HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-27 City Council Summary Minutes
06/27/2011 108-268
Special Meeting
June 27, 2011
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS .....................................................................269
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................269
CONSENT CALENDAR ..............................................................................270
1. Resolution 9182 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Vacating a 20-Foot Wide Public Utilities Easement at 211 Quarry
Road”. ..........................................................................................270
2. Resolution 9181 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a Grant and Execute an
Agreement With the California State Coastal Conservancy for Funds to
Control Non-Native Cordgrass (Spartina) in the City-Owned Baylands”. 270
ACTION ITEMS .......................................................................................270
3. Transmittal of Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study to Council and
Opportunity for Council Direction on Completing Feasibility Study. .......270
4. Direction on Submission of Letter of Interest to Foothill College
Regarding new Education Center at Cubberley Community Center. .......285
5. Resolution 9183 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4 and
W-7 or Selection of an Alternative Water Utility Rate Structure”.
(continued from June 20, 2011). ......................................................300
6. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ........................................303
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 A.M. ........................303
06/27/2011 108-269
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:04 P.M.
Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price arrived @ 6:10 P.M.,
Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh arrived @ 6:15
Absent:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager, James Keene stated the Twilight Summer Concert series was
scheduled to start on Saturday, July 1, 2011. He said the Government Finance Officers Association awarded the Palo Alto 2010 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report the Certificate of Achievement for excellence in
financial reporting. He stated the Chili Cook-off on the Fourth of July was
featured on the Palo Alto City website. He reported that the Palo Alto landfill
was nearing capacity and would be permanently closing on July 28, 2011 along with the compost facility; however, the recycling facility would stay
open to the public.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Diana Baker spoke about staffing at the Baylands Preserve. She stated that
staffing should continue as it had been in the past rather than having the
Junior Museum take over that part of the children’s education.
Annette Coleman spoke about the need to hire a full-time, on-site producer
naturalist at the Baylands Preserve to fill the position she vacated in
December 2010.
PaloAltoFreePress.com spoke against the legislation on violent video games.
He stated that government cannot legislate the behavior of children and that
it was the parents’ job to protect, educate, and communicate with their
children.
Laura Pisani spoke about the future of the Stanford Arboretum Children’s
Center. She stated that the University had been working with the Stanford
Arboretum Children’s Center Parents Board to find a satisfactory solution
that would allow the Children’s Center to be relocated during construction
and ultimately returned to its original location.
William Landgraff spoke against increased City water rates and provided
some alternative ideas to waste less water in order to avoid increasing rates.
Carrol Harrington spoke on a painting about sustainability and where the
painting would be available for viewing over the next few weeks.
06/27/2011 108-270
Winter Dellenbach spoke about the blue bins around town that seem to be
for collecting books for charity. She stated that she believes most of the
books were being pulped or resold online. She noted that it would be better
for people to donate books to a local non-profit organization.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Peter Drekmeier spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 2, specifically about
the grant to control non-native spartina in the Baylands as well as the work
in the San Francisquito Creek to replace non-native species and ivy with
native species. He spoke about the importance of working with the City on
removing Ilanthis trees that had become invasive and damaging to the
beneficial natives. He stated that there were some houses near the creek that had Ailanthus trees in their yard spreading seeds near the creek, and
suggested educating the owners of those properties in an effort to replace
the trees with native ones.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to approve Agenda Item Numbers 1-2.
Council Member Klein advised he would not be participating in Agenda Item
Number 1 as his wife was on Staff at Stanford University.
1. Resolution 9182 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Vacating a 20-Foot Wide Public Utilities Easement at 211 Quarry
Road”.
2. Resolution 9181 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a Grant and Execute an
Agreement With the California State Coastal Conservancy for Funds to
Control Non-Native Cordgrass (Spartina) in the City-Owned Baylands”.
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item No. 1: 8-0 Klein not participating
MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item No. 2: 9-0
ACTION ITEMS
3. Transmittal of Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study to Council and
Opportunity for Council Direction on Completing Feasibility Study.
Mike Sartor, Interim Public Works Director, introduced the presentation on
the draft feasibility study. He stated that he had last come before the
Council in April for direction and input, which was to be addressed in the
current study along with new data and information. He stated that none of
the alternatives should be screened out as infeasible.
06/27/2011 108-271
Phil Bobel, Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, stated Council direction
was to hire the consultant and evaluate dry, anaerobic digestion. He noted
that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had not yet been initiated, but
they were still working on the energy conversion technologies and pursuing
partnering opportunities for organics within 20 miles of Palo Alto. He noted
that currently the organics were divided into the three categories of food
scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids. He mentioned the Gilroy composting
facility, the Sunnyvale Smart Station, the proposed San Jose location from
Green Waste, and the proposed Gasification Pilot Plant from the San Jose
sewage treatment plant. The current plan would be to send yard trimmings
to Gilroy once the Palo Alto compost facility closes. The final study should
be produced in late September. Four alternatives were being studied: 1)
Dry-anaerobic digestion of all three residual types at the site adjacent to Water-Quality Control Plant in Palo Alto, 2) Dry-anaerobic digestion for food
and yard trimmings, with biosolids going to wet-anaerobic digestion at the
water-quality control plant, 3) Green Waste at the San Jose location for
food, yard trimmings would go to Gilroy, and biosolids would be processed
at the Water Quality Control Plant, and 4) the Gilroy export option. He noted that there was a list of comments received at the April meeting that
they did not had the time or money to handle in the current draft. He spoke
about the scenarios and assumptions considered for each alternative. He
noted that for each scenario they considered a couple of assumptions:
ownership, financing, grant funding, rent, Co2 adder, and export
contingency. Scenario Two was what Staff was recommending. Scenario
One was a set of assumptions that favored keeping the operation within Palo
Alto. Scenario Three was the set of assumptions that favored the export
options. He noted the net present value of each alternative under Scenario
Two and stated that the values were planning numbers. At the preliminary
planning level none of the four alternatives should be screened out. The
numbers were close enough that screening any of them out was not
recommended. If the Council wanted to proceed, more work could be done
on all the alternatives. He stated that the next steps were completion in late
September and bringing back the final Feasibility Study in early October.
They still had to process comments before then. Early November was the
ballot initiative on the 9-10 acre site. Staff proposed to come back to
Council in December whether that passed or failed.
Winter Dellenbach stated she was concerned about the regional radius and
the amount of traffic that would result from more cities participating in a
Palo Alto facility. She said in the past the focus was on Palo Alto having its
own facilities and disposing of its own waste, and now it was about regional
participation. She noted that the facility would be in a park and adjacent to
the bay.
Peter Drekmeier gave some numbers on the economics of the scenarios over
a 20 year spread. He noted that dry anaerobic digestion decreased in cost
over time while the alternatives continued to increase. He noted that the
06/27/2011 108-272
City should ensure they do not lose their composting permit, and allow the
Staff to integrate the studies they had talked about.
Emily Renzel spoke about her belief that many statistics and data provided
were inaccurate and heavily influenced by biased parties. She noted the
study did not take into account mitigation costs, removing trees that screen
the sewage plant, or the relocation of landfill garbage to Byxbee Park. She
stated that the parkland must not be used for a new industrial facility and
instead Byxbee Park should be completed.
Tom Jordan noted some information was incorrect. For example State
permission must be obtained to use the property next to the water
treatment plant. A 2/3 bond vote must be achieved to acquire public financing. The State would require rent on the land so the number given for
no rent was inaccurate. A grant for construction costs was unrealistic. The
carbon adder should not be included in the numbers. The contingency
should not be added to export costs because export contracts were firm
numbers with no escalator.
Enid Pearson spoke about why Palo Alto should not build its own anaerobic
digestion facility on parkland. She noted that of the amount of garbage Palo
Alto produced each year, less than 20 percent was composted and therefore
it would not make fiscal or environmental sense to build it. She stated that
the addition of bio-solids to the study was only to make the anaerobic
digestion facility feasible but they will be processed by the water plant
regardless and should be removed from the study. She noted that Palo Alto
parkland was not the right site for a new facility because: Excavating the
garbage and placing it in Byxbee Park was expensive and wrong, garbage
should instead be sent to Kirby Canyon, and the carbon adder should be
removed from alternatives 2 and 3 or added to the alternatives 1a-d to be
fair.
