Palo Alto, California

Welcome to the PaloAlto Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026. I'll call the meeting to order. I'd like to uh start with a roll call. >> Okay. Uh Commissioner Klein House >> here. Commissioner Smith >> here. >> Commissioner Axelrod >> present. >> Uh, Chair Freeman >> here. >> Commissioner Deng >> Uh, Commissioner Brown is absent. And Vice Chair Wei has uh called in sick today. >> Okay. Thank you. So, this is the point where members of the public uh may speak to any item not on the agenda. Uh so now we'll open it up for um for items on another. If you are in person here in person uh and would like to speak uh please fill out a speaker card and head to the clerk. Uh if you're joining us uh on Zoom um for an item that's not on the agenda, just raise your hand. The clerk will um call you. And uh actually due to a recent uh policy change, we'll hear Zoom comments at the end of the agenda. There any speakers? There is currently one speaker in person. Okay. So, Doug, Pete, do you want to come up? Good evening. Uh, my name is Doug Peterson and I appreciate this opportunity to address the commission on a subject of my own choosing. Yesterday, I submitted a letter to this commission and the valley water board of dire directors urging you to jointly address the ongoing harm caused by the broken sllegate that continues to undermine the ecological health of the 600 acre PaloAlto flood basin. The letter includes an attached PDF of an in-depth report I prepared regarding the complex issues surrounding the broken gate. As some of you surely know by now, I feel a strong obligation to defend the interests of wildlife and the purpose of the lengthy report is to expedite the repair of the gate which has not functioned properly for a very long time. I am here again in person to emphasize how deeply important this is to me as a wildlife advocate and to urge this commission to ensure that the nearly 2 years of public statements affirming PaloAlto's intention to repair the gate will finally result in visible action. The recently renovated tide gate structure provides valuable flood flood protection to PaloAlto, but the inoperable SLE gate represents a significant environmental shortcoming that needs to be remedied. I delivered simil similar comments to Valley Waters board of directors this afternoon and remain optimistic that our shared commitments to environmental stewardship will result in a cooperative effort to repair the gate. Thank you. >> Thank you and thanks for your comments. We appreciate your taking the time to uh to share your comments. Any other? >> There are no additional comments at this time. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. I like to um Okay. Are there any um next we'll move on to agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Um, so I before we get started, I want to let the commission know that we're that to accommodate those who wish to attend the meeting uh in person or in Zoom uh to comment on the agenda, we have moved the you probably noticed on the agenda that we've moved things around. Um um so we moved the ad hoc layers on and department uh report to the end of the agenda. Um, so now is the opportunity to make any additional changes or deletions to the agenda. Do I have any? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to the next item. So, we have two sets of minutes to approve. Uh, one set of minutes is from April 28 26 and the other is from May 26 26. um like to have so do I have a motion to approve the April 28th, 2026 minutes? >> I'll move to approve the April 28th minutes. Okay, do I have a second? >> Second. Do I have a second? >> Second. Okay, thank you. We do a vote approval. Commissioner Klein House, >> yes. >> Commissioner Smith, >> Commissioner Axelrod, >> yes. >> Chair Freeman, >> Commissioner Deng, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Okay. Like to approve the second set of minutes, which was for May 26, 2026. Like to have a motion to approve those minutes. I move to approve the May 26. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. Thank you. >> We move to vote on that. Thank you. >> Commissioner Deng, >> yes. >> Chair Freeman, >> Uh, Commissioner Axelrod, >> yes. >> Uh, Commissioner Smith, >> And Commissioner Klein House, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll now move on to the business items. The first um business item is to recommend the adoption of a park dedication ordinance to dedicate a portion of the measure E site as parkland CQA status exempt under CQ CQA regulation. Whatever. Is there way to get started there? >> Thank you. Um my name is Tina Fam and I'm a senior senior engineer working for the wastewater treatment plant. I'm happy to present regarding this item tonight. Um we also have Travis Belt who is a natural resources uh director with Ringcon, our consultant who completed the work for the wildlife corridor evaluation. Um I also want to introduce um Karen North who is our assistant director of environmental services division. Um and we also have Greg Sans here in the audience who is uh with Woodward Curran representing our program management consultant as well. Next slide. Um, so here we have our recommendation. As stated in the staff report, I'd like to recommend PRC consider the results of the wildlife quarter evaluation and also recommend um consider recommending to city council adoption of a park dedication ordinance to dedicate 7.7 acres of the measure E site as parkland. Next slide. Our agenda today um includes a few different topics. I'd like to spend a few minutes to talk over Measure E background. Then I'll talk about the regional water quality control plant and what we do for bioolids currently. Then I will briefly go over the bioolids alternative evaluation completed this year. Um then I'll turn it over to Travis who will talk through their firm's work on wetland wildlife corridor evaluation. Next slide. Before we get into it, I'd like to point out to the commission where our wastewater treatment plant is. In this figure, you'll see a red circle with a yellow star indicating its location right in the center of this photo. To the north is Palo Alto airport and the golf course. Um to the uh to the west is an office park. To the east is the Palatoto Baylands. To the southwest is Reszo Marsh and to the south is Bixby Park. And so that is um in that direction is where the measure E site is. Approximately 10 acres adjacent to our wastewater treatment plant. Of that 2.4 4 acres is roughly uh relatively flat terrain while 7.7 acres is on a slope hillside adjacent to Bixby Park which is a closed landfill. Next slide. And next slide again. So this slide here um I've included to uh describe the key objectives and features of measure E. Uh just to give you some history, in November 2011, residents of Palo Alto approved a ballot measure to undedicate and remove approximately 10 acres from parkland. The main objective was to provide a reliable long-term solution for organics, which there are three types, bioolids from wastewater treatment, food scraps, and yard trimmings. Another goal was to reduce uh landfill disposal of these three waist streams and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Another objective which has thankfully uh already been completed um was to allow Paloalto to phase out its existing incinerators used at that time to uh treat bio salage. So at that time it was the largest carbon source emitter in the cities. Um and uh after 2019 um when the wastewater treatment plant was able to build our solids dewatering building we were able to decommission these incinerators and began offhauling bioolids. And so that was uh completed even though measure E land was not used at that time. Some other key features of measure E is that um the 10 acres had very specific approved uses uh for them. Um basically treatment of the three waist streams that I described. If the city wanted to do anything other than to treat those three waist streams, then another ballot measure would be required. Measure also did not specify any specific technology and it did not obligate Palo Alto to build within any specific time frame. It did say though that at the end of the 10-year period, which has since passed, council could rededicate the 10 acres, but it did not require council to do so. Last thing I want to mention in this figure here you see uh which is also the same figure in your attachment um C in your packet is that as I mentioned 2.4 4 acres right adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant is relatively flat. 7.7 acres is a former landfill that has been capped with roughly 4 feet of soil and it also contains an extensive network of groundwater monitoring wells removing landfill lee and methane as part of the regulatory compliance practices to maintain a closed landfill. So staff have determined that the 7.7 acres does not really make sense to build any potential facility on these um on these 7.7 acres. The current conditions limit any sort of grading structural loading. So we basically want to minimize um as much subsurface disturbance in this area as possible. And so you'll see later again um but uh staff will recommend 7.7 acres of this area be rededicated as parkland. Next slide. Um, so there's a lot to this slide. I I wanted to include this slide here to show that this item has been brought up to PRC and council several times. Um, and this slide mostly focuses on after 10 years after the ballot measure has passed. Back in 2021 and 2022, staff from multiple departments, including public works, utilities, community services, and planning and development services coordinated together to see if partial or full dedication of measure east side as Parkland was feasible, possible, or advisable. Ultimately, PRC in October of 2022 recommended dedication as Parkland after several discussions with city staff. city council in April of 2023, they directed staff to instead consider um consider uh completing two technical studies. One study was to determine the feasibility of supporting a wildlife corridor connecting Renzo Marsh and Baylands through the measure E site and the other study was to determine whether the 2.4 acres of the measure E site should be preserved for the potential bioolids processing facility. Um and so we feel that after this time we are able to bring back um to the commission and to council the results from these technical studies. In that same year, council acknowledging how space constrained we were um directed wastewater treatment plant staff to begin the exploration of purchasing property contiguous to the plant and also explore funding sources to to be able to purchase property. Um this direction was limited to three properties in the office park but it also allowed staff to explore leasing options as well. Um in 2024 is when we kicked off our long range facility plan which is included a bow solids facility plan really intending to answer the questions that council had asked. Um I also want to note that in the last several years council has made the bow solids facility plan a top council priority. So tonight we are here and we are eager to share Rinkcon's wildlife wetland corridor feasibility study results with the aim of by the fall being able to bring the bios facility plan and the park dedication ordinance back to council. Next slide. All right. So this slide is um included here to remind the commission that we are a regional facility that we have six partner agencies um and we are a 24x7 operation with engineers, operators, maintenance folks in support of providing wastewater treatment plant services to close to 260,000 people. Next slide. Um this slide here um is intended to show our um current projects going on as part of the previous 2012 long range facility plan. We have many projects um in underway, some completed, some in construction and some in design um totaling roughly $500 million of work to re rehabilitate our aging plant. This is quite common. uh wastewater treatment plants, many of them were built in the 1970s with Clean Water Act money given by the federal government. Um and so plants after roughly 50 or so years require major rehabilitation. We're not alone in our efforts. Um we are also simultaneously updating our long-range facility plan as well to be able to plan for the next 30 to 50 years. And so what's unique to me about this plant um based on other plants I've worked on and what I've seen is that we are incredibly tight with many physical constraints. We have many projects stacked up right against each other. We can't build much higher because of the airport and flight paths. Um, and we're constrained in many directions. We can't necessarily dig down because of high groundwater affecting potential projects. We currently rent layown area at the airport and we're also pursuing additional parcels toward the office park as council directed in August of 2023. And so we'll be doing all of this even without um the topics that discussed tonight regarding measure E. Next slide. So back to bioolids in our current processing um uh or or current processing. Um as part of the wastewater treatment plant process, we remove solids from our wastewater. Then we thicken it, blend it, and dewater it on belt filter presses that were recently built as part of our solids dewatering project in 2019. As I previously mentioned, this allowed for decommissioning of our incinerators. As stated, this sludge cake is then hauled off to two different processing facilities in the Solano County and the other in Central Valley. So ultimately, these processes result in fertilizer byproduct that can be used for agriculture. And our previous bioolids facilities plan envisioned this to be a temporary practice until potential bioolids treatment could potentially be placed on site. Next slide. Um so now to our recent Balisaw's facility plan update. Um the city is no stranger to balisaw's facility plan updates. We completed evaluations in 2012, 2014 and 2019. Um but what is important is that uh we feel that it's important that we look at these things every couple of years because technologies change, regulations change, hauling and treatment costs change. Um, one thing I also want to mention is that our secondary treatment project, one of the largest capital projects in the city's history, uh, its main driver was to treat nutrients, including ammonia, to protect the bay. And so this change as part of this project will treat nutrients and protect the bay, but it'll also result in bioolids uh, production increase starting when the project is finished in 2018. And so >> 20 >> 29 >> 2029 sorry. So we wanted to make sure those assumptions were worked into our long range planning especially if we're anticipating increased bioolids production um because we want to think about what we would need for our plant for the next 30 to 50 years. Next slide. So, Corolla who is um working on this bioolids facility plan update, they evaluated over 15 alternatives and really narrowed it down to these six. Two of them are uh um offhauling um either continuing with our current relationship with the two treatment uh places in the Solano Valley and Central Valley or potentially offhauling to a regional facility, potentially San Jose's regional facility. um and also four alternatives on site. And so the analysis considered a lot of different criteria including capital costs, life cycle costs, environmental impacts, regulatory compliance, and implementation feasibility. The valuation found that the alternative one, what we currently do right now, um is no surprise the lowest in cost. Um, but it also said that other technologies such as alternative six drying and paralysis demonstrated potential environmental benefits including net negative greenhouse gas emissions but at a significantly higher cost. The the analysis also identified key uncertainties associated with emerging technologies and evolving regulatory requirements including potential future limits on peace which are per and polyfloro alcohol substances. These are known what are these are known as forever chemicals and these were used in firefighting foams and other uses. There are several states that have file solids treatment standards related to PAS. Although California does not have such regulations yet, we are working very closely with our consultants to track them um as we may need to change our treatment processes if these if these regulations come into place. Next slide. One other thing that the analysis uh highlighted to us is sighting and space concerns were very very important. So there's a lot on this slide. I don't want to point out everything. Um just know that we are trying to very carefully plan for our future including both future liquids and solids treatment needs. Um this slide really highlights both. Um and so first thing I wanted to mention is in Corella's analysis they concluded that a 20ft setback uh as you can see in yellow um would be needed to continue the practice of providing landscape screening from the outside. And also um as you've noted, we very tight on on the site. We want to reserve space for both liquids and solids treatment and plan for the future. So there could be a very uh likely situation where in the future if off-site management costs increase dramatically, we would need to build on-site anorobic digesttors seen here as tanks number one um on the measure E site. And then if future PAS regulations required uh paralysis then the city would also need to reserve space for both. And so this would need to happen in the future when paralysis could or you know become an established technology. The only way to fit both on site would be to place some of the solids processing in the measure E area and some adjacent on site um as shown here in purple um in order to um in order to meet our future needs. And we feel that this would align with uh some of the land uses as measure E allowed because only bioolids processing would be placed on the measure E site. Next slide. So ultimately to sum up the bioolids um treatment recommendations is that our consultant has recommended that we continue current operations but we maximize uh for future flexibility. um because things will change, technologies will change um and uh we need to track uh PAS regulations, off-site partnerships um and technology development just in case. Uh we should also be ready to take action um as necessary in the future. As our consultant has told us, there's not that much time once um regulations in place, agencies will need to um comply to meet those needs. Next slide. So as mentioned um before this is our initial recommendation for measure E to reserve a portion of it for potential future bio solids processes especially if future PAST regulations um go into effect and then for the 7.7 acres we'd like to rededicate as parkland. Next I'll turn it over um to Travis to go over the wetland wildlife corridor evaluation. Thank you, Tina. Travis, uh, director of natural resources for Rinkcon Consultants. Uh, worked with a team of biologists and geologist to conduct the wetland wildlife corridor evaluation in the um, measure E site. Um, going to just talk a little bit about it briefly today. uh with the intent of providing some baseline information results of the study and hopefully uh initiate some conversation and and open the floor up to questions. I'd like to start just uh briefly with um sort of an executive summary of the the study that we conducted. uh the measure e site. The focus of our study was to determine whether a wetland wildlife corridor could provide meaning meaningful ecological benefits between Emily Renel wetlands and the Bayland Harbor Marsh. Our assessment found the site already functions as habitat and supports wildlife movement and hydraologic connection in its current state. and multiple we evaluated multiple corridor concepts including an open air and underground alternatives. While several alternatives appeared technically feasible, they would require substantial excavation avoidance of existing infrastructure and ongoing maintenance to implement. Most importantly, the analysis found that these corridor alternatives would only provide a limited additional ecological benefit or uplift relative to the existing conditions. We found that potentially targeted habitat enhancement, so enhancing the existing habitat conditions in this area could likely provide a greater ecological benefit with less disturbance and most likely lower costs. Next slide, please. just like to talk about the measure E site parameters just a little bit. Uh the conceptual corridor site is the footprint of the potential wetland wildlife corridor that we evaluated and that's the sort of small uh yellow rectangular um elongated polygon there. Um the study area is located between the Emily Renel wetlands and the PaloAlto Balins marsh. Um it includes portions of the Bayland's nature preserve, the closed landfill and areas adjacent to the um water quality control plan. Because the site sits between two important habitat areas, there was interest in understanding whether a new wildlife corridor could improve ecological connectivity. We say improve ecological connectivity because the site in its existing conditions already provides hydraologic connection between the two wetlands via an 18-inch underground pipeline. Next slide, please. The Palo Alto City Council initiated this study to evaluate the potential for establishing a wetland wildlife corridor or alternative beneficial environmental use at the measure E site. Rencon was tasked with literature review, a site visit, an analysis to explore alternatives for creating a wetland wildlife corridor between and including portions of the Bayland's Nature Preserve and and the Emily Renel wetlands. Our role our role was to evaluate that concept using field observations, biological assessments, excavation assessment, hydraologic evaluations, and a review of site constraints to determine whether a corridor would meaningfully improve ecological ecological outcomes. Field surveys were conducted on November 13th and 18th in 2025 and included general site reconnaissance, wildlife observations, vegetation classification, and hydraologic and topographic evaluations. The corridor design alternatives were explored that we explored included the open air options. There was two of them. an open channel, which would be sort of a trapezoidal uh likely mostly straight channel, and a wide wetland swale, which would be a more meandering uh wider channel, and then two underground options, which included oversized multiar barrel box covert and an arch span covert. Next slide, please. This slide just shows an overview of the site and the various constraints that we uh evaluated. Um, this uh photo was taken during the field survey in November on November 18th and it it illustrates the close proximity of several important features that influence the project feasibility including the Balins Harbor Marsh and Barkadero Road, the regional water quality control plant and the horizontal levy pilot project. These existing conditions helped inform our ecological and excavation assessments and our evaluation of potential corridor alternatives. Identifying that the open air wide wetland swale or open channel alternatives would likely be a desired outcome. The following parameters would need to be achieved. We would need about a minimum wildlife quarter width of 100 feet for plants and invertebrates and aquatic species and a minimum width of about 200 feet that's at the top of bank is recommended for birds and small mammals. These uh these parameters were based on a study conducted in 2008. To achieve this, it was determined that approximately 810,000 cubic yards, excuse me, cubic feet of roughly or roughly 300 shipping containers of soil would need to be excavated to create the required hydraologic connection. Existing constraints to the corridor alternatives include the need for a covert or bridge crossing at Embaradero Road to provide hydraologic connection to the Balin Marsh embar uh changing uh the Embaradero Road drainage systems. Maintaining the recently constructed horizontal levy pilot project functionality maintaining the landfill maintenance facility which isn't seen in the picture. It's just off to the left here. And relocating regional water quality control plant, landfill, and park infrastructure, including a landfill flare gas man, two groundwater monitoring wells, a wastewater pipeline, and portable water pipelines. Next slide, please. I think one of the takehomes here is that the site isn't ecologically blank at this current state. wildlife movement, habitat uses are occurring in the site as it sits right now along with the hydraologic connection already mentioned via an 18-inch pipeline. So the question wasn't simply can we build a wetland corridor, but whether doing so would actually provide meaningful benefit ecologically. This distinction is important because the goal of a corridor and measure e site would be to achieve the greatest environmental benefit for the site and surrounding bayins. Existing habitats there now include the eucalyptus woodland. It's planted in 1988 and 2013 to f facilitate plant screening. Those woodlands provide nesting bird and raptor habitat. Uh there's currently existing pickleweed mats which is a wetland community um and it's also a California um sensitive natural community. There's quail bush scrub which is a common upland native community. And then there's landscape areas. Three of the landscape areas are slated for unre unrelated capital improvement project restoration at this time. As part of this evaluation, we evaluated species for their potential to utilize the site in its current and potential future conditions. We found that white-tailed kite was using the site readily at this point. Currently, white-tailed kite is a fully protected species under the state of California. Um, it's particularly interesting to me. It's one of the few birds that u mates for life, reuses their nest, and has large family groups. So disturbance in that area could be disturbing. Uh six other special status species were determined to have high potential to occur um in both conditions, existing and future conditions. Northwestern pond turtle, burrowing owl, salt marsh yellow har um salt marsh common yellow throat, Alama song sparrow, California's ridge whale, and the crotch's bumblebee which is a state candidate species. Three moderate potential to occur species and the existing and current conditions include California black rail, monarch butterfly, a federally candidate proposed species, and salt marsh harvest mouse, a currently listed species. Target targeted habitat benefit focusing on existing conditions rather than vastly changing the conditions would benefit these species. Next slide, please. Going along with that theme, we want to discuss targeted habitat enhancement with the potent potentially using the existing conditions and enhancing the existing conditions. Um beneficial uses focusing on wildlife habitat, upland restoration, and wetland enhancement. Upland habitat corridor enhancement of existing habitat could benefit a variety of species. I already mentioned the crotch's bumblebee, the brewing owl, monarch, butterfly. Upland habitat enhancement would include removal of non-native vegetation such as upland mustards and restoration of native vegetation communities on site. This option is a lower impact, low maintenance, and relatively inexpensive compared with construction of a wetland corridor. Specifically, restoration of native grasses, forbes, and shrubs to mimic locally appropriate communities such as a coastal grassland or coyote brush scrub or coastal sage scrub would be appropriate. Working with the screening, the existing screening that's there now, uh we could enhance the monarch and raptor use by planting more eucalyptus trees or Monterey cypress trees. Um and then on the marsh marsh sides of the site, we could pursue enhancing the pickle weed mats that are already existing. Uh some of those areas are invaded with non-native species at this time. Those species could be removed and um pickleweed mats mentioned is a sensitive natural community. They actually are really resilient and will come back pretty easily. um along the edge of the marsh on the southwest side and the north southwest side and the northwest side. These mustards could be removed providing that enhancement of the wetland in upland communities would benefit many species. I have a list of species that we could add um but don't want to belabor that topic here. It's uh something we could definitely discuss more. Compared with constructing a wetland habitat corridor, the alternative uses identified under the study would result in fewer temporary impacts to habitats and species on site. Would be more feasible to construct from from a regulatory and financial perspective. Would not require major construction to relocate utilities or other infrastructure which is critical to the treatment plant. It's not mutually exclusive. Could implement one, could implement all of them, could take them in little bits and pieces. It's not a huge disturbance all at once. And most importantly, wouldn't be prohibiting for future uses with the treatment plant. Um the the site is eventually if the site is eventually needed for additional critical wastewater treatment plant infrastructure major demolition would not need to remove the restoration areas. Next slide please. This slide's just basically a summary of of where we've been and um the findings um where we've been. We did a field and desktop evaluations. We studied, we evaluated um data from the California natural diversity database uh which is run and operated by the California fishing game fish and wildlife. Um we studied the information information planning and consultation database which is run by the US fish and wildlife service. We studied species recovery plans. We utilize city provided LAR data, aerial imagery and wildlife corridor studies. We conducted two field visits, biological and hydra hydraological evaluations. We evaluated the four alternatives by working with the city and their consultant team. The alternatives were the open air wide wetland swale which ultimately would be ecologically preferred because it provides terrestrial and aquatic plant and wildlife species habitat and hydraologic conditions but is very heavily constrained by sight constraints. we don't have the width to get that desired channel. The other open air open channel would have limited benefit because it provides minimal aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species and hydraologic connection in underground. It's pretty much mainly what exists now but in a different configuration uh would just support hydraologic connection and have very little benefit to wildlife or plants. Um ultimately we found that if pursuing a restoration or corridor project in this area, alternative upland enhancement would be uh more suitable for the site. At this point, I'd like to hand it back over to Tina. >> Thanks, Travis. Next slide. So I'd like to bring back to the commission our initial measure E recommendations after sharing some of the preliminary recommend preliminary technical recommendations from the two studies that council had asked us to look at into. So again we'd like to reserve 2.4 acres for potential uses regarding ball solids processing um and the 7.7 acres we'd like to rededicate to parkland. Next slide. This slide simply summarizes next slide. This slide simply summarizes the park dedication ordinance which includes the 7.7 acres and then last slide is our recommendation again. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the um great presentation. And I'd like to first thank um thank you for the uh thoughtful and the wellprepared report that uh you put out. Um we appreciate the additional uh material uh which and and the responses to questions that that were provided. Um as I reviewed the staff report uh the supplemental Q&A and the correspondence we received I found the materials to be you know pretty comprehensive and I think also with the presentation it was pretty pretty thorough as well. So the issue before us is not um uh whether the uh a facility will be built uh but what rather whether the um the city should rededicate the entire 10 acre measure E site as parkland or preserve uh approximately 2.4 acres adjacent to the regional water quality control plant for potential uh future bio bio bioolids related uh needs. So, so before I open it up to uh public comments or ask the commissions for uh clarifying questions, I'd like to kind of briefly summarize the work of the ad hoc committee which uh Commissioner Klein House and I are on and the factors that um uh that informed our recommendation uh going forward here. So, Commissioner uh Klein House and I spent uh considerable time reviewing the Measure E ballot uh language uh prior uh staff reports. Uh the historical background as you said, this has been something that's been um going on for about I think 2022 or so. Uh and the correspondence received from the public. Our focus is not uh was not on what uh future uses might someday be proposed, but rather on the specific question that was referred to the parks and rec commission by the city council. U Commissioner Klein House and I and staff and Sarah and others um did a walk through I think it was about a month ago and so it gave us a pretty good feel for um what what is before us here. So like I said we spent we spent a lot of time looking at that. Now several um several observations guided our discussion here. Um first the the measure E language um ballot was very specific. Uh voters approved the um temporary removal of site from parkland dedication for the exclusive use of constructing a facility for processing uh yards trimming food waste uh and other organic materials. And so as you've indicated here, no such facility was ever built and measure and the measure specifically contemplated that the property would be returned uh to parkland after 10 years. And I guess that's where we are today. Uh secondly we we consider the physical characteristics of the site itself uh especially after our walk through and much of the approximately let's say 7 uh 7 acres is constrained by landfill as I understand it landfill conditions and it's not suitable for traditional park development. I think you guys have talked a little bit about that. However, the uh 2.4 4 acre area has historically served as a a buffer uh between the regional qual water quality control plant uh and Bixby Park and has potential value as a habitat restoration area, wildlife connectivity and open space. So uh for those reasons uh we we'll we'll make some recommendations going forward. At this point I would like to uh Commissioner Klein House if you have any uh to speak to the items as well. Yeah, I had a couple of questions. >> I had a couple of questions and comments respond to what you have presented. uh RCON presented one thing that was of interest uh that the site the measure E site has value ecologically animal use that there's already use by species of um special status species and it could be enhanced as a plant habitat to really provide a lot of value between the uh Emily Renzel marshes and the um the uh bay or the Harbor Marsh, even if that is not an aquatic um connectivity. So that was interesting because many times it was presented there's nothing there. It just stinks. Nobody uses it. We don't need it. And I think that establishes that there is value for wildlife and for nature. So I think that's an important thing to start with because the question is not really are we going to put a a new water connectivity but are we going to lose that site completely versus a different kind of vision can we restore it to nature and I think that's a different um or it's going to be industrial the other observation that I think is important to note is that the 7.7 acres on the landfill is not very useful for nature. because of the cap, you can't have animals dig into that. If there are squirrels that are trying to make a home, usually they're being uh excluded from that site. You cannot really plant trees there uh because the roots will upset the um the um cap underneath. So the the the 7.7 acres provide currently uh people can walk or or bike they can do that but there's not a lot of other things that is parkland can be used and whether it is parkland or not doesn't really make the use different anyway so those are interesting observations and I would very much appreciate share it if you share the list of species that you mentioned uh that ringcon has with all of us. Um having established that I think it's also important to you know we received letters from the public and one of those letters from was from the honorable pre uh former mayor Ramy Renzel and she said that the 120 foot landscape buffer which is essentially the measure E site was installed and h has been maintained by the regional water quality control plant as a condition for approval for the plant's development. It was expected to be a buffer that provides a visual and otherwise noise smell a buffer. And so she says it's a and I'm going to quote this because I it's ironic that measure E removed the required landscape buffer land from park dedication and may result in an even more industrial and smellier facility being located even closer to the park that this buffer would was intended to protect. I have a lot of difference to some of to the legacy of some of our uh previous um especially Emily Lorenzo those marshes are in her name. So I want to say also that I do not underestimate the complexity and the difficulty of running a water treatment plan on a small scale and the effluence going to the bay and you definitely want the water that goes to the bay not to be contaminated in any sort of way not now and not in the future. Um, so the so I understand the the complexity and you know I don't want to see the bay be contaminated either. But as Yeah. So we want get to the commission as far as if there's any clarifying questions before we go to um the public comments. Do you have any additional clarifying questions to ask? >> Okay. Any commissioners with clarifying questions? Commissioner Klein, I mean, Axel Rod. >> Yep. Thanks for the amazing report. I have a few questions. Hopefully, I'll try to get through them fast. Can you help me understand how much bioolids is going off site? Like how many trucks, how often, what's the volume we're talking? >> Yeah, currently we have roughly two to three trucks a day leaving the facility. Um, so I think roughly 63 uh tons per week. >> And is that likely to be impacted materially in 29? >> Yeah, we've modeled an increase of roughly uh 20 to 25% due to our change in wastewater treatment plant process that would allow us to better treat ammonia nutrients. >> Okay. So even after 29 it'll be like three to five trucks a day. Yes. Got it. >> And are the contracts with off-site facilities yearbyear, excuse me, are they long-term signed? >> Uh, from what I know, we uh may have recently renewed the contracts in the last year. Uh, potentially Karen North can answer that better. >> Sure. So, we um the contracts for there's two contracts. There's one for hauling off the the solids and then there's also a contract for the two processing facilities. The challenge for us is we managed to get five-year contracts in place, but that was before AB218 went in, which is going to uh flood the market with bioolids because there's no more the Senate bill AB28 basically made it so no bioolids cannot be used as alternative daily cover in landfills. So, we've been doing creating class A biosids for a very long time. Specifically, when we switched over from the incinerators, which was ash, now to raw sludge that it's not treated at all. So, we're having raw sludge go in the streets. It's just dewatered. That's all it is. Just cheesecloth, dewatered human waste is in the trucks. Um, then that was to buy us time to figure out if technologies had improved and changed, which is why we've done the bioolids facility plans updates. so frequently because technologies are rapidly changing and evolving. The question though for you is I think we're on our fourth or third fourth year of our contract and then we're going to have to go out again and we anticipate our cost will go up um exponentially just because the market will be flooded with other folks other wastewater treatment plants looking to handle their bioolids without treatment which is why San Jose is one of our potential options to send it to because they are they have all of their bioolids goes alternative daily cover and they're actively pursuing um a facility ility to treat their bios and so that might be a closer location for us to haul our dewatered sludge cake. I'm sure that's a lot more information than you wanted but >> no that was helpful. Thank you. >> If I can just add um our consultant has also let us know that there are certain triggers that would uh cause us to relook at all of this again and do another bioolids facility plan. One of the triggers would be if the cost to treat and um offhaul the bow solids would double. That would really change the analysis and have us look at on-site treatment sooner than than not. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I have a lot of other stuff, but I'll let others ask. Thank you for that. Yeah, I was going to um kind of remind me of it, but you you indicated that the the potential need for 2.4 acres may be 15 years or more in the future. It is dependent upon regulatory requirements and operational needs. I think you just talked about a trigger. So I was asking what would be the what would be the additional context regarding the likelihood that this lab would actually be needed and what specific circumstances would trigger that need. >> Yeah. So that's something we're still investigating and finalizing a part of our long uh range facility plan and our bios facility plan. Our consultant is trying to help us with an implementation plan from this point on um because they've recommended offhauling but we can't potentially do that forever. So what are the triggers? One of the triggers is cost for the existing practices. Also we've uh been tasked to continue to have a pulse on the changing technologies paralysis. One of the technologies that could treat PAS on site is constantly changing and evolving. And so that's something we're tracking as well. If costs for that potentially decrease or if the efficiencies increase, then that could be something attractive that we'd want to jump on faster. Um, also uh we are tracking regional uh changes and partnerships as K North had mentioned. You know, if San Jose uh is able to take some of our sludge, uh we would jump at that and that would change some of our calculus for what we plan to do in the future for our balance facility plan. >> Okay. Commissioner CL. So I um attended and actually watched again the um presentation from February about the different options that you were looking at and it seems like the main motivation for keeping the flexibility with the measure E site is really the PAS and liquids whereas for the bioolids it is possible maybe not comfortably but possible to accommodate the bioolid facility. on the existing footprint. >> Um so you've mentioned several different things. Um we have many motivators as I've mentioned to look holistically um at all the triggers. One of the main triggers that you mentioned that I agree with is that PAS and solids is something that is uh something we watch very carefully. Our consultant has acknowledged that uh you know three states um are uh h have enacted um PAS regulations that require wastewater treatment plants in those states to do something else whether they want to truck their bioolids out of state or treat on site. It's really caused a change in how those wastewater treatment plants um you know deal with their bioolids. We're not there yet because California has not required us to do so, but um that is on the horizon. So that's that's one of our main motivators um and to reserve some space on site to have that flexibility. >> I did want to add um just a little bit. So we have been there for almost a hundred years um the treatment plant. So our our partner with Stanford is I think in two years time frame is going to hit a hundred years but we've been around forever. We can't relocate this sewage treatment plant. We also are sandwiched between lots of sensitive habitats which we also are there to protect. If you notice we built the horizontal levy. So our we are the true stewards of the environment. Um, we have been working there and trying to figure out how to remove contaminants, make sure contaminants not are not entering the South Bay. Um, we're also trying to look at ourselves as a resource recovery facility, how do we get the energy out of the the the waist stream? How do we get the re the water if we can? So, I just want to give perspective that the environmental services division that I manage is really a true environmental like that is our our top goal. So this is you know council asked us to look at just to remind us to look at what can we do. So this is why it's taken us years because updating a long range facility plan to look out the next 20 to 50 years. When we did our longrange facility plan in 2012 we did not anticipate nutrient reduction that that would be a mandate. Thankfully, we are fitting it into our existing footprint because we have nowhere to go, no other space. And our bioolids, we were asked to do it for our climate action plan goals to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. But all we've done is buy ourselves time. We anticipate, I'd say, in the next 30 to 50 years, we will have more regulations that we have to comply with. So, all we're trying to do is we're not saying we have to do it right now. We're just trying to keep our options open. Because what keeps me up at night is if we have raw sewage in the street or we can't or we're discharging things that we shouldn't be discharging in the bay because my ultimate goal is to protect the environment. So we're not saying that either way decisions this we're just telling what our council asked us to do. We can do a wildlife corridor which is great. Keep it as as existing and hopefully we don't need it. But um and then do can we fit everything on the on the within the fence line? I don't think we can in the next 50 years. And that's what we were trying to look at because we don't know what in future regulations are going to hit us. So that's where looking at liquid processing and bioolids and this has been a ton of work. So to try and figure this out, imagine a very small parcel for 236,000 people and that's continuing to grow. So and trust me, I I love the bay lands. This is why I worked there for 25 years. It's my favorite place to be. Um, one of the things I learned in one of the meetings or answers was the other states that have standards for PIFAs, uh, their standards are higher than our PIFAs. So, if California follows them, then we would be totally within the boundary and not have to do very much. I'm not saying it's not likely or possible that they'll come up with better um regulation in Palo Alto, but I think what I'm trying to say is we don't know what is needed, how much of this land is needed. And the time that we don't know what is needed is 15 or 20 or 30 or 50 years. And meanwhile, that land has been degraded. It's been used. Even the plantings that were there are not have not been taken care of. and um and it's held sort of like yeah we'll just use it when we need it and I don't see why it can't go back to parkland be restored as an upland habitat just like Rcon highlighted and then should the time comes when you need some or all of it the voters will understand like you know they will and meanwhile measure E was really temporary said let's look at what we do we have 10 years we look at it it's been more than 10 years and now it's like oh let's just consider a permanent or indefinitely so I'm not underestimating the issues that the um water pollution control plant is facing but we our our charge is the parks right and this area anyway I'm not sure this is not a question but All right. Um, you you you said that you you've looked at the purchase of the I understand the the need why there's the asking about the 2.4 acres, but you also talked about the purchase of property uh contingents to this site. Can you give us kind of an update where that's because some of those buildings I know are empty and maybe they were looking at, you know, getting rid of and so forth. So you kind of >> So we've been looking at purchasing adjacent parcels for almost 20 years. So and acquiring land within the city is is extremely challenging. Thankfully our our council directed us to work on that. Um we are actively pursuing that. It's we can't talk too much just because it's in negotiations. Um, but that that is more to move bodies and people off the site for safety and for construction. And so we have that space availability for the liquid side that we're currently updating right now um from the 2012 master plan. Uh we also are trying to figure out how to where to house everybody because our facility is as Tina alluded to is a 247 facility. And so when there's a large storm event, we have we have some operators that literally spend two to three days straight there if they are trying to maintain the the site um and keep all the water going through. So our wastewater is on average about 20 million gallons, but when there's a big storm event, we can go up to 60. Yes. Ex 60. We are we are dry weather 39 MGD million gallons of water per day and we are permitted for wet weather up to 80. So it just gives you a perspective of the volume of water and the and the population that we're serving. Um we are thankfully out of sight, out of mind and usually hopefully out of the papers which is our goal right but just to give perspective of what we're dealing with when there's a rain event. So that's why we're trying to get the people off the site so we can contain that those preserve those 25 acres as much as we can for liquid and and future process needs. But you know we in the next hundred years who knows what's going to happen for us. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> I have something to add. Um agree with uh K North. I I also want to add that um the consultant that did the B solids facility plan thought very carefully about how to fit everything on site. Um and so the office space would not be ideal for solid treatment because it's quite far from our existing air raators, clarifiers and dewatering building. Um the north side uh of the site and also where measure E the 2.4 acres is would be much more ideal location from a process perspective where the piping would need to go and start on the site versus where the office park is. That being said, purchasing is uh still something that council directed us to do and we will continue to do so to get bodies off the site and um you know more space for workspace planning and parking and um employees. We are also um renting space from the airport for layown area for our construction because we do need space to put um equipment pipes um and so we are doing that now and will continue to do so. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, can I show Axel right? >> I'm just trying to figure out what are the odds of us needing those 2.4 acres in the next say 20 years. Like I really appreciate the perspective that you have. That's really long term. We don't know what's going on. But just back of the envelope, we're doing like five trucks a day. Even if the processing costs double, the payback for doing a a project like this is probably in the decades. Am I wrong? Yeah. Um, it's a really tough question. It's something we've asked our consultant several times um, since they have a better pulse on the balisologist industry and cost for these projects. And I'd say there's multiple factors that we need to consider. The regulations, so the chance of that hitting us um, and we don't know exactly when they hit, how long we will have to comply. Um and when typically they are established um all the wastewater treatment plants in the in California would have to meet them as well. So it's almost a race to build some of that infrastructure that's needed which makes it even more difficult. Um also uh cost of hauling and treatment um you know has increased. Not sure if it will double in the next five years, but maybe the next 5, 15, 20 years, especially with fuel costs. We see that as a much higher possibility than we did before. Even when the study um was really underway earlier this year, things have changed since then, even so. Um and then also there may be site disposal restrictions as well that we want to keep track of. So there's there's a lot of things that are in play, but we'd say that we feel that the most prudent thing that we could do at a wastewater treatment plant in order to think about the next 30 to 50 years is to reserve this space. >> Okay. Any other commission? Commissioner Q, >> I noticed that um our plant's average dry season flow is about 18 MGD compared to a permitted capacity of 39. How does existing excess capacity influence our long-term bioolids planning decision? >> I can take a stab at that. Um so uh dry weather flows as you mentioned are roughly around you know 18 to 20 but in the wet season we could see um anywhere up to 40 to 60. And when we do long-term planning we don't only think about the uh flows that we've seen in the past although those are very influential on our planning. We reach out to all of our partner agencies. Um we ask them to give us projections based on their housing element. um for the next five years up to 50 years. And so we sum all of that information up in order to uh think about what we should build not just now but for the next 30 to 50 years. And so over the 50-year time frame, we feel that um the 80 MGD capacity may be sufficient, but it's something we want to look at again in 10 years. in 10 years, you know, with different population projections, we may want to think about increasing our capacity in order to meet future needs. >> And I just want to add, um, when we have increased concentrations, so when I first started 25 years ago, we were around 26 million gallons of water per day, but our our waist stream has changed. So, it's a very concentrated waist stream. So, as we increase population, we're going to have higher loads of ammonia, which means higher solids. So we may get more uh less water coming in, but it's going to be a more d more concentrated water. And so the solid processing, which is we don't process at all. We just dewater and haul out. That's going to continue to increase over time. And so that's something that we also have we're trying to model, but it's challenging, especially because we're in the middle of a secondary process upgrade, which will increase our solids after that gets completed in 2029. And then on top of that, we're also trying to model what is the population change and demographics going to change in our service area. And so we're we you know, it's not a perfect science, but we just don't know everything, but we know that our solids are going to go up. Definitely in 2029, our solids will increase significantly when the secondary process is completed. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I also have a following up question about since this facility serves several regional communities, how are we balancing our goal of the regional collaboration with other cities? >> Yeah, so it's a very unique uh partnership model that we have with uh the five other different agencies. Uh we have long-standing agreements. I think Karen mentioned the agreement with Stanford almost hundred years and so a lot of these agreements are decades old um and these partners have capacity shares within our plant and so they are very important in the decision-making process for everything we build. If we build a new capital project or for example the secondary treatment project, um all these agencies share in the costs and our debt financing and so we have to um establish uh amendments to existing agreements for every single project and they go to um these agencies councils and our councils. We both have to mutually agree. Uh, Palo Alto owns the facility and administers it, but we uh definitely depend on our partners to be able to carry forth these projects um and pay for the operating and capital costs for these projects. And we meet with them regularly. We actually met with them today. Um they are great partners uh in order to keep this regional facility going. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Uh any other clarifying questions? If not, we'll move on to public comments. >> There are currently uh three speakers for public comments and one person online. