintendent Skelly was departing in June 2014.
Council Member Klein recalled his involvement in drafting the original lease
with PAUSD. The circumstances had changed since 1988, and the lease
needed to change as well. Staff's recommendations for a new lease were
fair. He would not support a month-to-month carryover lease. PAUSD
Board Members indicated Ventura was not a potential school site. In which
case, the City should be allowed to improve Ventura facilities. He did not
believe a joint use of Cubberley was possible in the near term.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to adjust the rent on the 27 acres to be the same
as the 35 acres, and discuss with PAUSD appropriate measures to be taken
for the portion of Palo Alto that is not in the PAUSD.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to include: 1) adjustment of rent paid by City to
PAUSD, if City loses anchor tenants such as Foothill College; 2) eliminate the
24 month Notice Clause in the existing lease which gives the PAUSD the
right to cancel the lease; and 3) discussion of better access to other school
site fields and facility use.
Council Member Klein was agreeable to sharing profits with PAUSD if the
space currently occupied by Foothill College could be rented at a higher rate. The City and PAUSD should share risks.
Council Member Price largely concurred with recommendations. She
inquired whether the City would be prevented from investing in the Ventura
site if the buy-back/repurchase option remained in the lease.
Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, reported the lease contained a provision
requiring PAUSD approval of any City capital project over the amount of
$100,000 plus CPI increases.
Council Member Price felt the City operated the Ventura site in an
environment of uncertainty, because PAUSD had not explicitly stated its
need for the site. The whole corridor needed and should have a community
center comparable to other facilities in the City. Reconfiguration of the
City's 8 acres at Cubberley should not preclude PAUSD from developing the
site for an educational use or facility.
02/24/2014 114- 345
Council Member Berman did not view the recommendations as taking money
from PAUSD. Ending the Covenant not to Develop would end an obsolete
agreement and allow the City to invest funds in the community. The
Cubberley and Ventura sites were heavily used assets that had fallen into
disrepair; therefore, funding should be focused to those two facilities. He
looked forward to working with PAUSD to create a vision for Cubberley.
Council Member Burt noted the State passed a law that restricted a School
District's prerogative to sell surplus land. Students from Los Altos Hills and
Stanford benefited from the City's subsidy to PAUSD. To the extent that the
City invested funds in physical structures on PAUSD's portion of the
Cubberley site, it would be investing in the long-term value of an asset
owned by PAUSD. The City Manager and Superintendent Skelly negotiated
for more than a year without reaching a resolution. Positions had not
changed in that time and likely would not change in the next year.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss
to direct the City Manager to attempt to complete the lease agreement
negotiations by May 2014.
Council Member Scharff requested the City Manager comment on the
Amendment.
Mr. Keene understood the Council's position was to eliminate the Covenant
not to Develop. Once that was realized, then the City had a good chance of
reaching an agreement. The default position was that there would not be a
lease in 2015. As long as the Council was clear that there would not be a
Covenant not to Develop, he could accept the direction to complete
negotiations prior to Superintendent Skelly's departure.
Council Member Burt did not believe positions would change.
Vice Mayor Kniss supported an attempt to complete negotiations by May
2014. It would be wise to have Superintendent Skelly in place for
negotiations. If negotiations were not resolved by May, then at least the
Council moved in that direction.
Council Member Klein felt a deadline was not a good strategy. The real
deadline was December 31, 2014. The City's leverage was the lack of
funding if the lease was not renewed. Imposing a deadline seemed to be an
empty gesture and did not improve the tenor of negotiations.
Council Member Schmid stated the Covenant not to Develop was of prime
importance. He disagreed with imposing a deadline in a public session. The
Council needed to be cooperative.
02/24/2014 114- 346
Council Member Scharff remarked that an attempt to complete negotiations
demonstrated the City's willingness to be cooperative. He would not favor a
holdover lease. May would be a good check-in point.
Council Member Berman concurred with Council Member Scharff regarding
an attempt to complete negotiations.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-2 Klein, Schmid no
Council Member Holman expressed concern regarding elimination of the buy-
back option for Ventura and hoped the Mayor would separate that point for
voting purposes. Reconfiguration of the City's 8 acres of the Cubberley site
was essential.
Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Council Member Holman would vote
against the Motion if it contained all the points.
Council Member Holman would not support Item Number 6 of the Motion;
Eliminate the buy-back/repurchase option clause that allows PAUSD to
repurchase Ventura, but would support all other Item Numbers.
Mayor Shepherd segregated Item Number 6 of the Motion; Eliminate the
buy-back/repurchase option clause that allows PAUSD to repurchase
Ventura, for voting purposes. She inquired whether PAUSD had indicated it
would consider reopening Cubberley as reported in the newspaper.
Mr. Keene indicated that Superintendent Skelly had not stated that to him.
Mayor Shepherd did not believe it was necessary to conclude negotiations
prior to Superintendent Skelly's departure; however, negotiations would be
tidier if negotiations were completed prior to his departure. A 20-year lease
would provide the City with the certainty it needed to make improvements at
the Cubberley site. If PAUSD needed to reopen a school site, they would not hesitate to identify either Cubberley or Ventura. Configuring the City's
boundaries to be the same as PAUSD's boundaries would be ideal.
MOTION AS AMENDED, EXCLUDING VENTURA CLAUSE PASSED: 9-0
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to accept Staff recommendation to authorize the City Manager to
negotiate with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Superintendent
to execute a new lease agreement based on the following terms and
conditions. These terms are intended to provide a balance of flexibility and
certainty to both City and PAUSD for the Cubberley site, in the near term
and the long term, while enabling most effective investment of public funds.
Suggested terms for consideration:
02/24/2014 114- 347
1. To eliminate the buy-back/repurchase option clause that allows PAUSD
to repurchase Ventura.
MOTION PASSED: 5-4 Holman, Kniss, Price, Schmid no
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee
meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
02/24/2014 114- 348