Robert Moss noted that when the City built capital equipment like the
proposed site, a 10 percent contingency was built-in. He stated that this
type of construction had never been done in U.S., but had in Europe, and
when technology and manufacturing was transferred from another country it
rarely went smoothly. He stated that the 15 percent grant and the
estimated rent prices were overly optimistic. He noted that one cost not
considered was the loss of value to the park by having an industrial facility
at the entrance to the park.
Cedric de La Beaujardiere spoke about the comparative costs of the
alternatives beyond the 20-year horizon of the study. He noted that at year
30 the dry anaerobic digestion would be cheaper than Alternatives 2a and 3a
would be over only 20 years. He noted that the costs of Alternatives 2a and
3a would be decreased if, given the initiative passes, the land were made
available and the Staff should be enabled to fully study the options.
06/27/2011 108-273
David Coale presented a slide showing the lowest cost, lowest Co2 impact in
a graph, and found that the low cost and low Co2 cases were Alternative 1a,
Scenario One and Scenario Two. He noted that the carbon adder was real
and had been used by City utilities, and also that the contingency estimates
were incorrect because Scenario Three had none. He noted the high cost,
high Co2 options were all options that included the incinerator.
Carolyn Curtis spoke about the citizens who gathered signatures for the
petition outside the recycling center from people who came to drop off their
recycling. She noted that they found the majority of people at the site were
supportive of using the parkland for a new facility because the area already
had facilities right there. She noted the Wastewater Treatment Plant had been a resource for educational field trips. She stated that the Council
should continue the study and take care not to lose the City composting
permit.
John Kelley spoke about the environmental cost of the incinerator and stated the options including the incinerator were unacceptable. He stated that if
the City wanted to move in a green direction, the incinerator did not fit in
with that plan. He noted that Staff must be allowed to focus on non-
incinerator options as well as be allowed to combine its work with work of
consultants in reviewing the anaerobic digestion proposal with the
wastewater treatment proposal.
Herb Borock stated that an agreement was originally made that if the City
had the landfill then it must eventually become a park. He noted that if the
Council would use agreements to go forward with other public bodies and
citizens then it must not go back on its word.
Shani Kleinhaus spoke about the Council’s responsibility to clarify some
confusing information, such as the cost of rent on the land. She noted that
the parkland by the Wastewater Treatment Facility does not have park value
but perhaps had other value and would be very expensive to build a new
facility on. She noted that the zero waste facility only 12 miles away had
told her they would be able to handle anything coming from Palo Alto and
having two experimental facilities so near each other does not make sense.
David Bubenik noted that an industrial facility on the 9-acre parkland should
pay its way and ought to pay a mitigation fee for the park because it will
impact the park heavily. He noted that if the parkland was taken to build
the new facility this would be the first City Council to preside over loss of
parkland.
Alex DiGiorgio spoke about other dry-anaerobic digestion facilities around
the United States and the financial benefit they had for their cities. He
noted that Europe’s systems were more advanced and Sweden ran municipal
06/27/2011 108-274
public transit buses on bio gas harvested from sewage plants, so the idea
that the anaerobic digestion system was uncertain and not cost effective was
false. He stated the incineration would certainly hurt Palo Alto’s green
image and make it difficult to work towards more green initiatives in the
future.
Brandy Faulkner spoke about her belief that Palo Alto should take care of its
own garbage, and that building its own anaerobic digestion facility on the
nine acres of parkland was the best solution available. She noted that she
was among the volunteers collecting petition signatures at the current
composting facility with less than 1 percent were in opposition to the new
facility. She stated that carbon accounting was real, and Palo Alto had
aggressive greenhouse gas goals that must be met. She noted that opponents say refuse rates would skyrocket, but they were arguing for
higher rent that would transfer money from ratepayers to the General Fund.
Bob Wenzlau spoke briefly about the excitement this project was creating
with environmental engineering students at universities in the area, and he invited the Council to step into the future and enjoy what was a fine moment
for the community.
Council Member Klein asked what was necessary to keep the compost permit
active and what it would cost.
Mr. Bobel stated that speakers were talking about moving current aerobic
facility to the nine acre site fairly soon and keeping that current permit
active to do so, but he noted that keeping the current aerobic permitting in
tact would not help with a larger permit for a larger and different facility.
Council Member Klein noted there was a permit right now with material
placed there until July 27th and asked to clarify that after that there will no
longer be a permit.
Mr. Bobel stated the landfill was closing to the public July 28th, but the
compost operation would keep going some months longer to produce
material for the cap process.
Council Member Klein asked what the conditions of the permit were after
composting stops.
Mr. Bobel said research must be done on that because of the nuances. He
said it could be possible to keep the current aerobic operation going, moved
to a different location, keeping the permit intact for the aerobic processing.
Council Member Klein said his question was if the nine acres was removed
from parkland and Council went forward with a scenario requiring a permit,
06/27/2011 108-275
would keeping the present permit be helpful in getting that new permit or
not.
Mr. Bobel said he doubted it would help.
Council Member Scharff noted that Scenario Three would cost $78 million
while the other two scenarios would cost $89 million. He asked if the
difference was the carbon adder and the 15 percent contingency. He noted
that when he did the math for the 15 percent contingency he was getting a
higher number than $89 million and that was without the carbon adder.
Jim Binder, ARI Representative, clarified that the corrected number for
Scenario Two was actually $91 million, with the difference between 1 and 2 being the method of financing.
Council Member Scharff asked if Scenario Two was for trucking garbage to
Gilroy with public financing.
Mr. Binder noted that in Scenario Two, bio-solids would be processed locally
with wet-anaerobic digestion. Scenario Two had a higher estimate because
it had private financing. Scenario Three was a lower estimate because there
was no contingency on exports and no carbon adder.
Council Member Scharff clarified that he could not just take 15 percent and
add it to $78 million to get $89 million.
Mr. Binder noted that the $78 million was a result, so he would review the
number before taking 15 percent off. There was such a mix of different
assumptions in Scenario Three that it was not that simple.
Mr. Bobel noted that the net present values included operating costs and
capital costs. The 15 percent related to capital costs, and that was why that
math did not work.
Council Member Scharff noted that the plan costing only $59 million stood
out as something that was a better economical outcome than the other
scenarios, but putting all three streams together was not feasible. He had
been told that it destroyed compost and had not been done before, and
asked if that was true
Mr. Bobel noted that Alternative 1a put bio-solids in dry anaerobic digestion,
which had not been done before. He noted that it was assumed that there
would be separate vaults for the dry-anaerobic digestion of bio-solids, and
yard and food waste. The dry anaerobic digestion had not been executed on
a commercial scale for bio-solids.
Council Member Scharff asked if the Council could do that.
06/27/2011 108-276
Mr. Bobel said it was not the sort of thing they would normally do.
Council Member Scharff asked that if the voters approved the measure
would Scenario One be on or off the table, and how would it be piloted.
Mr. Bobel noted that it would depend on timing. He stated that if it were to
be started immediately it wouldn’t be a Staff recommendation to do
Alternative 1a because Palo Alto was a small city and we would normally
wait until a larger City pilots something first.
Council Member Scharff stated that if Alternative 1a was taken off the table
then that would make sending to Gilroy or San Jose the most economically sensible. He noted that originally they had been concerned about the
greenhouse gas effect of sending garbage to Gilroy. The carbon adder put in
for trucking to other cities would still be more effective. He asked if that
was correct.
Mr. Bobel stated that was logical. He noted that they had concluded that the
numbers weren’t different enough to proceed with only one option at this
point. He stated that in other similar situations in other cities people had
retained options, done performance standards, and let the market system
give true market-based costs before making a final decision on technology.
Council Member Scharff agreed. He asked about how much would actually
be spent were they to make a Motion to complete the study.
Mr. Bobel said not very much because almost everything had already been
spent. They would be taking the comments they had received confirm the
numbers, and then finalize the study.