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Okay, first up we have Stephen R. Hi. Uh my name is uh Steven Rosalum. I live in old PaloAlto and uh in 2011 I was very active in getting measure E passed and approved by almost 65% of the voters. I think that's important to remember um at this point in time because uh people voted uh to take responsibility for our waste and to process it on site. At the time we were incinerating it and which was clearly not environmentally sound anymore and uh we agreed that we needed to do better. As it turned out, the 7.7 acres of the 10 acres turned out to be not suitable for further construction because it's a landfill and landfill cap can't be breached without releasing contaminants into the environment. So, um, people now realize that, you know, after looking at it carefully that, uh, there's only 2.4 acres of the site that would be available for bioolids treatment. And the voters, as I say, in 2011, they agreed that we should take more responsibility for treating our waste and not exporting it to other people to deal with. Um u because of that I I urge the commission to approve the staff recommendation to restore 7.7 acres as parkland uh with minimal soil disturbance as the consultants have pointed out uh because most of the environmental uh benefit of the parkland is already u available with by by just minimal improvements to the um to the plantings that are there. Um, this will continue continue to honor the intent of the voters in 2011 to encourage the city to take fuller responsibility for the treatment of our bioolids. Thank you. >> Thank you. Up next, we have Herb B. Chair Freeman and commissioners, I believe you should recommend to the council that they dedicate the entire measure east site as as parkland. Uh there are a number of related issues. The first is the proponents of the measure did argue about this incinerators but they will plan for removal independent of the measure E adoption. uh second staff has said it would take uh until the fall to to bring forward uh you the recommendations for bioolids but you don't have to wait to bring before the council uh that long to bring your recommendation. They're currently on a 9-week vacation. they meet on August 10th. Uh the uh recommendation to dedicate uh all of the measure site to Parkland can come can be put on their next agenda on August 10th. It doesn't have to wait until the report on the bioolids. Uh the uh the the issue of uh whether or not uh changing uh to dedication or not changes the use or not of the land is just the opposite of what our charter member of a parkland said. It says when something has a that particular use, it should be dedicated. It's not that we take something else that's not uh being used as a park play or recreation uses uh that's never been used for that purpose and dedicated and then say oh well let's make that a park. Uh so in terms of the use of the property once it's sort of a hole in the park uh uh some people say it should be used for something other than parkland. uh when the council was discussing the salt removal facility uh location uh Walt Hayes the main author of the measure site sent an email to the council and he said oh use the measure e site for the salt removal facility. So this attitude that we just leave it undedicated because sometimes in the future it might be needed uh is backwards. it should be rededicated as car parkland and then as before in the case with the this same uh plant and with the airport uh if the council feels that what's currently dedicated parkland needs to be un dedicated for good use such as in addition uh to to for a particular facility uh it will go to the voters and ask them to remove from parkland which the voters have done in cases I believe both with additions to this plant and also in the case of the report uh just there was some concern that once it was undeedicated uh it will remain that way forever just for the sake of having something empty. It shouldn't be that way. Thank you. >> Up next is Peter D. >> Good evening. I'm Peter Dremmyer, resident of Powalto. I grew up in Palo Alto. loved the Baylands, loved the foothills. After college, I moved back here to work on the International Earth Day 1990 campaign, and I've stuck around. I've been doing environmental work. I was one of the leaders of the Measure M campaign, measure E campaign. I was also leader of the Measure M campaign. So, um I am curious, why is Commissioner Klein House allowed to participate in this discussion, let alone the ad hoc committee, let alone vote on it? 15. I I like Shani. We agree on most issues, but 15 years ago, she and Emily Renzel were up there on the dis with Walt Hayes and me, and we debated measure E. Walt and I as proponents, uh, those two as opponents. And if I were on the Parks and Recreation Commission, I would be told when Measure E came up, I had a conflict of interest and I would have to recuse myself. 3 years ago, the ad hoc committee came to the commission with a recommendation to suggest that all measure E be rededicated. We weren't consulted at all. I heard about it from a reporter who called me said, "What do you think of this?" So, we mobilized people and at the parks and recreation commission meeting a few days later, people were shocked that there was any controversy. Well, an ad hoc committee is supposed to look at things and work through things in advance, not hide information. And at that meeting, two commissioners voted no on the recommendation. One abstained, which was essentially a no, but on a 4 to 2:1 vote, uh, it moved forward. And the thinking was, well, we've come this far and, you know, we're kind of surprised now. and instead of trying to figure out why there was that surprise. It's like here we are and council is going to look at other issues. We have to look at parks and recreation, they'll consider other things. Um I don't I don't think that was a good look for the parks and recreation commission. No one consulted us this time around. Just got a notice last Thursday thanks to staff that on the bioolids plan that there was this opportunity. You know, the undeedicating park land doesn't just create automatically park. I mean, the 7.7 acres isn't going to change. The 2.4, there's no funding. There's no community interest in putting park benches and picnic tables next to a wastewater treatment plant with planes flying over. If you're interested in what the community thinks, um, it'd be better to, you know, publicize this in a way that people show up. I mean, a lot of people would show up if they knew that the measure E site was at risk, but we just don't hear about these things. And again, I I you know, I I like Shaunie. I respect her in most ways. We work together on some issues, but it's just very inappropriate for her to be an ad hoc committee and lobbying all of you. Thank you. Our final speaker uh joining us via Zoom is Brett A. >> Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. >> All right. Uh yeah. So I would like to uh support staff's proposal. I've um been in Palo Alto for 30 years now. I really enjoy the bay lands. I uh use it multiple times a week for all different kinds of activities as well as viewing the wildlife there. And I think I as well as many palatans are very proud of our bay lands and open space and the way we preserve habitat. But I'm also uh thinking that we're also very proud of our regional role that we play in processing our sewage and the concern for the environment and the impact on the ecology from our pollution. And I think staff has done a diligent job here in presenting uh both sides of um of the issue. Um the public has expressed in the past the desire to preserve all of this land as as parkland, but it's also expressed the desire to balance that against our need to to limit the pollution that we are burdening others with. So in in a sense there's biodiversity value in preserving this land uh as parkland and and a preserve but there's also ecological value in in doing what we can to prevent our pollution from leaving our city and exposing others. Uh so I think we need to have a compromise here and the public has expressed its opinion on both sides that this is a good tradeoff and that if we have good reasonable options that we should take them uh as they appear. We learn more about the pollution problem as time goes on. Uh we know that that problem is growing. We know it's not going away. We know we're going to have to do something about it in the future. We also know from the staff report that there's marginal incremental value in in um developing the ecology on this small piece of land. So I think we we we're achieving with the staff report a very good and uh judicious balance of interests here and and keeping our options open to do the right thing. I think in terms of managing our own pollution. Thank you. There are no more speakers at this time. Okay. Thank you everyone who spoke uh this evening. Appreciate the um thoughtful comments and perspective uh that have been shared. Um at the moment like to go ahead and see if there's any commissioners who have any additional questions. I'll start with you Commissioner Ding. I don't have any other questions >> which is uh Commissioner Klein of Commissioner Smith. >> So I think where we are is that the 7.7 acres is pretty clear. We're talking about the fate of the 2.4 and I'm just going to go back to you guys because I think you have a much better crystal ball than we could potentially have. So if you think about the costs and the risks and you had to be a Vegas better what are the odds that in the next 10 to 20 years we are in a situation where we want to use those is it like a 10% 50% 80% give me a sense >> it's it's hard to say as I mentioned but I would say it's probably even odds >> I'd actually probably say it's a little bit higher just based on what's changed in the 25 years that I've been here. Um the possibility especially once we get the secondary treatment upgrade completed and all the um competing demands that we currently have with our liquid processing. So what we're at staff level we're going to we'll have to figure out what are we upgrading because we don't want to increase rates too high but also to protect the environment and the PAS um ones are are coming down there if you look in the news and pretty much every um contaminants of emerging concern discussion is is tailored around that. California has done a good job of banning um products, but it's still it's a forever chemical and it's not coming out of our system. So, it's it's something that definitely we are tracking and been monitoring and um for a long time, but we never know like I didn't expect nutrients to be required in 2012 and it's already required now. So this is regulations can impact us and change quickly and doing upgrades to sewage stream plants take decades to plan and build. >> Thank you. And just one other small question. If this is re um done from measure E, if we want to continue the hydraulic connection and we have to service the 18inch pipe, is there any change in how we'd have to do it or that all stays the same? The hydraulic connectivity is uh something that we put in as a beneficial use to connect the Emily Renzel Marsh since it was originally wetland. Um but then it got because of the landfill it was it was basically landlocked and so that pipeline that went in was put in place um to help benefit the restoring the whole wetland area. So, it's a combination of a freshwater marsh, that's our effluent, um, and then also the salt marsh, which is the 18inch pipe that goes underneath. So, it's a it's there's two flows going through there. And that was to also mitigate, um, our impact to the creek. So, by putting salt water into the creek, Matador Creek, we also need to provide a freshwater source, which we provide upstream. >> I'm just trying to get it. There's going to be maintenance. Maintenance is not impacted by one way or the other. >> Yeah. I was just trying to give you a little bit more history on the Renzel March which is from 1992. >> So, >> thank you. >> Yeah, >> Commissioner Smith, >> I don't have any further comments. >> Okay, Commissioner Klein House. >> I have been involved in this since a very long time. I visited them many times. I visited with Karen and others. Um I don't think I approached it closed mind. I think I really looked I sent a lot of questions. We received really good answers. Appreciate the um the meetings, the responses, everything you've done. I do. Um and you met with me individually at times. You met with the ad hocs. I actually participated in various meetings. I don't think I'm I approach this round as a closed mind, but I want to say something else. We've seen some of the what's happening in the Bayland in several other meetings this year and it's clear that what was once tidal wetlands east of 101 are now create converted into roads. the uh flood basin which is not fully functional as a and never was supposed to be as a habitat because it needs to be kept dry for the water to come in. There's the treatment plant. There's the landfill which you can't even have a squirrel there before you have to gas it. The airport, the golf course, athletic facilities and now housing is coming in and other facilities. So the actually functional biological areas, wetlands and some of the uplands in the baylands have shrunk considerably really pretty much. There are also studies from the bay that show steep declines in bird populations. And so I guess why is nature so expendable has always been my question. Why aren't we looking you know I appreciate that you're looking at the offices. I really do and I hope you can purchase all of them. Maybe they're not needed anymore. But I do think that we're that this connection, even if it's upland and not a an aquatic connection, provides a really important corridor and component of the pro of the full bay lands between the Emily Renzel Marshes, the ITT pro uh previous whatever facility that was uh and and the harbor marsh and the bay. And so it's not a minor area from an ecological point of view. And I think Rencon showed that in their report. It's not negligible. It's not insignificant. Previously, you know, there were indications that said, "Oh, there's nothing there. It's only some raccoons." But it's not. And so for us as a as a power commission, I wish the council would actually say, "Yeah, this is important enough to we're going to find all the money in the world, buy all these properties, you know, and maybe that's what we'll end up if if if if measure E was not so readily seemingly so readily available." And so this is how I feel about it. That's all I have to say. >> So um you know several speakers referenced the um the importance of preserving the wild wildlife corridor and habitat connectivity between the bayands and I renal wetlands. and staff help us understand the long-term environmental benefits and tradeoffs associated with dedicating the full 10 acres versus preserving the 2.4 acre portion. So, you're asking uh just asking for clarification. Uh what are some of the differences pros and cons between uh dedicating 10 versus dedicating 7.7? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, uh we were asked by council to investigate whether we could potentially use and need the 2.4 acres. Ultimately, um not much will change in the short term. As I mentioned, we don't foresee a short-term need uh because our consultant has asked us to continue the current practice while um keeping an ear out and eyes out for certain triggers. But in the future, if um regulations change, if cost of uh hauling changes, um if we are forced to build uh on-site treatment, then um being able to move quickly to meet those regulations and to put in infrastructure that, as Karen North mentioned, um wastewater treatment infrastructure takes a long time to plan, design, and build. um we are much more likely to be able to meet these regulations and uh deliver cost to service uh uh cost effective um projects if we're able to reserve this 2.4 acres um rather than having to go through a process of um you know undedicating the amount of land needed in order to uh build those same facilities. So we are hoping to save time and money um uh in order to move quickly in that case. >> I just want to add that um our our goal is to actually enhance so um Tina alluded to it earlier that a couple of our construction projects that we currently have, we're actually planning on going and enhancing the 2.4 acres the screening. Um and it's not really even if you dedicated the full 10 versus dedicating the 7.7 and kept the 2.4 um the habitat quality would be I'd say that remain the same or be better because we are planning on enhancing it. It's just for us to futureproof our facility. I was I don't have the crystal ball but to try and make it so if there's potential in the future I don't we're not going to go out into the Baylands. We're not going to fill the bay lands to create the sewage treatment plant. That's not an option. We don't own the parcels adjacent to we're we're working on that, but that's also doesn't work out with the flow when we're, you know, moving pipelines and and process. Um it would be extremely challenging to get a pipeline across. We're currently dealing with multiple projects right now. We keep on hitting on um utilities underground while we're dealing with pipelines. Um so it's very challenging to try and get move the flow that's currently happening at our facility which is why the perimeter um makes sense for bioids uh which is why we've been doing the the longrange facility planning space where can things go what makes sense so we understand it's parks and reccomission your initial was the 10 acres you're we were just asked by council do we need it um in the future and we've done our analysis and it looks like we do so but it's this is all we're here to do is just provide information. >> Okay. Any other comments? >> Okay. Um so, thank you. So, the commission has heard the presentation, the public testimony, and uh commission discussions. Um so, based on that discussion, I'd like to offer the following motion for the commission's consideration. Um, and this is from the ad hoc, but also from listening to all of the the comments and and reading the letters that have been coming up from the public. I move that the parks and recreation uh recommend that the city council adopt a park dedication ordinance designating uh 10 acres of the measure E site within Bixe Park as dedicated park land for future park recreation and open spaces. Is there a second for that? >> I just want to make sure that Eric, we it's I believe staff has it on screen, but there was a little bit of verbiage. >> Oh, yeah. We did add something in there >> change. So, let's let's make sure we've captured that correctly. >> Okay. >> Can you uh reread your motion or >> Yeah, that's that's exactly what I put. So the park PRC recommends city council adopt a park dedication ordinance to dedicate 10 acres of med measure E site at Bixu Park at Parkland S Parkland. The 2.4 acres should be gloatically enhanced with native plants and trees to provide habitat and passive recreation value. I get a second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> Okay. Call to vote here. Uh, Commissioner Klein House, >> yes. >> Uh, Commissioner Smith, >> Commissioner Axelrod, >> no. >> Chair Freeman, >> uh, yes. Commissioner Deng, >> no. >> That is a 32 vote. So 322, right? So I believe it passes. Motion carries. Nope. Motion does not carry. >> Motion. >> No, the you would need majority of so it would need four. Yeah, >> that motion does not carry. Okay, >> we'll be I well majority I guess sitting present we have a majority but there's there's a total of six of you and it needs a majority of >> this of more than three. I think that you need to make sure of that because I don't think that's true. >> The I believe the majority is of the five. I thought >> there Oh, sorry. There's five of you here. So, yes, three. Three. Then the motion does carry. Apologies. I thought there were six of you here. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So, motion carries then. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to the next item. Thank you. >> I just wanted to say thank you so much for your dedication and the number of years you've done and I go out to the bay lands a lot and uh and go to Bixby Park and then we go over around the pond and stuff and the work you've done as you go to Bricsby Park on the left. It's been very nice. You're working on that. So, >> okay, we'll take a five minute break. >> Thank you. to the meeting. We'll start with item number two on the agenda. >> Chair Chair Freeman, I do have an announcement. Um, I wanted to announce that tonight's Parks and Recreation Commission meeting um will be going live on channel 30. Um, this is because um after the posting of the agenda um this channel was changed from 26. >> Okay. >> Um so just just to inform the public. Okay. Thank you. for clarification as well. Um, this is item number three on the agenda. >> Yes. U Good evening, Chair Freeman and members of the commission. Thank you for this opportunity to uh present to you this evening the financial feasibility of expanding the uh driving range at Bay Bland's Golf Links. I am Lamb Do with the division of open space parks and golf. For the study session, I am joined online by Ed Gil uh representing the National Golf Foundation. Um Ed will be presenting the financial study which he and the foundation prepared. Um Ed has served several past roles including director of consulting for the foundation. Uh previously the city has worked with the National Golf Foundation on golf matters such as the golf course uh design selection and development of uh course operator requirements. Next slide please. As an overview for tonight's study session, the focus is on financial feasibility of expanding the driving range with construction of a new driving range uh ground level and a second deck. This is a discussion only. No recommen no recommendation is being sought from the commission this evening. Staff plans to return to the commission at a later date for recommendation during the uh 2022 finance committee budget hearings. The committee discussed converting the driving range to a double-deck facility and there has been remain some interest in this potential project. Um I'll speak to the golf courses and the driving ranges financial performance and then Ed will present the found national golf foundation's financial feasibility study and then from there uh I'll then discuss other factors and site constraints and then we will conclude the study session with a commission feedback where staff is seeking your uh thoughts on the feasibility. Next slide please. In uh 2018, after a 2-year uh renovation closure, the Pala Municipal Golf Course reopened as the Bayands Golf Links. Um the renovation was for the full 18 holes of the course uh changing it from a flat and mostly straight golf 18 golf holes to a link style course uh with contours, mounds, and bends and some unique features such as a large putting green shared by two opposing holes. Uh the link style has created more challenging course with different distances but however playable by golfers of different skill levels. Still nonetheless uh the course uh was designed and rebuilt using pass palum turf in the fairways which was selected for being salt tolerant and in the bays clay soils and its ability to be irrigated with reclaimed water as well. Next slide please. In looking at the golf courses uh financial performance um since 2021 the f uh the course has performed well and is operating in the black. Um however in the first two years fiscal year 19 and future 20 after the renovation reopening the course operated in the red. This was due to multiple debt service payments when in the first year of operations and then also in the second year of operations um fiscal year 20 there was the closure due to the onset of the co 19 pandemic. However, since those two years the uh course has consistently operated in the black. Um the driving range uh as well has done well um since 2021 with increases in gross revenue. Most recently in the last fiscal year 2025, the driving range brought in about $772,000. Next slide, please. And now I'll ask Ed Guthrell of the National Golf Foundation to present their financial feasibility study. Ed, if you would take over, please. >> Yes. Thank you, L. And uh hello, Chair Freeman, and other commissioners. It's good to be with you. Although a little late past my bedtime where I am, but um I just wanted to preface this Murphy's law. I came down with a upper upper respiratory infection. So hopefully I'll make it all the way through and you'll forgive me if I go to the water bottle a few times. Um next slide, please. So just a little background first on National Golf Foundation. We were founded uh 1936 in Chicago by the Graphus brothers and the organization involved evolved into the leader in golf industry consumer research as well as other types of research. Um many publications we put out monthly and yearly and uh one of them the most prominent is our annual graphus report which is a basically a state of the industry report that all the main major manufacturers rely on the club makers and the and the ball manufacturers and club car and pig and titleist and rainberg. So a very prominent position in in golf and golf research. We also do custom golf facility research and consulting. That's what we're involved with. Uh Richard Singer and myself is at the facility level. Uh an important consideration is we're independent. We don't design golf courses. We don't manage golf courses. So even though we're advocates for the game and we like to see golf facilities do well, we want to our goal is to give you independent reports without uh without any skin in the game, if you will. and we far and away the municipal golf industry leader. Um, Richard, I I recently retired from full-time work last year, but uh, at the time of my retirement, Richard Singer and I, the senior director, had over, uh, over 65 years of total experience at NGF Consulting. And we have a ton of experience in the Bay Area including as long mentioned previous work with city of PaloAlto. Uh worked for the city of San Francisco over the on and off for several decades, Mountain View Sunnyvale. Actually worked for Google a project uh at Moffett Field or for Moffett Field and also the Prescidio Trust for Presidio Golf Course. Uh next slide please. So, this is the reason we're here. Um, especially that picture on the left. This is the driving range at Balins's. And you'll see the picture on the left, very crowded Tline. And, uh, I'm told this is the norm and not the exception, especially during peak demand times. Especially when we first started this study back in 2023. I know that the OB Sports and now the Trune folks um mentioned that it's really, you know, people have to wait to get on to to practice. So, um certainly there's certain times of the day where it's easier, but it's very uh difficult to uh to get on and practice. Okay, I'm I'm sorry I didn't have that those three pictures in my version. Sorry about that. Anyway, um the reason we're here again is to consider double-decking the driving range, the feasibility of double-decking the range, and adding a technology component. Now, technology can take a lot of different forms. But what we're we're talking about is it could run anywhere from just simple ball tracking and gaming, you know, using one of the major vendors or uh being able to play virtual famous courses like Pebble Beach to game improvement using launch monitors that measure distance and club head speed and launch angle. So that that's more the game improvement angle. So the technology covers a whole gamut and um some of the things that we did in the report it's a lengthy report but what we covered was first of all an overview of national golf trends as they relate to the potential feasibility of double decking and enhancing the range at balance. Uh, of course a local market analysis to look at the with a focus on the supply demand in the range driving range market including technology technology enhanced ranges. uh a little bit on site visibility and we also put a basic conceptual program together uh with some cost estimates and finally you know tied into the market opportunity conclusions uh utilization estimates for the expanded range and the projected net incremental cash flows that will result to the city and to bailance. Um and the ultimate the key city objective that we were asked to take into consideration is uh the city wants to explore opportunities to generate incremental net revenues while expanding opportunities for players to practice as well and improve their games. Uh next slide please. So as as Lam mentioned, PaloAlto and MUN um it was a genuine cash cow. I know from pre prior experience in the Bay Area doing other studies for other cities that PaloAlto was always a cash cow, but it was kind of a pedestrian flat course and it really had hosted a lot of play. So sometimes it wasn't in in a great condition. It's been completely reimagined and uh it's been doing quite well since it became balance with the rounds up most recently rounds up almost 6% in FY24 and up marginally again in FY25. So you're basically only exactly at 60,000 rounds. Uh a key consideration though is that your average rate, what we call the average rate, that's the green and cart fee spread out or divided by all the rounds is much higher than it used to be when it was PaloAlto MUN. So uh the rounds figures might might not knock your socks off although that's very busy 60,000 but when you do it at an average rate of you know 70 plus dollars it's very impressive. So, the total revenue has also been on an up upward trajectory and uh I think it's an all-time high since it reopened of 5.4 million in in FY 2025. And for some perspective or context, the US average, and NGF tracks these things, the US average for an 18hole public horse is 1.5 million in revenue. You're almost reaching that in net profit. So, uh so Balins is doing terrific. And we talked about or talked about the range traec trajectory as well reaching about 772,000 in FY25 and I believe it's on pace um in FY26 to meet or exceed that number by a little. Um, one thing I'll mention real quickly though when it when Lam showed that chart, it struck me is one of another reason we're here is you'll know it's growing the range revenue, but it's kind of flattening out the growth because I think you're you're probably coming up against some organic growth constraints due to the the limited number of tea stations. So, uh, that's another reason to consider the expansion. Next slide, please. So I mean the national trends are pretty favorable, really favorable actually. Golf was in a really good spot. Rounds played reached the, you know, record for the fourth time in in five years. And the amazing thing is this was achieved with roughly 2,000 fewer courses or facilities than we had during the previous participation peak which was you know back during the the height of Tiger Woods is uh renaissance as a golfer. So 2,000 fewer facilities you know through attrition and now we have a lot of healthy facilities left behind. uh golfer green grass golf participation reached 29 million eighth consecutive year of growth and about a million more golfers than we had over a prior year and we've actually actually added five million net golfers min over the last eight years um total participation which includes offc course now offc course is not just facilities like Topgolf which I'm sure a lot of you have heard of but it also includes oncourse technology ranges. So that that participation at using utilizing technology at an enhanced range at a golf green grass golf facility is considered off course participation. But anyway, that number for total participation has topped 48.1 million. Um, importantly, and I know this is very important uh in in your neck of the woods and a lot of parts of the country is that the customer base is becoming notably more diverse. Uh, golf had always had a reputation of, you know, catering to just uh one specific demographic, but it's becoming the cohort showing the biggest growth since 2020 include youth, African-American, Hispanic, and female. uh the female segment has added two and a half million new golfers since 2020. So with the conversion of tra traditional golf with new forms of engagement, a lot of it wrapped around technology and entertainment um we see continued strength and demand in facility utilization and that supports healthier economics and it allows for golf course reinvestment. Uh I know balance is not accounted for as a enterprise fund but um with the money it's throwing off I mean what we're seeing all across the country is is you know municipal enterprise funds taking that money the profit that they're earning and and reinvesting in the facilities. Uh one negative about the growth boy it's not as bad as it used to be. Even though we've had 16 plus million first- timers, beginners during the current era, uh the retention was less than 25%. So, we're still losing quite a few out the back door, if you will. Uh next slide, please. So, this kind of reiter reiterates what I just mentioned. This graphic on the left shows uh both green grass uh offc course and combined participation dual participants and the growth trajectory. And then on the right there's actually, you know, I think a lot of the press that you saw, maybe not so much in the last few years, but prior to that, you thought, oh, golf must be dying because a lot of the stories that you would read was golf courses closing. But a lot of the golf courses that were closing were due to higher and best higher and best use and they were privately owned daily fee facilities. The total uh supply of municipal facilities in the US is actually at an all-time high uh with 2600 plus facilities and almost 3,000 courses and California trails only Texas as you can see in the total number of municipal golf courses. Uh next slide please. So key findings from the local regional market. Uh you have a very dense population from which to draw customers. Um, you know, I I think, excuse me, let me back up here a second. Uh, 3.44 million people within a 30 minute drive time, which we're considering essentially the the primary market for balance, 30 minute drive time, and great demographics for golf participation with a uh median household income more than two and a half times the national figure. And of course we realize that's mitigated somewhat by the uh very high cost of living in the Bay Area, especially housing. Um golf participation correlates strongly with higher income. Uh participation rates are relatively high in all the subm markets. We looked at golf participation rates and the Bay Area is one of the most active golf markets in the country. Um the 30 minute trade time we looked at showed annual rounds played average per 18 holes of more than 53,000. 70% higher than the national figure of 31,000. So the bottom line here is you have five times as many golfers per 18 holes of public golf as the as the US does overall. Uh this is an undererved market for golf for sure. Next slide, please. So, you don't there aren't a lot of golf facilities considered. We just ted on this considering the population or not a lot of public golf facilities, and there's even fewer with uh with driving ranges. The 10 mile submarket around Balins has only five public courses with driving ranges totaling 101 T stations. Now, of course, there's several others that are, you know, 10 to 15 miles away. Prune, Mariners Point, San Jose, MUN, and they they all have active ranges. Um, we did a a little comparative graphic here for some of the most active driving ranges in in the regional market here. We also included a comparable Dair Creek golf course much further away in St. Louis and Bispo County. And the reason we included that is they have um low population density and a very successful range due to their addition of uh 10 uh entertainment bays. And we'll have a picture of that later on. But you can see these facilities uh three of them you know Prunidge and San Jose MUN with about two million in annual range revenue and Mar Mariners Point is privately owned. So they didn't outright share the information but through different sources we've estimated their range revenue at 3.2 2 million and Balin's uh that's this is the the figure from the original study back in 2023 I believe uh 663,000 you're about 100,000 or more higher than that but as I mentioned I think you're you're coming up against some natural constraints um I like to look at the figure the figures at the bottom population per public tea station and you can see Balin's compares favorably to all of them lags a little behind Mariners Point, but it's it's like eight or nine times higher than Dair Creek and St. Louis Abyspo, and yet they have almost twice the range revenue. So, it just shows you with the right product in a market like this, you can uh you can really do well. Next slide, please. And this just touches on what we're seeing. I mentioned earlier having uh technology enhanced driving ranges at the golf course because there's and it's it's becoming ubiquitous. It's really becoming very common um because there's a growing rel you know our research and you know proprietary NGF research shows there's a relationship between the two in terms of sharing user bases. You know, for instance, if you if you had a technology enhanced range, you might draw some people initially to it that are beginners or they're not golfers at all, they may eventually graduate over to the to the golf course itself. And you may have uh more people that utilize the golf course using the driving range when it's enlarged and enhanced. Um, next slide, please. So, these are some examples. Um, adding technology can mean a lot of things. The upper left there is McKinnus Park up in San Rafale. And this is a two- deck struct structure that they added top tracer, I believe, on the bottom level several years ago. And then they added right here on the upper level. And this is a basic setup. You have the mats and you have the monitors. So this is, you know, bolts ball tracking technology. And you could also you could also utilize it to, you know, play virtual courses and things like that. But as you can see, there's no furnishings or anything like that. But, uh, the two bottom pictures and the one in the upper right, uh, Sailfish Sands Golf Course here in Martin County, Florida, they just added this top golfike lounge contiguous to their new restaurant. The whole building is new and you can see they have the furnishings, places to sit, places to place your drinks and then they have the large monitors for people that are just sitting there and then you have the monitors that are actually smaller monitors are actually closer to the hitting station. And you have a similar setup down below. This is S Derry Creek and St. Louis Abyispo. It's called Swing Time Suites and it's been incredibly successful. An advantage that this facility has is it backs up what those pictures you're looking at on the bottom right behind that what what's shown there is a walkway right to the restaurant. So they have very convenient either selfs serve or or wait service for food and beverage and alcohol. Next slide please. So we wanted to boil it down to you know with the results of our market analysis there were a number of positives and of course there's always a few constraints. I think the positives are you have a very high uh high G participation rate and very favorable per capita supplied numbers. It is an underserved market as I mentioned um not as bad as Southern California. I mean, Southern California by far is the um most underserved market in the country to the point where they had to pass a law to stop people from brokering brokering tea times illegally. Um but it's very active market and the successful track record of some of the facilities we looked at, some of the range facilities, it it shows you the $2 million is very achievable in terms of annual revenue. um relatively low number of competitors as I mentioned with the nearest technology enhanced ranges is MA ranges being Mariners Point and Foster City and Mission Hills of Hayward across the bay in in the East Bay and both about 12 miles away as the crow flies but I mean you know traffic in your area so um might might be quite a time to get there. So we think that high quality technology range at Balin should be a very strong regional draw. Uh another thing we see is in the United States is um what we call latent demand. People that are very interested in taking up the game that have not. And uh I think we calculated based on survey research there's about 90,000 very interested non-golfers within 10 miles residing within 10 miles of Baland. So, uh, depending on how you go here in terms of whether you want to go the full, uh, the full boat and do entertainment base that that draw, you know, young people, Gen Z and millennials to socialize and hang out. Uh, the more you do something like that, the more you're likely to, you know, generate or try to activate some of that latent demand. Uh, next slide, please. So, there's always there's always risks, there's always constraints. uh you know for instance you could have nearby competitors uh Shoreline or or Moffett Field Golf Club Moffett Field for instance maybe they introduced technology although golf club Maffield just just enhanced their range within the last few years and they didn't do it then so um I'm not sure Google wants to spend a lot of money there right now for whatever reason but um so that's always a threat more competitors introduce a similar product and then there's the extraneous ious black swan type events or just a regional economic recession that reduces discretionary income. Uh our research shows seems common sense that previous recessions have definitely impacted negatively impacted the performance of golf courses. And then there you know the the retracement from the ongoing surge in golf demand may occur at some point although a lot of people thought it would have happened years ago that it was just a temporary pandemic era bounce but it it has proven to be anything but that especially with the growing diversity of user groups. And then there's always the, you know, the fact that the golf entertainment trend could begin to wayne. Um although I I do want to clarify the and we're going to talk about this in a in a minute. The program that we assumed for our proform purposes did not include any entertainment bays. It did include technology and monitors at at every station, but it and there's modular bays that can be easily converted to putting some furnishings in and some big screen monitors, etc. But, um, as it's programmed now, conceptually, it's not so much a golf entertainment range, more like a technology enhanced range. Uh, next slide, please. So our conclusion is that there seems to be an active uh and strong market opportunity for double-decking and enhancing the range at balance. We think that you know the range revenues reached an all-time high and may surpass that this year but maybe up against coming up against its ceiling in terms of organic growth based on the limited capacity. um all positive market factors that we saw. We didn't see any any negatives in terms of the local market and we think it'll manifest these factors will manifest in strong market impact and incremental net revenues. Um the last bullet again we mentioned opportunity for golfers of all levels as well as non-golfers. in terms of non-golfers that there'll be more opportunity to draw non-golfers again with uh more entertainment oriented bays as opposed to just having the technology for um game improvement and ball tracking. Although that will still attract people that are that are new to the game and are interested in technology especially in in the Silicon Valley. Next slide please. So basically the preliminary program that uh you know and this came after meetings on site years ago with city staff and and with uh OB Sports and uh the first T as well of Silicon Valley. We uh came up with a program a preliminary program that expands the range from 27 T stations on one level and it goes it goes to 68 on two levels. uh some space on the ground level. There's TE's added on the northeast corner and also on the south end where the current instruction bays are. Uh so we end up with 68 total stations. Uh the technology we didn't assume any particular technologies you know the leading ones out there right now are top tracer range, trackman range and inrange. So that'll be up for you know for the city and its operator to uh to decide you know what's best suited uh for the facility. I mean you could have two you could use trackman range or more of a launch monitor uh for the instruction bays and then for the regular bays you could have a different type of technology. So there's several different ways you can go. And I should mention it's not really mentioned here but these these um software providers they're generally you lease the software. So, you're not paying for a lot of hardware. You're basically leasing it on a on an annual basis. I I should also mention that the the whole reconfiguring of the range will bring it back 12 yards from the existing Tline. And uh this will help you especially with reducing the number of errant balls that seem to be exiting the west end of the range into that parking lot. I think that it's an office building back there. So the program the preliminary program is designed to provide flexibility through a phased approach. Um right now it would it could be easily converted you know two bays at a time could be easily converted by adding furnishings and a a big screen monitor to a u to so-called entertainment bays out top golf. Um we also showed a conceptual r uh lounge area in back of the lower level um te's tea stations. This is something that Mariners Point recently did up in Foster City. They uh they had they had an incredibly se successful range, but what they did is behind the lower level stations, they added some seating areas and they bought a food truck. So it's mainly actually mainly for people not just playing in those units but also for people that are waiting to play. Uh next slide please. So based on the program as I just described and this right now this program the base program that you see on the top of this table does not include a roof at the second level. Uh the open it's uh the facility is open air. It has overhead lighting on the ground level. No roof is assumed at the second level right now in the space program. And all bays as I mentioned we will have some type of ball tracking gaming technology with uh with moni with monitors. Uh no no entertainment bays but they can be convert some can be converted in the future based on demand. Um so these cost estimates I stress are from um L you can correct me if you if you can whether we updated the cost estimates in last year's update but this may date back a few years. Uh regardless you're going to have to go out and get you know new bids, new estimates anyway. The netting I know you had your new trajectory study done. So the netting estimate that we got from judge netting um I think the height is maybe 10 to 12 feet higher at its peak than we had estimated based on the second level. So bottom line is the preliminary cost estimate was anywhere from 8.4 million to 9.08 million on the high end. um optional items which optional items will be cheaper if you include them in the in the uh initial construction and these these are priced if you do it that way if they're if it's done in the initial construction. So, the metal roof on the second level and a screen wall on the back. And then we also had programmed in an optional concession restroom building uh closer to the clubhouse at the uh north near the northeast corner of the of the tea line uh not far from the turn and not far from the the pro shop and the clubhouse. And this is something that you would, you know, work out with your operator to uh to see if it's necessary. We we did a little placeholder for it in case you want to you know uh discuss that further with your operator. Uh next slide please. So we did a 10-year financial proform based on the inputs the assumptions that are described in the report and the inputs and I'm going to show you the basic utilization model uh on the next slide. But um of course these make a lot of exception. You know there's no uncontrollable external v variables to completely sync the ship. You know you never know what's going to happen in terms of that but there's no reason to expect that at this point. So um the key model output outputs are the range the enhanced range is expected to generate about 1.7 million in gross operating revenue the first full year growing to 2.1 million by year five. 2.4 million by year 10 and based on a projected 65% gross margin and this you know uh TRUN gave us some help with this when we put this together about their expected margins on driving range business that resulted in a net income of 1.1 million year one increasing to uh 1.36 million by year five. And of course some of this that's not all that's not not all incremental but we used a base of net income of 600,000 against which to compare it for the existing range in FY25 and we estimated incremental net revenue to be 515,000 in year one growing to 710,000 by year five. Next slide please. So this is the basic utilization model just showing the first five years. Uh these were the major inputs uh you know the number of days number of stations we assumed one bucket per hour one bucket rented per hour 11 days on average use and then the utilization percentage as you see here. This is across all times. you know, it may look low when you look at it and say, "Wait a minute. You told me we have, you know, too little capacity, but uh there's always going to be some slow times uh in addition to the high demand times. So, this this is across all 11 hours of all 355 days. Uh but we do think it's conservative. So, we we want to be conservative so that the city can make responsible decisions. So I think our numbers are highly achievable and um and we wanted to you know give you realistic and achievable numbers when we did this. Uh next slide please. So we also did a sensitivity analysis several scenarios the base model as you can see the incremental net stabilized income is 710,000. Um, I did want to mention also if you look at if you calculate ROI by the stabilized net incremental revenue and you divide it by let's just say that let's just say the cost ends up being 10 million um a little higher than we estimated that's still about a 7% ROI. Um so it's all it all ties back to how many years the payback is going to be. We highly confident this is going to be a, you know, basically an annuity for the city. It's just a case of how long it will take to pay back the initial investment. But it it is showing a pretty good ROI um on a back of the napkin type calculation. So these utilization scenarios or sensitivity analysis, the uh one was lower the utilization percentage. I just showed you those and the incremental net goes down to excuse me 516. Uh the other one would be to lower the average bucket revenue and all and this is all other things being equal. So that would be the only thing we changed that variable it comes down to 419 or 590 rather. And then if we lower the utilization percentage and the average bucket revenue we had the in incremental net revenue come down to about 414. And then on the positive side, if you had lower range expenses, in other words, a higher operating margin, uh then we had a higher incremental net income of $815,000. So, uh that was the sensitivity analysis. Obviously, you can't vary. There's so many different variables. You can't to there's a million different combinations. So, we we chose to do four potentially common scenarios. Uh, next page, please. Next slide. So, in summary, our our analysis showed a clear market opportunity for the double-decked and enhanced range. The market was very positive, not a lot of competitors, um, you know, strong population demographics and and a dense population, an underserved golf market and some regional competitors that have, you know, shown the way that, you know, it's it's it's real. You can you can do these really strong revenues, $2 million and up at these uh at these ranges, provided you have the capacity. So the main level of uncertainty I guess is the the cost to construct the poles and the netting the structure itself. You know these are the things that you have to you know put a a fine pencil to um to you know to sharpen that up. And then there's the of course going to the FAA. I don't want to get into that. That's not our purview. But hopefully the FAA will not have any kind of problem with the uh the new heights. So we think there's be a strong return on investment. There might be some variability in the number of years it takes to pay back. Uh one final consideration is we really didn't consider potential incremental rounds of golf from introducing new golfers, new patrons to the facility that may not have been to bailins before. uh we did not consider food and beverage because you have uh a lease for the food and beverage operation. So we were thinking food and beverage incremental to the city would be relatively minimal. However, if you ended up doing that um halfway house, we could call it over near the northeast end of the range, then, you know, maybe with a new new future agreement. Um not putting, you know, telling the city what to do with it, you know, maybe they'd want to do handle that aspect of the food and beverage differently if uh if it was to be served serving primarily the driving range. Um we also didn't in consider incremental pro shop revenue. So we wanted to be conservative and make just show the incremental driving range revenue itself uh so that you can make some informed uh decisions without looking at pie in the sky numbers. So with that uh I will turn it over to uh back to L or over to commission for questions. >> Next slide please. Thank thank you we had for the financial perspective. Um uh Chair Freeman and the Commission, I'd like to now address um other factors and site considerations, excuse me, site constraints. Um in particular, um we the site feasibility needs to be looked at. Um consideration of expanding the driving range does necessitate a parking study to address parking adequacy. Um and also as the golf courses and driving range are adjacent to the Palato airport um Federal Aviation Administration approval needs to be sought for the increase in the ball retention net and poles. Um additionally pro let's not forget project funding and a payment plan also needs to be explored as well. Next slide please Eric. Um and then we have some uh possible next steps to look at. Um staff here we are soliciting your feedback. Um, does the commission believe a second deck arranged uh concept warrants for the evaluation? Is incorporation of a technology desirable? Um, is entertainment desirable? Is food and beverage desirable? Um, also what other additional information does the commission need? U staff could possibly evaluate alternatives as well. Um, phasing and sequencing of the project or scaling back the project. Um and then other possible next steps uh following this would be um assessing potential funding sources uh returning the commission to the commission for a recommendation and then presenting to the city council. Um with that this concludes our presentation and now we'd like to switch to uh clarifying questions and a discussion with the commission. Next slider. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank staff and consultant for the presentation and also uh for the report which provides a lot of lot of very useful and uh thorough information. Um and before we open it up for public comments and uh clarifying questions from the commission, um I would like to recom uh remind my fellow commissioners that uh tonight's discussion is focused primarily on the financial feasibility of the driving range expansion and associated technology enhancements. um and that there will be further opportunities to examine environmental impacts, FAA considerations, traffic studies, design alternatives, and other project specific details. So, I think what you're asking for us tonight is to provide you u input based on the financial uh information that was provided as to whether or not we think this is a project that should go forward >> for consideration to go forward. Okay, >> thank you. Okay, with that mindset uh mine I'll open it up to clarifying questions from commissioners commissioner Klein house >> in this is about the next steps just a question about that it did not include analyzing compatibility with the balance master plan and I think it should so that's something that I think you need to And I have to I have a question which I don't know. It's not a financial question, but I don't know what this looks like. I don't I'm not a golfer. I never been to a second deck or a first deck. I I have no idea what we're talking about. I'm sorry. There's the presentation didn't show us what this might look like. I could follow you uh commissioner with um either examples or um perhaps a virtual tour of other facilities. Um I could look for something online and share with you. >> There was there was nothing in the presentation but I think it was in the documentation that was provided. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. So, I mean, it would have been helpful to have illustrations of what what it looks like now and sort of what the second deck would look like. I mean, you had that in the in your documentation, but for those >> I'll take a look. I also I would like to know the delta between the height now and the height in the future exactly where the this new fence would be, where the structure would be. I would and next time you come to us it's it's not on the agenda now but please give us a lot more details on what this looks like and what this means for the bay lands. Yeah, it could be kind of a conceptual diagram. Something showing what the kind of what I think in in your documentation you had provided sort of an illustration of the lower deck and then the upper deck. >> That's correct. With within the um >> within the within the report the the report itself. >> Yeah. Okay. So the information there it was just the documentation. Yeah. Uh the other the other um so you mention you mentioned a number of uh compare compatible comparable facilities and regional uh competition. I didn't see I mean you mentioned Moffettfield and a couple of others. I didn't see Stanford Golf Course in there. Is that a is that a reason that was excluded? >> We were looking at um facilities that offered technology. >> Okay. >> Uh there are other driving ranges within our area. However, um the two that you mentioned are not uh technology focused. They are just standard uh driving range similar to us. So, in the consideration of whether or not we should proceed uh with the second deck, we're looking at um expansion with technology enhancements, which is sort of essential to the viability. But wouldn't we probably want to stay public to public rather than public to private? >> Um, okay. Well, clarifying questions. Okay. Any you have do you have a clarifying question? >> Um, yeah. Um, a few small questions. So, I know you're going to look at financing routes, but for a project like this, is it typically funded from debt or are we trying to see where the financial priorities are for uh general projects? This impact other projects potentially. >> I apologize, I missed the beginning of the question. Could you repeat that please? So for a project like this that's likely to be a money maker over time is the most likely source of funding additional debt so it doesn't impact other projects or are we trying to see hey where are we going to marginally spend $9 million best? >> Thank you for the question. Um that's something that we would discuss with the city's uh office of management and budget. Um historically in the past however uh such projects as this um the city has taken on additional debt and then paid it over uh over time via debt service. Prime example is the current uh way the course operating the renovation was uh done via um a 30-year debt service that we're paying off. >> Okay. Uh and can you on the netting which seems to be the biggest cost is that all the incremental cost for the second tier or some of that 4 million having to redo the netting anyway >> that includes the latter which would be redoing the netting. >> Okay. So it would help to understand what the incremental delta would be of netting for the second tier. The estimates that are in there are to um bring the current height to what we think would be or perhaps slightly needing to bring it higher based on a recent trajectory study. I hope that answers your question. >> Maybe it's just not clear. I I want to know, hey, we need to replace the netting every n years anyway. So, here's the cost to do that. And when we do that, to add another 18 ft, here's the incremental cost to add that. Is that somewhere in there or is that not >> No, that is not an incremental cost. The estimates there are to uh construct the from the current heighting to the um needed height. Um so it's could be debated whether or not the additional netting um being that the netting does need to be replaced um and brought higher anyways, whether or not that would be uh considered uh a financial impact to this project. That's, you know, open to discussion. >> Okay. Um, and is there any impact on fees for current users that's in the plan or is it is that just kind of continued growth and current trends >> in the and I'll ask Ed to fill me in fill in um the gaps here. Um in the financial projection, um there is a uh proposed rate increase because when using a technology bay, as with currently other facilities that offer technology, there is an increase over using a just a standard um driving range where there are no uh uh technology implements. So >> yeah, I I can expound on that, Mom. Uh basically what we're showing right in the ba in this base program was assuming no top golf like bays for now uh with furnishings and you know a table to set your drinks down etc. Uh those types of bays are usually rented by the hour you know for four to six people and depending on the time of day anybody anywhere from $30 to $50 per hour. In the case where you're just essentially adding the technology to the stations, um what we often see is the the range buckets will go up a certain percentage. I know when Marin uh McKinnus Park up in San Rafale, I believe they doubled uh I think they believe they doubled their fees if I'm not mistaken, their bucket fees when they uh went to the top tracer. Now um it's usually not that steep at all. We we in our performer we averaged let me see I think we took an average of $17 per bucket that's across all sizes in year one. So we we assume some moderate increases and that's that's the way it's basically done when you add the technology is you're adding you're making it more attractive. So u you're and plus there's cost recovery as well. So there is there is some there's no increase in golf fees to play the golf course of course it's just the range buckets will go up in price. >> And the last question for um thank you for that is uh has there been any surveys of the actual users on site? Do they value technology? Do they want more of it? Would they pay more etc? >> We could do that certainly. That wasn't part of our scope but that is something that NGF does though. We could, you know, we could circ likelihood to uh utilize things like that. Uh we could even uh we could even go to the general community. Obviously, not all golfers in the community uh play at Balins. Um so we do have addresses. NGF does have address email addresses, databases in the in the Bay Area. So depending on your needs, we could go out to the general market or just current bailins customers. >> Yeah. or just like little index card on right on site. Hey, would you do this? Punch out something. >> You could do that, too. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I I guess tagging in on that question would be I think you said that the technology would would come after the fact, right? So you're talking about the financial cost here is building out the second deck which is doubling the number of uh folks who are going to be using the driving range and then I would there's a cost that's associated with that but then let's say you're going to go from 38 to 64 driving range but the price you keep your price at the same level. It is now until you add the technology. Is that correct? >> Yes. The excuse me, the technology can be added in phases. It's not a um all at one time. Um it would be added um in sets um bays at a time and it's up to us and or the operator on how we implement it uh out. Um it's as Ed mentioned the the technology is is uh there's some hardware but it's mostly a software cost and so the software cost is the licensing cost and as we expand more and more base the the licensing and the cost of offering that service increases. Okay. >> Um it also depends on other features that we would want to add. But you had said that on the return of investment you could look at sort of a recouping of the so I think there you I thought you had a cost there was like one point there was different I don't know if you can put that cost sheet up but you're the amount that >> I think that that would be building out the deck and then >> correct >> uh adding the height to to the uh >> yes Eric can you go to >> the netting is that correct? Slide 20, please. >> We'll bring up that slide. So your low estimate is 8 million 8.4 >> correct? >> Which would be include the new netting in poles because you're increasing the height of the poles, right? But you I guess what commissioner Alcarod was saying that's a project you have to do anyway right so is that included in this cost >> yes so as mentioned in the staff report you are correct that is a cost that due due to the um aging of the facility due to changes in uh equipment advancement due to player skill development enhancement um the current uh netting height would need to be increased regardless of whether or not we move forward with this project. Um, so that's the uh the better discussion is is this really a cost of the of the project or should this be really considered a separate cost and we shouldn't should not be looking at the 4.3 million for the netting in polls. >> So yeah, >> so you're looking at 8.4 million >> and from that um you're doubling the number of driving ranges. Correct. So >> more than double action. >> Cany talk. >> Wait a minute. You have to excuse me. >> The day is late. So why don't we go around? >> Right now we're asking clarifying questions and I'll we'll get >> all haven't done it. So why don't we have >> Let me let me finish up please. >> Okay. >> Because the hour is late. >> I understand. So that's the question here is whether or not the 8.4 4 million. What is when you say you're doing a a return on investment over what period of time is that going to you indicate 3 years, 5 years for the recovery of your costs? Yes. Um if we were to back out the cost of the netting imples consider in the consideration of the current status of and age and advances in technology the range needs these uh netting and poles anyways then that would uh reduce this you know 8.4 low estimate down to um 4.1 million and Ed if you could correct me if I'm wrong on that. Well, I mean, first of all, you're going to have to get all new new estimates on these, but yes, I mean, if this was a a sunk cost, so to speak, that you were going to have to spend considerable money replacing the existing netting and poles under any circumstances, even if you didn't go forward with this project. It's probably not fair or accurate to count the whole cost of the new netting and poles and the ROI calculation. Um, another question you had, Commissioner, about the technology. Um, the technology, the fourth line item you see, specialtycustom electrical. So, the software and the monitors and what have you are leased, but you know, it has to be set up, the structure has to be set up to facilitate that. So the uh specialtycustom electrical is is for that purpose of of getting uh the technology uh to facilitate the technology at the range. So that's included in the in the base cost there. >> Thank you. If there's no other clarifying questions, we'll go on. Do we have any uh public uh comments? >> Do you have a clarifying question? >> Yeah. Yeah, I have a clarifying question on the on the construction costs and do we include any of the maintenance cost there over the years? >> The ongoing maintenance is not included in there. >> Not >> this is this is to construct um and then post construction would be um the ongoing maintenance which would be part of the regular um operations of the entire course itself. >> That's right. I I understand that we need a payback period for any projects. So, uh what kind of project cost would this investment no longer meet our city's desired return threshold? >> I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase that please? >> Um let me ask you this way. In the bigger picture, how does this project compare with other recreation capital investments in terms of community benefits and a financial return? >> I think that's undetermined. Um, you know, we the city has uh programs through for for the community in the uh community service department, whether it be through recreation, whether it be through the arts and science programs, or whether it be through golf programs. Um the um most of those programs are not returning revenue. Um they're not revenue generate generating as much as the golf programs, golf program is the one that returns more revenue than its expenditures. All the other ones are much lower um anywhere from only re recouping 10% to up to about 30 to 40%. Um the golf course as you can see in the in uh the charts displayed earlier is operating in black where we are um not only recouping our operating cost but we're also um recontributing back uh revenue into the general fund. >> That's a good information. Thank you. >> Thank you Commissioner Smith. Um uh first of all u in future uh future presentations we have to have the time limit. This went on way way too long. The second time I've been in the same session talking about financial. This has no chance of happening in PaloAlto. Zero. And the people that drive in to go to the bay lands are not going to want to see a second story. And if you haven't been by one, find one in the area. I mean, there's no way this is going to happen. And uh Commission Commission Smith, are you asking a clarify? >> I know, but what I'm saying is uh there this financially maybe could make some more money, but uh I think we have to use our time, effort, and money. And uh this is not the right place to uh do it. And uh uh so uh but please let's consider that before we do a lot more work and a lot more time on this that it has no chance at all because what it'll do to the people going to the park to the bay lands. Thank you. >> Are there any other Commissioner Clone House? Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm going to go back to a couple of small questions. How much taller or higher would the new um net be from the current net? What's the delta? >> The ball uh included in the ball trajectory study in the um uh staff report is it's looking at about 170 ft. >> Yes. But what is it now? >> And currently we are in the range about 80. >> 80. >> Yes. >> So 80 to 170. Okay. 170 is what Topgolf has over in San Jose. They're not doing well. They're emitting. Well, I don't know about that specific facilities, but Topco overall had a lot of issues with their, you know, with uh their valuation and they work all almost all night. So, is uh similar lighting and operations hours contemplated or we are going to do what we do now, which is after dark it closes. In the uh performer model that is presented, it is operations until approximately 9:00 p.m. >> Until what? >> 9 p.m. >> Okay. And then what does that mean in terms of lighting? Do you have to have lighting similar to what Top Golf has? Because that's the one of the two biggest light pollution emitters in the South Bay. The Top Golf over in San Jose. That's too to be determined at this point. We we you know it's not part of the design part of the um if this were to be um something that uh the city determines to look further into um those would be vetted um through a design process. So it's not necessarily determined what the lighting would be at this time. >> So the the cost of design is included in these estimates. >> I'd have to ask Ed. I believe it's not but Ed could you could you verify I think from uh >> the these are these are hard costs these do not include soft costs uh design etc. So can you translate that to people who don't know what hard and soft costs are? >> Well, soft costs are the design elements, things like that. Hard costs are actually physical physical construction. And >> so this does not include any kind anything else other than actual construction >> and the turf and the netting and the poles, right? And the custom electrical miscellaneous site improvements. >> Yeah. And uh turf is that is is deciding whether it's um plastic or natural turf. That's a soft cost. >> Determining whether it is I mean that's I wouldn't say I mean that's just a discussion item with the city and the man and the management group. What what you want to do there in terms of >> it's it's it would be further down the line as we would vet this. Right now there's just a uh in the cost here there's a placeholder that doesn't the um we'll look into um what the actual cost will be and what type of tariff it will be. >> Okay. I don't want to ask a lot more but I generally think that with today's financial situation this is quite a big adventure. Thank you. Okay, let's open it up to public com any public uh speakers. >> Yeah, we have one public comment in person and one uh actually not anymore. So, just just the one in person then. >> Okay, >> that'll be uh Herb B. uh Chair Freeman and Commissioners uh uh surprised that this kind of agenda items before you. Then I saw Commissioner Smith here and he is in the business of hearing these kinds of proposals all the time. So I thought I might have entered one of his uh meetings with somebody trying to start a new business and getting him to invest in it. uh in in terms of who to be responsible for the cost. Uh netting is needed. Well, there's an office building there in a parking lot which used to be part of the driving range and about 40 years ago uh someone wanted to build that office building and they own the land where the winter lodge is which is own low destiny residential and they proposed a trade on the ballot. Um, the park dedication charter amendment says you could make a trade without a vote of the people if you get parkland in return, but they didn't want that dedicated as parkland. And it seems when they put that building in, they knew it was where the driving range is. They should be paying for the fence, not not the city. Also just like as in coverly we have a a regional uh operation that is we have all these uh organizations that are be going to be involved in coverly and have uh voters of PaloAlto approve attacks but none of the other cities where that is served by them are participating and here we're providing a golf course for a regional area and none of them are participating. That's not what happens with the regional water quality control plant. Everybody uh pays for a share. And there's a final thing that where it's located in an area that's subject to uh both liquefaction from earthquakes and also uh rising sea levels. We should not be intensifying development uh in the bay lands. uh we should be reducing it and not adding more and uh that that's a major reason why uh I don't think you should be going forward with with any uh further discussion of an item like this. Uh I don't I guess this is coming directly from staff. you know we didn't have the council direct uh staff to consider such an operation and I think uh that should come first before money is spent on on doing these financial analyses which uh probably require future analysis after uh after a meeting with with your questions. Thank you. So we do have one more speaker online on Zoom. Um it's a so first T Silicon Valley. >> Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. >> Wonderful. This is George Moxy uh president CEO First Silicon Valley. Uh just uh a couple reminders for everyone. One is that the uh expanded uh practice area on the golf course side of the range uh has never been usable in the last what eight years uh because of golf balls going over the netting. So that's one positive byproduct of the higher protective uh range netting that would be required with this. Uh the second is the opposite side between the range and embarcadero road and I've spoken with you all before uh about the first te's uh strong interest in developing that area for our youth program. So that's another byproduct of raising those range nets. um if that area, that youth area so to speak, becomes uh safe, then we would love to have um a conversation about uh a a private public partnership uh for the first TE to help develop that area. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you speakers and hope come back to the commission. Any additional questions to ask the to provide information on It's not a question, it's a comment. It really worries me that should the venture not be as economically successful as the projections show, then hours will be extended because that's how you make money. You get people to come and drink at night and have fun. That's what Top Golf leaves on. Late night, afternoon and late night drinking. I do want people to have fun, but I don't but the light pollution and noise are bad enough at 9:00 p.m. I think it should close with dark. You know, when it's dark, turn the lights off if you're going to do something more. The height of the netting is another thing. This is the bail line. That's a huge visual impact. You can see it from far far away and I think there's probably something in like I really want to see next if it comes back a very strong analysis of how if possible at all to mitigate the impacts that the bayance master plan is trying to have. Embaradero road is supposed to be a scenic road. It's designated as such by the city of Palo Alto putting a 170 ft tall fence closer because right now you can't use that area because the balls are flying. So you're going to move it closer to the road. I I don't know why we don't do that first that analysis of is this compatible at all before we go and invest a lot of money into thinking well you know can we make money by having more people come and play and also with with Topgolf they were at the verge of bankruptcy and they sold their operations at way less than what it was worth before so maybe there's a huge demand for it and maybe it changes but the environmental impacts really need to come first in the bay lands. That's when all evening it's like that's the our first consideration and yeah we want to people to come and play. We want the first state to come and play but do we want to build this? I don't know. I I would like to see the environmental issues and the lighting is definitely a major one. We just passed a dark sky ordinance. Anyway, if you say no lighting at all, well, maybe. I'm not even sure if that's because of the fences. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Aler. Um, I think the the main thing that I just like to see is what would be the public sentiment of the current users because that's what we're really going to be going after. So, just some informal studies there. Um, talk to them about technology, increased fees, uh, utilization, parking. I I think you could do a pretty easy outreach survey for the um users because they're the ones that are really going to be footing the bill and getting the use out of it. Thanks, >> Commissioner D. >> Yeah, I want to thank Lamb and Ed for a great analysis. There are some encouraging pieces, but we also have uncertainties. So I I think as we move forward I would like to better understand the range of potential project costs, the associated payback periods, how this investment compares with other recreational priorities competing for limited capital dollars. I think those information would be very helpful when it comes back. >> Can I add one thing? If if you're going to look at what people want and to see I think mockups what is it going to look from Bixby Park what is it going to look from different points where a lot of people go to visit pro I don't know how many I think some point somebody said it was about a million people that come to the bays every year have some visuals of what it's going to look like and not only ask the users but ask the users of all the area around. Is that okay? >> Thank you. I think I think what you've what you're asking us is to whether or not this is a project that is um feasible. Correct. I mean, is it financially something that we think that you should pursue? I think there's a lot of there's still a lot of work that has to be done I think before you can come I mean come back to the commission for uh to ask about whether or not this is a project that should move forward. I mean that I I don't know if this is just the initial stage of that because you have it doesn't sound like you done a sort of a public outreach to find out uh is this something that um that golfers who are currently using the facility want. Um, and then to look at it, I mean, when you look at the I'm I'm kind of visualizing this with uh the top t netting that you can see from 101. I don't know how tall that is. It's probably about the same height, right? That's about 100. Maybe you're saying that right now we're 80 ft. We want to take it up to 170 ft. But you don't really know at this point if it's 170 a guesstimate or or do we even know if that's the final height? Thank you chair. Um you are correct that you know this is sort of the initial step. um recognizing that this is you know a a large or would be a large outlay financially that's you know that's a an essential part of of the um equation um we are reaching out to the commission for feedback so starting with the financial feasibility and also the other factors that we brought up that need to be uh considered um I' I've heard from your colleagues on the commission on the um commission as well and that's the type of feed that we um would like to receive um and so it's heard duly noted um and things for us to further explore and look into as well. >> Any other commissioners feedback? Okay. Do you think you have received the information that you were hoping to receive or not hoping but uh feedback from us as to whether or not this is something you want to take to the next step? There's still a lot of work I think that has to be done in the background before you could even um visualize this as becoming a reality. Um the cost of it is I mean you've come up with a cost based on the information that came from your consultant but um there's the there's a lot of whether or not this is really something what that people want. I mean, have you the fact that you're talking about doing the second deck, has that been some I know we've been talking about that for years, but is that really something that is needed at this point? I know there's I think in your report you said there was a there's a wait list of people for the driving range, but is that worth worth you going to get 8 million back from adding that second deck? >> Yeah. Yeah. So there's more to look at aside from the the the cost, the financial, the uh return on investment. Um uh you know there's the the service perspective like you said there there um during uh the primary use hours uh we are essentially at capacity as demonstrated. Um however overall I think you phrased it well. you know there there is much more to look at and we recognize that it's um this is not um a decision that that's going to be determined in the near uh you know immediately it's you know it's going to take um several discussions or more um and it's not solely just with the commission um but there's other you know stakeholders as well um until um uh further development um is made and decisions uh to help uh formulate a decision And so, you know, this is the start. Um, and I think think I think the commission, you know, we we started with the financial perspective, but we also recognize um that there's much more to that as well. >> Okay. Thank you. And thanks for the work that you they have done on it, but like I said, there's a lot more to do on it. So, thanks for including the commission and getting our our input. So, thank you for again. >> Well, and if I could say thank you, chair, for this opportunity as well. Um, I want to thank also um, Ed, our consultant, Ed Guthril, our consultant from National Golf Foundation. Um, a lot of work put into that. Um, and recognizing that, you know, we task National Golf Foundation with the from the financial feasibility perspective, but also I think Ed and I have had discussions, you know, understanding that there's more to it as well. So, um, thank you everyone and sorry Ed, we've kept you up all this time. Um, Ed's actually in the East Coast right now, so sorry about that. >> All right. Well, thank you and u thank you for that for the presentation and actually if you put together that report is very very well done. So thank you for that. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. >> Okay, we'll move on to the next item which is department report I believe. >> Oh yes. Um so city official reports. Um just for the record um item number four council liaison report. Um uh council member Julie Lifcott Haynes is not present. So we'll move on to um item number five, departmental report. All right. Um so my name is Sarah Robastelli. I'm the division manager for open space parks and golf. Um thank you um commission for hearing our report this evening. Um a little bit later if you want to forward to the next slide. Um I want to kind of recap some of the most recent community events that have been extremely um successful. We've celebrated the opening of the Bryant Street Community Center. There's two photos on your left hand side of that slide. Um, and then hosted two family movie nights, the photo in the middle on top. Um, with more than uh 300 attendees at each event, and then on the bottom middle slide is the ribbon cutting for Thursday live on California Avenue. Um, and we also wanted we supported our very first well-attended PaloAlto Pride event on the right hand side. Uh, these events continue to provide opportunities for the community to connect and engage across the city. So, if you go to the next slide, I'm going to talk a little bit about our upcoming events. Um, on the left hand side, Thursday live is returns this Thursday. uh June 25th. This um month's theme is a taste of California A featuring world music um and and also I believe um local veter I believe. So um come come out and we hope to see you on Calav. Um in the middle there we have the summer family movie night series. We want to um encourage you to come out to uh Mitchell Park athletic um fields for the summer. We our upcoming movies are July 10th for Zootopia 2 and then on July 17th goat we have showing. And then on the far right a fourth of July cookoff and summer festival. This is an annual event. um will be featuring food trucks, beverage, um children's activities, inflatables, live entertainment, free chili, uh tasting. I believe a few of you will also be judges. Um this year we will also be having um a photo booth. Um and we currently actually we've depleted since last month. We have 11 confirmed. Um last year we had um 12, but we're still um pacing per per normal. Um this is a common occurrence. So we're really excited about that. And then if you just hang on this slide, I have two also items that don't have that I are worth noting but do not aren't captured on the flyers. We have a a municipal service center openhouse that will kind of be a look behind um some of our services. Um MSC open house is Saturday, July 25th from 10 to 2 and um we are really looking forward. This is a um event for everyone in the community. Um it there's activities, demonstrations for all ages. And then just something to highlight um that's happening in our parks again this this um let's see Saturday we have the Twilight concert series um that's taking place. It's a free outdoor uh performance and um this Saturday it's at Mitchell Park June um 27th at 6:30. Um and then upcoming there will be two at Rinkanada Park. This is July 11th and 18th. Um moving on to the next slide, I want to highlight some of our summer camps have started and they're off to a really strong start. Foothills camp is nearly full and our 49 specialty camps. There are currently at 83% enrollment. At the Bryant um teen center, participation has been steadily increasing and beginning this fall, we'll expand ours, add Friday evening programming, and um explore new educational workshop um opportunities. So, all all very exciting there. And if you advance to the next slide, um you may have heard that yesterday on June 22nd at approximately 4:45 uh p.m. Palto Fire Department and our open space um rangers responded to a wildfire in a rasidero pres uh road and it was in our one of our preserves. Um there were no injuries or structures involved. The fire was contained um by 5:17 p.m. And um the map to your right um is an area of approximately everything in red are the burn areas and um it's approximately four air four acres. Um fire and ranger crews uh continue to monitor the site for flare-ups and hotspots. The fire cause is currently under investigation um by order of the supervising park rangers. The areas encompassed um by the uh fire burn scar is again approximately four acres. We have closed that to members of the public through June 30th. Um, this does not June 30th and this does not affect any trails or fire roads within the preserve. Um, the closure is for public safety and protection of our natural resources. It's also posted on site. This doesn't um this really is to protect u the environment um you know minimize any erosion or disturbance of any um uh and and also prevent spreading of invasive weeds. So we wanted to note that. Um and then if you advance to the next slide, um on the left hand side here, you will see that before you you you can see some of um last week, uh staff completed a refresh of the raster a rasera preserve gateway exhibits. The exhibits were originally installed 20 years ago. Uh the project included reprints of uh and then reinstalling all the exhibition panels. So you'll see a lot of the colors had faded and became discolored. Um we also created some new models um and ultimately cleaned up the area. This resulted in a much more um improved visitorfriendly experience and a refreshed gateway to the preserve. And then if you advance to the last slide, um improvements at Bowden Park continue with um support of our partners of the Kuanas Club. Um volunteers recently painted the park benches and staff also refreshed the arbor and playground fence with a new coat of paint, which um is part of our ongoing maintenance efforts. These improvements keep the park looking welcoming and well-maintained. We want to thank our partners um with the Kuanis club. So some some definite improvements um coming around and that is all we have on our departmental report this this month. >> Good a lot going on and thank you for that. Look like you guys had a pretty pretty busy month and of course July is going to be even busier with the preparing for the chili cookoff. We know it's a lot of work that happens in the in the background. So, um, pass on to staff and others the our appreciation for the work that they do and the work that they're going to be doing. We'll see them running around in u on the 4th of July. So, I don't know how many of us have volunteered to be judges, but that's a fun event. So, I look forward to getting my new apron and uh checking out the new the new uh chili cook off there. Okay. Any um comments on the departmental reports, Commissioner Alorite. >> Yep. Thanks for the um awesome report. A lot of good stuff going on. Um, I really like the Brian Center and I really like the integration cross generation, you know, the senior center and the teens. I think that that's going to be great. Uh, municipal service center openhouse is always a blast. Uh, I'm looking forward to that one. Hopefully parking will be a little easier. That's been an issue in the past. And I think on Thursday live the kickoff time is different than it was on third Thursdays, right? 6 5 versus 6. And uh I was there for I think the last one was the first one and I I just noticed that there's very little traffic in the 5 to 6 PM window which the vendors were not that excited about. I don't know if there's a way to get the word out that starts a little earlier. Come on down. Things are available. >> Yeah, great stuff. >> Oh, that's good feedback. Um I'll make sure to pass that along. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Kleos, >> I was trying to figure out exactly where that fire was. And did you say the trails are closed? I was Can you >> So it's close to gate B. >> Huh? >> Close to gate B, which >> gate B. Okay. >> Yes. Which is close to the uh Portullah Valley side um of of the preserve. >> Okay. Do you know if it's where I think it is? There's like a family of coyotes living there. Do you know if those were impacted? >> I do not know offhand, but I'm sure the rangers know and I can follow up with you after. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, other than that, everything looks like a lot of fun. Thank you. Looks good. Do we know what caused the fire? Would that just >> um it's currently being investigated. >> Okay. That's a lot of a lot of acreage, but they seem like they got on it pretty quickly, so that's good. Commissioner Dane. >> Yeah. I just want to thank our dedicated staff for making all those amazing special events happen. I saw myself present at most of those events. Yeah, very excited. I'll just keep showing up and supporting the local community events. Thank you. >> Okay, we'll move on to item number six, I guess. Uh, ad hoc uh committees and layers on updates. Any Commissioner Absor, I think you have an update. >> Sure. Um, I think most of you already know this, but the coverly master plan got approved. The November sales tax is going to be on there. Uh, it looks like the existing tenants are not going to be changing until at least next year sometime, but we'll probably hear about what the priority should be at that time. And uh, yeah, community engagement goes on. And then some sad news, but on Safe Routes, Rose is going to be retiring apparently. I don't know who's next, but uh yeah, Safe Routes will need a new representative. So, you're just full of news tonight, huh? That's good. Good. Okay. Thanks for letting us know about that. That some staff would be following up on or >> um I can follow up that that was news to me. You heard you heard it first. So yeah, I'll I'll reach out to Rose >> and team. >> Okay. Anyone else or commissioner thing? >> Um I will be attending the next youth council meeting coming up at the teen center. Also I attended the cubby tenants meeting. Yeah. I think they showed their concerns on would they will have dedicated space if we're going to move forward and start construction. I think our council members answered those questions well. Yeah. So yeah, I think we did very well for the attendant communication over there. Commissioner Glhouse >> for the nature connectivity. Commissioner Wei and I had a meeting with staff and we're planning to bring a presentation next time on where we're at with evaluating the various um existing documents. Thank you. >> Okay. I had the my two items were presented tonight as far as golf and uh also uh the measure E uh nothing to report on the uh the San Antonio community advisory group I think which I'm also on that advisory group is sort of in hiatus I guess until they have some additional information. So that's we haven't had any any meetings on that in the last few months. So we'll see well hopefully I have more to report on that next uh next uh next meeting. Uh with that we'll move on to any public speakers for >> there are no uh speakers online at this time. >> Okay. Okay. Then we move on to the next item which is staff's updates. >> Oh um let's see for >> future meetings and >> for future meetings. Sure. Um, so we have uh park improvement two park improvement ordinances that are currently listed for your July 28th meeting. A foothills improvement plan which would be an action item in addition to a rasero creek pipeline. Um so there are two action items scheduled. Um both of those would be um yeah action items. >> Both action items or not one of those? >> No. Um both of them are up for park improvement ordinances um as we've discussed both of them previously. Okay. >> And um then would be coming for an action. >> Okay. So that's the park improvement plan and the arrest roll >> arrest creek pipeline which is uh the utilities project uh team has been working on um with it's there's I believe last year you received a uh robust update and presentation uh by that team >> and that will be included in the packet but we'll talk about it more >> of course and then Um, as Commissioner Klein House noted, um, I believe did you are you anticipating or we can talk offline about, um, the nature connectivity, um, having a few slides. Did you want that perhaps in in the um let's see not as a business item but maybe coming back for the um during under ad hoc committees and liaison updates. >> I thought that was our plan. We weren't planning to have an agenda item just as a presentation >> in the right that's it's not gonna we weren't planning to have like half an hour you know >> okay I'm just to be clear I wanted to have it >> I have a question about the u arrestero project and about both actually uh one no the arrest project do Do you have is there an an environmental review project already like an EI or a mitigated negativity? Do we have something? >> Yes. >> Then can you please share it like ASAP like right away? >> Sure. I can follow up with the future. So if we have a if this is a a sequel document then I missed it on sequinet and it I shouldn't be missing things on it should be there >> was can you check what's going on there >> because there is the state >> uh sequinet lists all the projects that have a secret document and if it does have one then it should be here. >> Well, uh I can follow up with the commission after uh the meeting. >> Thank you. >> Axel right? >> Just wondering for the foothills, is there going to be enough time for staff to do the updates that we talked about when we've been up there last time? >> Um good good point. Um, I'm speaking with them on Thursday and I believe there there's a larger staff that is speaking and we'll come back to the group but we as of now the answer is yes but we'll yeah >> okay good. Okay, I think with that note we'll join the

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Good evening. Welcome to the June 18th, 2026 Public Art Commission regular meeting. We're going to start with roll call. Okay. Uh Commissioner Joshi >> Present. >> Uh Commissioner Stern >> Commissioner Mollerie >> Present. >> Uh Commissioner uh Delagaza >> Present. >> Commissioner Smith >> And Commissioner Tran >> Present. >> Okay, we we have a full house. Fantastic. Welcome everybody. Do we have any agenda changes, additions, and or deletions? Nope. I motion to approve. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Approve. >> Uh Commissioner Stern. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Moller Lee. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Commissioner Tran. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Du Bois. We have some pretty good ones to share with you all since we last saw you. So, um we wanted to let you know that we were successful in getting the uh Santa Clara County grant to for the phase two restoration of the Arna Frescos. So, there will be official announcements soon. Um but we're really excited about that. The work will take place in 2027. The other thing is we have art lift projects that are rolling out and now visible throughout the city. So, for instance, on the left here you can see the sculptures by Charles Gadeken on California Avenue. Um there is a QR code on one of those, so you can take control of the lighting. Otherwise, they it moves through a pre pattern a pre determined pattern. But, um from what I hear from some of the business owners right there, people are really attracted to the lights. They're coming down there and people are really scanning the QR code and and utilizing it. So, that's great to hear. Um we have uh workshops that have begun for um Sophia Lee's Whispers Through the Trees, where people [clears throat] can make these um these fortune cookies and um add hopeful messages that will um that will hang down and they will be installed on California Avenue um upon completion when she has critical mass of fortune cookies. We have quite a few other things. This is one um that um that was just completed out at Cubberley. Um and so you can see the indigo dyeing, which took place over several weekends. I believe Commissioner de la Garza helped with that and also participated. I saw your arms pretty deep in those buckets. Um and so these are some of the um the patterns that were created and those are on display at Cubberley now. Chaya Grisham Grisham It's the workshops are over now. So, the final product is up. >> [snorts] >> And then um we have community mural workshops kicking off this weekend at Cubberley. Um so that's pretty exciting. You can see the dates there. I also have some flyers here should any of you want to take them. Um and then the rhinoceros project also kicks off this Saturday right out here on King Plaza. It's um a community sewing circle project. No experience necessary. Um a great opportunity to take part in in something that will be a much larger project. Um also looking for any volunteers who might be able to help them set up on Saturday morning. Then just let us know because um one of the artists had an unexpected health thing and may have some limitations. Yes. Oh. Okay. Chairperson is volunteering. So, great. Thank you. Um And so, I think that is it, but be sure to visit the the Art Lift website. We have coming up, we have about eight more activations that are taking place this month, and we have quite a few in July and then rolling into August. So, Denise has done a great job putting those on the website and through our e-news, really to get the word out. >> Now, I haven't seen the the first one you shared the light, but it looks pretty permanent. >> They do. They're quite durable as they should be in that environment. They're they're a steel base with the LEDs, and we made arrangements with our partners in public works to be able to pull some electrical to run them. Um so, they will be there until September when they are going to make preparations for a new California Avenue sign. So, that'll be the segue out for those. >> Thank you. >> And that is it for city official comments. >> Okay. So, our first non-action item is public art in private development, the initial review for public art in private development associated with 762 San Antonio Road. >> And we are joined online this evening by Gary Johnson of Acclaim Properties. He will be giving you the presentation. As you all may recall from the handout, initial review is the first time a project comes to the commission, so it's an opportunity for you to look at the overall development, give some feedback about potential locations for public art to maximize that accessibility, that visibility, and think about, you know, are there themes that emerge, any feedback on on what is presented today. It's a non-action item, it's not a voting item. The the applicant then will take that feedback, develop their artwork, and then come back for final review to show you the final design of the artwork for their final approval. So. >> Just for our understanding, so this is just initial review, this is not an action item, so the commissioner is not voting for on it. Nonetheless, to the extent we have any feedback, we are welcome to share that with the presenters. >> correct? Absolutely, that's the purpose of the initial review, so that the commission can give some feedback at this point before they get too far down the line developing an artwork or a location. >> Right. >> Um, so >> And mainly just for our just so that we're not wandering off too far, what what what sort of are the the type of feedback that we are looking to kind of keeping an eye out for? >> So, depending [clears throat] on on what's presented this evening, he's going to walk you through the developments, so you're going to see a a large building. Thinking about what is the experience where that artwork is placed. Where you know, is it in fact accessible 40 hours per week, but the commission may want it accessible more than that. So, rather than putting it in a lobby, for instance, there was a previous project he put it in a lobby, he said the lobby's open 24 hours, but the commission asked the applicant to consider pulling the artwork exterior of the building so that it felt more public and more accessible. So, it's those kinds of issues that I would like you all to keep in mind as you're seeing the presentation. So, usually location, location, and in thinking about the context of the neighborhood, what kind of theme if there are themes that emerge to you, things of that nature. >> Fantastic. >> Okay, so with that, I believe we have Hi Gary, you're online. And Hi everybody, can you hear me okay? Yep, it's all >> Uh thanks thanks for letting me zoom in. I I told Elise a couple days ago I got sick, and so I I didn't I'm so grateful that I could I could zoom today um instead, but I I do prefer to do these types of things in person, so appreciate your flexibility here. I'd love to talk to you about our project at 762 San Antonio Road. So, maybe I could share my screen. Oh, yeah, okay, here we go. Okay, screen. Okay. And here we go. Okay. All right, can everybody see that okay? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. So, um this is 762 San Antonio Road, and I'm with the Acclaim Companies. We're the developer of this project. We're uh we're also the developer of another project at 3150 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, which is a multi-family project that um will be uh coming before you in um most likely August for um evaluation of of art. We uh are really really excited about this project. We are um kind of in the midst of the entitlement of of this project. It sits on 2 acres, and this is a joint venture with Globe Investments, which is on the Hanghold uh trucking site at 762 San Antonio Road. It's a approximately a 2-acre site. Uh the project view that you're looking at right now is facing San Antonio Road, and this is really our storefront. There's 228 units. 30 30 units are designated as below market rate at the at the low low level. The uh the project has two um on-grade parking structures stacked on floors one and two that is hidden from sight uh along San Antonio Road and wrapped in units. And then on top of those two I'm sorry, there's actually three levels of parking uh that are wrapped in units. And then uh on top of those three is five units of of additional uh units to for a total uh stories of eight eight stories total. So, the project is 85 ft tall. Um This is kind of how it sits on San Antonio Road. This is Leghorn Street on the backside. It wraps around an oil changers here on the corner of Leghorn and San Antonio Road. It sits also right on the edge of Mountain View. So, the backside of the of the project faces an an industrial area of Mountain View. Here's an aerial view. This is kind of a shot of the amenities. Some of the amenities that we have at the project was pool and spa here. There's uh a 20 25-ft setback from the the proposed. So, along San Antonio Road, the city has the ability to widen the road a little bit. And so, there's a 25-ft set back from the the potential widening of San Antonio Road. And there's currently a 33-ft set back from back of curb here along San Antonio Road. And that is to the face of the building. Here's another shot where we're kind of focusing in here along San Antonio Road because we feel like this may be the area that you may want to focus on since it's the storefront of of the project. Here's just to put it in context. This is the back side of the project that faces Mountain View. There is a secondary entrance here along Leghorn. Entrance to the parking structure. And a secondary uh smaller lobby for for pedestrians. Another view here. This is um also we have two entrances to the parking structure. Uh one this entrance here goes to the bottom level of the parking structure. The other entrance on Leghorn goes to the upper two levels of the parking structure. We have we separated the entrances to the parking structure to alleviate any sort of traffic concerns. Even closer shot here. Some elevations which depict depict some of the articulation of the building and also the the height. We're going through here pretty quickly. Um This is very back side. And then once again, this is This is an elevation at slightly different angle of of the front. The the entrance lobby is over here if you can see my cursor. And there is a a leasing area in there. And then uh a a lounge here and um a public uh not on a public, but a kind of a a co-work space here on the corner. I'll skip over This is kind of a secondary entrance, which I think is maybe less desirable to to place art on, but just showing it for context. Here is the front of the facade without any trees. It was um I had I had those removed so we could really see see the layout of the front of the front facade here. So, we uh we spent a lot of time kind of designing this front facade cuz it is the really an important storefront of the project. Um you'll see this has kind of this um artistic element here um that comes down and goes over the top of the building. There's a deck on the top here that this kind of shades. But, we are um we are also in discussions with um a particular artist for this project. The artist um we we haven't kind of formally selected him, but we we have formally selected him on our other project and are just kind of in discussions. We would love for him to work on this project as well. We uh his name is Giles Miller, and I have a a deck um and at least would it be appropriate for me just to kind of flip through his deck quickly to show some of the work that he's done? Or should I stop here and and ask and and kind of sit tight for questions? >> I I think it would be helpful if you um quickly went through Giles's deck so the commissioners have a sense of who you're thinking of and they can give any feedback on that as well. And then open it for questions. >> Great. Okay, so Sorry for the scrolling. So, here's Giles Giles's deck. Uh so, Giles has has created he is based in London and he has a fantastic team that we we went through a selection process for 3150 from artists literally all over the world um for that project and and selected Giles. This is one of his an example of of some of his art. This is Giles and his team. Giles draws a lot of his inspiration from nature. He He works with local fabricators for art. He has um a few projects art art exhibits art projects in San Francisco um that I will I will get to here in a second. So, this one is um located on the Champs-Élysées in Paris. This one is Fractalism. This is located in San Francisco. Falling Still is in London. Um This is in Mumbai. And this is his very signature piece of his in in in England. Here's another one in canned. And so uh he's prolific and he's credible to work with. That's why we are in discussions with him on this project. So um we can kind of head back to to this uh Torah deck here. All right. I guess I guess that's it for me. Thanks. >> So I think at this point we will open it up for questions and comments. There are a couple things as I watched the presentation I just wanted to um make sure the commissioners are aware of that with that setback for the potential future expansion of San Antonio Road we don't approve artworks to go in there because then it it sort of orphans the artwork. Um so we don't want to place anything within that setback. Um so primarily we're likely looking at something that's going to be architecturally integrated. Um and I did point out to the applicant that there is a limit on the number of commissions an artist may have. They they are entitled to have two uh public art in private development projects within the city. So that is permitted um but the applicant couldn't come back with a third project with the same artist. So I just wanted to put that out there. >> I just and and thank you so much for your for your presentation and walking us through this project. Um just so I understand sort of where is the proposed location uh of this um artwork? Do Do we know? >> There isn't one that's part what they're asking for um from the commission um but Gary do you have some some initial thoughts that you've spoken with Giles about? You want to go over? >> Yeah, we have. So, one you know, the this this element appears to be potential element which art could be affixed to uh the front the front facade um through here could be areas that we look at for art. There's also a a a mini a mini [clears throat] plaza in front. There's quite a significant setback from the street, so we could do a you know, some sort of free-standing art there potentially. You know, it's good to kind of see So, right in here if you could see my cursor and I can see if I can come in a little bit closer. So, there's some nice area in here where art could be considered. And then moving it it along San Antonio Road, this area in here could be an option as well. Yeah, so we're just kind of um >> And and how >> the suggestion. >> And how does that location coincide with the setback that you were talking about? >> Yeah, so this is this is the setback from back of curb from still from back of curb face of building is 33 ft. And the the additional easement cuts this down to 25 ft. I think is what at least was mentioning. We We have kind of a the building where we could place art. Anything between that 33-ft and the 25-ft is an easement that the city has. >> I have a question. >> Thank you. Um the one-story building, is that to the west of your property? >> Yeah, there we go. >> Yes. >> Um what uh what is that? >> It is a one-story industrial building. >> Okay. And then the just uh adjacent to it, but in front of your building, it looks like there's sort of a court area or something. >> Right here? >> No, to the other side, where you are, your building. No, sorry, in the front. Yeah. >> Oh, right here? >> Yeah, yeah. So, can you I can't I can't really tell from here. What is that exactly? And is there a a wall? Um or is that a kind of a plaza? >> Yeah, it's it's it's a plaza, um and these are uh landscape designs that um we are considering and have submitted to the city for for review at this point. >> And that plaza is open to the public? >> Good question. Um this plaza I think could be open to the public, yeah. >> And just I'm sorry, one more question about Jaume's work. Is that interactive work? I couldn't I can't really tell. >> No. It I think you can sure you can um it appears that yeah, you can kind of touch it. Some of it you can. And for example, like like this one, I don't I know you're asking if it if it moves. Um I don't believe this one moves. Uh yeah, this one yeah, you can kind of and feel this one. I see this one you probably don't want to be interacting with that one. >> So, some some of his previous work does have some movement to it, but um other pieces kind of give the illusion of movement. Yeah. >> Well said, thanks. >> Do we know if 30 Do we have a sample or example or a thought about what 3150 El Camino's going to look like? >> That is coming in August. >> Um could you point out where the storefront is again? Like if >> Would you like >> Is it Does that >> me to show you on on this image or on a different image? >> Not shopping. Okay, so Okay, yeah. So, I was just trying to figure out if public was actually going to be moving on the space. >> It's a co-working space for the people there in the building. It's It's for building tenant amenities, isn't that right? >> Yeah, inside the building is, yes. It's co-working, leasing, lounge, lobby. >> And is the parking public parking or parking for people coming in residents or >> The The parking is designated only for residents. There There's no retail on the site. It's a pure multi-family residential project. >> Okay. So, that seems to really indicate that this um from a public art standpoint needs to be something that's visible from the street, really from driving because there is nowhere to park. Um yeah. So, another comment um that tall um artistic Yeah. kind of piece you're talking about seems to be a prime location really because of the height. Those trees are going to fill in and I would imagine anything that's on the lower section of the building, you know, will be obscured in a majority of the time depending on the type of tree, but One other comment while I'm at it. Um given, you know, the the speed at which you travel along San Antonio Road, um something that's seen from uh not just straight on looking at the building, but from the sides, if you will, even if it's that tall section, but something that comes over on the sides, um I think would be much more >> Speaking of this? >> Um that, yes. Also the the kind of architectural piece or the artistic piece you mentioned, Gary mentioned. Um I don't know if something could come along the side of that, but I would think artwork that's visible coming toward the building from either direction, um would be seen and appreciated much more than something that's just straight on. You wouldn't be able to see it often. >> That's a great comment. >> I um I love the idea of the grandeur of that, of having it on that large um architectural form. Um as his work is described as sensory, I'm wondering if there can be something that's reflected just a little bit on the ground level for somebody to um in to to actually touch and kind of recognize the interaction of the of that that element. >> Um I also um agree with folks in terms of the the that artistic uh architectural um awning piece uh seems like a prime location for the work and I think uh as stated before it was it's viewable from the street so then perhaps the material used should be of a perhaps a larger scale so then it could be experienced from afar and preferably matte finish so it's non-reflective and intrusive to drivers and also probably stationary so it's not making any sort of clattering sound that would disrupt the tenants. >> Actually I have a comment too and it looks like I agree with um I'm going to call it lattice. That's just what it reminds me of. Is a great option and it looks like that might be someone's windows that it's going to be covering so I think that should a consideration to keep in mind that someone's going to be potentially looking out at it maybe through it wanting to look through it so I think that's just something to consider. >> I'm also thinking of like that gray area. It's kind of back off a little bit but um >> Set back. >> But you would be able to see it as you're driving through. Um might be kind of uh >> Are you speaking of this? >> Yeah. It's just kind of like a bigger space that uh >> Is there a >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that area right there. >> This one? >> Yeah, it just seems like it's a a bigger space that you might have a little more flexibility but you would only be able to see it from one direction. >> The concern I would have about that is as soon as that one story building turns into a five story. >> Oh, yeah. True. >> All great points. >> Are there any other comments or questions from the commissioners? >> I do. Just one question. It's good so we're I'm looking at the budget and it's a sizable budget and depending on the spend for uh for the actual art commission, let's say if the um the artwork ends up being less than the um you know, 805,000, what happens with the delta? >> Generally, they would pay the difference into the public art funds um and we'll see once we do the um construction evaluation where the numbers come out to. >> Thank you. >> Um I heard in the presentation earlier that there was some idea about taking a a sort of a band of artwork across the building also and I think that would be uh in my opinion, I feel uh that might really well balance out that what Amanda you called the lattice uh feature which is so tempting to put all the artwork on but just crossing it with a band on the lower part of the building because um just having all the beautiful artwork on one side of the building might make from a strictly real estate point of view, make that part of the building more precious. And I I uh agree with Commissioner Mallory's idea of um wrapping somehow making that gesture on across the corner over the corner so that it has more of an impact and it's not very frontal. Thank you. >> Great, thank you. >> I guess the last thing I'll just add is I think the um artist that you guys are looking at Giles. I looked at his website before coming today and um I think it's a really exciting opportunity to bring some pretty incredible art down into Palo Alto, so bravo. >> It will certainly add to the building for sure. Yeah. And also, you know, with the location. I mean, it it looks like even though this is a multi-purpose building, this is not a building where uh people that don't live there would actually go in. It's not like there's a cafe or anything like that. So, you would want the artwork to be on the outside of the building. Any other questions? >> I just I I just want to say I really think it's going to be great. Good choice. And I like the biomorphic style of it, the sensory style, the more organic. Attaching that to uh rectilinear facade is I think a great idea. >> Any final thoughts? We good? Okay, thank you so much for the presentation. >> And just uh for um mental planning, uh when would they be coming back for the next phase? >> It's always a wild card. It depends on how long it takes them to develop the artwork and um you know, these developers are are frequently juggling a lot of different permitting issues and whatnot, so it it really can vary. But, usually it's a couple months at least. >> And also required prior to permitting of the project. >> Well, best of luck. We're very excited about this project. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Gary. >> Okay, thanks. Thanks, everybody. >> Take care. Hey, all right. Well, first action item. Sherman Avenue parking garage temporary mural. Excellent. Thank you. We're really excited to bring this to you as there's been a lot of focus on California Avenue and they're having another Thursday event next Thursday evening. So, just a little background, brief refresher if anyone's watching from the public as well. Um the Sherman Avenue parking garage, um this was a temporary mural project that was part on last year's commission plan that we didn't quite get around to because all the x-raying the the building decks and whatnot took a little longer than we anticipated. So, it is one of our projects listed on this year's work plan. Um February 26th, the Public Art Commission approved the funds for the structural studies, the permitting, the fabrication, the hardware installation, and the artist fee so we could move ahead with a call for artists. Um March and April, we went through a selection process and Commissioner Mallery was on that panel. Um in April, we came back to the Public Art Commission to have the artist approved for the project. Um in May and June was design development. So, the artist spent a little more time getting clarification on that California Avenue plan, um spent some time on Cal Ave meeting with business owners and members of the public were able to come learn more about Philip's work um and see samples and talk to him a little bit about what they think of when they think of California Avenue. And the great thing about being out there at 11:00 in the morning on a weekday is you're truly getting the folks from the neighborhood who are out there on their daily rounds. So, it was it was a wonderful experience. So, this evening we are here to show the design that he has come up with. And so, as a reminder, it's going to go in those two middle squares. So, his statement, "As I walk through California Avenue and spoke with members of the community, a recurring theme emerged. Many had witnessed the neighborhood change over the years. It made me reflect on similar transformations throughout the Bay Area, including my hometown of San Jose. Change can be unsettling, especially when it brings uncertainty. Yet within change, there is also possibility, growth, and beauty waiting to be discovered. I chose the butterfly as a symbol of transformation. On the left side of the mural, the butterfly is depicted realistically before evolving into something beyond its current form. The painted lady butterfly, a species found across much of the world, serves as a metaphor for change itself. It is universal, constant, and affecting all of us. The background color palette reflects the cycle of the seasons, reinforcing the idea that change is a natural and ongoing process. Everything changes is both a visual metaphor and an invitation to embrace transformation. So, with that, this is the design. So, you see the left side is more realistic in the color pattern of the actual butterfly. And then to the right, you get a lot of the bright colors and hues. And he was also thinking about all the different ages that are there, making it very youth-friendly, you know, for kids who may not understand, "Oh, a butterfly change." So, that is that is Philip's design for the project. And we're here willing to ask any questions. It has been sent out to the selection panel. The The feedback we've gotten has been very positive on the project. People are excited to see it come, especially since the tones of the garage are quite muted. It's going to give a really bright punch of color. And as a reminder, this is the first an annual project. So, it's not a forever project. It's a temporary project. So, it would change out in the in another year with a different artist. Are there any questions? >> I have a question. Are there some trees that have grown up there in front of that area? >> No, it's it's a blank plaza in front of it. So, I don't know if we can put up the picture of that corner. >> I love that it says everything changes when it's going to be a temporary mural. It's kind of then it's just kind of like setting the stage of like um this is this will be changing, too. >> I have a question about the font that he's using. Um it's kind of a ransom font and I'm wondering if the context of that might be questioned somehow. >> Oh, interesting. Okay, we'll pass it along. >> Um So, I have a question. The dimension is 21 ft by 19 ft. Is that the whole entire space? >> Here? >> Uh-huh. >> So, here. >> Oh, okay. Got it. >> Those decks are where we can put place the hardware. >> Okay. >> Those other squares are largely ornamental. >> Mhm. >> You can't really anchor to those. >> And so, on a going forward basis, we understand that this is a temporary sort of annually we're going to have a different artist putting up their artwork. And is it going to be sort of the same size that we're contemplating? And so, the installation will be very similar. >> Absolutely, it'll be the same. We do not want to be in a position of removing and adding more hardware. It's um it's a very tricky process. We need a brain trust of engineers and x-ray people on site as every piece goes in. So, we're not moving it. It's all They're all going to be the same scale. >> Do we have any renderings of what it looks like on the building? >> Actually, we do not. Um but >> That's right. >> It adds much needed color to that area. So, it's it's a wonderful fit. >> I mean, it feels like it's going to be a real statement piece. >> Um is so is is this like the finalized um submission from the artist? Or is there any Is this like a draft or this is pretty much it? >> This Well, that's the reason we're here tonight to gather any feedback as he does the final touches. If there are any slight changes as he moves forward, and then he creates the design files for printing. >> Yeah, I'm I I think I mean, that the issue raised with like it looks like a a ransom font also brings up different feelings for me in terms of like the the phrasing of everything changes. Uh I mean as he kind of alluded to in the interviews that he conducted or community members he talked to, they seemed like change was something that was um a little hard to deal with, you know, and change not being a good thing. And then also within the context of it being like digital art and it brings to mind was just like was this made by AI? And are we thinking about everything changes from like >> [clears throat] >> the hand rendering to something that is like uh generated. Right? So then um all of this becomes uh you I start to think of it in a subversive sense. And it kind of just kind of bums me out in a way. Actually, despite it the colorfulness, which I appreciate and I think, you know, color is always can always be impactful. But um yeah, with all that that I just mentioned, that still really um makes me look at this in a different way. And not quite as positive that it might um initially try to connote. >> Interesting. So so some of the feedback, I mean, I said not always good, but I mean, by and large people are excited to see changes and see more activation happening on California Avenue. So that's where we were just coming from. >> You know, the other thing I was kind of thinking um to Commissioner Tran's point is, you know, when you're focusing on one piece, you may have certain reactions to it, but California Cal Cal Cal California Avenue, I think that area, we do have a lot of murals. And I think sort of visually, the the visual experience of people who are there either driving by or walking by. What would be the some of the last, you know, artistic images that they see? And that that may be a nice counter balance to to to this. >> Well, I I feel like for artists, you know, AI is kind of like kind of a threat to to us, but I feel like for the rest of the world, like except for maybe like the graduates right now. Um But, you know, a lot of people are celebrating and really I feel like it kind of marks the time. Whether we like it or not, we are in a just a lot of change. And um So, I could think, you know, it's it marks the time. >> So, um Chair Shen, I just wanted to call out we missed. We do have um an online speaker to this item. We want to give them time to speak before we continue our discussion. That would be great. Okay? Yes. >> Committee members, here please. Um you're welcome to address the commission, please. >> Thank you. Thank you for for giving me the opportunity to speak. Um I just wanted to I'm a Palo Alto resident. I live in the College Terrace community. I spend a lot of time on on College Avenue, and I just uh I appreciate and want to echo Commissioner uh Tran's comments. I I actually found it a bit tone deaf uh given the artist's statement regarding the, you know, the maybe mixed sentiment about change in the area, and I I think the comment about the kind of digital design and uh the other comment that was made about the typeface selection, it uh read to me uh initially is very antagonistic almost. Uh additionally, I just want to call out that while I think it's great to bring uh you know, a nice splash of color to that area and to that garage, I I would maybe push back a bit on the expansive color palette that's chosen and uh yeah, I I love the idea of this project. I have to say I'm just not a particular fan of this piece uh uh for kind of the aesthetic and the message that it seems to be giving uh and thank you for the opportunity to give a comment. >> Thank you. Can I squeeze in a couple of comments as well? Um I agree with the public commenter uh and agree with uh Commissioner Tran. Uh I think there is a little bit of um uh well, well, maybe I'll start with like a little bit of political context where I don't I I think a lot of people are questioning or pushing back against some of the changes along Kalaniana'ole Ave, even the street closure, the housing, the policy around bicycles. And so I don't know if anyone will actually receive this message and think it's sort of directed at them in a way that is uh sort of it could be perceived as dismissive of like, "Oh yeah, well, everything changes." Um uh So, that that was a reaction to the public commenter and I think it's and Commissioner Tran, I think it's a I I I'm not sure how much I'd be over-interpreting to that point. I think aesthetically, I'm uh I like that it has a lot of color and texture and so it can be visible from far away and also be a different experience as you get closer. But, I think like just it seems very on the nose, right? Like it says it's a visual metaphor, but when it just says when it says everything changes in like big block letters, it's not really a visual metaphor. It's like literally telling you what it is, not like showing you. And so, like seems a bit like uh it reminds me of like a '90s Euro pop dance album cover sort of um in a way that uh is personally not my taste, but that's also just one person's opinion. >> Thank you. That's a good comment. >> I'm able to see everybody's points in this um artwork, and I'm still able to see some sort of an upbeat um you know, imagery that that place needs. Um I'm also able to see that it could have you know, you know, sort of dissolved into being um a nostalgia piece, and it's staying away from that. It's reminding me very much of the first cover issues of um covers of Wired magazine. You know, it's got that sort of a thing going on. All in all, for 1 year, it's great, I think. [laughter] For 1 year. >> But, it may be more powerful without the everything changes on it. Like if with that removed, I feel like it it it doesn't slap people in the face about who don't want change. You know, which I feel like when it says that, it is kind of like pushing an agenda. Um but by just removing that, then I feel like it stands alone a little stronger, and it's just shows that change is also beautiful and frightening and um Yeah, I just I think it's a lot stronger without the words. >> It's really interesting and I appreciate everybody's comments. And you know, what I'm hearing which I maybe maybe good reminder and feedback for the artist that when we see a piece of art, we don't see it out of context. We see it with the lens of some of the things that are in our lives that we're also experiencing and and so we're making a lot of associations with a lot of the current conversations that are very impactful and people are having strong reactions to. So maybe that is just sort of a sentiment we can kind of share. You know, public art is public is taking up public space and it's a conversation starter or a message to the public. And so you know, we I you know, this is not to editorialize but is to say, hey, you know, if we're going to put something out there, you know, here are some of the climate that maybe for for consideration. Um now that being that that is an action item, what's our responsibility world and responsibility? >> Yeah, I think um we can take a vote on the conceptual design and give the artist additional direction. I also want to be very cautious that we're not designing by committee and over playing the hand in the artist work. Um so I mean these are all good comments we can bring back to the artist um to think about. So I appreciate that. Um we can come back if need be in August. We could delay the whole project until the fall. Um, to bring a design back to the commission in August. Um, or we can give the direction, see what the artist decides to do with it. And move forward with that. >> Does the selection committee Does this come back to the selection committee or where where the final stage? >> This did come to the selection committee and the feedback that I had gotten back was very positive. That Yeah. Yes. Um >> I haven't been here for that many meetings at this point. >> Mhm. >> Uh, but we rarely have someone on the line making a public comment. >> Mhm. >> Um, and I think it's worth noting. Um and that there are commissioners who feel some apprehension about this. Um, so I don't know whether you know, whether we want to delay it or not. I'm not quite sure, but I think there's more feelings of unease than is typical with the things that come through here. >> I think the unease is coming from the accessibility that is being provided by the text. And we are not used to seeing text very often with work. Uh, but I I would I would err on the side of caution with that because for the young people, uh, it's a point of access, you know. They are able to handle words much more likely than my people my age, I think. And I I I don't know. I just feel like, um you know, if it would be interesting to have this open to people in their 20s or in their teens and see what how they react to it and they might they might just really enjoy walking by it and it might it might give them a sense of strength to say everything changes, and it's quite okay to see change, you know? It could be I don't know. I just feel that way. Thank you. >> Um I think everyone has expressed their um you know, feedback. Um and I to your point, and this doesn't come up very often. Um and we certainly uh we certainly uh usually don't editorialize um you know, artistic design. Um sometimes we give feedback of um an audience standpoint to say, "Hey, you know, this is this may not be a how you experienced it, but this is how I potentially or someone may potentially experience it." And we, you know, we give that feedback. Um but having said that, I think we um since this is an action item, my recommendation is that we take a vote. Um and my recommendation that we take a vote for uh approval or non-approval with the feedback, and this is obviously a recorded session, so this will be shared with the artist so that they know that potentially, you know, here here's a spectrum of audience, um and people based on their personal experiences have this initial reaction. And then, you know, and see how they respond to that. >> And I do think that the artist would be responsive if we ask specifically it seems like the the lettering, the language seems to be the main source of the issue. Um if we asked him to revisit that. >> I just have one more comment in terms of accessibility. >> Mhm. >> I honestly don't think this typeface is accessible to everybody, either. So, it's something he might want to think about. >> What do you mean? >> Uh people with with you know with >> Uh >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. People with low vision or maybe other sensitivities, sensory issues, they might not be able to >> Yeah. >> appreciate what this says. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. So, um thank you everybody for such a robust and um thoughtful discussion. Um so, we'll take a vote on this. Um do I have a motion to approve with the feedback to the artist? >> I would move to approve. >> Do I have a second? I'll second the motion. Okay, I'm going to roll call this. Um All right. Commissioner uh Joshi? >> I approve. >> Okay. Commissioner Stern? >> Commissioner Mallory? >> I approve. >> Commissioner Smith? >> Commissioner Tran? >> Uh I don't approve. >> Okay. Commissioner de la Garza? >> I do not approve. >> Okay. Um I approve with the feedback to the artist for consideration uh to um to the sensitivity comments that have been made. And I think we have enough votes to carry. And and maybe um having said that we have enough votes to carry with this fairly enthusiastic and robust, rich feedback. So, to the extent um the artist has another um you know, interpretation or framing that they would like to come back and share with the commission, we will welcome that as well. >> Is that what you're asking about? That's a good question. Let me see what um what his availability is for Philip to turn around and change. I'm not sure what his his schedule is, but >> Okay. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Uh next item next action item is the University underpass mural. Now, this one is really exciting. >> So, as you all may know, that Caltrain the University Avenue Caltrain is the second most traveled on the whole line. Um it has never incorporated public art despite our best efforts over the last decade to do so. And I'll share with you some of historically some of the challenges of incorporating public art into that tunnel in the past. It is um you can see if we can go back to the previous one for a second. Um you can see it's pretty dark um and those those are the two framed in red or the two pedestrian um levels. So, if you go straight across, you're entering Stanford campus. And then you have ramps that come off of that that go up to the Caltrain platform. So, a lot of people enter here. This is the gateway to downtown Palo Alto, to Stanford. Um there are other transit hubs. There are buses, the Marguerite shuttle, all above ground there. Um and about 10 years or so ago, uh we were trying desperately to incorporate some artwork into that tunnel because it seemed like such a shame not to have any Um what we found was there were challenges with the lighting. And if there was an attempt to put LED lighting in to do something a little more colorful, something of that nature, >> [sighs] >> the conduit was pretty fried. There's moisture that that comes into that concrete. Um and we really couldn't touch it or chance anything that was going to make it seem darker. So we left the lights alone. And and it's always been painted cream, so that would would reflect what light is there. So fast forward to a notification I got after the fact that hey, surprise, the conduit's been changed. There is better lighting. There's not increased capacity there to do like a light piece or anything of that nature, but it is brighter and it's been cleaned up and it's been repainted. There are still some moisture issues within the walls, of course, um but that it is a great opportunity to incorporate perhaps some sort of mural work into those walkways um without covering all the white because we still want to bounce some light. Um and we know there are some water issues. So we reached out to um our counterparts at Stanford to sort of talk through some options. We've gotten some feedback from them. We're working with the economic development team to um to reach out to downtown businesses. The hotels group has been really excited about the increased lighting capacity. People say it looks less creepy. I guess that's good. Um we like less creepy. Um but it's a pretty narrow passageway and because of the nature of the walls, it's not something we would want to drill or put hardware into. We're really looking at something that's going to be surface level. And so we wanted to come to the commission um to sort of a introduce the project, let you know what our initial thinking is on a way to proceed. Um, we did actually submit just last week was that just last week? Yeah, several days ago. >> [snorts] >> Um, a grant to the VTA um, to help support the projects. Those grants top out at $25,000. And we won't find out until August and the work would not be able to take place until 2027 if we're using grant funding. Um, we are hopeful that if uh, the commission approves funding for a mural project that would cover approximately 25% of the wall surface there. So, those could be individual figures, objects, it could be something with flow, it could be a lot of different things. Um, that it would show that the city is committed to this, help us maybe bring in some more partners and more funders um, to take part in the project. So, um, some of the thinking is yes, we would cover maybe 25% of the space. So, we're not blocking out all of the cream. And not spending so much money on on walls that do have some water challenges. Um, and we were toying with various ideas of if is this one artist? Do you have a different artist for each corridor? So, it's a different experience in each of those and they sort of work together to make sure that the designs fit, but they're unique styles. Um, thinking about wayfinding when you come off there there is lots of signage, but visually is there another way to communicate? If you're going to Stanford this way, if you're going to downtown, it's this way. So, um, so those are the kinds of things we wanted to ask for your feedback on as then we you know before we move forward with downtown businesses and various stakeholders to gather their input. We just wanted to hear from you all and hopefully allocate funding in the way in the um in the amount of $65,000 which would cover approximately 25% of that wall space. >> I think this is super exciting. Um you guys have probably thought of this, but um what about mural along the ceiling? So you don't lose light from those walls cuz it is so dark in there. Um anyways, I'm excited to see. >> And and just just for for my understanding, maybe we can go back to the picture a little bit. So the light on top, that's the new addition, is that that's the improvement? >> Yes, they they didn't put in um new s- places for the fixtures. They're essentially the same placement, but they are LED and they replaced the conduit and so it is brighter, it's more reliable. >> Got it. Okay, so better lighting, uh more robust. And then and in terms of location, you you're just like open. >> We generally don't like to be overly prescriptive because the artist is your best problem solver. So um so we just don't know if an artist might make a proposal for individual sort of vignettes or if it's something that has more flow to it. We sort of leave it open. >> Got it. And just one last question. So when you say 25%, you're saying geographically you're cutting it up or is it going to be kind of you know like Max Smoke House? You know, they painted the whole thing black and then they put plants on top and it could be you know, some of it is negative space. >> Yes, it it could be any of those. >> Uh I think it'd be nice to consider artists that would are making work about like nature considering like how confined the space is. So thinking about like bringing nature into this kind of confined space and making it more inviting that way. But also considering what was here before and then maybe the art might be reflecting of that history. Um and also because it's only 25% that you're going to be covering um thinking about like like pockets, right? So just like a pocket like a uh some sort of image or composition in maybe a corner or something and in a different corner like a lower corner or something. So then uh the space is accessed by commuters, right? So there's a potential for them to see something different every time, right? Or have the sense of discovery within their um their uh their walk and their commute. So that might be some things to consider. >> You mentioned seepage issues in the tunnel and um maybe a muralist or an artist who is working with uh ceramic tiles. Uh or even architectural tiles, you know, sort of 1970s type of and that would maybe go well with the Art Deco architecture upstairs. Um but you know, it's a painted over ceramic tiles so that it doesn't take up too much depth into the it doesn't protrude too much into the um the space. But still is providing that um um protection from water. >> Um definitely the the style now is quite stark. So I think um Councillor Tran's comment about bringing nature in um might be a a theme that resonates and as far as the wayfinding some kind of plants could you know help you almost do that coming from the outside going to the inside and maybe where that area is could have a plant that reflect that. >> Are the artists for this project from the pool or is this would this be a new group? >> That's that's a great question. If we get the grant then we would need to use Santa Clara County artists specifically. If we don't get the grant and we're moving forward that's something we could discuss with our partners. We do certainly have a very robust pre-qualified pool but it depends on who the partners are that are coming to the table with potential funding you know and what they're what they're feeling is if they're happy with who's in the pool or they feel like we need to do an individual call. As I said we're at the very beginning. >> [laughter] >> Do you see this being more than one artist or one artist or do we have any idea? Do you? >> I see it being multiple artists. >> Okay. >> That we give a lot of shots. I was just I don't know that it seems to me those Greg Brown guys people are super popular in Palo Alto. Maybe we give artists an opportunity to riff off of that. >> I actually have a question because of the experience we had with seepage for the Midtown poetry wall. So you know that in combination with the temporary murals that we're talking about. I'm just wondering if sort of the type of material, is this an opportunity where we can sort of create um a place for temporary hanging or something that, you know, um where it cuz the seepage is something that is going to shorten the life of a mural. >> Certainly, and you can see um Next time you're in there, have a look-see. Um the primarily you see a lot of it coming out the bottoms of the walls. You can see where the paint is rough, where they painted over. Um and so you can see where some of the problem areas are. So I suspect we would try to design around some of those chronically challenged areas. But that's Yeah, see, there you go. Now you can see a little bit of it. Um but yeah, we had some conversations with public works about that and gathering their advice on um placement and coverage for that reason. >> Um kind of touching on what Commissioner Joshi said or brought up, it it might be [clears throat] Again, I just really think of light. I walk through there and it it is so dark. So using reflective materials, not just paint on paint. Um so whether that's tiles or even I mean, I'm thinking of the um public art and private development we just saw. Obviously out of our budget, but um you know, a sense of movement and different materials and provides interest, um but maybe it would even enhance light. >> I think this is like probably way too ambitious, but um I think of all those little alcoves and like in um the subway system in New York, they have all of these little brass sculptures. And then I've also seen this artist who does these brass sculptures that are painted of weeds. And like if we were to bring nature in and and those elements might be something really whimsical and interesting but maybe way over budget. >> I know that the artist you're speaking of and they're way out of budgets, but they're pretty great. >> I think it's Karim Rashid who has designed the subway in I think it's New York. I could be totally wrong. It could be somewhere in Europe, but and it's all tiles. Subway tiles with you know, text on them etc. So again something reflective, something washable, something that doesn't go down with water. >> I think yeah, I mean we can explore tiles a little further. The initial thinking is because there's already water in that substrate. It's going to be really challenging to be able to get something that's going to hold and adhere. >> Uh also might be good to have an artist that is like site responsive, but also working with materials that um is about like degradation or certain kind of like imperfection within the material or composition. So rather than like uh putting a band-aid over something or deterring from that is just like oh that is just a part of the architecture and part of that space at this point. >> All great comments. >> I'll go for it. >> No, no, I just there's there's there's still that there's that reflective paint that we mark the streets with too. It would be interesting to consider and there's I was just trying to look up her name. There's an artist her name's Mary something that I'm spacing out on, but that might be interesting to considering that people are using their headlights and going through. >> Mhm. Just trying to think about constraints and budget. Uh a couple of ideas that popped into my head is that uh Sol LeWitt has uh he was like this minimalist artist who does a lot of geometric shapes and uh does a lot of integration with architecture where he has uh concepts like you connect different corners of architectural features with lines and you lay out grids and uh uh have a sort of programmatic approach. Uh and I don't think we could pay the license or royalties for whatever an actual Sol LeWitt uh mural would be, but I think his ideas are pretty out there in the open and uh meant for like drafts people to be able to just do on their own. And so like something like that that is uh simple enough that it can be done at a large scale throughout the entire space and still feel coherent and clean uh was something that comes to my mind just because I love those Sol LeWitt exhibits that uh they have at SFMOMA and uh Mass MoCA and other places. Um And then another artist that I was just trying to Google the name of uh Varini who does these sort of like geometric projections that are painted with a certain pattern and then from a certain spot it looks like a like very stark optical illusion where uh uh it might look like there's a floating grid of circles in a church or something like that. Um uh So so I mean that those are just ideas of like large scale potentially affordable uh concepts that would make the space feel cohesive and fit the restrictions around only using paint and things like that. >> I I love that because it makes the space feel more expansive. It like or even just changes the confinement. It makes it feel more open. >> Okay, guys. I'm going to just provide one sort of counterpoint to it cuz we're just sort of ID- ideating. Um I remember one time uh for purposes of wayfinding, uh we had these crosswalks with fish. Do you guys remember those? >> We still do. We still do, right? >> I thought they were great. Then somebody said, "Whose great idea is this to put fish on the ground when kids are walking?" And I was like, "Oh, yeah. Put on the lawyer's hat." Because cuz kids are looking on the ground instead of crossing the street. And I was like, "Oh, there's that perspective, the safety perspective as well." So, we do sometimes consider that. >> I have to say it's my favorite project of all time. >> I think inviting light artists is a great idea. You know, only only thing I thought of that first um also when I was thinking about this. Um the only problem with that might be that um vandals, you know, vandalism might be people react to that kind of art and they might throw a thing at it or you know, at the projector or some such thing. But if it can be done, that would be great. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Is it you were talking about projecting art? >> Uh it could do, yeah. >> Uh I didn't Well, there was an artist that basically takes makes it look like there's a projection of paint or something on a 3D surface, but it is painted. It's not a projection where it would look like there's a grid superimposed like architecturally in a way that doesn't or a bunch of sort of circles or if you stand in a circle certain place it lines up and is sort of engaging in that way. Um and then from another angle it looks like nothing but um yeah, it's something for people to discover. >> So, we we do have a a speaker online. I believe it's the same speaker who spoke to the last item. >> Hi, yeah, it is me again. My name is Sarah uh uh I just wanted to throw out I I you know, no idea if this is in scope or not, but when you showed that first image uh from the road view looking at the overpass it it struck me that the that face of the overpass itself uh is very kind of stark and I don't know if you've explored this already uh but what would it look like to put the majority of an installation on that face and then I could imagine you have an you know, minor elements or minimal elements going through the tunnels to kind of connect both sides of it. Uh and I'd also throw out there and again, I'm totally naive to what it looks like to partner with Stanford on on this kind of project, but that that overpass is also kind of the gateway, you know, to the Stanford art museums and if there's you know, any capacity for for them to draw in uh either an artist or provide provide funding for that. I just thought I'd throw that out there if you hadn't thought of it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other Any other questions, comments, input? If not, since this is an action item, I'm going to ask uh to see if we have an emotion if we have someone to motion to Oh, what is this? Uh approve the allocation of fund in the amount of up to 65,000 for the mural project. Do I have a motion? >> So moved. >> Do I have a second? >> I second. >> Fantastic. All right. So, we're going to do a roll call on this. Uh Commissioner uh Joshi? >> Approved. >> Commissioner Stern? >> Commissioner Mollerie? >> Approved. >> Commissioner Smith? >> Approved. Commissioner Tran? >> Approved. >> Commissioner de la Garza? >> And for me, enthusiastic yes. All right. Next project is acceptance of gift of artwork. Woohoo. Happy Merry Christmas. >> We have um two gift items to consider this evening, which is pretty unusual. Um I think Nadia is going to take this first one, which is a gift of artwork by artist Richard Shaw. >> Okay. So, the recommendation today for the commission um um is to accept the donation of artwork by artist Richard Shaw into the um City of Palo Alto collection of permanent public art. So, just to provide you a little bit of context um for this gift um offered to the city. Um Bay Area artist uh Richard Shaw has offered um to donate um this piece uh titled Watercolor Palette uh with ink. Um it's a glazed uh porcelain tabletop sculpture with overglaze decals and transfers. Um the artwork was recently exhibited um at the Palo Alto Art Center as part of um the Clay Sustains group exhibition. So, following the exhibition, the the artist offered um the work as a gift to the Art Center. However, as a non-collecting institution, the Art Center recommended that the artist instead um offers [clears throat] the um um gift um to the city's uh collection of permanent public art. Um Richard Shaw is uh widely recognized uh worldwide as a leading figure in contemporary ceramic sculpture. He's um best uh known for his um assemblages um rendered in trompe l'oeil style, so deceiving of the eye, like um And so, he um transfers everyday objects into meticulously crafted ceramic sculptures that combine humor with and social commentary. So, every single object uh rendered as part of this composition is in fact made of ceram- made of porcelain, glazed porcelain. So, through his uh master of ceramic decals and overglaze transfer techniques, um he um replicates the appearance of common materials and found objects, blurring the boundaries between reality and um artificial. By juxtaposing the ordinary with the unexpected, Shaw creates works that both are playful and thought-provoking. Attached to the staff report is the artist's resume and exhibition history. You can see that he is presented in public collections throughout the Bay Area, across the United States, and internationally. I also should mention that we have another artwork by artist Richard Shaw in the city collection. And unlike this um ceramic piece, we actually have a print titled Self-Portrait that was donated into the collection by former public art commissioner and art patron Paul Karlberg in the '90s. So, you know, this um edition would be a significant gift addition to the city's collection. Both artworks can be viewed on the city's website. Let me know if you have any questions or comments, please. >> Um I just like to say I'm really excited about this piece. I mean, as an alumni of UC Berkeley, and this guy was like the mentor to my mentors. Yeah, and then his work is exquisite. Just the trompe l'oeil style in which he employs implies creates these pieces here is is is is awesome. And I I think it'd be really exciting to have this in the collection. And it's also kind of intricate and like you really need to see it up close to really experience it. So, it'd be interesting to see where you folks place it. But also, I also recommend looking at his wife's work, Martha Shaw, who is largely under recognized. But it was like a huge like supporter of him throughout his whole career. And I mean, she's a painter. And I think she's represented by part two gallery or something, but uh Yeah, I I just as the kids say, I he's he's goated. He's old-school and >> Great comment. Thank you. >> Any hands up? >> I don't see any hands in the audience. Thank you. Do you have any comments, observations, or just a note of appreciation? What a beautiful beautiful piece of artwork. And we've been looking at some temporary art projects, but this is a permanent collection, so just thrilled to to have this. So people can go and appreciate it. And it will be part of our permanent collection. So thank you so much. We need to actually make a motion to accept it. Do I have a motion? >> I motion to accept. >> Okay, do I have a second? Commissioner Tran. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, I second. >> All right. Okay, we're going to roll call this. Commissioner Doshi? >> Approve. >> Commissioner Stern? >> Approved. >> Commissioner Monareh? >> Commissioner Smith? >> Approved. >> Commissioner Tran? >> Commissioner De La Garza? >> Approved. >> And approved by me as well. Thank you so much. And our last action item, last but not least, yet another gift. Fantastic. >> And as I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, it is it is highly unusual. We don't get that many gifts outside of the Cabrillo artists. And so it's an interesting moment to have two on one agenda. Um this is on a whole different scale. Um so this is a large-scale ceramic sculpture by the late artist Viola Frey um titled Seated Man foot poised on the world from 2004. Um this has been offered to the city of Palo Alto as a promised gift by a local resident art collector and former board member of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation. Um so it depicts one of the artist's iconic monumental male figures often referred to as the everyman or the blue-suited man. Um some of you may have seen these in various museums and cited um in collections. Um you can see from the resume she is her work is all over the world. She's quite prolific. Um Bay Area artist um born in 1933, passed in 2004. This was one of the last large sculptures that she made. She was one of the most influential American ceramic artists of the 20th century and a pioneering figure in the California Funk Art movement. Um renowned for monumental figurative sculptures, she challenged traditional distinctions between fine art and craft while expanding the possibilities of ceramic practice. Um again, she's exhibited and in collections internationally. Um the artwork was purchased shortly after her death in 2005 for $90,000. Um we have not had a current appraisal of it, but we would believe that it the value has increased significantly in that time. Um, the artwork is located in the lawn of the private residence of the donor. Um, so we did engage a conservation team to go evaluate it and see its condition. Um, could it travel? What would it take to clean it up? All of those kinds of good things. So, we learned a lot about the specifics of the piece, including it'll be much better suited not in the moisture of grass or under a tree. So, um, a lot of that residue and whatnot can be undone. Uh, then we started, uh, thinking about where it could potentially go. Uh, so we've been working with the Palo Alto Art Center thinking about, uh, placing it in that outdoor sculpture garden. Uh, it he'll be in good company with, uh, Nathan Oliveira's Universal Woman. Um, [snorts] and be a little bit protected because the garden gates do close at night, so it's not just out in the wild all night. Um, we would need to pour, uh, a small foundation for him to be on, a concrete footing to elevate him a little bit. Um, and, um, I think we've located the the space for it, uh, where the artwork will be safe and cared for and remain in good shape. The conservators, um, really they once they evaluated it, they said the piece is in remarkably good shape. There are some minor areas of loss that frequently happen when the piece is assembled. Um, you can see some of the seams in this image across his chest, but, um, also the legs, they're large pieces of ceramic that go over long pieces of hardware. Um, so it is, um, labor intensive to move and time consuming to take it apart, move it to the conservation studio, have the conservators work on it, clean it, and evaluate if that hardware on the inside would need to be replaced, which it may be because of the moisture. And then reassemble it at um in the Art Center courtyard. So, the estimate that we have so far from the conservators is somewhere between 14 5 and 16 5 for the conservation. That does not include pouring a pad um or moving it. So, there would be some cost associated with that. Um should the commission approve this promised gift, which we would have to firm up that agreement. We wanted to come to you first to find out if the commission's open to it, should we be able to get this done. Um then we will come back to the commission with more precise costs for that footing and um in the transit of the artwork. >> So, couple questions. Uh one is um the cost associated with um you know, the cleaning, the the situating, and all that. That would come out of which budget? >> Most likely the maintenance budget. >> And second question is being um sort of the type of material it is, ceramic. Um I I appreciate you're talking about the safety of the location, but um would it need to be sort of cover from the weather? Cuz sometimes pal also we do have you you know, rough rain and whatnot. >> No, it would it wouldn't need to be covered. The conservators feel like it's great in the wild as long as it's not in an irrigation system in grass. We would lift it up, it'll be on a hardscape in that courtyard um and be in the sun, not under a tree. So, there's nothing dropping onto it. >> Do we have some kind of track record on how these sculptures do in the public in terms of people interacting with them, climbing on them, etc.? >> Well, of course, it's it's pretty interesting and it's monumental, which is part of the reason we pour a a base for it because it sort of creates this um the space. Um we would need to work with the art center and watch the behavior. It'll be right outside the visitor services window, so it will be monitored during uh during art center hours, so they can keep an eye on it. And um should it be problematic, we could put up a little, you know, stanchion or something of that nature if we need to. >> Um if there is structural work needed, >> Yeah. >> um how does I I know I'm going to just give me a rough idea budget, but how does that match against the budget that you have to use? Would that need to be split over two different years or >> That's a great question. Um we haven't entered into those detailed conversations. I think it's something that we can manage, certainly for a gift of this size. Um but we just have to see what it looks like. We just didn't want to get too deep into it because they can't tell that until they open the sculpture. >> Will it be in the covered space um for the art center entrance? Is that where you are saying it will be or in the open? >> If you walk in the art center entrance and you walk past the front desk into the back courtyard, that's where the Nathan Oliveira sculpture is. Sky Hook Boca Raton is back there. It's the sculpture courtyard. There's only two in there. But the art center is very enthusiastic. Um if we're able to get this piece placed back there as well. Um some of these sculptures has been shown at the Art Center before, so there's an exhibition history. Um and I know that their foundation's pretty excited about the prospect of being able to negotiate this. >> That seems much more secure than being totally outside the Art Center here. >> Absolutely. Great question. >> And you may have already talked about this, but I just worry about the you know the sun beating down on it over time. Um you know, like how many years can it withstand that, you know? >> The conservators are not They say it's actually great for it to be in the sun because it's less likely to have any organic growth, and that's really what deteriorates it. So, um a lot of these are frequently cited in full sun. >> Actually, my my concern is really more sometimes our rainy season gets um you know, pretty exuberant and with like you know, flying branches and things like that because it's ceramic, you know, if you if you have um um material flying material coming at it, it may cause damage. And I'm just trying to understand. I think the garden is pretty well shielded from a lot of that uh external potential external um intrusion. >> That's a great point, and it is um there's a little corner. So, following Commissioner Joshi's trajectory, if we walk in the front door, we go past visitor services, we go out that door, it would be to the left, and that's a little corner of the building there. So, it is somewhat shielded. Um the nearest tree is on the other side, and it's not very large. Um I we feel like that is going to be the safest place for the sculpture to be cited. >> It's not ours yet, but we're already protecting it mentally. >> You can all take shifts on duty. Any other questions or comments? If not, uh do I have a motion to approve um the acceptance of this promised gift of artwork? >> I move to approve. >> Do I have a second? >> I second. >> All right. Okay, let's make sure we count the votes. Uh Commissioner Yoshi? >> I approve. >> Uh Commissioner Stern? >> Approve. >> Commissioner Mollering? >> Commissioner Smith? >> Approve. >> Commissioner Tran? >> Commissioner de la Garza? >> Approve. >> Ohlhausen, I approve as well. Okay. I guess do we have any public letters? >> There was one in the packet. >> Do we have any commissioner questions, comments, and more announcements? >> Oh, um I have I have an exhibition up over the David Brower Center. I'm part of like a four-person show over there. I wasn't able to announce it the last meeting cuz we didn't weren't here last month, but um it's part of a a four-person show called Flow State, and it's up until August 20th. If y'all can make it out there, um very proud of the work. Thank you. >> Fantastic. Going to have to get the information from you. >> If you send me the link to it, I can distribute it to all the commissioners. >> Fantastic. >> Also, um there will not be a July Public Art commission meeting due to lack of quorum. So, the next time we meet will be in August. >> Okay, fantastic. Thank you. Uh, do we have any virtual public comment? >> No raised hands. >> Okay, fantastic. On that note, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.