Council Member Scharff asked if they would be spending $10,000 or $20,000
dollars finishing the study.
Mr. Sartor noted Staff would not return to the Council to ask for more money
for the study. It will be completed under the scope of the contract.
Council Member Scharff asked how much was left in the scope.
Mr. Binder said it was probably close to $10,000 left and the remaining
mission could be accomplished with that amount.
Mr. Bobel stated the intention was to take all the comments received, do the
best job within the budget, and then produce a final report without asking
for more money.
06/27/2011 108-277
Council Member Shepherd asked how much rent at the San Jose plant would
cost.
Mr. Bobel stated that there was not a definitive answer on that yet. He
noted they were not looking at rent yet because of a multitude of things still
being negotiated.
Council Member Shepherd asked how the State Land Commission would be
involved if the vote passed in Palo Alto.
Mr. Sartor noted that the State Land Commission had jurisdiction over the
entire Baylands and no rent was paid to the Commission for the operation of
the Water Treatment Plant on that land.
Council Member Shepherd asked if there would not be interference if the
community voted to un-dedicate the parkland.
Mr. Sartor replied there would not be.
Council Member Shepherd noted that there was no point in doing more work
on the feasibility study until they know whether or not land was available.
She asked if they could postpone completion of the study.
Mr. Sartor noted that they were not going to do any more analysis on the
feasibility study. The plan was to conduct a wrap-up of the study based on
the comments received on the draft.
Council Member Shepherd asked for confirmation that Staff would not start
on the next process.
Mr. Sartor replied that she was correct.
Council Member Shepherd asked if finishing up and using the money was
something that would need to be done anyway.
Mr. Sartor stated that they could shelve the current draft until December.
Council Member Shepherd asked about the waste treatment study.
Mr. Sartor noted that Carollo Engineers were studying replacement of the
incinerators with an anaerobic digestion facility.
Mr. Bobel added that the studies were complementary to each other. The
engineers had produced an estimate on wet anaerobic digestion at both the
sewage treatment plant and the nine acre site creating the values in the
feasibility study. An estimate of what it would take to rebuild the current
incinerator was also used for the incinerator option.
06/27/2011 108-278
Council Member Burt asked if the project life was 20 years with a 20-year
return on the capital investment because of the bond term.
Mr. Binder replied that the technology for food and yard material was new to
the United States. Because of this they had to use a typical financing period
for projects of this sort which was 20 years versus 30.
Council Member Burt noted that was for funding purposes, not for useful life.
Mr. Binder replied that if it wasn’t funded it wouldn’t be built, so they had to
use the more conservative assumptions.
Council Member Burt stated that he was interested to know the range of
useful life the City may experience.
Mr. Binder stated the companies that responded to the Request for
Information foresaw a 20-year design life, including repair and replacement of equipment.
Mr. Bobel noted that the engineering life of this type of project was new to
the United States and required a conservative assumption because of
uncertainties.
Council Member Burt confirmed that 20 years was a moderately conservative
expectation of a useful life.
Mr. Bobel stated the concrete was going to last longer but the piping and
other equipment was less predictable. He noted that the progressiveness of
the field may cause the equipment to be changed out prior to 20 years.
Council Member Burt asked when the Wastewater Treatment Plant was built
and what repairs had been done on it.
Mr. Bobel stated that after 30 years the incinerator was replaced. He noted
that when it was built, it was standard technology.
Council Member Burt asked if the experience with wet anaerobic digestion
was better than with dry.
Mr. Bobel replied yes.
Council Member Burt asked if the wet was anticipated to have the same
useful equipment life.
Mr. Bobel said that was the assumption used in the study.
06/27/2011 108-279
Council Member Burt noted the replacement cost of the incinerator with a
wet fluidized bed was much higher than what was currently in place. The
current incineration process was basically one that was antiquated.
Mr. Bobel said yes, it would not be rebuilt. If it were to be rebuilt it would
had a fluidized bed.
Council Member Burt asked when the next rebuild would be.
Mr. Bobel replied it would have to be in 30 years. It was rebuilt in 2000 so it
might be able to keep going until 2030, although Staff would recommend
sooner.
Council Member Burt referred to the Climate Protection Plan and the
discussion around the incinerators because they were the largest City
generators of greenhouse gases and largest City users of natural gas. He
noted the timeframe for the rebuild of the Water Treatment Plant, including
the incinerators, put it in the 2015 – 2020 timeframe.
Mr. Bobel noted the financing for the incinerator was through 2024, so they
believed it would be prudent to replace or rebuild by 2020. Staff will bring
back a long-range facility plan in the summer of 2012.
Council Member Burt asked if, under the ballot language, the land could be
used for any other purpose.
Ms. Stump did not recall that there is, under the ballot language.
Mr. Keene noted that it would revert to parkland at the end of 10 years.
Council Member Burt noted that any portion not used for the facility would
revert to parkland. He noted that since the land could only otherwise be
parkland, it does not make sense to make rent calculations based upon a
private industrial use. He asked where the $108,000 for rent came from.
Mr. Bobel noted that the $108,000 came from an appraiser that used similar
parkland to come up with that number.
Council Member Burt noted that it should be very transparent what the land
will be used for when the voters make their decision. He noted Mr. Bobel
had looked at both wet and dry anaerobic digestion and stated that dry was
used less widely than wet. He asked how the complexity of the technology
compared to the technology at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Mr. Bobel stated that it was not as complex as the incinerator. It did not
require as sophisticated of an operation. He noted the most complex part of
the facility would be the air handling system and methane recovery system.
06/27/2011 108-280
Council Member Burt asked how difficult it would be to create a model
showing the net present value if the incinerator was retired in 2020. He
asked if they could also model a 20 and 30 year usable equipment lifespan.
Mr. Bobel stated that any new alternative was a major problem because of
funding.
Council Member Burt noted that it was only computational because all the
data was already there.
Mr. Bobel stated that all the four summary alternatives assumed retiring the
incinerator in 2015. The data for different alternatives was not available.
Council Member Price asked if all of the scenarios would be included with
each of the four alternatives.
Mr. Bobel stated that they would be finalized with all the comments. He noted that Staff was not recommending that all four move forward, rather
they were recommending not screening any out.
Council Member Price said the lack of the word ‘recommendation’ was a key
point. She asked about ownership and if there was capacity within the
contract to look at any other hybrid models.
Mr. Bobel noted that there was not enough money to do anything new.
Mr. Binder added that the options they were looking at were public-private
partnerships. They all included private design and construction, no matter if
they had public or private ownership. The two discussed in the feasibility
study were being used in most jurisdictions when they move forward with
these types of projects because they offer the most protection.
Council Member Price asked about the statement in the Staff report calling
for extensive pilot testing for alternative 1a prior to construction.
Mr. Bobel stated that the dry anaerobic digestion for yard and food had not
been done in the United States, and had not been done anywhere for bio-
solids, so pilot work was necessary as a step.
Council Member Holman asked Staff to clarify the 15 percent contingency
export option.
Mr. Bobel stated there were contracts in place and it was a conservative
approach to believe that they would not be able to retain those prices for the
length of the contract.
06/27/2011 108-281
Council Member Holman asked how the reduction of water and garbage
waste would affect the costs. She asked if there was a Palo Alto facility.
She asked, if Staff would ask other cities to participate at this facility to keep
rates down.
Mr. Bobel noted that a number of people wanted an estimate of what the
reduction in yard trimming would be over the years and there were
applicable scenarios. He stated they could estimate that reduction, and that
there had not been a reduction over the past few years to base one on.
Mr. Keene added that the fixed cost for collection would track under any of
the scenarios as being the same.
Council Member Holman asked if Staff could handle the wrap-up with all the
comments or if they need the consultant to handle that.
Mr. Bobel stated that he did need the consultant because many of the
comments were about revising the models and the data. It would be difficult for Staff to do that without consultant help.
Council Member Holman clarified that they were not generating any new
studies, only putting together current data.
Mr. Bobel agreed.
Council Member Schmid noted that the Compost Task Force designated
anaerobic digestion as an interim solution pending better technology. He
stated it seemed that there were alternate technologies within California. He
noted that he found that people with anaerobic digestion technology already
had to deal with odor and noise in both California and in Europe. He asked
for clarification of the terms “low cost” and “high cost”.
Mr. Bobel noted that vendors fell into two categories, some were more
complex and therefore a higher cost and some were less complex and
therefore lower cost.
Council Member Schmid asked if low cost meant people were not dealing
with concrete issues that crop up in an Environmental Impact Reports (EIR).
Mr. Binder stated that in the RFI there were requirements for odor and noise
as well as other environmental requirements. He noted the difference in
cost was in how the waste was fed to the chamber, the temperatures, and
recirculation. He noted it did not take away from environmental controls
that all parties had to meet. The higher cost technologies were better suited
to larger volumes of waste than what Palo Alto produced.
06/27/2011 108-282
Council Member Schmid asked if it would be an issue for the anaerobic
digestion to offset the California Air Resources Board’s payment for
exceeding acceptable emission levels.
Mr. Binder noted that there were not air emissions from the facility until
looking at how to treat the bio-gas – combustion, for example. He noted
that typically emissions were not an issue.
Council Member Schmid asked about the compost once it came out, and
noted that in Salinas Valley they had 35-40 potential buyers but none were
committed to the purchase. He said only three would take the compost.
The consultant said it’s okay to include the fact that there was no market for
it, but Staff should also run an alternative which examines paying for the landfill. He asked if that was a concern.
Mr. Binder stated that they accommodated marketing compost in the
economic analysis by assigning it zero value. He noted that there appeared
to be a growing market for clean compost in California.
Council Member Schmid noted that there were critical issues that ought to
be dealt with in the economic feasibility, drawing on examples of other areas
going through the processes. He asked if it was possible to use the
remaining $10,000 to study what was already happening in California.
Mr. Bobel stated Staff had remained focused on the Council’s direction, but if
the Council felt the need to use the $10,000 as Council Member Schmid
suggested Staff could accommodate that.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked which City Enterprise Funds would be associated with
project costs.
Mr. Bobel stated that the funds were based on the materials used rather
than the land.
Vice Mayor Yeh noted that the Finance Committee was dealing with the
health of the Refuse Fund, and bonding capacity would not be easy. The
Regional Water Quality Control Plant had three cities collaborating making it
more feasible by sharing costs across more entities. Staff was anticipating
that level of analysis to occur post-November 2011 election.
Mr. Bobel noted that discussions had begun with Mountain View and
Sunnyvale as well as some other cities that were not partners yet.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked to what extent the City would forgo rate-setting
authority for private financing.
06/27/2011 108-283
Mr. Bobel did not believe the City would have to give up rate-setting
authority because of the financing.
Mr. Binder agreed and noted that the City would be charged by the private
entity per ton of delivered material, but the rates for residents would be set
by the City.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked if some of the operating costs would be determined by
the external entity.
Mr. Binder noted that whatever the cost per ton would be, it would include
both the debt cost and the operating cost.
Mayor Espinosa asked about mitigations that San Jose was considering and
what those costs might be.
Mr. Bobel did not have information on the mitigation.
Mayor Espinosa stated that they had to start looking at where mitigation fit
into the models for what they may have in Palo Alto.
Mr. Bobel stated that Staff could not estimate the mitigation costs.
Mayor Espinosa noted that they would receive feedback from the City
Attorney’s Office on the issue of limiting the use of the land through ballot
language and how that will affect rent rates on the land. He asked where
people could go to see examples of this type of facility.
Mr. Binder replied that the best facilities were in Europe, but in the feasibility
reports were photos of reference facilities from all companies that responded
to the RFI.
Mayor Espinosa asked if there were any local places that were similar. He
noted that it was important for people to get a sense of the experience of
having this type of facility locally.
Mr. Bobel stated that while there were no dry anaerobic digesters locally
there were wet anaerobic digesters in Sunnyvale and San Jose.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to direct Staff to submit the Final Feasibility Study to Council by the
end of September 2011.
Council Member Scharff noted the press reports stated that it was cheaper to
go with dry anaerobic digestion; however, it seems like Alternative 1a would
not be all that feasible. He added that the proponents made their case and
06/27/2011 108-284
it was economically feasible. The actual cost may depend on the real
numbers.
Council Member Klein noted that the issue at this meeting was completion of
the report. He noted that the voters should chime in before spending more
money, and completing the report would help voters in November.
Council Member Holman asked if the Motion would indicate that completing
the report was responding to questions, not doing new analysis.
Mr. Bobel replied that there would be no new alternatives or scenarios.
Mr. Keene noted that there would not be questions coming in between now and October.
Mr. Bobel stated that they would take limited questions perhaps over the
next few days but would have to cut it off.
Council Member Klein stated that it would be a limited number of answerable
questions within the budget.
Mr. Bobel agreed.
Council Member Holman asked if the timing would allow for the Council to
take a position prior to mail-in ballots.
Mr. Bobel noted that the timing was agreed upon a while ago with no
reference to the ballot.
Council Member Holman requested the mail in ballot to be considered when
determining a specific date.
Mr. Bobel noted they were scheduled to finish the document by the end of
September.
Mr. Keene stated the study was mostly finished now and anything new would
not likely change anyone’s mind.
Council Member Holman stated it should get to the Council in time for the
Council to take a position prior to the election.
Mr. Keene stated that finishing the document in late September would give
the Council time to formally take a position.
Council Member Schmid noted the ratepayers must pay over the next five
years to offset seven years of losses in the Refuse Fund. He stated the loss
06/27/2011 108-285
happened because of sets of assumptions that didn’t work, and he asked the
Staff to note which items were risk-bearing to help with decision-making.
Mr. Bobel agreed to include that in the Staff report.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
4. Direction on Submission of Letter of Interest to Foothill College
Regarding new Education Center at Cubberley Community Center.
City Manager, James Keene stated the Staff was recommending that Council
direct them to submit a letter to Foothill College to pursue discussions to
locate a new education center on the city-owned eight acres at the Cubberley Community Center. He stated if the City did not submit a Letter of
Interest soon then Foothill College would leave Cubberley. Ultimately all of
the community uses at Cubberley could be eliminated. The status quo
meant Foothill Community College would leave Palo Alto and Cubberley, and
if it was retained there were concerns related to Palo Alto Unified School District and there would be an impact on the tenants at Foothill. Not doing
either meant the School District would take over all of Cubberley and covert
it to a school He noted that even if the City submitted a letter, it may not be
chosen as the preferred use of that site.
Deputy City Manager, Steve Emslie stated the Cubberley site was located in
South Palo Alto and the entire site encompassed 35 acres of which the City
owned 8 acres in the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the Charleston
Shopping Center. He noted the bulk of the playing fields and open space
were not a part of the City’s 8 acres. He gave a brief update on the history
of the site noting the site was built in the mid1950’s amidst the post-war
Baby Boom to accommodate the rapidly growing school aged population. He
stated a number of campuses closed in the late 1970’s, including the
Cubberley site. The City acquired the right to Terman Middle School in the
early 1980’s and the City negotiated with the School District to address the
community concern about school closures. There was a covenant that the
School District placed on its remaining open school sites which the City pays
for on an annual basis and the lease for the entire 35 acres of the Cubberley
site. The School District expressed the need to re-open the Terman Middle
School but since the City had the rights to a portion of the school there was
a land exchange executed granting the City the 8 acres of the Cubberley site
for the release of their rights to the Terman Middle School in early 2000’s.