Good evening. Come on, folks. Want to call the room to order. Want to call the room to order, please, so we can get going and hear from all of you. All right. Good evening. Calling to order the June 15, 2026 meeting of the PaloAlto City Council, which shall be our last meeting before we take a summer break. So with that, I will ask our clerk to call the role. >> Council member Lethod Haynes >> here. >> Council member Rectal >> Council member Lowing >> here. >> Council member Bert >> here. Mayor Vinker >> here. >> Council member Lou >> Vice Mayor Stone >> here. >> For the record, all present. >> Excellent. Well, we get to start tonight with a special order of the day. That is one of the joys that we get to do here on council, although a little bittersweet. And that is a proclamation expressing appreciation to Bill Gut upon his retirement. And I have asked council member Lowing to read the proclamation. >> Happy to do that. Where is our honored guest tonight? Okay, great. Great. Front row. Front row. Perfect. Perfect. Okay. This is a proclamation from the mayor expressing appreciation to you upon your retirement. Whereas Bill Gudov joined the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo in June of 2001 to support the summer camp program and has dedicated nearly 25 years to inspiring curiosity, creativity, and a love of science in generations of children's children and families throughout the Palo Alto community. And whereas Bill served as a science teacher, educational leader, and beloved community figure, developing and facilitating exceptional school science lessons, summer camps, afterchool programs, and open space programs that inspired thousands of local children through his passion for inquiry, extensive knowledge, sense of humor, patience, and kindness. And whereas Bill designed and constructed innovative teaching tools and hands-on scientific models that made complex scientific concepts engaging, accessible, and memorable for students of all ages. And he became widely known for his remarkable ability to improve and repair educational equipment and exhibits. And whereas Bill played an important role in mentoring and training new junior museum educators, generously sharing his expertise and fostering a culture of learning, collaboration, and encouragement that earned him the deep admiration and respect of his colleagues. And whereas Bill contributed significantly to the development of exhibits and educational experiences at the Junior Museum and Zoo, as well as within the Baylands and Foothills preserves, while also supporting the care and well-being of the zoo's animals and forming meaningful connections with many of them. And whereas Bill's work was guided by his deeply held belief that science has the power to transform a child's understanding of the world into one filled with wonder, discovery, and delight. And that belief was reflected in every lesson, interaction, and experience that he created. And whereas Bill's impact on the community is reflected in the words of the students and teachers he inspired, including everything Bill touches is magic. Bill's a rock star and a master. It's hard to improve on perfection. I just wish we could have more bill time. And lastly, I don't care if I'm sick, I have to go to school today because teacher Bill's coming. And whereas Bill Gooduff is recognized by his colleagues, students, families, and the broader community for his extraordinary dedication, generosity, creativity, and unwavering commitment to education and public service. And his presence at the Junior Museum and Zoo will be greatly missed. So therefore, Vicky Vinker, Mayor Silia Peloto, on behalf of the entire city council hereby recognizes Bill Guff for his outstanding service to this community. Thank you. [applause] >> Boy, I I don't want to step on that hearty applause, but you deserve it. You are a true gem uh for and really a true asset to our community. I want to thank you on behalf of all the generations of students who have benefited from you and all of us who benefit from them. And maybe you could tell us who's here with you and then we'd love to have you come up for a photo unless you'd like to say a few more words first. >> Well, you guys should know. Look, >> just step toward the mic so we can hear. >> Oh, look how many junior museum people showed up. >> Wonderful. Raise your hand if you're a Junior Museum person. Oh, look at that. [applause] after after working with kids all day to show up at the end of the day [laughter] that that shows the dedication of the whole organization. So >> a >> that's a huge part of of everything we do. It's just an amazing team. >> Marvelous. >> I didn't know I did all that stuff. >> Thanks for uh thanks for letting me know. >> Well, we are so glad you did. And if you'd like to come up here and have a photo with us, right, just walk on the site on up to the deas. Thank you. Well, thank you, Bill, and thank you all for coming to support Bill and for what you do for our city every day. We're grateful. Okay, Mr. City Manager is reapproaching there. We're moving on to agenda changes, additions, and deletions. >> Yep. Thank you, mayor. I figured we'd have a bit of shuffling going on uh in the moment, so want to just give folks a moment to >> exit and relocate as appropriate. Uh just want to note a couple of uh agenda changes this evening. Uh item uh both related to your consent calendar. Item 8 has been removed uh from uh the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. That's not correct. I got my numbers wrong here. There it is. 18. Sorry. Item number 18 has been removed from the agenda uh for some minor corrections. And item 23 uh which is related to SB 79 has been uh reaggendized uh itemizing uh the three actions uh related to that item. So those are the only changes this evening there. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. So with that, we will move on to public comment on items not on our agenda but within the purview of this council. So madame clerk, how many requests to speak do we have? >> We have a total of 24. However, that includes two groups of seven. [gasps] Um, [snorts] let's go with uh a minute and a half each for the individuals and let's go with seven minutes for the groups. Our first speaker is Charlotte L. Welcome. So, oh, are they speaking individually, each of the three of them? I see. Okay. Well, we're so glad to welcome you to our Teen Arts Council. So, go ahead and and take go ahead and take what time you need. Okay. Hello. My name is Charlotte Lou, a junior at Palto High School and co-president of the Teen Arts Council. Today, my fellow Teen Arts Council members and I are here to first and foremost thank the city for funding our events this year, formally introduce the Teen Arts Council and what we do, building on our youth arts month decoration back in March, and finally ask for usage of the new Brian Street Teen Center. Next slide, please. The Teen Arts Council is a group run by Paloto Teens dedicated to planning free art events where students can express themselves creatively in a safe space. Every Tuesday at the Palto Children's Theater, about 10 motivated team members meet to plan our events, buying food and decorations, marketing through posters and social media, and running the event itself. Our motto is by teens for teens. Thanks to your $8,500 grant for our summer festival, Wayfest, we were given the breathing room for uh funding other events and ultimately served over 350 teens in the Polo community. Here are the events that we held. Next slide, please. We kicked off the year with our candle lit concert where teen musicians performed among Halloween decorations and a backyard barbecue. In February, we hosted our Valentine's masquerade ball. Teens decorated masks, danced together, and filled out icebreaker bingo cards. Afterward, many teens told us they had an amazing time hanging out with friends and meeting new people. We also hosted our bianual clothing swap and open mic where teens sipped on boba, learned about sustainability, thrifted for clothes and art supplies, and performed on stage. Next slide. Then we had our annual film festival, Luminescence, which gave creative teens across the Bay Area the chance to share their work and win prizes. We also premiered Picture Perfect, a film by our teenage council sponsored committee, the film lab that will be shown annually at the Palo Alto at Palo Alto High School to teach students about healthy relationships. Right after AP tests and prom, we held our DIY self-care night where teens made perfumes and lip scrubs, played board games, painted tote bags, and enjoyed service dogs. May is usually the most stressful month for students as everyone is cramming for AP tests, studying for finals, and grappling with the end of the school year. We wanted to create a break from this cloud of stress by creating an event where teens could just relax and take their mind off of academics. Next slide, please. >> So, I was trying to I thought you were speaking as a group and I was trying to give you seven minutes total. So, why don't you take another 30 seconds and then we'll try to get each of you a total of seven. >> Okay, I'm almost done. Okay. Um, next slide. >> All right. Finally, to kick off the summer, we held Wayfest, our annual art and music festival. Teens bought goodies from local teen art vendors and listened to teen bands and performers. Teens also participated in various arts and craft stations, played field games, and won raffle prizes. And thanks to the city's grant this year, we also had a food truck, which we are extremely grateful for. These fun community art events matter to us because of because of how the Ten Arts Council started. I'll hand it off to Matteo to explain the T arts council's origins. Thank you. Hello, my name is Matteo Serrano and I am a a junior at Los Altos High School. Uh I am the graphic designer of Teen Arts Council. The Teen Arts Council was initially a student group founded in 2009 as a community response to a suicide cluster. The recent student tragedies underscore the urgency of raising awareness of teen mental health and creating inclusive spaces for teens to be themselves outside their home or school. Moreover, when facing the constant pressure of Bay Area teen that makes everything a competition from your grades to your extracurriculars or even your own creative expression, a space where no one expects you to be better than those around you is invaluable. Next slide, please. To address this, we laid out three main goals for the council. One, create a free third space where teens can truly be expressed how who they are through engaging in art activities where whether that's painting a tote bag, upycling jeans, or singing their heart out. Two, to build a relaxed non-competitive community where everyone gets the most applause and support and everyone and people can choose how engaged they are, they want to be. We always have an opinion in our events just to sit down and be uh at the back and enjoy the free food. Three, offer inclusive leadership opportunities without barriers. We don't have an application. We host p public meetings and we provide volunteer hours. Today's teams will be the future someday. So, TAC cultivates good leaders and representatives of our generation by offering a space where we can learn, fail, and get back up again and with constant support. We as teens know that you as adults care. You care that our mental health and you care uh when we're struggling. But you can't always know what we need without hearing from us directly. By being here, we want to stress the importance of teens having their own voice and stay say in how their mental health is addressed by adults. And so we're going to tell you exactly what we teens need, a dedicated space of our own. I'm taking it giving it to Amanda. >> Okay. Hi, my name is Amanda and I'm also a part of the Teen Arts Council, also known as TAC of Paul Alto. So, continuing off of Matteo, through our event planning experience and proven impact, we are eager to further our goals. That's why we're asking to use the new Brian Street Teen Center for meetings and events for the 2026 to 2027 school year. Teens need a designated third space, and the Teen Center is just that. Right now, we meet at the Children's Theater. However, since we share the space with so many other great programs of the Children's Theater, we are struggling to find the uninterrupted time and space for us to host our events. It was an honor to be chosen by the city to paint the very first mural in the teen center for its reopening. As we've already familiarized ourselves with the space, we would love to be able to do it even more and take on the responsibility of arts programming at the Teen Center. Specifically, if you were to have access to the teen center, we would use this space to hold our weekly meetings. We would use it to hold our previously mentioned events with some benefits like the fact that it has a large open space and comfy furniture at the teen center, which is perfect for a DIY self-care night. We also have new ideas of organizing monthly arts and craft space for teens to connect with one another. However, currently we face a few issues regarding the teen center. It closes at 6:00 p.m. for when we hold our meetings at 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. with events going on even later than 7:30. Additionally, transportation is a problem, too, especially for gun high school students that are on the other side of the town. To combat these issues, we are requesting three main parts of this plan. Number one is later hours, such as having it open at 400 p.m. and closing it at 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and close at 9:00 p.m. on Friday to Sunday. The current hours are 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. But if our school ends at 3:30 and it takes at least 20 minutes to go to the teen center when combating peak traffic, teens would only be able to utilize the space for 2 hours. The second is on transport support. So we could make the teen center much more trans much more accessible through a free destination through the Palo Alto link. Additionally, having designated links from the from gun and pali to the teen center would greatly increase our member account, our attend event attendee account and also more gun students could benefit from the teen arts council. I have a lot of friends from both gun and pali who would love to be a part of TAC, but they find the transportation to be a personal issue. We ask that the city provide two links, two link cars, one for gun and one for pi which reach the schools at 6 p.m. and are able to come to the teen center by 6:30. But having >> Amanda, I'm going to need you to wrap up, but please do send this to us in an email. Come back, you know, in the fall and talk to us, but we will read it. But go ahead and finish your your last sentence or two. >> Can I take one last minute? Okay. Thank you so much. So when so this these link cars would reach the schools at 6 p.m. and come to the teen center by 6:30. By having city sponsored safe and reliable transportation, it's crucial to increasing our accessibility and equity for hundreds of teens that don't have their own transportation. Finally is the continued funding to sustain our events and initiatives. As we mentioned earlier, some of our main attractions and events are only possible because of the city's funding and generous support. and we are so grateful that we are able to have them. As someone who has attended the events that TAC has hosts and also plays a part in planning them, I've seen how impactful our events are able to be when we have more support from the city itself. Our events combine arts along with core issues like sustainability and also mental health. Our impact can be achieved with your support. Finally, I want to thank you guys for your time, your support, and your belief in Palo Alto teens to be able to accomplish within our community through arts programming. And thank you. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Melissa D. Good evening, mayor and council members. Thank you for everything you do on behalf of this community. I am Melissa Denwy representing Indivisible PaloAlto Plus and SOS PaloAlto safety over surveillance. I grew up in PaloAlto attending K through 12 here and my parents still live in the same house where I grew up. We are here tonight because we are deeply concerned about the flock AI surveillance cameras and there is real urgency around this issue. Our community is deeply worried about this right now, today. And I'd like you to see this for yourselves. Could everyone here who feels that this is an urgent issue, please rise. Thank you. Please be seated. That's this room. That's PaloAlto. Here's why this matters so much. Right now, there are documented risks to our civil liberties and our Fourth Amendment rights. Today, not someday, but today, ICE has invisible access to flock data. As it states in the DHS privacy impact assessment, and I quote, "Vendor retention of ICE data. ICE does not contribute data to the commercial LPR database, and the vendor is not permitted to use any of IC's query data, including photographs, for its own purposes. ICE query data is not retained by the vendor except to maintain audit logs for use by ICE. In light of revelations that ICE uses Flock, Flock has not provided sufficient guarantees that PaloAlto's data is not currently nor will be used for immigration enforcement. Second, ICE detention facilities are coming to our region. The county is suing right now to try to stop ICE from opening a detention center in our backyard. After ICE ran roughshod over the permitting process to get there, ICE is also secretly planning a detention center in Dublin, where an abandoned women's prison filled with toxic mold and crumbling asbestous exists. We trust that when you return from break, you'll have a thoughtful and meaningful conversation about all of this. But while you deliberate to keep our community safe, you must cover the cameras. What Flock wants most, most most of all is our data. We know this because their current valuation does not match what they charge for cameras unless the value of our personal data is factored in. We are the product. So while you deliberate, the only safe option is for the police department to physically prevent flock from collecting this information. This is common sense practice once a product safety risk comes to light. Prudent actors take that product offline until the safety issues can be resolved. Doing otherwise leads to civil lawsuits and fines. Other cities have done exactly this. Covered their cameras to stop Flock from continuing to collect data while they work through next steps. Dayton, Ohio, Olympia, Washington, Evston, Illinois, Cambridge, Massachusetts. As federal access to this data becomes more real every single day, the cameras here in PaloAlto need to be covered, too. And we're not alone in this. As you can see here, more and more cities are cancelling their flock contracts altogether, and that trend is only accelerating. PaloAlto doesn't want to be the last one standing on the wrong side of it. So, here's what we're asking city staff to do right now until the city council can take formal action after its break. First, direct the auditor to meet with community members to discuss the scope of this audit. Second, adopt the community suggested audit parameters. Third, cover the cameras now to prevent immediate harm. And fourth, partner with us to promote our democracy forum to the general public. This is a multi-layered issue and the public deserves to be educated on these issues as the council deliberates. And when you come back from break, remember you won't be alone in that room. The PaloAlto community stands strong on this issue and is ready to do what it takes to legally cancel the contract with Flock. And at Stanford, over a thousand people have signed on, including more than a 100 faculty members and leading constitutional scholar Larry Diamond demanding that flock cameras be removed. PaloAlto has stood up to this federal government before, and we were proud of you for it. Let's do it again. Thank you. Our next speaker is Linda F. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My name is Linda Fromer and I've been a resident of Palo Alto for nearly 24 years. My husband and I chose to move to this city when we relocated from New York specifically for the schools and the safe community it offers. Raising our three children here included many wonderful years of involvement in Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League, youth community services, PaloAlto recreation summer camps, and much much more. This community has been exactly the safe, welcoming place we hoped it would be. Until recently, I was unaware that surveillance cameras had been installed throughout our city. When I learned of that, something shifted for me and not in the direction of feeling safer. Quite the opposite. Clearly, we live in an anxious moment nationally. We are watching institutions bend and civil liberties erode in ways that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. In that context, a city-wide camera network is not a neutral tool. It can be and historically has been used to monitor immigrants, to track and chill political disscent, and to silence the voices of people who are simply exercising their right to speak up. Of course, public safety is a multiaceted issue. Our community deserves to have a comprehensive discussion about safety. Right now, our neighbors are not safe. Plans to build detention centers in our backyard in Dublin and Gilroy are not abstract policies. They are a direct imminent threat to people in our neighborhoods and on our streets. Activists liberties are threatened by the federal government. Parents driving their children to gender affirming care appointments are looking over their shoulders wondering if they're being tracked. Our Stamford community worries about participating in protests as their research funding gets ripped away. This city's safety was never built on surveillance. It was built on neighbors, on community, and on trust. At this moment in time, our federal government is failing us and we are turning to you for help. After initial set of flock cameras was installed in PaloAlto, there was a second wave. I fear this can easily lead to a third and fourth wave. Are we heading into being a city with cameras watching us everywhere? I hope not. It seems as though it would be so easy to upgrade the cameras to condors and other advanced technology that uses AI and facial recognition. Do we need and want that in our community? I don't. And I know many others don't as well. If Lockach gets the FBI contract, our data will become bait for the federal government. Without any doubt, without any need to question anyone's intentions, more data means more data breaches, more exposure, more harm to the people this city is supposed to protect. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't be put back. But more importantly, I know if you as PaloAlto leaders stand up to fight this issue, we can have a real impact. We are a technology leader and with that comes responsibility. It is incumbent on the city council to ring the alarm bell. Now, I urge the council to discontinue the use of these cameras and recommmit to the values that made so many of us choose to raise our families here. Thank you. Our next speaker is David P. >> Hi, good evening everyone. I'm um a local homeowner and I wanted to address um SB79. A city manager mentioned that earlier. Um uh I want to give a plug for higher um buildings, taller buildings. >> We have an item on that coming up in the consent calendar. So I think you need to hold your comment for that because that is on the agenda. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Luis R. >> [snorts] >> Uh, good evening, city council. My name is Luis Rosas. I'm a concerned community member and organizer from East Palo Alto, born and raised. A majority of East Palto is composed of black and brown working-class people of color. Many EPA residents commute to Palo Alto for their jobs, drop off, and pick up their children from school. And this is also where uh EPA families visit for food and food and entertainment all year round. Flag safety has been found to share Pauloto's data to federal and law enforcement agencies from out of state. This directly puts EPA's majority Latino and Latina population at risk as this current presidential administration seeks to target and persecute us indiscriminately. Palo Alto owes EPA many debts, some of which include um fighting tooth and nail to deny EPA from becoming its own city. Some of that can also include the racial and economic segregation policies that denied black and other minority families from living in Palo Alto. All this being said, the city of Palo Alto has the opportunity right now to do what's right by their EPA neighbors to protect them and their families by cancing their flock contract. Doing this ensures that Paul Alto's data does not fall into the hands of federal agencies like ICE and DHS. I would say that y'all should listen to your community members and your constituents, everybody who's here, everybody who's been fighting. This is not the first time as as far as I know that uh they've come up to you and this is a fight that is still happening in East Palto as well. So, thank you so much for listening. Our next speaker is Fen T. Hi there, city council. Thank you guys for what you're doing. It's a hard night. Some slides out that to see. This has to do with induction stoves. And thank you very much for the induction stove rebate program over natural gas stoves. And thank you very much for shifting the messaging from that of climate change to in a way the more local the more direct in a way you could argue the more important that of health. Um I was recently with my wife on our honeymoon second honeymoon and I have some tobacco fighting graphics for you to share. If you have suffered with cancer or have forensic, these may be triggering because this is what other countries are doing to get the message across. Could I have the next slide, please? So, Canada is tracking how graphic cigarette warnings are over time and you can see the number of countries now that are actually putting this in place. So, this is my mother country. Next slide, please. So, this is what Canada has on their cigarette boxes. And so think about this is something to talk when we talk about natural gas stoves and triggering lung cancer in children and adults. Next slide please. This is what Thailand [snorts] what some might consider a third world country. They don't h they have to pay for their own health care as a government entity. So they want to get it across that health. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Valin V. >> Good evening. My name is Valen Varnasi and I'm a rising junior at Los Altos High. Thank you for listening. I'm asking council to redesign the Bueno Vista utility upgrade as fully electric, the way it was originally planned. Homes with gas stoves have a 20% higher rate of childhood asthma. Gas appliances release nitrogen dioxide and benzene. Pollutants tied to asthma and respiratory disease. Buenov Vista is home to families with kids and seniors, locking them into another 20 plus years of gas means means locking them into that exposure. Now, the cost. California's 2022 scoping plan commits the state to carbon neutrality by 2045 and the path to get there decommissions the gas distribution statewide. Installing new gas lines now means rateayers pay twice which is very suboptimal. Please reconsider and thank you so much. >> Our next speaker is Peter R. Hi, my name is Peter Revangh. I'm an incoming senior at Pi in Eagle Scout and I have a strong interest in viral science. The issue I'll be speaking on today is the dual gas and electric utility implementation of Buenav Vista mobile home rather than only electrification. I think this issue and environmental issues in general often suffer from a lack of representation from younger people. Young people uh are underrepresented in these decisions, even though we'll be living with consequences much longer than most current elected officials. That's why I support transitioning this mobile um home community to all electric utilities rather than continuing to rely on natural gas. The choices we make today will affect our community for decades. Uh and I think we should choose the option that's best for our future. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Zena H. >> [clears throat] >> Hello, I'm Zena Hammer and representing the San Francisco Creek neighborhood uh group. Um we're grateful that Peloto has initiated the annual bridge replacement project and the Hamilton storm drain project. These are meaningful steps and we appreciate the support. Um there are two reasons for our concern and urgency tonight. First, we're facing another uh forecast of a very strong El Nino similar to the 9798 uh when the flood of record occurred. Second, we face a deadline that will not wait until the recess is over in August. On July 14, the Valley Water Board is scheduled to vote to replace its commitment to the 70-year-old flood protection for reach 2 with a funding only metric. This would formally relieve Valley Water of outcome responsibility for this project at the very moment when the project needs Valley Waters's technical leadership and support the most. This matters because a credible plan already exists. The WRA alternatives evaluation report published in the spring of 25 provides a viable path to a 70-year-old flood protection including replacement of the Pope Choser Bridge. Uh the JPA reconfirmed uh the project's design goals. This problem is not technical. It's political will and um a July 14 vote once taken will be very difficult to reverse. Please contact Valley Water to encourage them to maintain their commitment to this project. Thank you. Our next speaker is CMSA. My name is Sheamus and I live on Stanford campus. You know, I have this Flock off badge here. Uh but I think I got a little confused outside. I'd like to share three of the reasons I'm so excited about Flock coming on to our community. Uh so, first of all, they enable connection. I heard that a Kansas police chief searched for his ex-girlfriend 164 times in four months. And I was just so heartwarmed by his unrequited uh dedication to and affection for her. Uh second, Flock can share data with a whole national or statewide network. Um so as we saw in Mountain View, statewide and nationwide lookup settings can actually be toggled on by accident. Um and it's really exciting to have a technology that helps jurisdictions to cooperate with each other uh even when they maybe don't mean to. And third, I know that most people would expect that the government would need like a warrant to track everywhere that they've been in the past 30 days. Uh, but that's another one of the great things about flocks, so these police officers can just decide for themselves that they'd like to find out uh where I am. Uh, but I'm worried that this frictionless process actually isn't fast enough. So, I was thinking we could use the cameras along with uh information like race and income level actually to predict when someone is on their way to commit a crime uh and arrest them before [snorts] that happens. Uh so, I'd appreciate it if you could, you know, appreciate the advances we're making with in with AI uh and direct the police to look into that. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Justine B. Good evening, Mayor Vinker and city council members. My name is Justine Bert. I'm the executive director of the PaloAlto Transportation Management Association, and I'm here to urge you to reconsider something that came up on June 1st. I think bank bikes should be allowed on California Avenue. Um there's an important underpass under Calav Transit Center, the Cal Train Station for Green Middle School students who live on one side of El Camino to get to school. Um there are a number of Stanford research park workers who get off the Cal Train at Cal A and would need to bike to work. So it's an important place for uh bikes to come through if we can keep them slow. And so I know the e-motobikes are of particular concern. Um I've biked quite a bit on Cambridge and uh the pavement quality is pretty bad and cars are pulling in and out of the parking lots there. So not a great place for bikes to go through. Um so I suggest maybe instead 5 mph speed limit on Cal A. I really like the schematic of the um um the negative space for the bike lanes and the pedestrian um thermoplastics. um maybe 5 mph speed limit with tickets given above 10 miles an hour. Just something to think about. And uh for those of you who might be available tomorrow night, we're doing a community bike ride leaving at Cal A and El Camino Rial going down to Eagle Park in Mountain View and back. Hope you can join us. Thank you. >> And that concludes public comment on items not on the agenda. >> All right. Right. Well, thank you, Madam Clerk, and thanks to all of you who provided public comment tonight, especially our youth. With that, we will move on to council member questions, comments, and announcements. So, colleagues, what say you? I know I've seen a few of you at a bunch of events. Maybe we'll just give it a minute to settle down here. All right. If you could take your conversations outside, that would be appreciated. >> They can't hear me. >> All right. Okay. Okay, if you could uh [laughter] they can't hear me. >> Sorry, we need to move on with our meeting and it's tough to hear back there. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, so uh colleagues, there's a couple things I'd like to let you know. I'm not seeing any lights, but if anyone has uh comments, please do ring in. Um, one is I wanted to I announced this on Friday, but it's a matter of general interest, especially given an agenda item coming up about our utilities. Um, so as you know, PaloAlto has its own municipal electric utility, and we provide power through the Northern California Power Agency. Last year, the longtime general manager of NCPA announced his retirement. Um, so I serve on the executive committee of the board of NCPA and we conducted an extensive nationwide search for his successor and I am pleased to announce tonight that Tony Zimmer has been selected as NCPA's new general manager. Tony has worked at NCPA for 25 years and up until Friday served as its assistant general manager. I am confident that Tony will be an excellent leader at this time when capacity, reliability, and affordability of our electric power is critical. And so I wanted to let you know he's in Roseville, but uh will be out here uh getting to know us better. Okay. Um, I also wanted to um let you know that uh uh about a global data center pact that C40 had is sponsoring and announcing and launching this week. C40 is an association of the world's 100 largest cities and they will be announcing this pact at London Climate Week this week. And even though we are not one of the 100 largest cities, uh they did invite me to endorse the pact which I have done. And so it will this pact I have copies of it for those who want to see it. But it basically establishes a vision for sustainable high-erforming urban data centers grounded in equity, sustainability, and local benefits. So I just wanted you all to be aware of that. Um, so that is all I have and seeing no lights, we will move forward with our busy agenda. Okay, we will move to our action items before consent tonight since some of those uh consent items depend on it. And so we will move first to item two. All right. So, while staff is arriving, let me give a little background on uh this uh item. So, tonight we will hold a public hearing to consider item two, which is a series of actions adopting utility rates and financial forecasts. There are seven separate resolutions under this item. Three of these proposed changes to the city's water, wastewater collection, and refuge rates require a public hearing under Proposition 218. As required by the California Constitution, we will conduct majority protest proceedings for the water, wastewater collection, and refuge rate increases, and the public will have an opportunity to speak. But first, staff will make a presentation on water, wastewater collection, and refuge rates and financial forecasts. And then once we've conducted the Proposition 218 hearings on those rights, rates, rights, rates, we will consider the rates for the city's electric, gas, fiber, and storm water management utilities. So, I will turn to staff for the presentation. Welcome. >> Good evening. Alan Curator, director of utilities. I'm going to introduce Lisa Belier. She is our uh assistant director of resources. Um she pres presented here last year but this is the first year she's presenting as assistant director. Um so we have an efficient presentation broken up as the mayor said in two parts. I did want to also highlight that in terms of affordability. Uh Lisa will go in some of the details of our expansion in terms of um uh lower residential discounts and rates and expanding to more of the population. But I'll turn it over to Lisa to go through the first items on Prop 218. Thanks. >> Thank you so much. Good good evening, mayor, council members. My name is Lisa Balier and I'm here to talk to you about the 2027 proposed utility financial forecasts and rate proposals. If you could go to the next slide, please. PaloAlto provides essential utility services that that uh residents and businesses in Peloalto rely on every day, including electricity, gas, and drinking water. And our focus is on keeping those services safe, reliable, and cost-effective. A big part of our work is maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure that supports the community. We replace aging pipes. We're increasing system capacity to prepare for electrification and undergrounding equipment in high fire threat areas. When storms hit or leaks occur, our crews respond quickly to keep neighborhoods safe and minimize disrupt disruptions. We're also contributing our share to the regional wastewater treatment plant rebuild to protect the waters of the bay. We're also planning ahead. PaloAlto already uses 100% carbon neutral electricity with a significant share that comes from renewable sources. Our electrification programs support residents and businesses who want to electrify their homes, vehicles, or buildings. And we do all of this with careful financial management. We oversee more than $500 million each year. And as a publicly owned utility, every dollar goes back into maintaining reliable service, keeping rates stable, and planning for long-term needs. Next slide, please. I want to take a moment to talk about the suite of resources that the city has to help customers save on their utility bills. The bill impacts that we show in our presentations assume that customers keep using the same amount of energy and water. But customers can take advantage of these programs to reduce their energy and water usage and this is the best way for customers to control their utility bills. So our rate assistance programs as director curator mentions have recently expanded based on council action from earlier this month. more uh income qualified residents are eligible and discounts for the electric utility are larger up to 35% off of electric bills for income qualified customers. We're also continuing our gas discounts of 25%. And those programs are funded through public benefits funds and there's also water rate assistance available through Valley Waters program for incomequalified customers. In addition to rate assistance, rate assistance, we have residential energy assistance program which provides home upgrades and weatherization to improve comfort and reduce monthly energy usage and utility bills for income qualified residents. Now, for all of our customers, we have a sophisticated series of efficiency measures and electrification support, ranging from free customer surveys, devices, and rebates that help customers save energy and water. And with our advanced metering and automated leak alerts, residents can track their usage and catch any issues early. Overall, these programs help make utility services more affordable, efficient, and help residents manage their utility bills. Next slide, please. I just have this one slide that gives you a brief overview of the water, wastewater collection, and refuge rate increases. These are increases that were reviewed in detail by the finance committee. and the finance committee recommended unanimously that the council approve these rate proposals. Finance committee members noted that reserve balances were drawn down during the pandemic to support lower rate increases and that the current upward pressure on rates is partially a consequence of those prior decisions. As noted on this slide, there is a pass through portion of the water rate increase since the wholesale water rate increase is increasing from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. That increase will go into effect automatically and customers have each received a postcard that notifies them about that increase. For the water utility, what the council's voting on tonight is what is needed for the distribution system needs. It's driven mainly by the investments that we need to make in our water system in PaloAlto. Much of the system of pipes that is within the city that delivers water is decades old and we need to replace aging mains in order to um maintain reliability and reduce leaks in the water system. We're also investing in seismic upgrades to our water reservoirs so that the system can perform during emergencies or supply interruptions. And these capital projects for the water utility help ensure we have a safe, dependable water supply long into the future. Briefly on the wastewater collection system, the wastewater collection system is facing significant capital needs and major projects, major capital projects have already been deferred. Now, we're at a point where we do need to move forward with replacing old sewer mains to prevent failures, backups, or spills of raw sewage and costly emergency repairs. We need to upgrade a lift station and other collection system repairs as well. Increasingly stringent requirements and aging infrastructure at the regional water quality control plant mean that upgrades are necessary there as well, and PaloAlto needs to pay our share of those costs. On the refuge collection side, refuge rates are increasing because of the rising cost of collecting and processing solid waste. The cost of the city's solid waste contracts have increased and it has become more expensive to process solid waste materials with more stringent state and local regulatory requirements. The 3% rate increase is necessary to make sure we can continue reliable collection service, responsibly process materials, and keep the system financially stable for the long term. Next slide, please. This slide is provided for your reference. It does have a lot of numbers on it. I wanted to just make sure that you had this information for all of the utilities, but I will separately address uh electric and gas after we discuss water, wastewater, and refues. The overall I wanted to bring your eye to the bottom of the column that is outlined in red. The overall increase on the utility bill from this set of increases is 8% on the average residential bill. And this is $35.20 20 cents per month. Next slide, please. This is the recommendation and summary for the council to approve the resolutions with the financial forecasts and rate schedules for the water wastewater collection and refuge utilities. And I'll pause there. >> All right. And so when you say pause, you done with the the presentation. I see there's some supplemental slides of those just for questions or >> um my understanding of the script of the hearing was that we would uh have a a portion for the electric and gas uh after we address water, wastewater, and refues, but I'd be happy to take any questions you have on >> I just wasn't sure if you were done with that first part. >> Yes, done with that first part. Thank you. >> Excellent. No, no worries. Thank you very much. There's a lot of moving pieces to tonight, so thank you. Well, director, assistant director, thank you very much for the presentation so far. Um, and we will uh turn to public comment on the proposed water wastewater collection and refuge rate changes and financial forecasts. But before we do that, uh, the city attorney, I believe, has some background to provide on how the Prop 218 public hearing will be conducted. So, Mr. City attorney. >> Thank you, mayor. So tonight's water, wastewater collection, and refuge rate hearing will be will follow the requirements of a provision of the California Constitution that is commonly referred to as Proposition 218. Prop 218 sets forth rules that local governments must follow before increasing property related fees. Notice of tonight's hearing was mailed to effective water, wastewater collection, and refuge customers on April 30th, 2026. The city clerk has been accepting written protests against the proposed rates and will continue to do so until the close of the public input portion of this hearing. After the close of the public comment portion of the public hearing, the city clerk will tabulate the written protest against the proposed water wastewater collection and refuge rates separately. If a majority of the affected customers have signed written protests against any of the proposed rate rate increases, they they will not be impo the the rate increases will not be imposed. Otherwise, the city council may adopt the proposed water wastewater collection and refuge rates by resolution. >> All right. Well, thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Um so now we will move to public comment on water wastewater collection and refuge rates and financial forecasts and speakers will have up to two minutes. So madame clerk would you please uh organize our public comment. >> We have no requests to speak and no hands are raised on Zoom for this um for the water and wastewater rates. >> Very well organized. Thank you. Okay. Then if it appears that there are no members of the public who wish to speak on these rates, uh before I close it, just want to remind anyone that this is the last opportunity to submit written protests on water wastewater collection and refuse rates. So I'm just going to pause for a moment in case anyone wants to walk up with any paper uh written comments. Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing on the water, wastewater, and refuge rates. Before we turn to council questions and discussions on the utility rates and financial forecasts, we will first count the written protests on the water, wastewater, and refuge rates, which I assume is the same count as you had gave me before because we didn't get any additional ones. Is that correct? >> That is correct. We have received seven protests against water rates. Okay. So, beginning with water, there are 19,538 water customers subject to the water rate changes, meaning that 9,769 protests are needed to create a majority. And the city clerk has just told us there are seven written protests that we received against the proposed water rate increases. So that being the case, we do not have a majority protest and the total number is not higher than 50% of the total water customers subject to the rate increases. Since there is no majority protest on water rates, we will consider the resolution adopting a water rate increase tonight. So now are there council questions, discussion and action on the proposed water rates and financial forecast. [sighs] >> Wow, that was like a tie. Vice Mayor Stone, >> thank you, Madam Mayor. And I I just have one one question from staff because I just think it's it's helpful for everybody, especially based on the conversation we had last week on the SF PU. Can you I know I think Allan I think you gave me this information a couple months ago but for everybody else's knowledge. So on the the staff report talked about the I guess a big driver of our water rate increases is due to the SFPU and the SFPU originally projected a 1% whole sale rate increase but modified that to a 7.4% 4% increase um with an with significant projected increases over the next few years. And we know that even those are not reliable based on the SFPU's kind of previous errors in their projected rate increases. What what percentage of our water rate increase is attributed to the SFPU increase? >> Sure. I think right I'll have Lisa go through the details. I think it's uh 580 per month is in regards to the uh the impact that we're have we're passing through on the water side for SFPU. As you may recall, um uh Vice Mayor Stone uh SFPU uh gave us an increase that we were a little surprised with in terms of that. So, we've had to adjust our rates accordingly. Uh so that's the main driver is the the cost of water. >> Yeah. And I'll just add to your question in terms of the amount of the rate increase that's due to the SFPU about half of the water utilities costs are to pay for the commodity to pay SFP to purchase the water and those that amount is going up by 7.4% and on the distribution side we're increasing the uh distribution rates by 8%. So it's quite similar and so it's about half. >> Okay. So about half of our crease our increase attributed to the SFPU increase. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Council member Rectal. >> Okay. Clerk, can you bring up packet page 20? I want to look at figure two there in the middle of the page. And this is going to show the wastewater reserves. packet. Page 20. Okay. And what this shows is that during 2023 and 2024, our reserves went to zero. Can you talk was that due to the COVID rate cutting that you talked about or >> Yes, during that time period we did proceed with a uh sewer main replacement a year early [snorts] and additionally to uh because of coordination with repaving uh on El Camino. And so that that happened. And additionally our um overall for the utility our costs were higher than we had projected and our revenues were lower than we had projected in part because of COVID impacts. And so those things together led to a low a low reserve. >> Okay. And so yeah the next question was going to be could you have foreseen this and in this case there were some things that were unexpected. >> Correct. and CO also I guess was unexpected. Um so across the board I mean overall I think our utilities are wellrun. It does bother me when I see 16% increase and a lot of that is due to capital funding capital projects and so what's the trade-off between raising rates and financing that can you talk about why we chose that to raise the rates what we are proposing? So, so in general for the wastewater utility and this is showing the operations reserve for for the uh the wastewater utility. Um we show that the capital reserve it's it's it's probably just just as um uh just as low in terms of that. We've actually had to take a loan from the fiber utility uh during this time in CO. Um there has been increases to the wastewater treatment plant as you it's a it's a generational in uh reinvestment into the plant in neighborhood around $397 million or $400 million. Um we have received a lot the city and I I'll credit public works uh department and Bra Egleston and his team they re received state revolving fund loans which is less than 1% but we still have that de that debt service and we also are increasing seeing increased operational costs coming uh uh from that treatment plan as well. So those are the real rate drivers. Uh what we have done on the wastewater collection system is we've been very proactive in actually um videoing the lines the collection system lines and seeing which ones are in need of replacement. So we were able to defer some of those projects and now as Miss Belair has mentioned we it's time for us to actually push forward those projects and uh we we've packaged those projects together try to get uh the most bids and favorable bids from contractors. So, um, those are the the key drivers for us right now. >> Okay. And but we're raising rates by 16% on the wastewater. Could we raised it by a lower amount and then finance more of that in the future? What's the trade-offs there? >> I think as we've been thinking about debt financing, we've been thinking about that primarily for one-time projects rather than projects that are really necessary on an ongoing annual basis. And the key driver here for the collection system is that we need to do main replacement on a consistent basis in order to make sure that we replace all of the remaining pipe before they get to be, you know, more than 110 or 112 years old. So that's what's been driving this. And uh if we debt finance that then it would, you know, build on each other. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> that makes sense. Yeah. Anything ongoing, you really don't want to finance that. So of this rate increase, how much of it is due to the wastewater plant and how much is it due to the the mains roughly? >> Um you know it varies from year to year and this year majority is because of the treatment cost uh as well as to replenish reserves on both the treatment side and the collection side and I do have some specific numbers I can look up for you. >> Okay. And then also big picture now we look back in hindsight. Should we have been saving more reserves or do you think that we just got unlucky and we were doing the right thing? Right? Because this reserves are a good thing when you need them, but they also increase costs. And so if we would have had more reserves, that means in the past we've been charging more for utilities. And so there's a trade-off between having healthy reserves and keeping rates as low as we can. >> So I [snorts] I'll comment first. I mean um COVID was an extreme event uh for not only in this community but nationwide and across the world. So many utilities actually tried to keep their low their rates low and stable. So it's unsurprising. Um I think what we have done is try to be very uh um structured in terms of what we need to do next in terms of the the the future uh investments and I think one of the key ones and different from other agencies is the reinvestment of the wastewater treatment plant at this time and we're also dealing with some of the inflationary costs. So we were we're hit with COVID. We're also hit with these inflationary costs that um and for those reinvestments and that's across the board. So uh you know our public works team has been looking at similar like projects and reinvestments. The city of Sunnyale is going and updating their wastewater treatment plants. So we're updating those costs and and taking advantage as as much state lowcost interest rate uh financing that we have. So, um, given given th that perspective, I think the city has been very strategic in terms of trying to keep rates low. Um, you know, but we have been hit with these multiple events. Uh, so now we're trying to replenish those reser reserves and and the city council is going through and taking a look at those reserve policies to to um prepare ourselves for the next next potential events. In your professional opinion though, do you think the reserves are a proper amount right now or do we have to consider raising them? >> I think we're going to have to look at uh some of the investment costs of the treatment plant and especially the bids coming through. So, it it's it's healthy for the organization to take a look at that uh in terms of the staging of those projects and um we're working very closely with with our foils over in the public works department and how those projects are going. Um, so we will bring that back. I I understand that that council has referred some of that to the UAC. So that will be a big part of their upcoming work plan and and looking at those reserve policies and providing a recommendation back to city council. But we definitely are going to look at uh the capital reinvestments uh to to meet the regulatory requirements to uh for the discharges to the bay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, seeing no other lights. So, right now we're just focusing on water. Is there a motion to approve the water rates resolution? >> So, move. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Seeing no request for further discussion, would you please call the role? >> Vice Mayor Stone? >> Yes. >> Council member Bert. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Yes. >> Council member Lithcods. Yes. >> Council member Lou. >> Yes. >> Council member Rectal. >> Council member Lowing. >> Yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Thank you very much. So, moving on to the wastewater rate protest count. There are 22,410 wastewater customers subject to the wastewater rate changes, meaning that 11,205 protests are needed to create a majority. So, Madame Clerk, did we I don't think we had any additional uh numbers for that either. So, uh, how many, um, written protests did we receive against the proposed wastewater collection rates? >> We received seven protests against the wastewater rates. >> Okay. Thank you. So, the total number of protests received is not higher than 50% of the total wastewater customers subject to the rate increases. Since there is no majority protest on wastewater rates, we will consider the resolution adopting a wastewater collection financial forecasts and rate increase tonight. So, are there any further questions, discussion, or action on the proposed wastewater collection financial forecasts and rates? Seeing none, [snorts] is there a motion to approve the wastewater collection rates resolution? So, >> thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Madam clerk, would you please call the role? >> Mayor Vinker, >> yes. >> Council member Lowing, >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Council member Rectal, >> Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Council member Lethod Hayes, >> And Council Member Bert, >> yes. Motion carries unanimously. >> All right. Thank you. So, moving on to the refuge rate protest count. There are 20,712 refuge customers subject to the refuge rate changes, meaning that 10,356 protests are needed to create a majority. I will now ask the city clerk to provide the number of written protests received against the proposed refuge rates. We received four protests against the refuge rates. Thank you, Madame Clerk. The total number of protests received is not higher than 50% of the total refuge customers subject to the rate increases. Since there is no majority protest on refuge rates, we will consider the resolution adopting a refuge financial forecast and rate increase tonight. So, are there council questions, discussions, and actions on the proposed refu rates? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the resolutions regarding refuge rates? >> So move. >> This is I'll second. >> Well, good. Council member Bert, move. Council member Lou, second. Seeing no request for further discussion, Madame Clerk, would you please call the role? >> Council member Rectal. >> Yes. >> Council Lith, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> Mayor Vinker, >> yes. >> Council member Lou, >> yes. Council member Lowing. >> Yes. >> Council member Bert. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right. Thank you. So, we got through the Prop 218 rates. We will now turn back to the nonproposition 218 rates presentations. Uh we will consider the utility rates and financial forecasts that are not prop 218 as I mentioned namely adoption of resolutions adopting financial forecast and fiscal year 2027 rates for gas, electric, fiber and storm water management. The order of proceedings for this item will be as follows. First, staff will make a presentation on the proposed rates and financial forecasts for gas, electric, fiber, and storm water management. Next, we will hear public comment. Speakers will get up to two minutes each. Lastly, council will have a chance to ask questions and discuss followed by motions. So, I will turn back to the director and assistant director for the remainder of your presentation. >> Thank you very much. just two two slides um and then the recommendation slides. So for the electric utility the proposal this proposal was unanimously supported by the finance committee that took a look at it in detail. The finance committee voted for a 4.5% increase in fiscal year 2027. As I mentioned, the utility, the electric utility is modernizing the grid and planning to issue bonds to pay for these costs with a planned 85 million bond issuance later this year. Grid modernization is going to improve reliability and resiliency as well as increasing capacity to prepare for electrification. Electric rates are being affected by rising long-term costs across the entire power system. We're seeing rising long-term costs for grid upgrades that are needed to maintain reliability and support more electrification in the community. State requirements for renewable energy also continue to increase, which means we need to procure more clean power at a time when those resources are becoming more expensive. We're also facing higher requirements for power reliability. And together, these factors are driving up the costs of providing reliable and clean electricity. I want to make a note about building permit fees. During the finance committee's discussion earlier in this year in in April, the committee directed utilities department staff to develop a rebate program for building permit fees related to photovoltaic generation and energy storage systems. This will be a local decarbonization program and we'll uh be proposing to use $225,000 of non- rate revenues uh in order for this purpose. And we would keep the amount of funding for local decarbonization the same by correspondingly reducing the allocation of cap and invest auction revenues to the cap and invest reserve. Next slide, please. For the natural gas utility, the UAC reviewed the gas proposal of a 9% increase and recommended lowering the increase by reducing the general fund transfer or possibly using reserves. Staff did investigate the possible use of reserves and found that there are no available reserves to use for this purpose. The finance committee also took a look at this issue and recommended voted 21 to recommend the 9% overall rate increase. I did want to note that the finance committee discussed but did not decide to go forward with an option to reduce that would reduce the overall gas bill approximately 1%. And that idea was to slow the recovery of the gas price spike mitigation reserve to 32 months instead of 16 months. That uh those funds are to mitigate the impact on customers of a price spike similar to the one that we saw in 2023. Next slide, please. This slide summarizes the recommendation that I discussed for the electric utility. Next slide, please. This slide summarizes the recommendation for the gas utility. And I do want to say a couple words about the fiber proposal and storm water management. for fiber. These the rates in the included in the packet implement a 3% consumer price index inflation increase. That increase affects only four customers that are continuing on the dark fiber rate schedule that the the schedule that uh existed prior to 2006. There's also an inflationary increase to the advanced engineering fee for new connections, but most of the dark fiber customers are not impacted by this increase. For the storm water management fee, a majority of PaloAlto property owners approved a ballot measure in 2017. This fee funds the 13 storm drain capital improvement projects that were listed in the ballot measure. And that ballot measure allows for an inflationary increase consistent with the applicable consumer price index which is 3% for this year. So with that that concludes the presentation and be happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Well, thank you very much. Uh now we will turn to public comment. Uh speakers up to two minutes. Madam clerk, do we have any public commenters on these rates? There are no requests to speak and no hands are raised on Zoom. >> Okay, great. So, are there council questions, discussion, and action on the financial forecast and proposed rates for gas, electric, fiber, and storm water management? And these we can do collectively because we don't have the same process as we did to the under the prop 218 rates. Council member Rectal Couple questions on electric first. Uh in the staff report you talk about the when and where approach to try and delay the costs and we can delay the cost. Does that impact our reliability? What what's the trade-off there? >> Uh so the win and where approach is actually for the distribution. So as customers electrify uh what we found especially in this last year we can keep pace with the customers coming in and looking specifically at the part of the distribution system that serves them the basically the transformers that would serve the residents or businesses. We've been very successful in that regard. >> Um the the real change in the the real change is we'll be able to meet those requirements in a nutshell. >> Okay. And so when you replace the transformers how old are they? Are they generally fairly old or are you actually replacing relatively new equipment when you upgrade? >> So the distribution transformers um vary in age and size but for the most part the smaller ones have been in the system for quite some time and are in need of replacement. As we look at those we also look at the poles itself to see if those need replacement as well. I think the main folks that we're looking at now is actually looking at the resiliency reliability of our substations which um if you look back at them are circa 1960 or 1970 and and they are um ready for replacement and expansion. So um we are doing those in a manner that is most cost effective um and also improves reliability to our customers. So um we're very excited about those projects. uh as you go through the capital projects you'll see that as well as we have very defined projects um because we are going for financing as well. >> Okay. Um but over in big picture if you look at the speed at which we're upgrading our utility are you satisfied with that >> familar some of these capital projects to our neighboring agencies in terms of not only the scope and scale but also the timing. um by timing these projects out and looking at electrification and load growth in general for the city. Uh we have seen some load growth uh you know coming from commercial activities and we also are projecting load growth with uh more residential um but by not doing uh the projects and extending them out over time we're actually reducing some of our um our bonding costs over time. So we actually see that as a a reduction in terms of some of the long-term uh rate impacts to our customers and increasing affordability. >> And in the staff report you say that the electric consumption is expected to be 14% higher than previously expected. Is that electrification or why is that? [sighs] So that's primarily due to some of the commercial um commercial space where we're seeing some growth in that area really the the high-tech space where we have businesses moving in and they do need some compute uh with their facilities. Um these are not the large scale data centers that you read in the news but they are really onrem uh compute for for those high-tech businesses that need to have it on site and frankly separate. >> Okay. So most of the growth is on the commercial side not on the residential. >> Yeah. the the the growth that we've seen on that on that percentage is primarily there. >> Okay. And then finally for on the gas side uh we have a 14.5% distribution increase rate increase for the distribution portion of the gas utility. Uh what is that from? What are we upgrading? >> Well, we're uh investing in the main replacements. We are also getting a federal grant for some main replacements but continuing u at our at our level of main replacement as well. So that is a benefit for the customers in PaloAlto in terms of safety and reliability. Uh, additionally, one of the drivers of the gas rate increase is the sales levels have been lower in the gas utility and uh, you know, there have been some mild conditions over the last couple of uh, uh, uh, winter seasons and that has led to some lower lower gas projections going into the future as well as as we've had those milder weather conditions. So, um, you know, we'll we'll keep monitoring it and updating our forecasts every year, but that's one of the one of the primary drivers. >> We had a very mild winter. So, you know, when we make those projections earlier, you assume a normal year, and that was not a normal year. Um, and just as u uh Miss Belier has mentioned, the city did receive a 16.5 million federal grant um to pay for some of these gas main replacements as well, and we could obviously pass those savings on to the customers. Are we seeing electrification cut into our gas use or are there other effects that are bigger than that? >> We will have a lot more information on that I think when we can analyze our AMI data. But for right now and we think it is having some impact and that's what we see when we look at the regression. Uh however you know much larger impact on a on one year to the next is weather changes. >> Okay. Yeah. I love AMI. I think that's going to really help us be more efficient. Okay, thank you. >> Um I have a a question. Um so for the electric utility rates, um you mentioned the um using the building permit fees for non-right revenues to uh for the local decarb efforts with uh PV generation and and storage. Um, and then you also mentioned that uh taking some of the cap and invest auction revenue and putting it in the cap and invest reserve. And I'm wondering if any of that is related to carb's very recent decision about the cap and invest program and creating the new $4 billion fund for uh for industry some would call them polluters to pay in or is that have any impact because don't aren't we getting increased revenue from that? No, no, this is not a change that's related to that. Uh but we uh you know the name has changed the the cap and invest um but this is a reserve that the city has had and the electric utility to capture those cap cap trade in the past and now cap invest uh funds uh in an equivalent amount to the wreck exchange program. So, this is because of a council decision from several years ago that we're capturing some of those funds for uh local decarbonization programs. >> And I I also do want to add you had actually two embedded questions there. The second question was um yes, this utility is expecting more cap and invest monies based on carb's recent decision. Um probably about almost double what we received in the past. So that is roughly 1.8 8 million if memory serves me correctly around there but depending on the auction revenues. So so those are we're trying to estimate those forward looking. Um so those those would be able to be used for um um basically what the carb requires us to use for our our customer programs uh energy efficiency renewable energy and of course our SCCAP programs as well. >> Right. I guess what I was trying to figure out, there's very recent awareness of a likely increase in revenue from the GGRF, which comes from CARB's decision on the cap and invest. And so, has any of these decisions on what we're doing with our cap and invest revenue and putting it in the reserve, uh, has any of that been affected by the expectation of the increased money? That's what I'm >> That is a really really good question and sorry I didn't catch it the first time. So, but um that that's true. This is late breaking. We are at the stage of just making those estimates of how much money that's going to be. One of the items that we're committing to as part of the resolution tonight uh on the electric utility is to bring back to the council within this fiscal year uh report on our carbon neutral plan and also on our wreck exchange revenues. So, we can at that time bring forward any changes and the council could weigh in on any changes to the way that that program operates and uh that would be an opportunity to weigh in on the use of those funds and get an update on what those protections are at that point in time. But >> that's that's great. Yeah, cuz I expect it we might want to make some adjustments and it is very late breaking so I wouldn't have expected much change but I wanted to check and see you know where we stood on that. um um because it is quite a quite an interesting quite quite a change uh of plans in some ways with TGRF and and the Air Resources Board recent action. So, thank you for that. All right, seeing no further lights, um where are we on this? All right, we did the public comment. We didn't have any. We have the discussion. I guess we're just want I guess I'm ready for a motion. If there's a motion to approve uh the resolutions uh that have the rates and financial forecasts for gas, electric, fiber, and storm water management, I would entertain that now. >> I so move. Second. >> All right. Council member Rectal uh on the motion. Uh Vice Mayor Stone on the second. And when you're ready, Madame Clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Bert. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Council member Lou. >> Yes. Yes. Council, Council Member Liths, >> yes. >> Council member Rectal, >> Council member Lowing, >> yes. >> Mayor Vinker, >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right. Excellent. Well, thank you very much, director and assistant director. Uh, and that will close out item two. >> So, now we will move on to item three. And look at that, we are on time. Um, I shouldn't have said that out loud, right? [laughter] [gasps] Okay. So item three, which is the adoption of ordinance adopting the operating and capital budgets and a whole lot of other stuff that's in your agenda. So tonight we will hold a public hearing to consider item three, adoption of an ordinance adopting the budget for fiscal year 2027. This item includes the following specific actions. First, adoption of the fiscal year 2027 operating and capital budgets, including the fiscal year 2027 city table of organization and the changes to the municipal fee schedule. [clears throat] Acceptance of the FY27 through 2031 capital improvement plan. Adoption of a resolution determining the appropriations limit for FY 2027. acceptance of the June 30, 2025 actuarial valuation of the city of PaloAlto retiree health care plan and fund the actuariately determined contribution for FY 2027 and 2028. Finally, authorize the city manager or designate to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding and funding agreement or lease amendment with the PaloAlto Museum for cost sharing of repairs to the basement and waterproofing in the Roth building and drainage improvements to Heritage Park. So, consistent with the conflict of interest rules under the California Political Reform Act, review of the budget will be segmented into two parts so that council member Louu, city manager Shicado Shakata, and I can recuse ourselves from certain Stanford related elements of the budget outlined in attachment C to the staff report for this item. The order of proceedings will be as follows. Staff presentation of the FY2027 budget. One round of technical questions from council. Recusals for Stanford University related conflicts. The remaining council members will discuss and vote on Stanford University related budget items. Then Council Member Lou, city manager Shicata and I will rejoin the meeting. Vice Mayor Stone will be in charge when I'm out back. [sighs and gasps] and then council will discuss and vote on the remaining FY2027 budget items. So with that, I will turn to staff. Welcome. I assume you have a presentation on tonight's public hearing. >> Yes, thank you. Uh good evening, mayor, council, members of the public. Lauren Lee, the chief financial officer. I'm excited to be here tonight to present uh the draft adopted budget and thank you for enumerating all the items and thank you for everyone especially the council who's in been involved throughout this process. Next slide please. So as noted there uh we are at the top of this process which is staff's presentation. Next slide please. Um so tonight we will summarize the finance committee deliberations and their recommendations to council. Also review the final balancing actions presented before you and other actions as listed by the mayor. Um and our goal is to adopt the budget and all the um other actions that usually accompany this annual process. Next slide please. This shows the chronology of the budget development process beginning in uh earlier than May, but it starts here in May and where we are tonight, which is the draft document for your consideration and adoption as the fiscal year begins July 1st. Next slide, please. This is a summary of the general fund budget. As noted there in the last column, the general fund budget is about $312 million. The citywide budget, which includes all the enterprise fund plus the capital budget, is about a billion dollars. Within the capital fund, we have a $1.2 billion 5-year plan and the 27 CIP budget, which council is asked to approve, is 316.8 million. The general fund BSR, which is our reserve, is projected to be at 53.7 million or about 17.2% 2% of our expense. Our staffing level will be about uh 1,089 positions. That is a reduction of 21.25 net positions uh because we're closing um a structural uh deficit. So that's about 2% um citywide. Next slide, please. Most of these um recommendations you have seen as of May 11th. Um I'm pleased to share that uh we city staff and the committee were able to rebalance the budget with technical adjustments. It's very important for us to preserve our services and also um move forward with capital investments. So with the technical adjustments predominantly around revenues we were able to rebalance the budget. What I will call to your attention that's different than what you saw on May 11th as a council is the uh office of transportation. You'll notice there we have one assistant engineer position. This is in uh an an extension of the part-time position that was slated for OSV, the oversized vehicle program. We're proposing a full position um that will also deliver other uh projects and services and programs related to OOT. So finance committee evaluated this staff reviewed it and it's bringing this back for your consideration. As noted there it is a leveraging 150,000 of OSV reappropriation already. So the uh fiscal 27 impact is shown there on the screen which is about 38,000. Uh future year funding will be yet to be determined which will be a variety of funding sources. Um next slide please. In total uh the general fund impact is 939,000 of additional appropriation. Again, as noted, um these have been rebalanced with either measure K or new revenues and or reductions of the net impact to CIP transfers. We mentioned in the memo before and we'll mention again, we're hopeful that um the prior year adjustments for sales tax will be favorable by 2 million. We have more than that set aside. Should that manifest, we are hopeful that our BSR will actually be about 55.7 million or closer to 18%. Keeping in mind our target is 18.5%. So, uh, wanted to call your attention to that because that is an important component of our fiscal sustainability and our fiscal strategy. Next slide, please. Uh, we like to have a look ahead. You know, in our annual process, we have a 10-year long range financial forecast. In our budget development process, we usually have a 2, threeear look ahead as we move towards budget adoption. As some of you may recall, this fiscal 27 budget had a projected general fund deficit of 17 million. So, we've done great work to balance it, most of which is using ongoing solutions. Um, as noted there in 2829, we still have some work ahead, but these are very manageable differences here of 1.7 and $3.2 million. So, great work to everyone who's been involved and certainly um um there will be some service impacts in areas. Um so, we want to be note we want to note that um that comes along with these types of budget reductions. Um however, very pleased with where we are today. Uh want to also note that um this does assume a certain level of partnership with PAUSD and cost sharing. Uh should those cost sharing not come through for a couple of important programs um those deficits could grow between 1.4 to 2.3 million depending on the level of gap um with that level of partnership. Again, these are um these are things we will revisit likely in December or February once we know more um as those conversations have yet to happen. Um in addition in fiscal 29 every two years we do our uh OPED study. So um in the last couple of studies there have been an uptick in expenses. We will bring that back in a couple of years and we'll continue to monitor that. Um, as far as you need to be concerned, um, the 27 budget implements the policy and implements the requirements of the actuarial report. Next slide. Um, the city encompasses many funds, enterprise funds in particular, as you noted in item two. Um, a large part of our, uh, budget entails uh, utility funds. And so before you are the utility rates um and this incorporates the action that you just took on um item number two. So this summarizes the approximate residential monthly bill impact for um the fiscal 27 fiscal year. Next slide please. Um along with the general fund budget, you will be um asked to adopt the capital budget, the CI 5-year plan, the table of organization, the municipal fee. I'm also very pleased that airport uh was able to make some substantial um changes to the fee, bringing that fund more in alignment with the ongoing cost. So, I want to really acknowledge staff for that work. Next slide please. OPE I mentioned every two years we do that actuarial report. Uh we did that earlier in February and brought that back to committee and have incorporated those obligations in the 27 budget. We're also incorporating it in the 28 outlook on the slide that I just showed you. Um, as noted by the mayor, um, we do want, uh, council to provide authority to the city manager to negotiate and execute anou and a funding agreement with the PaloAlto museum to provide cost sharing for repairs to the basement and waterproofing in the Roth building and improvements to the heritage park drainage. Um such dollars to a certain extent have been appropriated in the CIP by the finance committee appropriation uh limit or the GAN limit as a state requirement. We do that annually. We are well within those limits and it is your job as a legislation legislator to um also adopt that resolution. Uh last but not least, we have a letter of support from the planning and transportation commission as it relates to our CIP plan. Last slide. Um, this slide summarizes the draft motion that staff has prepared for council to consider and to adopt. Next slide, please, mayor. That summarizes staff presentation. Excellent. Well, thank you very much, Director Lie. Uh we uh now will have one round of technical questions from the council excluding the items in attachment C of the report that are related to Stanford. So colleagues, questions, [clears throat] >> Council Member Lou, >> thank you. I appreciate all the work. I think things are largely as I expect and as we've left them previously. Maybe one point I want to just confirm uh since this I was trying to find in my notes and it got bit lost was about the $2 million sales tax adjustment and implications of BSR. Um can you talk a little bit more about uh how that adjustment is otherwise uh incorporated into our budget? um was it an assumption that we had from the very beginning and also what the nature of this $2 million adjustment is. Is it a one-time deal or have some ongoing component? Uh so just a little bit more color. Uh >> sure >> would be helpful. >> Um apologies for the vaguess given the general confidential confidential nature of >> want a vague answer to this. Yes. >> Correct. Um so 26 budget at midyear um we did an adjustment which council approved. That adjustment had two components. A one-time component for what we call prior year adjustment and an ongoing base adjustment which would be a reduction of our base revenue for sales tax. The portion we're relating to tonight relates to the one-time adjustment. So um as we know more and as we work with the state that estimate is getting more refined and we're very hopeful that um we will have more available than we had originally thought. So this is favorable. >> Right. So, so this adjustment came in the process uh by which time we had already made all of the cuts and this $2 million is sort of uh newish news from the past month or so after most of the decisions have been made. Um and if we had known there was this $2 million before we could have made slightly different choices, but not very different choices because it is a $2 million only one time sort of adjustment. >> Correct. Correct. Correct. It's not a trend or a ongoing >> business activity change. Okay. Got it. >> No. And so at midy year we separated the adjustment into one time and base adjustment and 27's proposed budget for revenue already considered the new baseline for the sales tax. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. Thanks for repeating that part and I get it. Thank you. >> Council member Lowi. I probably should have turned to you first as chair of our finance committee. [clears throat] Yeah, these are more comments than than questions, but uh if you will allow >> Well, we're we're going to come back after the public for more comments, but if there's some >> I just want to get an overview where we are and and have uh our finance staff take a bow. Um this was a extraordinary challenge as you know going into it and uh director L and her staff has just performed extraordinarily as I said before. Um there is no now forecasted structural deficit for the year. It's a balanced budget and we didn't know coming in what we're going to have to do for that. Um and the services that are are remaining uh are substantially the same for our uh citizens. So that's just merits um attention and and notice. I said that just just as the the reporter walked out of the room. So, uh, [clears throat] but, uh, >> let you repeat it later. >> Yeah. And, and I'm also delighted to see on your timeline the little red badge that say it's tonight after all this work that we hopefully are going to do that. I just want to point out a couple of things. Uh, you notice the ad for OOT that plus one. And I really want to emphasize that because in getting a budget together uh it's possible that sometimes uh for good intentions in my judgment um and the committees um they can go too far in making cuts. And one of the things we said towards the end of the committee meetings is what what are we missing now that we really need to have for any of you to execute on core strategic items. And the item that came back after some uh came back literally we didn't do it that day but research was this item to execute on some of the things like the daylighting in parking that we were behind on and things like that. So um I'm pleased that we got a response like that saying I really do want a little bit more money in that area. Um because we want that too from our staff to say here's where we're a little short and here's what we can get done with it. Now evaluate that. So, um, I I salute staff for considering that, but also thanks thank the staff that did did make those cuts. [clears throat] Um, so o overall, you know, that's where we are. The other thing I wanted to point out, if you guys didn't notice that little bit of optimism there, we did find a half a million dollars in new estimates of projected increase in toot revenue. So when we talk about sales tax getting t cut cut and toot going up um it shows the the strength that we have from from multiple revenue streams and already we've been able to do that. Um and that wasn't just a fill-in because uh our director is too uh too honest for that. So it was it was real forecast. Um that said as you all know we can come back if something changes um because these are all estimates for everything uh on the revenue side. So, I'll leave it there and then come back for some comments. Thanks. >> Thanks, Chair Lowing. Council member Liths. >> Thank you, Mayor. And I echo the praise of my colleagues for your tremendous work and um and to my colleagues for on the finance committee for doing their part to bring that uh projected deficit way down. Um I wanted to turn to theou with the Palo Alto Museum. Um, I appreciate that the city is uh working with the museum on cost sharing for repairs to the basement and waterproofing um in the Roth building and improvements to Heritage Park drainage. We did receive a letter from museum leadership today raising a few more detailed concerns that um I wanted to address. Um the first is they're projecting that their costs are going to increase beyond what is currently known. And so the question is will the cost share um which I presume is a 50/50 although it doesn't say that in on this slide. Um will that share increase proportionately um as the full scope and any increased costs become known? I'll I'll actually read the the four questions that they had and then maybe we could address them. The second is could the would the city consider transferring uh funds as the work progresses rather than after the fact so the museum's not acting as a construction lender. The third is would the city wave building permit permit and inspection fees consistent with a unanimous council direction years ago for public private partnerships and would the city commit to an expedited cross departmental approval timeline uh to try to ensure that all of this work gets done before the winter rains uh come. So, this seems to be a set of concerns on the part of our partner of the Palto Museum and wanted to see what uh staff's thoughts were on these four questions. >> Um I think the technical response on the budget side is um we would be able to cost share up to the appropriation per the budget. So um and hence that's why we go through this budget process is to determine what we have the authority to spend. So uh we have 250,000 um that was appropriated from um a savings from um Mitchell Park Library project and then also we have about 75,000 that's available um in another fund that was designated that so we have the sum of those two. Um so beyond that we would have to come back for council authority >> and I'll add from there that our staff is working directly with museum and uh public works in particular in the lead at this point and as such we're comfortable that we've got sufficient appropriations to get us through the summer recess and if any further action is needed by the council that we can cover that after you've returned. >> Okay. So the takeaway for the museum should be that the city will figure it out that the 50/50 cost share even if costs rise beyond what has been appropriated through this process tonight that that's not a sort of a one anddone deal. I think they're very afraid that they're a little nonprofit and they're worried about being left holding uh more of the responsibility than they can accommodate. And I know we all have an interest in this museum being successful. That said, we're trying to reasonably and fairly appropriate responsibility for these additional costs associated with water. >> Exactly. I I would agree that the second part I I would not go so far as to say the um even the 50/50 has been fully uh fleshed out at this point. So that's really ongoing discussions, but again comfortable and confident that we'll be able to resolve this. >> Okay. Thank you very much. All right, seeing no further lights, uh we will turn to our public hearing. Uh and speakers, uh that have public comment on this have up to two minutes to address the council on all of the items related to this public hearing. So, Madame Clerk, how many speakers do we have? >> We have four requests to speak. Okay. Excellent. >> Our first speaker is Herb B. Thank you. I'm speaking on uh the item that uh council member Luck HS was mentioning which is the Ross building uh in the park. Uh I you know checked online uh this afternoon before the meeting and I didn't see anything posted on the agenda item uh that you just were talking about as to the details of the project and uh I don't know anyone else in the public who's seen that before the meeting. Uh I don't believe that you should proceed with this and I think you're moving this because uh you have received uh substantial money for the Roth building uh for restoration from the county historic heritage program. Uh that requires when the city owns the property that it be dedicated to Parkland. And the way to dedicate uh something for Parkland and PaloAlto is through a charter amendment that was adopted in May 1965, which is by ordinance uh following a resolution of intent to do that that ordinance. And we essentially made false statements uh to the county uh in each of three resolutions that uh the Roth building is in Heritage Park, which it is not. And the one where I was able to check uh the you know the packet material uh for the most recent one that included showing a a city zoning map that shows that it's included in Heritage Park. So you're given uh two reasons uh to go ahead and do it at the last meeting before a 9-week vacation. Uh the the first is by is by putting it here uh from that was amended by by the finance committee uh now at the very last minute and second by now getting uh some cost items from uh history museum. That's essentially saying oh we we just must do it now. Don't do it. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Bruce G. Hello everybody. Great great to see you. Um I'm here. If you were to ask me five years or even three years ago that if I would be here in front of city council in support of the Pal Museum, I'd be scratching my head say me. Uh but I have to say that over uh what I've seen recently the city the new leadership of the of the uh the Palto Museum the board and the direction are doing I really see this as an inflection point for the for the museum uh really being part of a pillar in our community. I think it really adds a lot of positive things a real gathering point and it's something that we could be really proud of. is going to be a museum that's really in the new age. It's not I I really love how it's got away from the history part because it's both respecting the past but looking forward and I think a lot of communities would be jealous of to see of the vision that they have and how it's going to really uphold the Silicon Valley the can do the innovation that is beyond display for our community and those around it. So uh I have uh been totally converted and really want to support uh the museum and see the role that it can play in our community. In fact, Rotary uh Paltor Rotaries did a very generous grant in support of the museum just because of those reasons. And so uh thank you very much and I hope the your the continued support to make this come to life uh comes to fruition. Thank you. Our next speaker is Margarite H. >> Good evening, mayor and city council. My name is Margarite Gong Hancock and I'm a lifetime PaloAlton as well as the inaugural president and CEO of the Palton Museum. I'm really coming today with a full heart. I want to express first appreciation. You know, as being a new person in this kind of a role for a new institution has meant a tremendous amount since I joined the museum a year ago. to see the kind of collaboration that has come from city staff across so many departments, public works, public art, uh administration, planning, of course, the city manager's office, library, and others. And also, thank you to each one of you city council members. You have come to the museum. You have heard about our vision and plans. You have added your ideas. You've come to participate in our events, and you are helping make the vision and the plans better. So, thank you for leaning in and uh our whole board and I am thankful because the vision we have is really worth uh showing up for. Imagine uh walking in and seeing the story of Wan Bionis or I am PaloAlto with icons as well as unsung heroes where everybody has a place. Imagine walking to a gallery of seeing the life of trees in Palo Alto's innovative role in environmental sustainability or PaloAlto's role in movies. Imagine going to the gallery where community members have particip participated in their view of the future of PaloAlto at 150 in our PaloAlto 244. [gasps] So all of those things were moving forward uh to be a community hub, a place that holds our stories, builds our connections and inspires a better future by built by with and for the community. Uh and then in January, the water came in. The rains came down and the floods came up and not once but multiple times and we faced the wrenching challenge of moving our collections to safety, postponing our opening and delivering that news to our partners, donors, community members who have been working so hard along with us. So, it's been a a challenge. >> Your time is up >> and we want to thank you for all of that and the moments that you have now this time to support us in the ways that count for us to open our doors. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Bill R. >> Good evening, Madame Mayor and other members of the city council. As I was walking up here, I just reminded it's been a while since I've been behind this microphone. I've lived here in Peloala for 67 years and just looking at uh you people I I think I I uh well I beat you by quite a bit. Um I came to Stanford and never left. Been in the real estate and healthc care business and uh that's been my career. I've actively supported the community through the PaloAlto Community Fund, the PaloAlto um Peninsula Open Space Trust, the YMCA, the Gamble Garden, Yusede Consery, and now the PaloAlto Museum, which I believe belongs as a pillar institution, worthy of civic investment. Margaret Gong Hancock, which you just heard from, is just an extraordinary leader. I know many of the board of directors hall quite capable people. They are all excellent representatives of our community. I've noted the name change from Pelo History Museum to Po Museum because it's more than just history. It's the whole community that is has existed for well over a hundred years. When I invest in the museum, uh I expect my gift to support the team, the exhibitions, the programs, the things that make the museum uh what it is to be. What do I expect if I asked being asked to fund a city park drainage system on or the waterproofing of a city-owned building? Uh infrastructure problems with documented roots going back 20 years. to cover at least part of drainage costs. Uh that are the city's responsibility and commit to a clear path. What I'm asking of is for the closing and funding gap as the full scope becomes known. >> Your time is up. >> Oh well, am I done? >> Yes. I got two just to expedite the um approval time the real dates construction finishes before the rainy season so that the museum can open. [snorts] Um let the donors fund the miss mission. Let the city fund its own assets. City has been long and coming your time >> well over 30 years. Oh come on. >> There are many missteps along the way. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And that concludes public comment for action item three. >> All right. Thank you to our public commenters and thank you madame clerk. So seeing no more uh members of the public who wish to speak. I am going to close our public hearing on this item and so now we need to turn to the recusals. The California Political Reform Act requires city officials to recuse themselves from matters where it is foreseeable that the city's decisions may have a material impact on a person or entity that is a quote financial interest to that official and allows the cities to segment multi-art items so that the parts of the item that are the subject of the recusal are separated from the remaining parts of the item. This year, Council Member Lou, city manager Educata, and I will be recusing ourselves from certain Stanford related elements of the budget. Those elements are listed in attachment C. So, we will now each disclose our financial interests for the Stanford related items and then we will depart to the back until this portion is over. So, I will start. For the record, I have a disqualifying conflict of interest under the California Political Reform Act with the items listed in attachment C to the staff report, which are partially funded by Stanford University, which is a client of my law firm. Accordingly, I'm recusing myself from this matter and I will not participate in discussion on this item and will leave the room until the item has concluded. So, uh, council member Lou, >> I will similarly similarly recuse as my spouse works at Stanford. >> City Manager, >> and I will similarly recuse as my spouse spouse is employed by Stanford Healthcare. >> Okay. So, we will depart and you are now in the good hands of Vice Mayor Stone. >> All right. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Just let the record record reflect that. Mayor Vinker, council member Lou, city manager at Chicago have have recused themselves from and will not participate in discussion and have left the room. So we will now proceed with the discussion of the Stanford University related budget items. Are there council questions, discussion and action for Stanford related items in attachment C? See council RTO that for later. Okay. Any questions or discussion on Stanford related items? I see no lights. Is there a motion to approve Stanford related items for the fiscal year 2027 budget? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Great. >> Like to Would you like to speak to your motion? Council member Liths? >> Nope. Thank you. >> Council member Bert. >> No. Thank you. >> Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, when the clerk is prepared, we can take the vote. Council member Bert, >> yes. >> Council member Lowing, >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Council member Lithnes, >> Council member Rectal, >> yes. >> Motion carries. 5 02 with council member Vinker or Council Member Lou and Mayor Vinker recused. >> Great. Thank you. Well, my power was shortlived, so I'll return the gavl back to the mayor. So, we'll wait until they come back. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So, now we will return uh to council for questions, discussion, and action on the remainder of the fiscal year 2027 budget. Uh, Council Member Bert. >> Thank you. Um so I'd just like to follow up on my colleagues and some of the speakers on the um item that staff uh reported on on the uh expense on the Roth building. So first when we did discuss this at the finance committee and we were able to identify two prospective funding sources uh they were not uh anticipated uh as a cap on what the city might contribute and I just want to make real clear on that they were what we have allocated to date and so that that might have been um unclear but um the the committee did discuss that and and we were um clear that that was not the limit. Uh but there was we don't didn't have a number at the time. So those were identified sources. Then more broadly um I do think it's important to frame uh the issue. Um there's really become increasing enthusiasm about the museum as really a um a city asset um a destination uh a valued uh facility for our residents uh even a facility that uh staff has embraced uh for utilizing and um and I'm I'm especially enthused about the way the the the content ent of the museum is has continued to evolve and embracing and celebrating our multicultural history and and our technological history. Um so in that context um uh it is also a a city-owned asset and as I um have kind of looked at what are the the the issues uh that are involved with with uh the delay in their opening and the urgency that um this get uh resolved quickly enough so that um hopefully the the necessary um uh uh re uh repairs to the uh flood control from the park and the runoff that has come uh into the building from the park as well as uh the waterproofing of the building itself that needs to happen as quickly as possible. Um, and I also, as I've thought about it, um, you know, there's it's we've we've heard from donors that say, "Look, we're we've been contributing and are willing to contribute to really the the exhibits and the buildout of the of the building." Um, but I don't see any basis why the museum should have to share in the cost of repairing the runoff problems from the park that have been identified for 20 years. and are outside of clearly outside of their responsibility. And then that leaves the the issue of the um of the waterproofing of the building itself and um and those aspects. And and I'd like to hear my colleagues thoughts on whether that's what we should be sharing the cost on with the museum and the uh the city should bear responsibility for the the park costs. Um so I want to put that out on the table. Um and then um uh also we do have uh I think um uh a history of waving uh city inspection fees for nonprofits. So hopefully that could be part of the um of the uh ways in which uh these urgent repairs get funded. Other than that, I I just more broadly on the budget, I'm real pleased that uh we were able to um resolve what started as a a challenge in in um deficits um much through ongoing savings uh others through one time. and that uh our our sustainability of our budget going forward is not without challenges but is much more manageable than it appeared to be even months ago. So I want to thank staff for all the work that they had done um on on um really moving us forward in that regard. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Rectal. Yeah, I I do I question the whole cost sharing aspect of the Roth building. Certainly the park, they had nothing to do with the park. That would clearly in my mind be 100% city. But even the building, I mean, this is Powto city property. There's nothing that they did that caused the problem. This was a pre-existing condition. And I don't understand why we're cost sharing at all. Like on any commercial lease, even a triple net lease, the landlord would be responsible for major structural issues. And this is a major structural issue. Can you talk about why why are we uh cost sharing at all? Uh let's see. Council member, I'm not sure how deeply you want to get into this. I I would note for the record perhaps just to correct a couple of things that you noted the city has invested about $10 million into the renovation which as scoped was expected to include waterproofing for the building. I would also note that the renovation included u modifications to the park area where there is drainage and so that was all a part of the scope of the renovation and so >> but they didn't design the park. No, but they did modify the area of the park that has been identified as one of the drainage issues. Uh this was used as a layown area for the building renovation and so as such all of the um the area adjacent to Bryant was uh a part of the scope. So I would also note that we have an existing agreement with the um museum and so any additional financial uh arrangements would need to be reflected in a amendment to those agreements. >> Okay. I mean but this is just not some financial counterparty. This is a partner, right? This is one of our nonprofit partners. And nonprofit partners do wonderful things for the city, but unfortunately sometimes they're not the most financially sophisticated. And it's just to say, "Oh, tough luck." That just doesn't seem to be the right message. They're doing something really important for the community and this is the most vulnerable time in their life. They're they're starting up. They're trying to come up with exhibits. They're trying to attract donors. And what kind of donor is going to want to come here and pay for uh updating the park? They would say, "No, I'm going to give it somewhere else. I'm not going to support the city of Palo Alto." So, I think we're really shooting them, really doing them a disservice by really sticking to our guns. I don't think that's the the proper >> Well, council member, just to be clear, I did not say uh we're either saying tough luck, sticking by our guns, any any of that. Again, my uh description in response to early question is that we're confident that we'll be able to work through this uh through the council's recess and should any further action be required by the council that that would occur when you return from your recess. >> Okay. >> Can I add to that as well? I think for some context um as uh finance committee member and council member uh Bert mentioned when we took this up back in May originally it was just the pro appropriation from the heritage park project which was about 77,000 and then as the conversation evolved we actually appropriated more towards this purpose which was another $250,000 from the Mitchell Park Library project savings. So in aggregate that's like 325 and that's only in the span of 30 days. Another aspect I want to add to this conversation for those that are not aware is we actually added this authority for council with the desire for us to move quickly. Right? We don't have a contract in place, but at the same time, we're looking for council to provide city manager and staff authority so we can move quickly as we can administratively recognizing that there are more unknowns than known. And in the last four weeks, we've been meeting with the museum at least once a week or every other week and been working with them very closely on this issue. Wanted to highlight that because this has really evolved and our partner with shshipip with them is really important. Um and as noted um we have enough here in appropriation to get through the recess period. Um and given the urgency and obviously the importance of this we will bring it back timely. >> Okay. Thank you. Council member Lowing. Yeah, >> actually Director Lie just addressed things I was going to ask her to to address. Uh a little bit of the history in the process [clears throat] and of course this all started with the fact that no nobody had estimates when we were in the finance committee meeting and so we had to just kind of press on and here we are tonight trying to approve a budget and we still don't have all the data. So, we just have to move on uh together with, you know, sort of D trying to do exactly what you said that I wanted to add, which is they want to open for all kinds of good reasons and we want them to open. So, uh staff is working on this. They're not sort of putting it on the back burner. Uh so, we just want that pace to continue and when we and we did identify those sources that you talked about. Um [clears throat] and and I'm I'm confident that you're going to you're going to get there. Are we intending one specific question though are we intending to get the final contract back to us for approval on the revisions here. It's more of a maintenance contract but not quite. So that's why I'm asking the question. Um I think um part of the question might be depending on if it's executed during the break it would come back as a ratification because tonight council is providing the authority to the city manager to enter into such >> Yeah. We just don't know what the total amount is yet and what the potential cost share is. So we have unknowns that we can't approve. >> That's correct. And and so you'd be giving me the authority to work those issues out with the museum as well as uh to make expenditures within the approval or the appropriations authority you're granting through the budget. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Council Member Lou. >> Thank you. I was going to really make the same point as Council Member Lowing. I think there's still some moving pieces. We just got some information today. We want to be clear that we're a very strong partner. We want to reassure donors uh and we will get this done. But that said, we don't really know the numbers involved. $700 some odd thousands is potentially a lower bound or potentially we'll get more bids and a better understanding of the cost uh soon as well. And I think this does point to uh a larger need for a thoughtful approach on how we do city property leases. I know that's been discussed in pieces in policy and services, but uh the way we handle Gamble Gardens versus the lawn bowling club versus the Winter Lodge all have some different structures. And so we're creating we we've created another sort of special structure in the museum. That's not ideal, but I think um uh we should uh come back to this when we have more information. Um, I'll just make a couple of other brief comments here. Uh, I'll say that Canopy was a point of contention. We uh in committee revised the uh proposed cut to around $15,000 in uh uh of their budget from the original baseline of around $43,000. I think as we've sort of looked at the budget picture here, heard about the uh sales tax adjustments, I think I'm comfortable just squaring up Canopy um to their intended level uh because that is a relatively modest cost and that is uh investment in the city's infrastructure and the city's trees. Um uh I'll also just briefly note that I've been working with the school uh through the city school leaison committee in flagging the budget needs for uh track monitors and crossing guards. Uh the city's plan right now is unless it's changed, city manager, please correct me, is that we would uh basically fully fund and maintain the current level of service for uh crossing guards uh and track monitors until uh the midyear budget cycle, at which point we would really need an answer from the school district on um whether they're willing to also chip in. And then at that point we might have to make some hard decisions about what we do for the rest of the budget year andor what we do on an ongoing basis. Um uh so uh that's just how the crossing guard and well mainly just the crossing guard situation will be handled in the interim uh while we wait for a school district answer. Um uh so yeah, the I'll just bump my closing flag uh and see if there's any receptiveness for just squaring up that last $15,000 for Canopy. Um uh but otherwise, I'm really grateful for all the work. Uh got through a lot. Uh uh there's so much more we could talk about, but um I'm ultimately pretty happy with where we are. Mayor, may I clarify please? >> Two parts in your um comment uh council member Lou. One was regarding Canopy and the second is regarding the uh track watch and crossing guard. The way the technical adjustments are presented for you in your adopted budget is the full funding, no the full appropriation for both of those programs through June 30th with the assumption of revenue coming from PAUSD. Right. >> Should at midyear the revenue isn't shared that that revenue doesn't come then we would need to adjust the revenue. Yes. >> But at this junction from a service level perspective the appropriation in the draft budget assumes service through June 30th. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Um >> were you next? Yeah. Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. And just also big big big thanks to director lie and your entire team for this. I know a incredible lift and things looked really bad many many months ago and I think we were all very anxious about what potential cuts we might be seeing in this community and what what you've done is is nothing short of brilliant. So I appreciate that and the and the faithful shephering of the finance committee. Appreciate all the work that was done there as well. I think most things that I was conser concerned about have been have been resolved. Um I know at this point it is challenging to even move a a small amount a small amount of money around. I mean I think in I think generally I'm supportive of of what council member Lou suggested as far as the canopy funding, but I know $15,000 even at at this point can be can be a bit of a a challenge. So if there was if there's Yeah. You want to speak to that? >> Sure. Um if the desire of the majority of the council is to um maintain canopy at the current contract level which is adding 15,000, we would just modify the CIP transfer by the 15. >> Okay. >> So that's how we would offset it. >> That's it. I would note that uh we are aware of other community partners that have expressed an interest in potentially providing funding to Canopy. So I think that there are um a number of uh conversations underway. Uh so again we follow the council's uh direction um but do want to share our awareness of that. >> Okay. Well that's interesting. Um, okay. And then just my my my next issue just to second what what council member Bert had suggested regarding kind of cost sharing for the PaloAlto Museum moving forward. I I think a cost sharing of the building makes sense when it comes to the to the park. I agree. I think the city should take on that that funding or at the at the very least I'm I'm interested to learn more about what the city manager said regarding a potential contributed a potential a trying to better understand to I guess what percentage of the kind of the damages are are are attributed to work that the museum did to the to the building. And so if it was I just throwing out a number 10% maybe then they take on 10% of that cost share for for the for the park. So I think we should be taking on either the full amount or if we can better understand that if we even know that I would support something along those along those lines and ultimately agree with a lot of what already has been said about the the the real potential of this of this partnership and I know staff has been working incredibly hard to be able to to do this and so I think your I think your proposal tonight was a reasonable one. I think we can just improve it a little bit to make sure that our our partners are able to our partner in the Palo Alto Museum is able to continue on the on the path when there's been a lot of um unforeseeable kind of disasters that have that have occurred that have knocked them off uh off the path there. So, thank you. >> All right. And I also want to add my thanks uh to staff uh for bringing this forward in this posture. Uh I echo uh what uh council member Lowing said that you know when we had our first look at this it was it was a bit scary and uh to see the work that has gone in to it not just since then but laid you were laying the ground work anticcedent to that and uh to show up in this way with this uh deficit reduction from not just the one-time cuts but the ongoing cuts. It's really uh encouraging and while we have more work to do in uh coming years, this is this is a really a great uh situation to be in tonight. So, thank you for that. I also want to thank my colleagues on the finance committee because I know you did a lot of work. Uh also, that's always a heavy lift and clearly from your comments tonight, there were a lot of good discussions that went on at the finance committee. Um, so with respect to the museum, I think it's unanimous up here that we're all delighted to have it in our community, understand its potential, its impact on enhancing the community, and know that it's in good hands with those who are stewarding it. uh currently um wi with respect to the the the park costs and the the building waterproofing. Um I'm glad to see that staff is working hard with the museum staff. Uh so I add my kudos for that and uh kind of align myself with uh council member Lou that we just need to know a little more but want you to keep it going so that we're not slowing them down while we're in recess. um to find a way to get through that time period and then we can sort things out when we get back in a in a way that's fair and uh make sure that we do all we can to see their opening come in a timely way. Um but I just think, you know, understanding a little more of the facts of the the what's going on with the the water um coming in from the park side and also a little bit more about the contract terms. I don't have any sense of what those are and how it should all sort out. So, but I would like to and I'd like to find a way that the city can can be supportive. So, I I am happy uh leaving that in your good hands now, although I would be eager to revisit it come August so that we can uh support next steps. Um I like the idea of squaring up Canopy actually because I think uh council member Lou makes a good point about the uh the infrastructure uh being essentially city infrastructure. Uh I do note uh city manager, thank you for letting us know that there are some people uh exploring perhaps uh helping them out. Uh would there be a way to check in at like the six month mark and see if those have come to fruition or if we could be of further help at that point? >> I'm sorry, mayor, could you repeat the question? Well, I'm what I'm trying to understand is I would like to let the uh the people who are looking at supporting Canopy, I'd like to see that play out, but if it does not play out, I would like to have another conversation about what we could do uh to to support that. >> Certainly, uh we can stay or we will stay in touch uh to uh find out what we can about uh third party uh philanthropic support. >> Yeah, I mean it's it's a it's a modest amount. So, we could just do it tonight, but I think it would be but given uh that they also aren't the only one out there uh with needs, I think it would be good if if uh some community partners stepped up to help us in this instance, given our deficit and given all we've done to reduce staff, etc., etc. Uh if that could be the case, that would be uh ideal. Um, and uh, our CFO explained uh, answered my questions on the track watch and uh, crossing guards situation. I think that's been clarified now in a way that I'm comfortable with. So, thank you for that. Did you have more to add to that >> for Canopy? Just to be specific, it could be brought back at midyear. Mhm. And I assume that with it being a modest uh shortfall on the funding from us that that would be timely hopefully. [laughter] All right. Thank you. That would be that would be helpful. Um that's what I have at this point. So I will uh move on to Council Member Lithcott HS. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, on Canopy, I'll add that I uh was a part of that conversation that the city manager had uh where we became aware that there's potentially third party philanthropic interest in supporting Canopy. So, I think we're in good shape uh letting that proceed and we'll sounds like we're interested in covering the shortfall should it come to that. On the museum, um obviously I'm interested in the subject. I was the first one to speak on it. I I do think that we've heard um staff city manager has given us a little bit uh greater scope of understanding on the 10 million originally allocated toward the renovation and rehabilitation. And I would like to I think we've been heard as a council about our concerns about sharing and I don't think we sitting up here can come to a decision tonight about the appropriate um uh u allocation of the share. I think the arguments that the park should be ours and the building should be theirs make some sense and yet I don't know the overall um scope of uh the project financially and so um I am going to trust that we've been heard and that um in the over the break it sounds like staff and the museum leadership will figure out how to share this and so we can get this thing open. That's what we all want and we want responsibility to be allocated appropriately in accordance with who really should be responsible for what in a budget that's a over a billion dollars 312 in the general fund. I think we've said enough on this topic tonight. uh it has risen as sort of the bell over the ball in the budget conversation and I think I I hope staff feels you have a a sense of where council is and that um I certainly trust you to make the right decision about what this healthy partnership looks like going forward. >> Council member Bert, >> I'm prepared to make a motion if we're ready. Sure. >> Okay. So, I would first like to move the five uh staff recommendations that are on slide 12. Um and then with um a couple of additions. first that uh staff would um return at midyear or sooner uh to review um any whether [clears throat] there is any remaining canopy budgetary requests. um if that has not been resolved uh through donations. And then that the um uh on the museum project that first that um uh we uh wave the uh the permitting and inspection fees. second that we um that staff move forward with um uh a cash flow um uh support for um the museum's or for the uh repairs uh toward the museum so that they um are not asked to uh bear the burden that they don't have the resources to do on the cash flow. Um and um that we support the continued expedited process that staff is already pursuing. And then last, that we request staff to um uh that the city uh cover uh the expenses for the park repair uh to the extent that um it can be determined that um it is principally the city's responsibility and the city manager negotiate a cost sharing on the uh building repairs. Uh second and I don't think I need to comment further. Thank you. >> Council member Ectal, do you want to speak to your second? >> No. >> Okay. Is there is there discussion on the motion? Does staff have any comments on the motion? >> Just a clarification on fee waivers. We typically don't wave fees. It would be a reduction of revenues because these would be revenues coming into the city. So just to want to clarify that point. >> Is that how we normally do it when we've essentially wave them on nonprofits? it I think it essentially becomes a general fund cost for the the cost of the permits. >> So we don't charge the fees then >> right the city the city absorbs those >> and I should have mentioned one other thing um and my recollection is that the bulk of the city contributions were transfer development rights um and those are not actually city operating revenue. uh the city is a steward from receiving those um uh uh or or selling off those rights uh and receiving them. I can't remember how to describe the mechanism, but they're not out of general fund. Correct. >> That's correct. With respect to TDRs, I uh don't recall the specific uh breakdown among the funding sources used. Well, I suggest that we'll let the city clerk capture all of that and then we can take a look at it and see if there's how we're feeling about the language. >> Mayor, I do have a question in the motion. City Council member Bert, um you mentioned cash flow support as number two. >> Uh will you clarify that or is that just a general statement yet to be determined by the city? to be determined by the city manager, but the intent is to um uh to help support the cash flow on the renovation uh and repairs. Um so that the uh and and my understanding is the museum will in all likelihood be managing the the project and so uh we wouldn't want for instance the them have to shoulder the city's share of the cost from a cash flow basis. Okay. So, what I heard from this clarification is that this is general direction deferring to the city manager in working in partnership with the museum as we work through project management, go through the technical review, determine more specifics. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Perfect. I think all of seven we can just say um uh related to the museum and then that first one would be one action. the do you follow what I was meaning? So seven is all about the museum and then that first sentence on waving uh the permanent inspection fees would be uh sub bullet one under that. Uh let's see. I >> think you meant five is all about the museum. >> Oh. Oh, we got two places. Sorry, I didn't pick that up. >> Five was what? Five is what staff had coming into today. >> Oh, I see. And then yours. >> So, this would all be under five, I suppose. Everything under seven would be sub bullets under five. Does that make sense? I >> I think if we move them there, we can sort it out. But six is separate. >> Yeah, >> Madame Clerk. Whatever the canopy one is, separate. Yeah, there you go. >> Okay, let's see. And I don't know it has to be in the motion that the last one was simply to continue the the uh expedit guided efforts to try to make sure that it's accomplished before the next rain season, but I know the city is already taking that to heart. >> Would you accept a friendly amendment? What' you say? >> You have to tell me what it would be. >> Well, I wanted to know if you were open to it before I even said anymore. >> I'm open to it depending on what it is. >> All right. I like that vibe. Uh I think you want the rainy season bit at the end of that big sentence. That is number five. So, it's to provide cost sharing for repairs to the basement and waterproofing in the Roth building and improvements to Heritage Park drainage um in an expedited manner to in to try to make sure that repairs are done prior to the start of the rainy season. Something like that. >> Sounds good. >> I'm good. Ask staff is does that give you the clarity you saw it? Do you have any concerns about Okay. [sighs] All right. Madame clerk, let me know when you are ready. Are you set? All right. Because I don't see any other f further lights. So, I think we can go ahead and take a vote on this motion. >> Council member Lowing. >> Yes. >> Council member Lou. Yes. >> Council member Burton. >> Yes. >> Council member Rectal. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Yes. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Council member Lithuhane. >> Yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right. Thank you. Well, thank you all for all the hard work that went into this. Congratulations on getting this far and we have ourselves a budget. All right. [sighs and gasps] So we will move on then uh not too far behind uh to our consent calendar which with the removal of item 18 is uh items 4 through 17 and 19 through 23 A and C. So give me just one moment to sort out my I think we all need to reshuffle for a minute. >> [sighs] >> Hold on a minute. Got the wrong page in front of me. >> Okay. So, madame clerk, is there any public comment on the consent calendar? [sighs] >> Yes. >> How many requests to speak are there? >> We have 18 requests to speak. >> Wow. Okay. Um, and an additional hand was just raised in Zoom. So, we have 19. >> Now, we have 19. Okay. Then we'll go with uh one minute for individuals. And there aren't any groups. >> Correct. There are no groups, just individuals. >> Uh, okay. in case any other more. Come on. Let's go with uh you think each go with a minute and a half. It's gonna be 30 something. Yeah, we'll go with a minute each. All right. Thank you. >> Our first speaker is David P. >> Is there a David P in the room? No. David P. Moving to our next speaker, Scott E. Hello. Um, I'm Scott Ellison. I'm an 18-year University South resident, and I'm also here on behalf of the University South and Professorville Neighborhood Association. We urge council to keep the SP79 item on consent and approve the half-size option now and without amendment. The people living in the these neighborhoods were never consulted and we prefer as much of the status quo as possible until the city meaningfully engages with us as residents. We stand ready to support our city council and staff and driving forward with this engagement and navigating this issue together. Thank you as always for your time and service. >> Our next speaker is William O. >> Good evening, mayor and members of city council. My name is Will Oler. I serve as chair of the Menlo Park Housing Commission, but I'm speaking tonight strictly as a private citizen. I lived in Palatoto for 6 years before moving to Menlo Park. For half of that time, I did not own a car and I biked and used transit regularly. Despite that, it was surprisingly difficult to find apartment housing close to the Cal Train. Eventually, I reluctantly had to buy a car in order to maintain the mobility I wanted. I believe that combating our housing crisis requires us to build much more housing. Housing near transit has many advantages both for the people who live in it and for everyone else who has to deal with car traffic. We should be taking advantage of the entire transit corridor on the peninsula. For these reasons, I am an enthusiastic supporter of Senate Bill 79. I called our mutual state representatives multiple times throughout the process to support it when it was under consideration. This is a bill backed by local voters, approved by representatives, and tailored to our area. The policy being advanced by Pala tonight is clearly not the intent of the law. It's a bold stretch to claim that you >> Your time is up. >> Our next speaker is Erica S. >> Hello. Um I'm Erikica Staer. I'm representing 414 California. Um, I'm here to ask city council to reconsider the urgency ordinance that's on consent. By approving the urgency ordinance, the city is asserting that housing is a imminent threat to public health and safety. This seems to conflict with the pro-ousing designation the city is currently seeking. SP79 allows for mid-rise projects, not highrises or mega projects that could potentially pro uh pose an unforeseen burden to city infrastructure. In the case of 414 California, it allows for a maximum of 44 units. This is the level of density that is needed to create a viable mixeduse project um at an important infill site on a prominent street in the city. If the ordinance passes, the project will no longer be financially feasible with the important retail and placemaking aspects that are critical to this location. Thank you very much for your time. Our next speaker is Scott LG. Uh I'm Scott Leven Gazenheight Lane use attorney Holland and Knight to here for today for 414 California Avenue also resident of the area for more than 30 years. The ordinance tonight asks you to find that transit oriented housing is a current and immediate threat to the public health safety or welfare. A current and immediate threat to public health safety or welfare month ago council approved a 14story tower. I know you didn't all want to but you did it. Um, a building half that height on the same street can't suddenly be a public health emergency when you didn't find one last month. So, I don't believe you can certify to the state that your utilities are adequate housing element and then tell the community today that the same housing is threatening your public safety. Both cannot be true at the same time. You're also applying for a state prohousing designation. Emergency decrees to suppress that same housing is not a prohousing act. I think HCD will see this for what it is. So, I'm not asking you to stop planning. I think there's a lot you can do on Calav, but I'm asking that you not manufacture an emergency today that doesn't exist on the record. So, please decline to pass the emergency ordinance. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Scott O. >> Hi, Scott O'Neal. Speaking for myself, I want to suggest it's good to converge on SB79 densities faster where appropriate. To illustrate, I invite you to imagine two possible mixtures of additional housing in say 2034. If you allow SB79 to take full effect in the downtowns, that's apartment density midrises. So by 2032, we'll expect to have apartments built, not just built, but in place for years, gently used apartments on their second or third occupant, maybe not cheap, but cheaper than new. If we c if, on the other hand, we cap SB79 at 50% in our downtowns for 5 years, as M23 proposes, that's merely town home density. We might get we might get more expensive exclusive town homes. Any apartments in that scenario would be fewer in number, brand new, more expensive. Which mix should we prefer? The exclusive Palo Alto favoring the higherass town homes or the more affordable inclusive Palo Alto with gently used, more naturally affordable apartments, making room for our friends, workers, and loved ones who need that help the most. Please remove SB23 for consent. Negotiate some places. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Jeremy L. Good evening council members. Thank you for your time tonight. I'm here to comment on the pro housing designation which PaloAlto forward is really excited that the city is seeking. It reflects the good work the city has done in its housing element and beyond in the El Camino Rail focus area in things to come like the San Antonio road area plan. I will simply note with my perspective as somebody who works in cities up and down the peninsula that there are other cities that have received the pro housing designation, Redwood City, Mountain View, just a skip and a hop away, a Cal Train stop or two that are looking at SB79 positively. Redwood City is letting the law go into full effect without any modification. Mountain View is doing a local alternative plan. We think that there's a way that PaloAlto can take the best parts of things happening in other cities and leverage this law to reflect the pro-ousing reputation that the city is building for itself uh into the future. So, thank you for your work. >> Our next speaker is Amy A. >> Good evening, Amy Ashton. Um, first of all, of course, thank you for the innovative alchemy rail focus area zoning, the GMR, the San Antonio Master Plan area. We have come a very long way in terms of housing. We all know this, but we still have a long way to go. And SB79 is a valuable tool to help us. Phz take years. Builder's remedy projects, which are more than half our pipeline, were a one-time thing. HIP isn't producing housing. the larger sites, churches, the Midtown Safeway, they are not converting. We need more units and SB79 is a valuable tool to get us there. Housing near transit is good for local businesses, the environment, and our community. I urge you to implement SB79 and let's really show what it means to be a pro housing community. Thank you. Our next speaker is Patty I. I'm I'm Patty Irish and I live at 850 Webster Channing House, an 11story building nearby. We have 200 independent residents who can walk to most of the services we need and we have 185 employees. Um, some drive as far as Stockton. You've heard that before. To work here by building density on Calav and University, you provide the opportunity for people to live near many services and all these services also need people to use them. Calab and University are key areas of Peloalto. It's much more costly effective for you to support building where much of the infrastructure is already there, not starting new. Please build up. Uh it's wonderful actually to live in a higher rise to take advantage of conserving land and reducing the costs. This will allow more people to work here and live here. >> Please respond with to the urgent need. Thank you. Our next speaker is Shaunie K. Good morning. I'm Shani Klein House. Speaking as a resident, no other hats on my head today. And on a different topic, in 2024, council approved several paving projects just like item nine on your agenda tonight. One of those was to pave around cir skirt around a water tower at Foothills Park. That never happened. Instead, a road was paved. A dirt road was paved between the water tower to Alexis Drive without any authorization and no way back. Once you pave something, it's paved. This time on your agenda, there is a trail next to Adobe Creek to be repaved. That's fine. just please make sure that the project is limited to that section of the trail and no further and at the existing width and not wider. And also as resident, I thought you made a good decision about SB79 and I hope you keep it. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Joe F. >> Hello, my name is Joe Flity and I'm speaking as a private citizen. I moved here 18 months from 18 months ago from Columbus, Ohio. I just applied online for a job. I didn't expect to come out to California. I just have a unique background where I buy chemicals. And at Tesla, I would have gone to Austin, Texas or Palo Alto, wherever they sent me. And I'm just so lucky that I came to California. This is a great place. I really underestimated how awesome the weathers is and how many great people I've met. And there are just so many other people who want to move to Silicon Valley. This is one of the most economically dynamic areas in the history of human civilization. And we have the opportunity to build more housing where it makes sense next to transit. And it's just so many, you know, people that I've met are also under pressure from the cost of living. And I've met young people who want to start families and move away because the cost of housing is just really expensive and it's difficult for them to to balance both those costs and their jobs here. So, they've moved away to lower costs of areas. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Leela H. >> Good evening everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts today. Um I'm a longtime resident of uh the Ventura neighborhood and I think SB79 topic should be uh come off the consent agenda. Um, I also suggest not delaying the full implementation of SB79 because the community needs more housing units that low and lower middle inome families can afford. That's more of an emergency than delaying it because it already takes a long time to build housing, so why delay it further? Um, I think a community that has residents from different income brackets is richer because we're exposed to more people with different life experiences, uh, such as young professionals who are just starting their careers, um, seniors looking to downsize and staff, um, at PAUSD and teachers. Um, so thank you for your time and I, um, yeah, I'm done. >> Our next speaker is Adam S. Good evening. I'm Adam Schwarz. I have lived in University South for 11 years, right next to Channing House with my wife and my kids. Um, thank you so much to all members of the council and for city staff for all the work you've been doing for so long, so hard to build more homes. I'm here to respectfully request that you take this item number 23 off of consent that we allow SB79 to go into effect at the very least in the neighborhoods we already know that we want to build more housing. Um so many of my uh friends have had to move away from PaloAlto because they can't afford to live here. Um my kid adult is living in my house which is wonderful but they would like to live in their own home which is currently um not an option for them because of the pricing. My mother um is in her 80s and needs to move to live closer to me and that is a struggle for our family financially because housing is so expensive here. We need more homes, especially near transit. So, please please uh take this off consent and let SB79 go into effect in the neighborhoods where we already know we want to be building more homes. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Steven T. Good evening, may mayor and members of the council. My name is Steve Chang and I I've lived in Palo for 43 years. First, I strongly urge the council tonight to pull the SP79 urgency ordinance off the consent agent agenda. A decision of that magnitude which impacts so many people and and so many neighbors deserves a tr full and transparent discussion and not voted on silently as part of a package. That doesn't seem right to me. I chose to make PaloAlto my home and to raise my family because of the vibrant walkable neighborhoods, its treeline streets, and the promise of a forward-looking community. But today, our city is facing a real emergency. A severe shortage of homes for our teachers, workers, and lower middle inome families. They can't afford it. Instead of trying to delay and scale back the implementation of SB79 with a questionable and non-compliant ordinance, >> let's choose positive civic leadership and let's pull off consent and uh stop the delays and take an opportunity. Your time is up. build a great Palo Alto. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Abby Y. >> Um, hi council members. Uh, I'm Abby Ye. I'm a master of laboratory animal science student at Stanford University, currently living on campus. Um, thank goodness the housing is subsidized because I tried looking for housing and um, I knew the housing market was pretty bad before looking, but like wow, it's really bad. Um it was like it was like 3K on average. Um and like my partner got a job at Apple and like that's considered a pretty good um paying job, but uh even that couldn't get her a um house. Um yikes. So um yeah, please take uh SB79 off consent and say yes to it. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Jeff L. Good evening everyone. My name is Jeff Leavinsky and I wanted to thank you all for the hard work you did two weeks ago balancing all the different issues and such in order to come up with what's on the consent uh calendar tonight and I hope you vote yes. I'd like to point out that in we looked at some of the um options that were on the table earlier and one of those was to exempt uh properties on El Camino. That would include Town and Country. With the density bonus and such, we could not keep any retail at Town and Country. You are literally two weeks away from Town and Country being forever lost potentially as a retail center in this community. that would affect employees, shoppers, diners, school children who go there. It would have an extraordinary devastating effect in our community. Please vote yes on the consent calendar. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Doria S. Thank you. And I agree with the um previous speaker about the potential disastrous loss of retail in the community. But I want to start out by thanking the mayor and the city council for their work on June 1st. And I also want to thank the staff for their hard work on SB79. Um you had a unanimous vote on the 1st of June um to pursue a totally legal option to compliance on SP79. And I think without going into a lot of detail and repeating things you've already heard that you should do the same thing tonight. And I know that a lot of community members will really really appreciate you doing that and will support you. and I know that they would join in with me and wish you a very very lovely vacation. Thank you. Our next speaker is Deborah G. I am astounded that this SB79 issue got put on the consent calendar. I don't know whose idea that was. That is just nuts. Um this is way too big an issue. Um I mean I'm not sure you all not to know know but property values in PaloAlto are dropping. I just bought a house in PaloAlto for 25% less than its appraised value and I sold my own property for 8% less than its highest value that was about 10 years ago. So property values are dropping in this city. Um uh enrollment in our schools have plummeted. you're cutting the budget and you know you took this amazing the city of Poto took this amazing vibrant economy and just went I think we like it the way it is to be residential and didn't build housing. You know this is like at some point this isn't just bad governments it is malpractice. >> Our next speaker is Haley G. Hi, good evening council. My name is Hi, speaking as a previous resident and current case manager for unhoused adults at the opportunity services center. While I support the city's application for the prohousing designation program, I would like to suggest improvements to strengthen the application specifically regarding the city's approach to working with unhoused individuals and encampments. I have observed firsthand how difficult it is to regain affordable housing after experiencing homelessness. When assisting these individuals in reapplying for housing, the housing they do qualify for can of wait list that extend for years. I've seen up to 10 years. Although I appreciate the city's investments and solutions to this issue, significant barriers persist to obtain housing and shelter. According to the shelter hotline, there's a current three to four monthth wait list for congregate shelters and close to a year for the home key sites. As a city applies for the prohousing designation program, I encourage the council to strengthen the application by demonstrating how Paul Alto will continue to expand access to realistic housing and shelter opportunities for unhoused neighbors. Thank you. Our next speaker is John S. John S, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. >> All right, that concludes public comment on the consent calendar. >> All right. Well, thank you, Madam Clerk, and thank you to all of our public commenters. We appreciate the time you take to come down and speak with us. Um, so with that, I will ask my colleagues if there are any recusals or no votes or requests to pull uh on the consent calendar. There's a lot. Okay. Council member Lou, >> uh, I need to recuse from item 12, which uh, uh, involves relationship with Stanford. uh and my spouse is employed by Stanford and I need to recuse from uh item 23 on SP79 as uh I live within the SP79. I own a condo in the SP79 radius. >> All right. Thank you, Council Member Liths. I would like to pull an item and I wonder if the clerk can uh I'd like to pull 23A. Um because this item was initially agendaized as one item with four ordinances within it and now is three sub items. I just want to be clear that the I'd like us to assist the public in understanding which one I'm talking about. Do you have anything handy that shows what 23A is? If you don't, I can just >> or the city attorney might be able to. I don't. It's hard to put you on the spot. >> Okay. >> So, it item item 23A are would be the two temporary ordinances that council adopted at uh first or introduced at first reading on June 1st. So, one would be a temporary ordinance u exempting certain historic sites from SP79 and the other would be a temporary ordinance exempting other properties from SB79 and establishing development standards at uh 50% of the standard SB79 density that comply with uh with the standards in the statute. >> Thank you. And if I'm sorry to interrupt if I may. We do have a um copy of the materials in the back of the chambers for public display and review. >> Okay. Thank you. So I'd like to pull 23A. My reason is while I support historic properties being protected, it's been lumped in with the 50% overlay throughout the SB79 splash zone, which I'm very concerned about because it'll roll back our existing progress toward greater density in those areas. and I feel it's inconsistent with our quest for pro- housing designation which we're simultaneously going for tonight with item 7. >> Can I just remind uh our colleagues that we have the new protocol where you have up to a minute to explain uh any request to pull. >> Thank you. I would also like to pull item 23B. My reason, this is the urgency ordinance on historic buildings because I haven't been able to find anywhere in the record presented to us any emergency findings that warrant an urgent ordinance on historic buildings. Therefore, there's the potential that we're putting the city at legal risk by pressing a set of potentially really problematic findings. And finally, I would like to pull 23 C, the urgency ordinance on the 50% of SB79 overlay. My reasons are uh first this urgency ordinance will kill 414 California Avenue, a mixeduse multif family housing application with ground flooror retail which we all felt largely supportive of when it came before us in a study session. In fact, this council encouraged that developer. I don't understand why we are considering killing it. Second, there are credible concerns that our emergency findings for this urgency ordinance may be found to be quite problematic, therefore putting us at legal risk. Third, if we do this, we truly lose all hope of earning a pro housing designation. So, I believe council should discuss potential amendments to this ordinance. If some meaningful amendments are made, I will support it. Otherwise, I will vote no. >> Thank you. Uh, Vice Mayor Stone, >> I'll vote pool 23C. Council member Rectal, >> I need to recuse myself on item 23 due to my home's proximity to the San Antonio station. >> Okay. And I need to recuse on item 12 uh because of my uh law firm uh as Stanford as a client. And I would also like to pull 23 C for much the same reason that council member Lithu Hayes mentioned. Basically reflecting on the issues raised by public commenters regarding the interim ordinance that seeks 50% reduction in SB79 standards. I am not comfortable making the necessary findings that it meets the high standard for urgency absent any amendment. That standard says that there's a current and immediate threat to the public health safety and welfare. >> [gasps] >> I also believe that there would be adverse impact on our prohousing designation application and importantly the grant money it could unlock. All right. So I see no further lights uh with those three requests to pull. I believe that item uh 23 C is pulled. >> That that's correct. Mayor, >> you're right. and 23 A and B is not because there was only one request for each of those. So, um, what we can proceed to do is vote on the non-pulled items and then return to the pulled items. So, I'll let Madame Clerk manage all those recusal. I'll give you a moment. Madam clerk, I should have made clear that in the and asking to pull that I will be voting no on the ones that I requested to pull. Did I miss if there was a maker and a seconder of the motion? >> Oh, that's a good question. Would somebody like to move the consent calendar in the form that the clerk has put out here? >> So moved. >> Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second it. That was very delicately put, Madame Clerk. Thank you. [laughter] >> Council member Liths, >> yes. >> Mayor Vinker, >> Council member Rectal, >> yes. >> Council member Bert, >> Council member Lowing, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Council member Liths, would you like to speak to your no votes? >> I think you were. >> I don't think I need to speak further to my no votes because I explained why I was pulling >> and I assume that with the item being pulled, we're going to figure out when to talk about that item, whether it's tonight or that's what I'm moving to next. I just wanted to give you that opportunity on A and B. So with respect to agenda item number 23 C, I would like to see us discuss it now because we this can't really wait until after break and I think having started with the reasoning, I would like to do that. Absent any objection from the city manager. >> No, no objection. Staff is ready to go when you are. >> Okay. And um I think because of the uh importance of this item that uh I believe that we should if we can't get it done in 10 minutes, we need to keep going until we finish it again because of the urgency of just getting a resolution one way or another for this item. So with that, I will open up discussion on uh item 23C. >> Can we get it posted? Can we get it posted on the screen? >> Yeah. And mayor, we might have an extensive discussion here. Should we have or break it before proceeding on a very substantive discussion that might take a while? It's already been added. >> I think let's let's go at it. Let's go ahead and see how we do. And if it just gets extended, we could take a break at that point. Um, >> and so I'm sorry, Council Member Lowing, what would you like to see on the screen? >> 23 C. >> 23 C. the one we're talking about now since every so everybody in the chambers can see it as well. >> Okay. So I guess what we're looking for so so the the the uh would you like the staff recommendation that we because it's basically the interim urgency ordinance with respect to the 50% reduction in SB79 uh standards. There's a two-page interim ordinance. Is that what you want on the screen or what what would you like? >> No, ju just just that if that's all there is. So, I just want everybody to know what we're >> I agree. This is what I was um getting at in uh referencing um something we could put on the screen and talking about pulling it perhaps what staff gave us when they told us it was being broken out into three. >> I have an idea. Why don't we put the uh revised agenda item? That might help us. Would that satisfy you? Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks for raising that. I think we can delete A and B there. Or do you want them all there just for reference? Which was your preference? Yeah, that's what we're talking about. Okay. All right. So, with that, let's return to council discussion. Uh, Council Member Liscott HS, thank you. Uh, I appreciate that we've pulled this because I know how much work went into the SB79 um ad hoc effort uh to address the state law and figure out its appropriate and best application in our city. Uh, it was late. Uh, we made some decisions. incredibly late at night and uh I appreciate we're having an opportunity to u make sure we're making the right decision. Uh my concern with this urgency ordinance on the 50% uh overlay over these transit oriented development sites articulated by SB79 starts with what we're doing with 414 calab as I initially said when I pulled um I want us to think hard about why we're adopting an ordinance that's going to block an application that is in the main something we felt largely supportive of even if we had some aesthetic concerns and more broadly looking at Calav everybody on council has really agreed that there needs to be housing development there, more density. That's where we want to encourage dynamics mixed dynamic mixeduse neighborhoods. So, I'm concerned that we are considering adopting an ordinance that prevents that from happening, at least temporarily. And legally, if we get in a position of having to defend what we've done, we'll devote money and staff resources to defend the temporary interimm ordinance that is blocking something that is something we want to see happen anyway. My second concern is legal. To justify an inter emergency ordinance, this council has to make findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. I have seen I have found no evidence presented that would allow me to make such a finding and if we nevertheless go forward. Public commenters who have written in have suggested we may be putting the city at substantial legal risk and it is our job to protect the city from that risk. Third, if we make emergency findings to warrant this urgency, it is highly doubtful we'll get our pro-ousing designation that we just approved in item 7 and we set our housing reputation back again. Fourth, if we carve out some streets from the SP79 splash zone like Calv, like the El Camino Rial focus area, like University A, like San Antonio, we're not going to get a massive influx of developers in this July 1st through 15th window. nor are we going to get proposals in R1. Why do I think that? Because we had the builder's remedy in effect for a year and a half and we had 10 projects and none were R1. Just the two weeks gives time for those who are planning to submit like 414 Calv and a property in the El Camino Riale focus area which apparently they want to file under SB79 because it allows more units of housing than the focus area. and then the window will close and it will take the steam out of those alleging that they may sue us. So what it comes down to for me is I feel I can only support this interim urgency ordinance if we do some carveouts like Calav and elsewhere and also if we augment the language in our late night June 1st motion to ask staff not to just explore within 6 to 12 months but to return to us with a plan to revise zoning in these areas. I feel it is imperative to give staff clear direction on next steps. So those are the main reasons why I'm interested in this conversation happening again and I hope we can reach a compromise tonight that is better than we came up with on June 1st. >> Right. Thank you. And I just want I think to clarify further sort of where we are to set the stage for this. Um, so we just approved two temporary ordinances that will become effective on July 16th. Uh, that exempts historic sites and, uh, reduces the, uh, SESB79 standards by 50%. Starting July 16th. We also just passed an urgency ordinance that exempts historic sites starting now. Um, so that would be effective on July 1 when SB79 comes into effect. Hopefully, Mr. City Attorney, I didn't screw any of that up. [laughter] >> [gasps] >> Um so where we are now with this interim urgency ordinance uh on reducing the SP79 standards everywhere um uh starting as soon as it would pass. It would need four votes to pass whether in the form it currently exists in in the staff report or in an amended form. So we could pass it as is, amend it or reject it. If it does not pass in any form, SP79 will go into effect on July 1 for uh with uh without those reduced standards for those 15 days. So if it does pass in in in some form, it would be effective upon adoption. I just wanted to sort of set that out as parameters for this. With that, I will turn to Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. And I I didn't explain my my reason [clears throat] for for pulling. I figured I'd hold off now. Um, so I think so for me upon further review I've concluded that the draft interimm urgency ordinance implementing SP79 50% option just contains a fundamental flaw that I can no longer support. And specifically section 1J of attachment D states that's our right. So, in our in our draft ordinance, the reasoning for the the urgency that we would be stating in this draft ordinance is that the city council finds and declares that the impacts described above present a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that would be realized by approval of projects under the standards set forth in the government code. But then the very next sentence acknowledges that there are no pending project applications that would be affected by the ordinance and that the ordinance would not deny approvals needed for multif family housing projects. So to me, these findings are just difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, we're making the extraordinary declaration required for an urgency ordinance that there exists a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Yet in the same section, we acknowledge that no such immediate development pressure presently exists and that no housing projects would be would be impacted. I'm concerned that we're effectively asserting the existence of an imminent threat while simultaneously acknowledging that the circumstances giving rise to that threat are not actually present. I don't believe the record before us supports making that finding. I do want to be clear though that I do believe the underlying rationale behind the temporary non urgency ordinance that we have already passed is sound. I think unplanned and unmitigated development of any kind can create significant challenges when infrastructure and public services are not adequately prepared. If fully maximized, the development potential enabled under SB79 could place additional strain on existing wastewater capacity, public safety services, transportation networks, and other critical infrastructure. And I think those are legitimate planning concerns that I that I support. So absolutely welcome Councilman Lift with Scott Hayes suggestion that we provide additional clarity to staff on a on a more aggressive time frame on when we can when we can see those uh those plans and strategies for increased density in some of these um in in some of these areas. So for that reason, I continue to believe that pursuing the 50% TOD eligible parcel approach while simultaneously accelerating those planning efforts is the most prudent and balanced path forward. But while I support the policy objective, I do not believe the legal findings necessary to justify an urgency ordinance are supported by the facts before us. and therefore I can't support the proposed urgency ordinance as drafted. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. And uh I agree with my colleagues that have spoken so far that uh on the legal side that because we have to meet the heightened requirement to pass an urgency ordinance, there is increased legal risk in order to cover those 15 days. But just speaking practically for a minute, I think there's pretty low risk that we're going to get a slew of applications in that short time. We know of the one that's likely 414 California. And so I just want to talk practically about that for a minute because we did have some concerns about some of the specifics during this study session, but I recall us being excited about the prospect of housing at that site. And I also recall the architect saying it wasn't that our concerns weren't anything that they couldn't address. So in addition to what council member Lith said, um you know when I look at it just from the practical side, the biggest issue that I [clears throat] remember was um when we did our pre-screen on 414 was applicants interest in shutting down Mimosa Lane. And I don't believe anything about this SB79 decision is going to affect that one way or another. So in other words, I believe we do retain control over that right of way um regardless of if uh this passes or not. Um so you know net net I believe that our legal risk outweigh outweighs the risk associated with having one or maybe a couple of applications that get filed in that short window. Um so you know I believe that that risk of the risk of passing the urgency ordinance outweighs the risks of not passing it which include uh so if we pass this we we do we risk our pro housing designation application. We risk loss of interest by developers upon whom we rely to build homes for our community. We risk expending legal fees to make our case. We risk paying the legal fees of the opposing party if we lose. HCD could step in if they have concerns about our ordinance, which would put us in an adverse posture with them, uh, at a time that it could affect our other dealings with them. Um, so, you know, for me, um, this is something that, uh, I just can't, uh, see passing as is. Um, now we we we're going to need four votes either way. Um, I I'm willing to discuss some carveouts uh for this uh if we want to do that instead. Um, and then I could might be able to get behind it similar to council member Lithcott HS if we are clear in our direction to staff. Uh I noted in the staff report that we talked about that was trying to capture what we talked about last time about what we would do in the next six to 12 months to get a more granular look at zoning. Um it said that they will uh explore opportunities to accelerate housing production on California Avenue and adjacent areas of ECR. Um I would definitely want to add and bring back to council a proposal for zoning revisions to affectuate such production in that time period. we we need to see it come back so we can act on it. Um so you know if we put something like that in there um uh and uh we carve out uh areas that we could agree upon um I would entertain a conversation around that. >> Council member Bert. >> Um so we really have before us two issues as the vice mayor laid out. Um one uh is a question on legal findings and the other is really planning policy and um and uh what we look at on sound community design the impacts of development um and related matters. I'll just note that uh setting aside for the moment uh the legal issues um when we've done the major upzoning uh that we have already done to uh u incentivize the over 6,000 housing units in our uh housing element. We've created a a area plan for the south San Antonio area. We did considerably considerable um uh looking at impacts on transportation, biking, safety, uh uh uh infrastructure on um the El Camino uh focus area. Um we've initiated our downtown housing plan, um which embraces transitoriented development and does so in a thoughtful, deliberate way. Uh so what was proposed um previously uh at our last meeting would have just arbitrarily thrown out any of those kinds of um well-designed considerations. Our our issue before us right now is more narrow. Um I I do want to say that uh when 414 Calav came before us, yes we all supported in principle. We had certain different uh design and impact um feedback for the applicant, but it was not dependent on SB79. That project was going to be coming back to us based upon other zoning incentives that we're offering. there was no discussion of SB79 at the time and our support for that project was not contingent on SP79. So that's just not accurate. Um so um I also uh want to point out that some of the other considerations uh one of the things that some of the members of the public were talking about is the uh the unconsidered impacts of if we had gone forward with uh the proposal of two weeks ago uh on potentially very significant loss of retail. SP79 is designed to be coupled with SB 330, which allows um uh additional um housing uh u uh uh waiverss and that in could include eliminating city requirements for ground flooror retail whether at in Calav University or uh town and country. Um and then I do want to also note that within that proposal was um inclusion of uh Elma. Um and along Elma in the area u uh within the half mile of the Calav train station is a good portion of our market rate affordable housing. Meaning it's not deed restricted but it's 70 years old or so. it's uh rental rates are low for our city. Um but SP79 would not count that as existing affordable housing that needs to be replaced. So we would have the 13% of affordable housing in SP79 which may not even offset the existing market rate affordable housing which is the true missing middle that we have struggled so hard to have in this community. Um and then um uh I just want to note that on even on the issue of 156 calav um uh the um uh Molly Stone site, we looked at impacts for over a year on that and that sort of consideration is the very sort of evaluation that we will be looking for to come back when this returns to the council. So we make good sound judgments on where we do want to upzone in these transit oriented development areas. The representations by members of the community um uh that somehow us looking at doing this in a deliberate manner means that we're against transitoriented development is false and it's demonstrabably false and we will continue to show that it's false. Um, so I would really hope that the public would not misrepresent the extensive actions and positions that this council has taken nor the impacts of what is being considered. So, um, I wanted to put those um, uh, facts on the table. >> Council member Lowi. >> Yes. Thanks. I want to make a couple of general comments first. Um, as we we noted two weeks ago, you know, this 50% now is offered within the law. This is not something that's illegal or sneaky or anything else. Um, it's there intentionally to give us time to look at an alternative plan should we choose to do that. And that takes a lot of time even if we had staff sitting around doing nothing. And we don't have that. So the reference to, you know, Mountain View is doing an alternative plan and they chosen to do it. That's part of the analysis that we would do to figure out if we want to do an alternative plan or not. We may not need to because we're also doing the downtown housing plan which might get us there and then we don't have to do anything. So, um that's exactly what this is supposed to do. Implementing this thing at 50% doesn't change ultimately SB79 at all. I'm also concerned that the narrative on the this whole thing of SB79 is talking about all this affordable housing that we're going to get for the missing middle middle the lower middle income my kids can live here and all that. Uh as was just noted it's usually about 13% maybe we can get some of it to 15%. Some of the projects that we have were getting 20 20 before the state law came in and they went down to 13. So I I just don't think that that's dealing with reality. I think you're going to have 85% market rate in most of these in most of these projects, which is just the state. I'm just stating the facts here. Not a preference for for for us at all. Um I also stated last week that something like 414 calv um has alternative ways to move forward right now and mentioned that to to the developer after the meeting. Um one is PHC. there's no reason it has to be slow. And so 44 unit project could could work just fine. Um and with respect to new zoning, I I certainly support that. There are areas of of uh California Avenue and other areas that we know we're going to reszone. So, the issue is just how can we pace all this stuff at once when we feel like we're in good shape relative to the arena numbers that we're working through our planning department to get to get up and running. [clears throat] Um so back to this specific here in in this this window period of the um ordinance that's cons of concern here. Is there not the opportunity in those numbers of weeks to get a number of applications or are we just I think the the mayor mentioned that statistically we're probably not going to get those. Um so we don't we don't have any guesstimate of that. We're just saying that's probably not going to happen. >> Are you asking staff? >> No, I was asking I was asking you first just because you you came up with the conclusion. Oh, well, we usually don't have coll back and forth, but um I I I wouldn't expect it. I mean, there's 30 days from tonight to pull that off. Uh they would have to file in the 15-day window preapp, but I don't know. Um but uh >> Okay. So, the related >> I'm not aware, I guess, of more than uh well, I mean, I you can ask the the housing uh staff what they're aware of. Are they done with the director late? >> Your question is how many applications do I anticipate are going to come in if the intermance doesn't >> I think the mayor just changed it to how many are you aware that are coming in? [clears throat] >> I I I don't know that any are coming in. Nobody's spoken to me. I heard the discussion >> of 415. We have other pending applications that have come before the city either in terms of pre-screenings for PhDs or uh have filed applications that could convert within the radius. >> Okay. So the only implication by what you said the only implication for not doing the uh urgency ordinance is that we might get a few more applicants in that narrow time frame of a few weeks. Sorry, I missed the first part of your your question there. >> If the if we did not do the urgency ordinance is the only implication for that compared to where this was before this item was [clears throat] pulled, excuse me. Um is that we might get a few applications in that time frame? Are there any other applications, any other outcomes that could come up here that we should be aware of? That's the only reason I'm asking the question. Yeah, I I I haven't done an analysis of what applications may be in the queue, what owners I don't know how significant of a of an issue it would be. There's there's a few that I could think of that could probably turn over and file a pre-screening application under SB 330 even if it's not fully formed. >> Yeah, I I was asking if there's anything else besides that. So, it's been established that some other some other people could come in. I get that. Is there anything else or does the city attorney want to say that there's any other outcomes that we should just as as we make the vote if we should just consider anything else? >> So, so coun council just adopted the the temporary ordinance on the consent calendar on the second reading. So, that that ordinance will take effect on uh on uh July 16th. So, so you what you're talking about now is what to do in that period between July 1 when SB79 uh takes effect and uh ending on July 15th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Since you did ask me that, might I just jump in and point out that >> Sure. >> in the uh year and a half that we had builder remedy projects available to be filed, we got 10. So this is 15 days. That was a year and a half. I don't know if that's indicative, but it's sort of benchmark. >> I'm just trying to turn turn over every stone just just to see what the outcomes are making this change because it was in before by staff. And so that's that's all I'm asking for. >> Certainly. Um, council member Liths. >> Yeah, I just want to respond to some of my colleagues comments. Um, you know, I know we all want to get our um our arena numbers accomplished and we are penalized if we don't. And um, you know, and we look at where we are and how long what it's going to take to get us there. I believe we could have trouble meeting our arena without SB79. Um, I don't want to see us get to 2032 and not having met it. And then I think if we don't meet it, then the builder's remedy can kick back in. Um, and when we get to 2032, SB79 will be fully in play. Um, and then we may have our single family neighborhoods more at risk because the density will have to be spread out at that point. Um, so I kind of see this as a tool to get us toward the 6,086 unit goal. Um, what I understand about SP79 is that in terms of the affordability, um, first of all, local inclusionary ordinances are not superseded by are not preempted by SB79 as I understand it. So we our local inclusionary still stands and what it does is it increases allows for an increase in floor area ratio and dwelling units per acre but not height which means you end up with squatter more compact buildings with a greater number of units which ought to be more affordable. Um and as I understand it SB79 can't be used to displace renters. It can't be used on a building that has that has had at least three or more rental units and uh where those units have been rented out in the last seven or eight years. So, I don't see it as displacing renters in these sort of naturally affordable uh buildings you're talking about. And again, as I understand it, and I'm not an expert on this, um, it will create inherently more affordable buildings and