He noted most recently there had been three offers of expression of interest
by the Foothill College to occupy the Cubberley site since 2007. He reviewed
a map showing the boundaries between the owned and leased sections and
the uses of the site. The map showed the tenants who resided on the City
owned acres and leased directly from the City which generated fee revenue
of $400,000 annually excluding Foothill which paid approximately $933,000
annually for all of their facilities on the site. He stated Foothill occupied
06/27/2011 108-286
roughly 39,000 square feet of the entire site not including shared space such
as the shower or gymnasium facilities. He stated the split was 18,000 square
feet leased from the City and 21,000 from the School District. He stated the
parking was provided on surface level lots and the bulk of the parking was
on the School District side of the property and the City controlled 130 spaces
on their 8 acres. He gave a breakdown on the types of occupants who filled
the 108 buildings on the site broken down further by for-profit and non-
profit organizations. He stated the rent ranged from $0 to $1.79 per square
foot for the non-profit tenants, the rents paid by for-profit was slightly
higher up to $2.08, and the rents paid by Foothill were $2.96. The revenue
generated by hourly rentals for events such as weddings and other special
events was over $1 million. The City rents office space which attributed to
$2.5 million annually in outside income. The non-maintenance operating expenses were approximately $2.25 million per year. There was a
considerable amount of deferred maintenance; both waiting to be addressed
as well as planned Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) over the next 25 to
30 years. The first phase of the scheduled maintenance was anticipated as
being $10 million over the next five years and then for the remainder of the term another $6.5 million. He noted the amounts presented were anticipated
costs but the funds had not been set aside; the funding sources for the
$16.5 million had not yet been identified. He stated the City’s first phase of
the lease had completed and was currently in the first ten year option period
of the lease which expired in 2014; there needed to be notice given to the
School District of the City’s intent to renew for another five years end of
2013. The agreement entered into between the City and the School District
in the early 1980’s prescribed the following payment schedule: the annual
lease payment for the remaining 27 acres was $4.48 million, the covenant
not to develop was $1.73 million, there was a $600,000 paid for the use of
school sites for after school child care, and the utility bills were
approximately $500,000. He stated Staff was requesting direction from the
Council whether to sell or lease, the belief of maintaining maximum
flexibility was important and keeping the option to sell or lease the site to
Foothill on a long-term basis. There were relocation issues and many non-
profit and community based organizations based at the Cubberley site that
could be impacted. Parking was an issue because Foothill was requesting
1,200 stalls when the current number available was only 750. Foothill had
indicated moving forward in phases, the first phase was between 40,000 and
60,000 square feet. Foothill itself was a provider of the opportunity to
partner and create synergies with other educational community services
because they would be located amidst a variety of other learning
opportunities. He noted the loss of Foothill would be financially burdening
since they were the highest rent payer and $1 million reduced revenue
would be a significant concern. He noted if the lease option was not
extended there was a concern for the community programs if the School
District was to regain the site for public school purposes.
06/27/2011 108-287
Mr. Keene stated that Foothill already had funding for Phase 1 from a bond,
but there was no funding for phase 2. The Foothill-de Anza Board gave
direction to its’ Staff to submit request for offers to the private sectors with a
submission date of June 20 and to entertain negotiations with Palo Alto and
Sunnyvale. Tonight’s decision was about submitting a letter to Foothill. If
Council opted to not send a letter no additional work would be required. If
they do, they need discussion about what would go in that letter.
Mayor Espinosa asked for public comments.
Charles Bangs stated that it was clear that Staff had made up their mind
about where they wanted to go. He stated that the Council had negotiated
with tougher entities in the past and should bring those skills to negotiations with Foothill. He stated the notion of selling the land before PAUSD
repossessed it would not be a valid argument for moving ahead.
Karen Chin, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Children’s Pre-school
Center in Palo Alto, spoke about the services her pre-school center provided to parents and their children. She noted the importance of reliable childcare
centers, and stated that the CPSC would undergo severe hardship to find a
different space to operate.
PaloAltoFreePress.com stated the Council should have total transparency
with zero tolerance for closed doors on any discussions concerning
Cubberley.
Smita Joshi stated that anyone holding land in Palo Alto would surely refuse
to sell it knowing its tremendous value, and she urged the Council to
consider this for the city’s land. She noted that the Council cannot
anticipate what uses there will be for that land and what kind of economic
return it will have. She stated that Staff should be able to find other
candidates to fill the area that Foothill currently fills, and still keep the
community services already in Cubberley.
Joan Larrabee stated that Cubberley High School was built for residents of
Palo Alto, which was experiencing a baby boom. She noted that daycare
centers were extremely impacted, and in the future these babies will be
attending Palo Alto public schools. Therefore Cubberley may be needed
again as a high school or middle school in the future, and in the present its
daycare centers were needed.
Laurie Leventhal-Belfe spoke about the importance of preserving the arts at
Cubberley for children and teenagers. She stated that the preservation of
the Cubberley dance studios was given a low priority, but they were an
extremely important community resource.
06/27/2011 108-288
Teresa Kelleher spoke about the importance of the Cubberley organizations
for her family and asked the Council to consider saving those organizations.
She stated the businesses operating out of Cubberley could not survive
without that space.
Daphne Chao spoke about the Acme Education Group, an after school care
and Chinese school inside Cubberley, which she founded in 2001. More than
90 percent of the 200 students at Acme were Palo Alto residents, and Acme
would have trouble finding a good school site like Cubberley elsewhere
within Palo Alto.
Lucy Erman asked the Council not to submit the Letter of Interest. She
stated that the Cubberley Community Center supports studio space for dance, music, video, the Palo Alto Philharmonic orchestra, and library book
sales. She stated that losing the center would impoverish the cultural life in
the community at a time when Foothill College was already cutting their
arts.
Peter Chou stated that Foothill College contributes to the Palo Alto
community; however, the creativity fostered by the Cubberley Community
Center was an important outlet outside of work. He stated that as an
engineer, he chose to stay in the area because of its creativity.
Peggy Huang spoke about the political and social value and implications of
the Letter of Interest and stated that it would jeopardize the reputation and
image of Palo Alto. She stated that a regional junior college would change
the demographics of Palo Alto. She noted that legally the letter could be
used against Palo Alto in the future.
Laura Zweig spoke as a teacher at Dance Vision Studio in Cubberley and
stated the school had 500 students at the moment.
Jean Wilcox spoke in support of the sale or lease of 8 acres to Foothill
College. She stated that the buildings were dangerously in need of repair,
and the sale or lease would be an opportunity to revitalize Cubberley. She
noted that PAUSD still had the Greendale site as well as the remaining
acreage available for a new school in the future. She stated that because of
the spread of classes throughout the day and night, traffic would also be
spread out, and she also noted that three bus routes served Cubberley. She
noted that by the time the city’s lease would end in 2014 the Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center would be ready for use.
Brian Carilli believed Staff provided a subjective report. He noted that the
opportunities provided at Cubberley were not available anywhere else in Palo
Alto, and stated that Foothill had parking lots that could be used to build
classrooms. He noted that the cost of deferred maintenance at Cubberley
was not very high per square foot.
06/27/2011 108-289
Valerie Lisiewicz spoke about the tendency to not value things that don’t
have metrics, goals, and measurable progress. She stated there should be a
place for people to grow and develop artistically without competing for a
grade or getting credits, and Cubberley was that place.
Beth Bunnenberg stated that in the past schools were sold off because of
zero population growth and now they were needed because of the increasing
population. She urged the Council to learn from the past.
Linda Gass spoke about the importance of having affordable and dedicated
spaces to make art within a community of artists. Relocation would be
expensive with or without renovation of the part of Cubberley outside the 8 acres. She noted that sale of the acreage would yield short-term profits but
would have long-term social, cultural, and financial costs. She noted that
keeping the acreage allowed the community to change it in the future.
Nancy Krop spoke about how she originally moved to Palo Alto because of the reputable schools, but now the concern was that the high schools were
becoming larger than the ideal. She stated the City should not sell property,
it should preserve it because there will need to be another high school soon.
Catherine Perman said there were possibilities of preserving the artistic
activities at the center while not getting bullied by Foothill. She suggested
Council search for a creative solution.
Jo Gilbert spoke about how it seemed that Foothill College was pushing the
City, in an attempt to get what they wanted. She urged the City to study
how the site could be utilized without Foothill.
Brent Yamashita spoke against sending the Letter of Interest. He stated
that the Cubberley was an important asset to the City that had an artistic
reputation. He spoke about the traffic impact if selling or leasing to Foothill.
He stated that PAUSD would need the land for a high school in the future.
Edwin Ho stated that Foothill would increase their footprint by increasing the
amount of commuters coming into Palo Alto with their cars. He stated the
City would be solving a short-term revenue issue with a long-term sale of
property.
Tim Foy stated that Cubberley was more than just an asset on the City’s
balance sheet. He stated it was a community gift and there were more
people to consider than just the tenants, as thousands were served by the
center. He asked the Council not to sell just because someone was
interested in buying. He stated the math given on parking spaces and
square footage doesn’t add up in a community where traffic was already
overcrowded.
06/27/2011 108-290
Kendra Hornbostel asked the Council not to proceed with the Letter of
Interest. She stated the project was too big for the site, and the traffic
congestion would undermine all efforts from the past two years to fix that
problem in south Palo Alto.
Claire Kirner spoke about the increase in households and children in Palo
Alto, and how that affected the requirement of schools and community
services. She stated a sale or lease to Foothill would be short sighted.
Elayne Groechel spoke about the dance studios at Cubberley and the length
of time they had been there. She stated the City must act as a protector of
its treasures, and if the land was sold or leased, at least insure there was a transition plan and a new home for the artists.
Kathy Torgerson spoke about her enthusiasm for the opportunity to build an
extraordinary educational and community center at Cubberley. She spoke
about Palo Alto’s reputation for innovation and educational excellence. She stated a new Foothill College would follow that tradition.
Bob Moss urged the Council to offer only a lease to Foothill because
Cubberley will need to be reopened as a high school eventually, and what
would be left after a sale would not be a viable high school. He stated the
City could sell half the site back to the School District and still retain a
number of non-profits and community organizations.
Ray Bacchetti stated that having Foothill College permanently at the
Cubberley site would open up many possibilities, but the School District
should hold on to some of the site because higher education was changing
so rapidly. If Foothill were to leave Palo Alto, the City would lose a lot of
educational potential.
Penny Ellison spoke about the parking issue if Foothill were to build a
regional junior college on Cubberley. She stated Foothill was not required to
comply with the same zoning regulations as other businesses. She spoke
about the impact to the community to lose daycare facilities.
Ken Horowitz stated that Foothill was offering the opportunity of a brand
new, state of the art facility allowing for a more diverse student body with
different needs. He stated that Foothill College would offer opportunities for
high school students as well. He suggested building a second story at the
existing high school. He stated that commuters to the college could walk or
use buses, so traffic would not become an issue.
Lynn Brown stated that top priority of the community was the School
District, followed by community arts. She noted that once the letter was
06/27/2011 108-291
sent out, the action was set in motion and would be difficult to stop. She
stated that taking that step would violate community priorities.
Carolyn Tucher stated that Foothill should stay in Palo Alto, but Cubberley
was the last site large enough for a new high school and middle school,
which would be needed soon. She urged the Council to make plans for Palo
Alto students 30 years from now. She noted some of the acreage would be
needed for parking in Foothill’s Phase 2, and the 16 acres of fields should not
be turned into school buildings.
Diane Reklis noted the increase in PAUSD enrollment as more houses were
built, and long-term plans were needed for schools, community services,
preschools, and traffic. She stated the sale or lease of the land was too short-term.
Kelly Tsai, president of Hua Kuang Chinese Reading Room at Cubberley,
spoke about the benefits of having the room at a location convenient for
south Palo Alto, and its free services to the public. She urged the Council not to sell or lease Cubberley to Foothill College.
Elizabeth Alexis spoke about Cubberley’s success, and the School District’s
interest in reclaiming its space. She stated the organizations in Cubberley
would be left without a location when space was already expensive and
difficult to find in Palo Alto. She noted Foothill would take more than just
the 8 acres.
Lisa Steinback noted that all six tennis courts at Cubberley were located on
the 8 acres that Foothill wanted. She stated it would not be difficult to find
someone to replace Foothill were they to vacate. The main Foothill campus
was not far to drive to and was near a freeway.
Herb Borock stated that staff’s figures on the rental space were correct, but
should have been broken down between the part the City owned and the
part it was leasing. He stated that if a relocation plan goes forward, the
space that Foothill currently subleases from the City on the part owned by
the School District should be used. He observed that when the City has
negotiated with a School District, the School District always ended up with a
better deal. The Letter of Interest from Foothill in 2009 should be made
public and the same should be done with the new Letter of Interest.
Mike Cobb stated that if the sale were pursued there would be significant
repercussions to the community and to PAUSD by compromising future City
services and creating further traffic congestion. He stated a sale would
create services for commuters while diminishing services for residents. He
noted the increase in housing and stated there would be more demand for
fewer services.
06/27/2011 108-292
Lanie Wheeler spoke about the increase in students and the need for more
classrooms in the future, and stated every possible bit of land will be needed
for that. She stated that closed door meetings to discuss price and payment
terms prior to making a public decision to sell or lease was contrary to
principles of transparency. The City should be in talks with its constituents
and PAUSD rather than Foothill.
Xuhui Shao noted that he moved to Palo Alto for the great schools, and pays
a premium for that. He noted homeowners do not pay a premium because
of Foothill. He urged the Council to consider the long-term financial welfare
of homeowners and property taxes.
James Schmidt, President of Friends of the Library of Palo Alto, located in Cubberley, spoke about the contributions they have made from fundraising.
He noted that a Letter of Interest protects no options, and the issue was a
question of community values.
Ginger Levy spoke about the places outside of Cubberley that would be affected by a sale or lease because of construction, parking, and traffic. She
stated it would be more difficult for parents to get kids to their activities
around that area. She noted that previously there had been discussions
about developmental assets in Palo Alto, and stated that many of the
organizations in Cubberley created those assets.
John Tuomy noted that the reason Foothill was a good school was because
graduates of PAUSD go on to it. He noted relocation costs and issues from
the land swap with Terman. He stated it was not up to City Council to
decide what the education program for PAUSD will be, and synergy between
PAUSD and the City will take work. He stated the issue was about
community values and therefore was a community decision. He stated the
City should not sell Cubberley without a public vote.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on the acreage being
discussed. He stated there were 32 acres in Cubberley, of which the City
owned eight. Fifteen acres were subject to the Naylor Act, leaving 12 acres
for the School District, which included two gyms, an auditorium, and a
parking lot. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Emslie replied that the total acreage was 35.
Council Member Schmid stated that Foothill was a full partner in Palo Alto
University and therefore had a permanent place in the community. He
asked if that was right.
Mr. Emslie replied that he could not answer that.
Mr. Keene stated that their presence in Cubberley was not permanent.
06/27/2011 108-293
Council Member Schmid said that it was an additional presence. He asked
what rent the School Districts were receiving and if it was close to what
Foothill was paying the City.
Mr. Emslie said he was not familiar with the release payments.
Council Member Schmid stated that the lease agreements with the School
District state when the site is returned it will be ready for school use. He
asked if that meant it must be kept in its current condition even though
there would be very few classrooms left if Foothill took the eight acres.
Mr. Emslie asked if he was talking about the eight acres or the other space.
Council Member Schmid clarified that he was talking about the end of the
lease. He stated there was a clause in the lease that when it ends, it must
be returned to the School District and it should be able to be used the next
day.
Mr. Emslie replied that was correct.
Council Member Schmid stated that nothing could be done with that lease
part. He stated it must remain in its current condition. He noted that
Foothill included that they must have the right to park outside the 8 acres.
He asked for the Staff’s interpretation of that clause.
Mr. Keene replied that the Council should state the conditions that would be
acceptable. Foothill identified their parking needs. If the City had conflicting
needs the two parties would have to negotiate. Council would have to
provide directions to negotiate items such as this to the negotiating team.
Council Member Schmid noted that what was missing from the Staff report
was the connection between the Cubberley agreement and the agreements
with the School District. Palo Alto’s long-term economic prosperity comes
from the growth of property taxes, and young families moving in must be
willing to pay a premium. In the 1980s, many schools were sold off. The
unison of the City and the School District came from this, to protect for the
future. He stated the City must not sell critical assets.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to: 1) continue this discussion until July 11th, 2) direct Staff to
return with a report that outlines alternative advantageous uses of the 8
acre site, 3) Staff was to provide ideas where nonprofits, artists, and
services could relocate, if necessary, and 4) request the Palo Alto Unified
School District Board provide the City with ideas how they could purchase or
share the financial burden of Cubberley Community Center.
06/27/2011 108-294
Council Member Schmid stated that the City must take care of its future, its
assets, and work with the community to guarantee that ten years from now
Palo Alto will still be a prosperous city.
Council Member Holman stated Staff had indicated that they could continue
this item to July 11. She noted she was not clear on what a Letter of
Interest is. She read from a Foothill-De Anza document and noted that it
sounded like the City would be making a proposal that Foothill will consider
and immediately go into negotiations were they to choose the City. She
asked Staff to explain that.
Mr. Keene asked what document she was reading from.
Council Member Holman said it was a Request for Offers.
Mr. Keene stated that it was a solicitation targeted to the private sector. He
stated the Letter of Interest would be a proposal made from the Council. Its
specificity may have a bearing on how it would be received. He stated it was not a bid, or a process with exact specifications. It was connected to the
policy choice the Council had to make.
Council Member Holman asked what could be submitted to make the City
competitive with others.
Mr. Keene stated it would be premature to put a price in. The question was
whether or not the City would sell or lease or both.
Council Member Holman asked why Foothill had an August 2011 deadline.
Mr. Keene stated that Staff’s understanding was that it was the timeline the
Foothill Board had established for their Staff. He disagreed with comments
regarding Foothill bullying, and the City wanted to sell the property to get
revenue. He said it was an opportunity to determine whether or not
something with potential benefit to the community could be maintained at
that site.
Council Member Holman asked if there was any flexibility with the date.
Mr. Keene stated that the Council would have to ask Foothill.
Council Member Holman stated that Foothill was a great institution, but the
Council needed to weigh the impacts of their actions. She asked what would
happen if the City was chosen. She asked when the environmental analysis
would take place.
Mr. Emslie stated that the analysis on parking or traffic could begin at any
time. He stated this wouldn’t become a project for CEQA purposes until there
06/27/2011 108-295
were more details on what Foothill was proposing to do. He stated that
would probably happen concurrently with the negotiations.
Council Member Holman asked how the revenue from Foothill could be
replaced. She noted there could be a possible tenant to replace them.
Mr. Keene stated that the point was that if Foothill left, that would be lost.
He stated it could be replaced, but he noted that if the property were sold,
the rent would disappear. He noted that Staff’s understanding of the
conversation was dealing with the question of the public value of Foothill
being in Palo Alto.
Council Member Holman asked if there was any notion of what would happen with revenue from selling the land.
Mr. Keene replied that it had not been discussed yet.
Council Member Holman stated that would be important, because if that were used for rebuilding or restoration, it would be cashing out a long-term
investment for a short-term fix. She asked about Staff meetings with the
School District, Foothill, and the Council. She noted the letter from Kevin
Skelley and its mention of a request that the Council had not made yet. She
noted the full Council would have to provide guidance to Staff before any
serious negotiations take place.
Mr. Keene noted that’s what the current meeting was about. He stated that
the meetings were mostly sharing information. He noted he had a meeting
with Staff counterparts at Foothill and the School District sharing information
about programming plans and potential synergy. He noted he had regular
conversations with the School Superintendent. He stated that how the
School District views the matter was important for the City to consider.
Council Member Holman noted that the Palo Alto Comprehension Plan
addresses the demand for child care as it continues to grow.
Council Member Burt stated that Foothill was a tremendous community
asset, and had shown interest in modernizing and expanding community
programs in Palo Alto to serve the community better. He noted that they
had not done any sort of bullying, and they should not be characterized as
such. He stated that in a discussion with Foothill a year and a half ago, the
question was if the City could allocate their 8 acres to Foothill’s purpose and
still accommodate the non-profits and other organizations at Cubberley. He
stated that since then it had become clear to PAUSD that they will need to
take back, at a minimum, the areas of Cubberley that they don’t own, and
they indicated that they wanted the area that the City owns. The issue had
become what to do with the eight acres that the City owns. The community
members that had spoken about valuing that space must realize that the
06/27/2011 108-296
issue isn’t primarily around the eight acres and what Foothill would do with
that, it was around what the School District will do with the rest of it. He
noted the School District had interest in the eight acres also. He noted that
Foothill would be a great asset if the City didn’t have to give back the eight
acres, but that was not a choice. He stated that given those issues, as well
as the parking demands, the community and School District need to
recognize that the District needs to be a full participant with the community
on how to make more efficient use of the public space. He stated there
would not be daycare, dance studios, and the other elements without full
participation by the School District. He noted that the City received and
spent about the same on Cubberley, plus the $5.2 million a year given to the
School District that could be used otherwise. There must be a conversation
on addressing the competing needs, and it would not be an easy solution.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council
Member Scharff to direct Staff to prepare a Letter of Interest (Letter) for
Council’s consideration to be brought back on July 11, 2011.
Council Member Klein stated that the Substitute Motion was to provide clear
direction to Staff. The questions in the Motion by Council Member Schmid
should be answered, but a clear signal should be sent. This was not the first
time this has been before the Council, and there seems to be no significant
new facts. He stated this included Foothill-De Anza. He stated that only
four or five speakers even mentioned Foothill, and the important
contributions it has made to the community. He stated Foothill added a
great deal to the community, and disagreed with the speakers that
suggested Foothill should not be in the community at all. He noted that
many Palo Alto High School and Gunn High School graduates go on to
Foothill, as well as many students returning to school. He noted this
conversation was between organizations that respect each other. He stated
that effort should be made to make a deal with Foothill. The School District
had the option to purchase the eight acres from the City, if given notice the
City wanted to sell. Hopefully they would endorse the letter from the City to
Foothill. He disputed the idea of holding the property for some other
purpose, because the land would be sold to a school, not something like a
supermarket. He noted that parking would need to be worked out, but did
not believe it would be as bad as it seemed. He stated Foothill would not be
able to get parking off-site. He noted it would be worthwhile to find an
option for joint use of the site.
Council Member Scharff noted the School District had the option to purchase
the site. He stated there were three parts to the issue: the School District,
the community center, and Foothill. He agreed that Foothill was an asset to
the community. They would build a 50,000 square foot facility within the
eight acres, and already had parking. He stated that the School District
would need the remaining 27 acres, which leaves no room for a community
center unless a new one was already built, but there had been no discussion
06/27/2011 108-297
of that. He stated that living with the status quo was not an option. He
stated that the numbers were coming out to more than $17 million.
Mr. Emslie stated that some items on the sheet had already been done, so
the $17 million was outstanding.
Council Member Scharff stated he did not understand where that money
would come from. He noted that if the School District took it, the City would
not put $17 million into it. He stated that Cubberley will need to be a public
school, but it could not remain in limbo. He stated that moving forward was
important, and not submitting the Letter of Intent would mean Foothill would
no longer be in the community, which would be a loss. He stated there was
enough land for the School District, buildings, and parking. He stated in the next meeting the Letter of Intent needed to be defined.
Council Member Shepherd stated that she enjoyed Foothill and its
employees, and spoke about the possibility of a partnership between Foothill
and the School District. She noted that she realized as she heard from the community groups that this was just temporary for tenants because of the
rising enrollment, and the City needed to help address that. She stated that
it was important to understand the School Districts interest in the eight
acres. She noted that the Cubberley issue had been coming for a while and
had been difficult to get on the agenda. She stated that Palo Alto had
always been about education, and Palo Alto wouldn’t work if education didn’t
work. She noted that public education was in a crisis, and the Council
should take the weeks before July 11 to see what type of partnership could
be made. She stated that if there was a way to form a partnership so that it
would work, then the community deserves to have that conversation.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include in the Letter
options to either sell the property or for a long term lease.
Council Member Shepherd also asked for an analysis on the traffic and the
parking situation, or a transit study.
Council Member Klein disagreed. He noted it was premature.
Council Member Scharff agreed with Council Member Klein.
Mayor Espinosa stated that the Maker and the Seconder did not accept the
traffic or transit study portion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to request Palo Alto Unified
School District begin an open process of examining their support and
possible collaboration of partnership opportunities with Foothill College.
06/27/2011 108-298
Council Member Scharff noted he would like to get a letter of support from
the School District.
Council Member Shepherd stated that Stanford was asked to put a transit
director in their process of building a hospital and stated that question had
to be asked when looking at this sort of thing. She stated that if the process
goes forward, that had to be looked at.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXXX to have Staff bring back an alternative transportation study
for the Cubberley site as part of a potential agreement.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Price stated that the proposal and the opportunity to
express an interest was a good one. She stated it did not suggest that the
current uses of the eight acres were not valued. She stated it would provide stronger support for education in the community and open up conversation
with the School District. She stated that it would be possible to have a new
education center that’s creative, innovative, and forward-thinking that would
compliment PAUSD’s goals on the remainder of the site. She stated there
would be design solutions that could be taken advantage of. She stated that
there should be sufficient space on the site, and going forward with a Letter
of Interest would be helpful and help clarify the vision for the whole
Cubberley site.
Mayor Espinosa stated he was concerned about discussions on sale of land,
but could imagine a long-term lease. He noted his concern about non-profits
on the site, and relocation planning needs to begin either way. He stated
that it would be difficult to put Foothill and another PAUSD school on the
site. He noted this would not be a decision to sell or lease, only allowing for
more conversation with the community and the School District.
Vice Mayor Yeh proposed that acknowledgement of the relocation needs
and/or coexistence for existing non-profit partners and organizations be
included in the Motion.
Council Member Klein disagreed with the shared use portion. He stated that
it would be unlikely for Foothill to find space for those organizations within
their new buildings, but relocation was necessary.
Council Member Scharff stated that the City was obligated to relocate the
tenants, but it should not be included in the Letter of Interest because
Foothill would not be involved with that.
Mayor Espinosa asked if Vice Mayor Yeh would like to change the language.
06/27/2011 108-299
Vice Mayor Yeh noted the community event venue that Foothill included in
their request for offers, and stated that there was an existing relationship
between the City of Palo Alto and the non-profit organizations. He stated
there was an opportunity for dialogue between the two with a shared vision
on providing community programs. The Letter of Intent did not compel, but
was an area of topics for discussion. He noted the importance of
incorporating the concerns expressed by the public.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX
to incorporate language into the Letter relating to the relocation and/or
shared use of the Foothill site facilities with existing non-profits and
community partners.
Council Member Scharff stated that putting relocation in the Letter of
Interest was asking Foothill to pay for relocation, which would be a mistake.
The Amendment could be about the Council having the discussion about
relocation, but not in the Letter of Interest to Foothill.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND
Vice Mayor Yeh noted his agreement with the Substitute Motion. He stated
that Cubberley needed to be refurbished and the City did not necessarily
have those resources, so the opportunity for partnerships would be very
important. He stated it would be important to see how much information
would be shared publicly about the long-term future of the entire Cubberley
site. He noted the importance of addressing the concerns of the public
move when determining a process to move forward.
Council Member Holman noted that Staff said that if Foothill moved the
college would maintain a presence at Cubberley. She shared the Mayor’s
concern about selling city-owned land. She stated there was no plan for
what to do with the money or the nonprofits, and no knowledge of the actual
cost of relocation. She stated that Foothill paid no property or sales tax, and
if the City was looking to sell the property for some other purpose, they
should review uses that could generate tax. She noted there had been no
analysis of other uses, and that even though it didn’t had the money
currently to build, the City itself needed land for facilities.
Council Member Burt agreed with the sentiments of the Substitute Motion,
but not the math. He stated that it might work without Phase 2 and he
spoke about the amount of square footage used if Foothill built a two-story
facility that would allow most of the community services to remain in the
space. He noted that he did not understand how Phase 2 would work,
especially with the parking. He stated exploratory conversations with
Foothill about whether there was interest in a more limited use of the site
would be advisable. He also asked what might happen if the land was
06/27/2011 108-300
offered to Foothill and the School District exercised their right of refusal
causing the City to lose the eight acres.
Council Member Holman noted that there was no indication of the content of
the Letter of Interest.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-3 Burt, Holman, Schmid
no
5. Resolution 9183 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4 and
W-7 or Selection of an Alternative Water Utility Rate Structure”.
(continued from June 20, 2011).
City Manager, James Keene, referring to Council’s discussion regarding
postponing this item, stated that it would be difficult to have this
conversation in a future meeting.
Utilities Director, Val Fong noted that bringing the information back with
changed rate schedules and updated numbers would push it back to
September.
Council Member Price left the meeting at 12:24 am.
Mayor Espinosa said Staff’s request was to discuss the item and provide
feedback. He noted it had been discussed previously and might take less
time than other items.
Council Member Scharff noted that adding Tier 3 would not be in
conformance with Proposition 218, so the choice was between Alternative 1
and 2. He stated it did not matter, but he would prefer Alternative 1. He
noted the rates were both lower on Alternative 1.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to direct Staff to move forward with Alternative 1 which includes: 2-
tiered residential rates with the Tier 1 breakpoint at 6 ccf, priced at $3.60,
and one tier for commercial rates.
Herb Borock noted that there were two California Constitutional goals being
implemented. One goal was from Proposition 218 and related to charging
users for a good and service based upon what each was using. Another goal
was conservation, which was setting up a rate structure to benefit the entire
class of users. In balancing the two goals the rates were established. He
noted that the proposed alternatives were unclear in that they were getting
the same amount of money as in the original proposal, but in a shorter
amount of time. He thought the original proposal was better than the
alternatives, and suggested including the amount of rate differences. He
06/27/2011 108-301
noted the tiers force conservation and as established in the Cost of Services
Study, they satisfy Proposition 218.
Council Member Scharff stated that he believed Alternative One to be in line
with Proposition 218.
Council Member Shepherd stated she strongly supported Alternative Two.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by
Vice Mayor Yeh to move Staff recommendation to:
1. Increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water
Fund by 12.5 percent or $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012; and
2. Amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as
attached.
Council Member Shepherd stated that during the Finance Committee discussions on this subject Staff provided an explanation about the analysis
of the interest that Palo Alto residents had in conservation and moving
forward with Proposition 218 compliance with fixed rates increasing by 100
percent both this and next year. She stated that would be more appropriate
for the Palo Alto community.
Council Member Burt stated it should be clear to the public that under Tier 1
there was a reduction, absent the increase in fixed rates. He noted it was
adding 100 percent this year, and only 50 percent next year.
Council Member Shepherd disagreed.
Council Member Burt asked for clarification on the increase.
Ms. Fong stated Council Member Burt was correct.
Council Member Schmid noted that there was a Cost of Services Study that
focused on customer classes. He stated that the requirements on the
residential side had not been addressed. He stated that moving forward,
even if the rates were approved, there would be a Cost of Services study for
any rate increase that might be appropriate next year. He asked if that was
correct.
Ms. Fong replied yes.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-5 Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh yes
06/27/2011 108-302
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX
for Staff to draft a letter to State Legislators requesting legislation to
address conservation pricing for water utilities.
Council Member Scharff noted it was a constitutional requirement trumping
any legislation.
Mr. Keene noted there was some legislation related to conservation pricing.
City Attorney, Molly Stump noted they could come back with a strategy to
address the underlying interest.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Yeh no, Price absent
Ms. Fong stated that the first tier went to 6ccf in Alternative 1.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated that he did not know if there was a Motion for
legislation regarding conservation pricing or if that was what the City
Attorney was already tasked with bringing back to Council.
Ms. Stump suggested working on it offline and coming back with something.
Mayor Espinosa asked Staff to move labor to 5:00 pm the next day.
Mr. Keene agreed with the time.
Ms. Grider noted there was a Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting
the next day at 7:00 pm.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to
move the Closed Session Items to Tuesday, June 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session
item(s); three minutes per speaker. THE FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD WITH THE City
LABOR NEGOTIATORS.
6. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,
Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch,
Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
06/27/2011 108-303
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant
to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis
Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters, (IAFF)
Local 1319
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to move the Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item to July 2012.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 A.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.