at a height that we want. We don't want the 85 fts. We'd rather have the 65 foot with uh, greater density in terms of the number of units within. So, I see it as more attractive. And that's why I'm interested in some carveouts, just a few streets like CalF where we could say, "Hey, we all know we want to liven up this street. We all know what it has the potential to be. We need more housing there. We've talked about um a mixeduse zoning situation there for some time. Let's honor that commitment to Calv and maybe to a portion of El Camino. like I started out two weeks ago with a whole lot of streets and I'm pulling back from that, but I'd like us to end to land on a couple where we can commit that SP79 as written will take effect. >> Council member Bird. >> Yeah. Um just one item. uh director late uh council member Lithcott HS um asserted that SB79 would not increase our heights. Two weeks ago, we had an extensive report and a table showing what the impacts would be on floor area, uh units per acre and height. Can you refresh everyone on what the impacts would be on height? Um I'd have to pull up the record, but it's in the neighborhood of 65 ft, 75 ft, and I believe 85 ft as you get closer to the concentric center. >> Yeah. So, uh quite nearby the um uh stations, it went up to 85/4 mile, it went out to 75. And our existing zoning in those areas uh where there's height is what >> varies by zone but the highest is 50 in the downtown area and less as you >> and then it goes to 65 ft even in R1 neighborhoods uh where we have a 35 ft height limit. So the claim that it doesn't affect height is far from accurate. I think what I'm doing is comparing SB79 to the El Camino focus area where we're looking at 85 ft. >> But that's not all where the only places it would apply. >> Well, I'm not asking to undo your 50% entirely. I'm saying keep it in place to protect R1, but let's carve out a few places in the city where we're comfortable with SB79 taking full effect. Yeah, that was the intent of the referral to the planning commission is we would do exactly that, but we have a more narrow decision right now on this motion. >> Right. And so, so >> I want to just mention a couple things and I'll come to you, Council Member Lowing, uh, and then to the Vice Mayor. Um, so I don't know if I was in artful in how I stated things or what, but um, Council Member Bert, when you were talking about somehow 414 being dependent on SP79, I don't recollect saying that. If I did say that, that's not what I Oh, okay. Because I think it's just that the 50% reduction would be a problem. Okay. Um what I wanted to say is that um I because I don't I may not have made it express when I explained why I wanted to pull um but you know if we can get this amended in a way that we're comfortable with it uh and uh in the two ways I mentioned before that would be of interest to me but if not I would join council member Lithkot HS in voting no on this. And so that is so if if if you're interested in not having two or I don't know if there's three no votes in order to get something passed, we should be talking about that. And I believe Council Member Lithcott HS listed several carveouts that she was interested in. And so, you know, if there's interest in that, fine. If there's not, I think we're left. We know where we're left. So, I just wanted to make sure we're understanding where we are in the conversation. With that, I'll turn to Council Member Lowing. >> Yeah. So, that's [clears throat] exactly what I was going to come back to. Um, further discussion the other night, you know, there there's there's time to do a new look at other other zoning, but that's not at midnight and it's probably not tonight. But what I I think I'm hearing you you saying is that if you got a fourth motion, sorry, a fourth vote to eliminate the urgency ordinance, then then we're done because that goes away. >> What what I'm saying is if if you don't get four yeses for this ordinance, it goes away and SP79 comes into its full force in effect for those 15 days. >> But I'm trying to put it in a positive mode. If I become the fourth vote, is that are we done? Yeah. [laughter] >> Okay, then that's what I'll do. >> I'm sorry I misunderstood you. Thank you for clarifying >> because this is the this is the thing that's the hot button for for some folks. I I don't see it as being material as it's been explained uh by staff. Uh and it doesn't obviate any decisions that we make in the future about putting up uh other buildings of of any height. Sometimes 75 feet is great and other times, you know, that's not. So that's exactly the kind of thing that we need to take time to do is figure out where that best goes and where it fits in the context or where we want to create context like like down in San Antonio area plan. Um, so I think that's I think that's the way to go. So I'll do that. >> Vice Mayor Stone, do you have more to say after that? No, I mean I I I had initially put on my light just to kind of refocus back to because I think we were starting to kind of relitigating what we had just passed for the temporary ordinance and I don't think that's appropriate for what we're what we're doing here. I guess maybe then just a procedural question for staff to as far do you need a do you need a motion that we're like withdrawing the urgency ordinance because my just understanding is there's no four yes votes it just it it already fails. >> So there there there's a staff recommendation. Uh there's no requirement for council to move that recommendation. Council can shape its own motion. uh whatever that motion is, whether it's staff recommendation or something else, needs four votes to pass. >> But I think >> just yeah, just to just to clarify. Yeah. So, so without a motion that then that then nothing happens and the um the situation we were explaining to council member Lowing remains in force which you know basically there's a a 15-day gap where um SB79 would take effect to its full extent through all you know all three transit oriented development areas. >> So the motion vice mayor would be the three things that you want and not the urgency ordinance. We just wouldn't mention the urgency ordinance in the motion and the other three would be in the motion. >> Just just to clarify that if if for for that you you would have to make you know um urgency findings today to adopt something that takes effect uh immediately. You know the absence of those findings you know we would be in the same situation as you can't have something that takes effect immediately. >> Right. But is that different than what I [clears throat] just said that you would just take the three that are there as opposed to all four of them because we're voting against the fourth one? >> When Sorry. When you're saying the three, do you mean the three that have already passed? >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Oh, yeah. No, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. So, yeah. So, you So, so, so you do if you would need if council wishes to act today and have this ordinance take effect before July 1, that's that's not what you want to do. So there there have been there have been three ordinances that have that have already passed. If you if council does not take action now th those those three ordinance are passed. Um the the urgency ordinance that council just voted on takes effect now and the two that um uh you voted on the second reading will take effect on July 16th. >> Right. So we don't have to vote separately on this item at all because there's four opposed. >> We don't have to. Um, I would like a motion just that we uh direct staff to bring back a proposal for the zoning revisions that you want uh in in that 6 to 12 month time frame because right now it it just says that they're going to explore opportunities. So, I think it might be nice to set clear expectation that they'll come back so that we can have the granular conversation >> which was similar to the first motion a couple weeks ago >> or we were asking them to come back. it but it's but it's not with respect to any of these ordinances right it's just yes it's just that let me gently say that I didn't think what I read in the staff report was as strong as what we discussed because it didn't mention coming back and I just would like to make that clear so >> director late is that do you have that no okay [laughter] I'm going to leave this one alone all right um which of you were I didn't see whose light came on first or is >> Oh, no, that was my >> That was your old light. Okay, Council Member Bert. >> Yeah. I I just want to make sure I understand, Mayor, what you're proposing. Uh if we don't have four votes in support of the urgency ordinance, it simply dies. If we were to adopt whatever amendments you're asking, uh it wouldn't be in conjunction with the urgency ordinance. the urgency ordinance it would be instead of it. Correct. >> It's adjacent. I would say so. No, I I I think >> adjacent. I don't know what that >> right. Exact. I'm trying to explain. Um, so I can drop it all together because we've we've we would have moved on uh the the the main thing before us, which is the interim urgency ordinance would be by no by inaction would not come into effect. What I was suggesting was that it's within the scope of this item if we wanted to be clearer on when staff comes back to us. Um because I think that's still just going to happen. That was separate from these ordinances that they're going to come back. Um I'm sorry that they're going to what it says right now is explore opportunities to accelerate housing production on Cal a and adjacent areas of ECR. And all I wanted to do is make clear, but but honestly, if director late here and hears us, I we probably don't need a motion, that after they explore the opportunities, they would also bring back to council a proposal for zoning revisions. That is separate and apart from this urgency interim ordinance. >> Well, while I um anticipate that bringing back zoning um recommendations would be part of that process, I don't know the sequencing. I could very much see that it would be planning commission review it come to the council we give feedback and then subsequently there would be uh a zoning to reflect that but I don't know that sequence so I don't think I want to uh be too stipulating right now we've given that direction we've given the time frame uh I think uh the process is good >> okay I don't know that it changes uh uh the the process that would otherwise be followed. It's just giving a sort of timeline and I I think so. Let me just ask ask the director. Um is that added language that I proposed comfortable for you or is there any concerns I guess I should ask? Um, you're asking if I have concerns about adding language returning with an ordinance within 6 to 12 months instead of just exploring the changes. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. To bring back a proposal. >> Yeah. I don't have a an objection to that as a you know, if that's the council's direction. >> Okay. Um, well, let's just so we can can wrap this because I think we're getting close to burned out here. I don't see any more lights. Uh, I'm I'm going to make a motion that we um direct staff to explore opportunities to accelerate housing production on California Avenue and adjacent areas of ECR and bring back to council a proposal for zoning revisions to effectuate such production within the next 6 to 12 months. Is there a second? Okay, we have a second. >> Any further discussion on that? Council member Bird. >> Yeah. Um, so on the actual the item that was pulled, it doesn't speak to that. So, um, are you saying that we wouldn't take an action to drop the urgency or or for or against the urgency ordinance? Um, or that it would die from lack of action because your motion doesn't address that one way or another. >> Correct. That part would die for lack of action. We could make that express or we could just leave it alone. I was it was seemed superfluous to to to do that. So if the since this was part of the staff report and within the scope of the item for the three items. So the staff report was for all of 23. It got split into three. I don't think this went particularly one way or another. So I believe it's within the scope. But I mean I could >> So I just want to ask the city attorney. >> I was just about to do that. ask the city attorney if he has a view on whether that's a proper motion or not. >> So, you know, it's it's it's general direction to staff. I think it is within the broader scope of the agenda item. Um ju just to maybe to to to tie it back um to the this uh specific action. it might be better to uh explicitly include uh the language that council member Brid is suggesting even though I understand your view that it it seems a little bit superolous but to say you know you know in l something to the effect that in lie of of acting on uh the interim urgency ordinance uh the direct you know provide direction to staff to bring back uh you know an item within six to 12 months using the language you proposed >> and if Happy to take that as a friendly amendment if you could help the clerk with the language. But council member Bert, go ahead. >> Yeah, if that goes forward, I'd like to ask that motion be split between the uh uh dropping of the urgency ordinance and the additional direction to staff. >> Well, I think it's just stating the circumstance of this motion when I think I heard you say in lie of adopting the emergency ordinance. >> Yeah. I I'm not sure they understand the basis for splitting the the motion unless the the maker >> because substantively agree those are two different things. >> No, one is a circumstance just like one is because we're acting to not go forward with the urgency ordinance. The other is uh whether we're uh going to direct staff to take additional action. And I want to be able to vote on those two things separately. >> Okay. I I think that's a request to the maker and seconder though. No, thank you. >> Okay. Um, Council Member Lowing. >> Yeah. I just wanted to point out in defense of staff that you've this this adds a significant workload. I I'm I'm going to support the motion. I just want to point out that, you know, we need to be a little tolerant as to when it actually comes back. Uh, and there may be a choice to take it to PTC at some point. So, um, it's a chunk and it's not on his workload yet. Uh, so just noting that I still I'll still support it. >> All right. Thank you, Council Member Bird. Is that a new light? >> Um, yeah. I I just am requesting [clears throat] that the motion be split. >> Right. And I think the city attorney's answer was that it was up to the maker and I declined that. or is that different or >> Yeah, I I'm not I'm not aware of a a a parliamentary requirement for the motion to be split. So, it's it's would be at the discretion of the mayor. >> I think our protocols actually, if I recall correctly, address that uh it's at the discretion of the mayor, but if they can be reasonably uh separated and request to do so, that [clears throat] is our normal normal procedure. So are you so are you asking to split it with the addition of the language that you sought because that's not on the screen now but we we is that >> two parts uh one would be to vote on uh uh not going forward with the urgency ordinance. The second would be whether to give the additional direction to staff that you requested. >> I understand your request. I think what we need to do is first get the motion. Um, uh, since I've accepted your friendly amendment and I believe the secondary, are you okay with that or not? >> I am okay with it. I think it makes sense for the record to reflect that there has been a decision not to go forward with the emergency urgent ordinance and that there's this uh, part B or second part that is about what we're doing going forward. >> Okay. Well, then I think we need to work on the language. Let's first get the language that the city attorney had mentioned because I'm not sure it lends itself to two. So, we may want to further revise it along the lines that council member Liths just mentioned. So I think madame clerk um I think that we would say to direct staff that in lie of adopting the urgency the interim urgency ordinance of 23C might be the easiest way to name it. um and it would go on to explore blah blah blah. I think that's where we left off with the language and so let's look at that and think about the splitting. So um so uh the council procedures uh rule 43 uh C provide that if a question contains two or more divisible propositions each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition if the other are removed the presiding officer may upon a request of a council member shall divide the same the presiding officer's determination shall be appealable by any council member Okay. So, so madame clerk, I believe the language that you've written there, this is this is a friendly amendment. So, we can go ahead and put it in because I'm the council member Bird asked and I think council member Liths and I agreed. So that language that two direct staff that in lie of adopting the emergency ordinance of 23C that whole text can go after um up in the main motion after two direct staff and you can just delete that direct staff is duplicative. Yeah. Now, Mr. City attorney, is that what you were suggesting? Let's take a look. to direct. >> Okay. After >> that, that's that's consistent with with the I believe that's consistent with the language I proposed. Um um >> I think we need a comma after 23 C and then two TO just Okay. But I'm sorry I interrupted your thought. >> No, that I would just say that I I would defer to uh Council Member Bird as to how he proposes to divide the um that the motion. It's it's very simple. It's that it allows the the council to vote on the urgency ordinance and then to vote on this additional direction to staff as two separate items. So, they need to be broken apart um for purposes of that vote. >> Okay. Well, then let's just rewrite it as uh the two motions. Honestly, let's just do two motions. >> I agree with that. >> Okay. So, thank you, Madam Clerk, for bearing with us through that. I think now what we want to do is to say um to do kind of what you were trying to do. Okay, there introduce and adopt and sorry things moving around. All right, so that was the original MO motion. Uh yeah, as presented by staff. I want to get the city attorney's view on that. >> Sorry, mayor. What's the question? So, we didn't move this as the problem. >> Yeah. [laughter] No. So, so I So, I believe I I I believe that the remedy to to address this would be to withdraw your motion uh and then make a and it would have you would have to withdraw your motion and then, you know, uh revise the motion to include a vote on the staff recommendation. And then a second part of that motion would be uh you that the direction that you recommended providing for staff and then C council member Bert has requested that those questions be divided and council vote separately on each of them. >> Can we just put this one the back back the way it was uh vote for it and then have the have a motion or are you saying we need to do the in the other order? Uh I I just don't want to end the item after if we vote on uh the motion um that the clerk had up there a minute ago on the actual urgency ordinance. If we vote [snorts] no, I want to make sure this comes up. So um yeah. So if if we so we just need someone else because because we have to have different movers, right? >> No, you don't you can you can both move you. So, so I believe what's being requested is that you move both parts. >> Um, >> I don't want to. [laughter] >> Yeah. Um, >> that's the thing. >> Yeah. >> On this particular thing, I mean, it's >> Yeah. So, so, so, so you you you're not you, you are not you are not compelled to amend your your motion. I I'm just say suggesting that as a path forward. >> I'm happy to have the vote taken. I'm just saying I don't want to be the maker of the motion to adopt the interim emergency ordinance. That's I think council member report would be probably be happy to do that and then we >> all right >> can what I had suggested several times is that the motion be to uh not proceed with the urgency ordinance consistent with your main motion to not proceed not to proceed and vote against it >> simply to not proceed and then you have a second >> split motion that is to do direct staff as you proposed. We do this a lot. >> I understand. I thought I'm just looking at what the clerk has, which is looking to introduce and adopt it, which I don't want to do. But I think I like your suggestion of making clear on that second one that I think just went away. Um that it's the reverse that it's to not adopt. Right. That's essentially what you want, right? We could have split it out, but we're I'm just making two separate motions to make it cleaner. So if that language could come back, madame clerk and I think what you're saying is to put it in one so it's we can split it. >> Okay. To direct staff to not proceed with adopting. >> All right. So now this now we would split that one and I think council member Liths, you're okay with that. After 23 C we would split it into two. >> [snorts] >> You're standing strong with this, aren't you? Okay. >> All right. I think we're there. Um we're I mean I think the pro I mean so so this is so just to clarify like both of these there's there's one main motion on the floor. So so both of these elements have to be part of the same main motion and then then that question is divi vote that then that qu that motion can be divided for purposes of voting um as requested by by council member Bert. Is that clear to everyone? >> I'm sorry. >> So, so this is this I just concerned that because this looks like it's two motions. We we could we can only have one mo main motion on the floor and so this this should be this should be made as a single motion and then divided and then the separate vote should be taken on the divided motion just just just just to >> Yeah, she does have motion split for the purpose of voting. >> I'm sorry. I I I I I I did I did not. >> Yeah. I think because we had the one on the screen prior that had them both and then she has a motion split. I If you're good with that, I'm good with that. >> Okay. Yeah. If you could just be clear that you're making the motion and and and council member Liths is se is is seconding it for the record. I think that would be helpful. >> I think it's embedded in each or is that not enough? >> Okay. >> Right. >> Yes. Okay. I just >> I'm missing the concern. Um I >> would it be cleaner if the motion was Mayor Vinker move seconded by me to direct staff A to not proceed with adopting the inter interim urgency ordinance 23C b to direct staff to explore. That way council member Bert can split out >> B >> B from A. He can vote one way and we we can split the subp parts of the motion but it's one motion one mover and seconder. >> It's I think that that that part was clear. I think it was more that I was just wanted to be clear that you were seconding it because I'm not sure that was on the record. >> I'm actually proposing that it be structured differently than it currently looks. Right now, as you said, it looks like two different motions. Don't take it out yet, Madam Clerk. I'm I'm just asking a question. Does that make more sense to you, Council Member Bert, or you don't care either way? >> Yeah, I think it's probably I mean, thank you. I think it's probably a distinction without a difference. So, okay. Okay. So everybody's good with voting on this way. All right. So we'll start with uh the main motion before it was split or do we need to start with the split or does it matter? >> Uh I I think you can vote in either order. >> Okay. Let's take it from the top. Please call the role. >> All right. [snorts] Voting on the first part of the motion. >> Council member Lowing. >> Yes. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Council member Bert. Yes. >> Council member Liths. >> Yes. >> Council member Stone. >> Motion carries. >> Voting on the second part of the motion. Council member Bert. >> No. >> Council member Lowing. >> Yes. >> Council member Lethods. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Yes. >> Council me Mayor Vinker. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Okay. Thank you all for persisting through that. I know it was a little painful, but we're going to take a break. We're going to go get dinner. Uh, see, [sighs] we'll be back in 15 minutes. All right. Thank you all. question. >> Oh, wait. I think there's one. Since we changed courses, I'm certainly willing to listen to Mr. Barack. Is there anybody? >> We have one request to speak. >> Okay. Excellent. Welcome, Herpa. heartbeat. >> I'm doing this off the cuff because um I I thought when I saw the since you're having a meeting with your your city attorney and uh different uh rules applied to different cities and I recall what for example >> excuse me I want to be able to hear you. Could we have some uh more quiet in the chambers please? Thank you so much. All right. Sorry Mr. Brock. Go ahead. >> Okay. And I I may be getting this wrong, but uh you just passed at least one urgency ordinance which said four-fifths of the members present were sufficient. In my recollection, I thought in PaloAlto it was four-fifths of the total council. Uh for example, uh city attorney said that the other ordinance would take effect, you know, 31 days after the second reading, but we once had a city attorney from a city where it was 30 days and hired interns would start drafting ordinances 30 days. So I think you one would need need to check. I don't have a copy of the charter and code available for me to look at to confirm my memory of what what's required for an urgency ordinance. But since you're meeting with the attorney, it probably be about something in in this city's charter and code rather than some others. I just wanted to bring that up and I apologize if I'm wrong about that. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is that uh do we have any other uh public comments on AA1? >> No, we have no further requests to speak. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to move into close session, please? >> Some moved. >> Second. Thank you both. Would you please call the role? >> Council member Lethod Hayes. >> Yes. >> Council member Rectal. >> Council member Lowing. >> Council member Burton. >> Yes. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Council member Lou. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Motion carries. Five to two. [laughter] >> Two absent for the vote. >> Yeah. Five. I think five. Oh. >> All right. Thank you. All right, I'm going to call us back to order. And I first want to uh recognize the city manager whose comments I skipped over in my eagerness to do our closed session. Um, but actually before I do that, I need to report out from our closed session. So, I uh want to report that the city council authorized the city attorney to join an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff's position in County of Santa Clara versus US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement case number 26 CV5604. All right. So now, Mr. City Manager, your comments. >> Yes. Uh thank you, mayor. I would just note for the record that material has been distributed in the agenda packet. So given the hour, I'll dispense with comments and we can proceed with your last action item. >> All right. Thank you very much, Mr. City Manager. We appreciate that. And we will look at your uh uh slides which I believe are also online for people to access. Yes. Okay. So we will move on to action item item 24 which is uh to consider a resolution regarding the 2026 bicycle and pedest pedestrian transportation plan. So uh welcome staff. I don't know which one of you is going to pick it up but I will turn it to you. Welcome. >> Thank you mayor members of the city council. My name is Aussie Arce senior transportation planner with the office of transportation. I am excited and pleased to present tonight the final 2026 bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan for your formal adoption tonight. This comprehensive document serves as the city's 10-year action plan and strategic framework to establish a comfortable, connected, and safe active transportation network in Palo Alto. I'm joined tonight by chief transportation official Rio Lo and transportation planning manager Sylvia Starlac. Next slide, please. The purpose of tonight's action item is to present the final 2026 bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan, also known as the BPTP, for formal consideration and adoption via resolution. Adopting this plan tonight formally establishes our city's vision for active transportation while simultaneously positioning Palo Alto to successfully capture competitive regional and state infrastructure funding. Next slide, please. This has been a robust multi-phase process that began in 2023. Our planning process has focused heavily on updating previous frameworks, including the 2012 BPTP to reflect modern travel behaviors through an extensive four-phase engagement campaign spanning public workshops, online surveys, collaborative field tours. Staff gathered more than 1,000 distinct community comments. The resounding mandate from our residents was clear. Prioritize safety, especially for our student population and further develop a continuous low stress network that functions seamlessly for all users of all ages and abilities. Next slide. When we brought the plan to you on December 1st, 2025 of last year, you spoke positively about the plan's direction, and you gave us clear direction to refine several critical areas. We heard you and the final plan before you tonight reflects exactly how we have responded within the plan's text itself. First, you asked for a proactive stance on ebikes and ecycles. We have expanded the plan to feature specific regulation, engagement and education strategies to safely manage the rapid growth and speed dynamics of ebikes and ecycles. Second, you asked for to total for tight local alignment. We have seamlessly locked this network into the San Antonio road area plan, the North Ventura coordinated area plan, the Midtown bike ped undercrossing at Elorado Avenue, and the Cubberly master plan to name a few. Third, we added concrete directives to audit existing policies within our 2030 comprehensive plan that could inadvertently restrict safety improvements. As detailed in the staff report, we closely re-examined policy T-4.1 regarding street access and verified that local authority under existing comp plan policies fully permits the installation of highly effective safety features such as neighborhood modal filters for our bicycle boulevards and student routes. Finally, we made vital project modifications based on your feedback, including prioritizing safe routes to school projects and expanding capital programming for dedicated pedestrian improvements. Attachment C of your final of your staff report provides more details on how staff incorporated council's feedback into the final plan document. Next slide. Moving into the core elements of the final plan, this consolidated framework establishes our actionable blueprint for combining structural network designs with immediate capital priorities. First, the primary strategy focuses our foundational design baseline away from high-speed complex arterials, focusing resources instead on neighborhood bicycle boulevards such as the flagship Bryant Street Bike Boulevard and the Park Boulevard bike. Second, rather than attempting to finance or construct the entire visionary network all at once, the 10-year implementation framework isolates 19 miles of core near-term enhancements. This sets us on a path towards prioritizing 25 prior priority bicycle projects, 24 targeted intersection and pedestrian crossing safety enhancements, and dozens of policies and programs specific to improving the walking and biking conditions in the city. Third, the plan explicitly elevates our pedestrian environments by establishing geographically distinct pedestrian districts for areas such as University Avenue, California Avenue, San Antonio Road, and the Mitchell Park Cberly corridors that will utilize a customized pedestrian toolbox focusing directly on sidewalk continuity, intersection crossing visibility, and neighborhood placemaking treatments. And the plan includes crucial programmatic strategy programmatic strategies to address the rapid adoption of ebikes and ecycles including programs around bike education, regulation and engagement. And lastly, it in it integrates with other city projects as mentioned earlier. And next step and finally looking forward to immediate next steps here pending council's adoption. Staff will publish an adopted final plan document. [gasps] Staff has initiated work to advance the plan's initial priorities for implementing. Thank you. including first uh these are immediate next steps regarding ebikes and ecycles microobility and youth safety. We are actively developing a comprehensive ebike and ecycle strategy which we will bring back to you as a da d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d dedicated agenda item. This is in addition to developing educational material with PAUSD and PD's enforcement and encouragement efforts as resources allow. Second, staff has initiated work on potential improvements along Bryant Street. This work will feed into a broader effort to update the city's 2001 traffic calming policy in order to increase the responsiveness and efficiency of traffic calming work in the city. Third, staff is seeking grant funding and advancing projects prioritized in the BPTB through the city's capital improvement program CIP process. And this includes the South Palo Alto bikeways demonstration project on East Meadow and Fabian Way and the Midtown Bike Pet Undering and El Dorado Avenue. And lastly, staff is also activating BPTP policy IC1-3 on payback reform to return to council with an evaluation and reform proposal for payback to optimize committee efficiency and effectiveness. Now, at this time, I'd like to introduce the city's chief transportation official, Rio, to discuss the council's recent council direction on Carfree Calav, which is a specific part of the BPTP since Calab has, is, and has historically been a part of the city's citywide bicycle network. >> Thank you. I wanted to say uh thank you to everybody who's helped to develop this plan. Thank you to Aussie, thank you to the council, to the boards and commissions, and hundreds of people who weighed in on this project. Um, I also wanted to acknowledge that we heard two different sets of feedback on CALB. So, I just wanted to kind of tease that out a little bit. Um, in relation to the BPTP on December 1st, uh, a council directed staff to provide bike access slow speed 8 miles per hour and with an alternative uh, with additional efforts to boost um, the performance of Cambridge Avenue as a supplementary route. Um and um on June 1st um council also deliberated on Calv um outdoor activation standards and expressed concern about the use of ebikes along um this corridor with direction to return with a bike free design. And so in terms of the ebikes, there's a number of strategies that are covered in the BPTP and also we've started collaborating with the school district and and with the police department on you know addressing some of these issues. Actually what sometimes appear as ebikes are actually emotos which are illegal. So there's a lot of outreach that needs to happen and that we're starting to work on um in in that regard in terms of uh next slide please. In terms of um the other part which is to do with the uh Calav design, staff is recommending that council adopt the plan as is. Um and this implies a further conversation about Calav. Um and so I think this is the this is the community street approach which is shown on the left here. there's already quite a bit of work that's happened um in terms of setting up the um the intersection and encroachment permits with with CALR. Um the other alternative and and um there are uh options that we can consider in terms of the walk only time. So we we'd assume that it would be walk only during the farmers market and the Thursday night events. Um but there could be other times that we also consider it as a walk only. um uh street as well. Um the other alternative would be to adopt the plan with direction to make revisions to the BPTP as necessary to align with the June 1st direction on Cal A and Cambridge. And this is the option on the right of the screen here, which would also imply that we need to return with a budget item midyear or in um fiscal year 2028. So again, um really uh appreciate your tireless service to the city um especially late at night and um and also the engagement on this project and staff are recommending approval of the resolution to adopt the BPTP. Thank you. Oh, next slide. Sorry. All right. Thank you, Mr. Arce. Thank you, Director Low. Thank you, Miss Darlac. It's nice to have you all here and really appreciate this extraordinary body of work that's summarized here. Apologies for the hour and thank you for hanging in with us on it. Um colleagues, let's do a a round of clarifying questions if there are any and then we will move to public comment and then back to the deis. So, does anyone have any questions they'd like answered before we move to public comment? Council member Bert. >> Yeah, thank you. Um so uh on the CLAB question um as we discussed last meeting we have uh a problem of uh the safety of pedestrians and primarily ebikes or fast bikes but most of all the ebikes most of all in the evening. Calav precoid was its busiest period was during an extended lunch hour period several two three hours. Now the busiest period is in the evening. Um but uh since our last meeting, I've heard from a number of folks involved with safe routes to school that there are still a very significant number of school commuters that are using Calav uh in the early morning and then uh in the later afternoon. Do we have any idea how heavily it is used by school commuters? Um, we don't have specific counts, but it is part of the the school access route for Green Middle School and for >> half of our middle schoolers bike to school >> and and about 50% of them ride to school. So, but I'm not sure how many come through that way. >> Okay. Um, and then um there's one other Oh, uh I think you mentioned PA USD. I've heard that uh they are exploring uh prohibition of uh maybe it's class two and three ebikes being uh ridden to campus. Um do you have how serious are they on that? >> That's also what they've told us. Um it sounds like they're serious, but I don't think it's been to the board. Um, so what we've heard is that the the they're considering a prohibition of class two and three in fiscal year 2027 and then um class one, two, and three in fiscal year 2028. >> Oh, I don't know if I agree with the one, but I'm glad on the class two and three. Um, okay. There is an area where we we have the um uh separated bikeway birectional uh wrapping around Green Middle School and then it ends at California Avenue and doesn't extend to Garland which is the route that you need to get to to take the Ross Road um Boulevard. Um, my recollection is when when that was first being considered, the gap between Calab and Garland was considered. There was some neighborhood push back and it got dropped. Is has that been re-examined? I didn't pick up. Is that part of what's considered in the plan of um reooking at extending that to make it so that we don't have the kind of a gap there. So the um the the segment that you're talking about is between Newell and Lewis, not Ross because Ross dead ends. Are you talk? >> No, no, that's >> Sorry. >> No, I'm talking about on Middlefield. >> Oh, from Middlefield to Garland. >> From Calav to Garland on Middlefield. >> Sorry. >> There's just I think it's only two or three houses there, right? And yet, >> yeah, we we have not um looked into that. >> Okay. Yeah, my recollection is that was part of the original plan and then it got dropped because of some neighborhood neighbor push back. I I I just say I I don't typically see cars even utilizing that. And yet we don't our our our two directional bike route uh doesn't extend in a way that gets you at least onto Garland and a safer street. Okay. Um, well, I'll leave it there on on questions. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? >> All right. Let's move to public comment. Madame Clerk, do we have requests to speak? >> Yes, we do. Sorry, one moment while I calculate how many hands are raised on Zoom. 18. We have 18 requests to speak. Okay. Um, we're not going to go down to one, but I think we do need to go to one and a half minutes each. We don't have any groups, right? >> No groups. And actually a few have lowered their hand. So I one moment. Okay. I think that might be it. We have 12 um 11 requests to speak. >> Oh, then let's let's go with two minutes each. Thank you. >> Our first speaker is Ken J. Ken J. >> Our next speaker is Derek G. >> And thank you, sir, for hanging in with us tonight. >> Hi, I'm I'm Derek Gurnie and I'm the father of a child who uses Calav to uh as a safe route to school along with several other children. So, uh, my parental instincts became, uh, pretty activated last week when I learned that the council directed staff to make, uh, Calav pedestrian only. Uh, this instinct led me to fire off an email that, uh, perhaps is a little inmperate, and I apologize if it was maybe a little harsh. Um, but I think the spirit of my email stands that um, I think we really need to if we were to close Kalav to to bikes, we would need to first have in place a safe, attractive and viable alternative for for children to use to to get to school. When I think of the those other alternatives and their imposed cons, I think it when I think about it, I think it makes much more sense to make Calav a place where pedestrians and cyclists can just safely interact. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Shauna M. >> Hi, council members. Um, I'm also a parent and I wanted to speak about our downtown areas. Um, reading the BPTP report, I have seen that the most dangerous areas that are called out are our downtown areas. And um I would love the council to um take a look at that and maybe focus more on those areas and make sure those routes are safe for our students and um our kids. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Janette S. >> Hi council members. I'm speaking as a resident and also as a parent of a Addison Elementary. Um I took a look at the plans and realized that there are absolutely no considerations um for those kids heading to Addison Walter Hayes and to Green Middle School from Palo Alto North. Um, and I think that we should truly look at all schools and creating safe bike routes for all kids to be able to ride kids or ride their bikes to school. My daughter this year had a very near miss with a car that was terrifying on Webster Street. Webster which not only has um several conolescent homes but also elementary schools and there are definitely needs to have proper diligence to ensure that we're looking correctly at truly dangerous routes including downtown to protect our children and to allow them the joy of riding their bikes to school safely. Our next speaker is Bradley. Thank you, Madame Mayor and Council members. I'm speaking as a resident and a parent and uh my uh daughter's route to Green Elementary would run through Cal Avenue. And while I acknowledge a viable a valid concern for safety uh for pedestrians, um it is my understanding that this concern is to do with ebikes, class 3 ebikes, illegal ebikes primarily, and that the the council itself u when surveying Calv found that only one or to bicycles at at higher speeds than uh would be deemed safe, even passed through when Congressman Lou was was um recording data there. my daughter will have to if if the plan um is changed to a bike free avenue, my daughter will have to ride on a on Cambridge if she wishes to ride her bicycle to school in the presence of cars. So, my uh my read on this is that it's an overreaction that we're trying to solve a safety problem for pedestrians, which is minimal and very narrow, and that instead we're creating a new safety problem for children, putting them on alternative routes where cars are going to be sharing the streets. And frankly that is uh that seems to be um in opposition to the spirit of the plan which was introduced which put safety as the top concern. Also um I ride that route to get to the train. So it's not only children but primarily I'm concerned for the children. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Amy A. Good evening, council. Thank you first of all to staff and council and all the boards and hearings for the for the years of work on the bike plan. Um, tonight I specifically want to speak to the Cal a access for people on bikes. We need this access preserved because it represents such a large piece of our overall network. It connects to the Alma underpass to Cal Train to the Bike Bowl Vadarm Park and also to the new bike lanes on El Camino. Please continue this access for the majority of us riders who are safe, who do who are careful, who do look at the speed limit, who ride appropriately. Staff's plan presented on June 1st was well thought out and supported by the Lord Bright community. It made sense. Cambridge is not an appropriate alternative. It lacks direct intersection access to El Camino. Um, it doesn't connect to any of the other spots in our network where we want to get to. It also has I I lo I lost count. I believe there were 18 driveway openings last time I drove it. And those are real points where people have accidents. It's not an appropriate alternative. And I know so there's been discussion about time limitations perhaps on Calav, maybe limiting it after 5:00 PM, 6 PM, but these time limitations are an ineffective measure. I think we all know that there are no bike signs on Calav now and they are ignored. So I guess I would urge you to please have a second look at staff's plan that was presented on June 1st. it balanced the needs of so many users on the street. Um, and uh, please, if that's not appropriate and you look at Cambridge, make sure to really have a hard thought about the loss of parking, closing of driveways, all the things we need to do to make it safe. And I think you'll find that Calab becomes a more attractive option. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Cedric B. Uh good evening. Um I am a member of payback but I am speaking for myself. Uh thank you to everyone who contributed to this bicycle and transportation plan and I urge you to to approve it but to incorporate the recommendations from payback the bicycle uh and pedestrian advisory committee that are listed in attachment B including the items with which staff did not agree. Alan Wtel's email explains well why they should be included. Um otherwise as many have noted I was also very disappointed by the direction to explore a bike free cal a in reaction to a small minority of ebike riders going too fast. Calav is a very important bike network connector between neighborhoods, schools, bus and rail transit and it is an important bike attractor with its shops, restaurants and cultural destinations. The parallel routes are not as safe nor as convenient. Plus, there's the social aspect of hanging out on California Avenue and seeing your friends riding by. Greet them and improve your well-being and their well-being and strengthen the community. If the only way to access the area is by parallel routes and alleys, the street will lose some of its vibrancy. I would ask you to instead do outreach, education, and and enforcement of a reasonable speed limit like 10 miles per hour and directly address unsafe behaviors rather than diminish California Avenue's vibrancy and nor punishing all riders for the sins of a few. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Penny E. Penny E, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. Moving to our next speaker, Ken K. Good evening, council. In support of the BPTP, I'm Ken Kersner, a local bike advocate. This plan is a big upgrade from 2012. The low stress network gets more people riding sooner with fewer trade-offs. Two requests. Um, first, ebikes didn't exist as a policy category in 2012, and the pace of micromobility has quickened. Please request staff to bring a midcycle update every three years with rider data, safety data, project status so we can course correct on a regular cadence and not in 2040. Second, on California Avenue, the threat is emotal throttle motorcycles banned under SB 586, not legal cyclists. Three quick best practice suggestions from other California cities. One, post no motor vehicle signage. Two, partner with uh PAUSD on a teen diversion program like Coronado's waving citations for a safety course. And three, deploy sensors to confirm that it's an e-oto problem, not a cyclist problem before adopting anything permanent. And last request, include updates as promised by CALR on El Camino bikeways in the year one work plan. I also wanted to make the council aware that the El Camino bikeways network into Menllo Park has a quick build segment from Sandill to Middle Avenue. On June 10th, this project was unanimously endorsed by the Menllo Park Complete Streets Commission and will come before the Menllo Park Council later in June. And I also wanted to invite the council to join our El Camino Real Community Rides currently Tuesdays at 6 p.m. and they'll shift to another night in July. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Peter R. >> All right. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Pete Rice. I'm speaking on behalf of the College Terrace Residents Association. Uh first, I wanted to thank staff and their team for all the hard work that went into the bike and ped plan. I know how much work these plans take and we appreciate the effort. Uh in general, we are very supportive of new and better bike and ped infrastructure and programs. Uh we recognize that walking and biking are a vital part of our transportation system. Uh two requests. Um we ask that uh the city address Stanford Avenue. Um, Stanford now has homes on both sides and as a school route. Uh, having roughly 2,000 ft between marked crossings does not meet the safety needs of our neighborhood. Crossings at Oberlin and Welsley were warranted back in 2004. Uh, we received speed humps instead. Uh, which are appreciated, but they're not enough. We still need marked crossings. Um and then finally on the California Avenue, uh we strongly oppose any bike ban. Uh it's an important carfree route for our kids heading to Green Middle School. Uh also for uh commuters and families and neighborhood residents that want to access Cal A. Uh moving bike moving people on bikes, especially kids off of a car-free street and onto streets with cars would make them less safe. uh these concerns about the reckless riding and emotos should be addressed directly. Um but a bike ban uh doesn't make any sense and it's not a proportionate safety response. Um so please keep California open for slow safe riding. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Alan W. >> Uh good evening mayor and members of the council. I'm Alan Wtel, a member of Payback, and I thank Cedric, the uh earlier speaker, for endorsing the comments that I have previously submitted in writing. Uh I'll use my time to uh briefly recap those comments. Uh at its May meeting, Payback recommended adoption of this plan with a number of changes and additions. Uh the vote for that was 12 to zero with one abstension. So I believe they should be taken seriously. Uh staff agrees with some of those recommendations but disagrees with others and I am asking the council to adopt all the recommendations that payback made in full. Uh I call your attention in particular to items B and C. B involves the entire roadway network. Uh the BPTP focuses almost exclusively on designated bikeways class 1 2 3 and four. But it's long been recognized that bicyclists need to ride on almost all roads because their origins and destinations don't always lie on bikeways. Uh there is ample scope to improve these roads to improve safety and continuity to make them part of the network to provide complete connectivity without designating bikeways. staff uh refers to the complete streets policy and the comp plan but nowhere in the BPTP are these items mentioned. So uh this is an important omission that the council can rectify. The other item item C concerns class 4 separated bikeways. There are significant concerns about the conflicts created by these bikeways between cars and bikes at intersections and driveways. uh the safe streets plan and others that staff refers to do not adequately address these issues. So payback expresses caution about them uh which I would like you to adopt. >> Thank you. >> Um I believe Penny E has been Yeah. >> Yeah. I was just asking if you could try her again and see if we can hear her. >> Penny E, you should be able to unmute yourself. We still can't hear anything. >> Okay. Yeah, she tells me she's having trouble. Uh she's uh something's keeping her microphone from working. Um but I know she did send us an email at 5:39 today. So I would just ask my colleagues to take note of that if we Penny one more time. Can we hear you? No. So with technical issues. Okay. Well, I'm sorry about that, but we will uh take note of your uh emailed comments. So, Madame Clerk, is that uh close out our >> Yes, that concludes public comment for action item 24. >> All right. Thank you so much. Okay, colleagues, uh bring it back to the deas for discussion motion and council member Lou. >> Thank you. Uh just starting with a quick question. What is the process going forward for making tweaks? Uh finding new opportunities, maybe working on some of the points addressed by public commenters around um access from downtown to green or uh the comments from payback members. Is there any venue or outlet to yeah re evaluate different parts of the plane over time? Um yeah, sorry. Um yes, there is as as each of the especially for the major projects, these are things that would come through some sort of engagement process. Um some of them would be coming, you know, to council for for the for the larger projects. And so that would be an opportunity for um tweaking some of those elements. >> That would only be for items, major items that are on the plan, but then smaller items or sort of more general policy changes like uh payback recognition be around trying to plan uh for safer streets as a default. um there wouldn't be a venue or a natural way for us to address that uh or think about those options short of a colleague's memo or something like that, right? Uh that's possible, but I think that there are other policy items that would be coming to council as well. So, uh for example, I'm expecting that we we will be having a a bike ordinance update at some stage. So some of those items could be fleshed out there if they if they're not caught here. >> I think I'm very sympathetic to many of the points from the public commenters and payback. Uh and I also really want to prove this tonight, but I don't want those extra comments to go into a black hole. So I would uh as we think about emotion or just as we think about general council priorities and what we prioritize for uh the coming years each year in priority setting find some way to re-evaluate um uh and bump in periodic updates to planning every few years. I I think uh that's a baseline and something that we owe to this amazing community that puts so much effort into this document that we know is great but should be continuously improving. Um and tonight I think we certainly should approve this document. Again we should be so proud of this. Um, we should really connect this document with the bigger picture goals of uh how much safer and more vibrant uh and just pleasant our city can be with a really thoughtfully built uh comprehensive bike network. And uh yeah, we should be ready to commit the capital. uh we should be ready to uh find uh other phases or tweaks uh in the coming years. One point that I will uh just ceue up because it seems like one of the big discussions of tonight is Calav. I'm really grateful to to the members of the public who came and spoke about the safety concerns of uh effectively banning bicycles from Calav. I really stand by my previous comments. I think we can make the street much safer than it is. We can support businesses. We can protect vulnerable road users. And we can also investigate speed limits, time limitations. We can enforce on illegal emot. We can uh build surfaces that discourage fast cycling. Uh I think we can do all of those things. Um I am usually loathed to change a council decision, especially one that was so recently made. and uh that had pretty wide support. But I think at this time we have a lot more information. We've also been operating under this assumption that we would allow slow cycling on CAV for uh don't quote me exactly but maybe a couple of years. And so I don't think we're going to really be upsetting the decision we just made or uh uh throwing a big wrench in the process if we gently walk back at least some aspects of the decision to ban bikes on KAV. Um uh so uh I'll leave that there and uh be happy to chime in later on a motion if that helps. Right. >> Thank you, Council Member Rectal. Uh the one of the public commenters, oh, first of all, thank you. Good work. I do appreciate it. It's been a long haul, but it's it's very good product. Thank you. Um one of the public commenters talked about CALR improving the uh El Camino bike lanes. Can you give us more details what what the plan is on that? Did Cal Train commit to doing something after one year? Yeah, I think you're referring to I think it was Ken Kushner who mentioned that um CALR is supposed to report back on usage on the bike lanes. >> Okay. It's just a usage. It's just they're not proposing ways of improving or anything like that. >> I don't think so. I mean, if they were not performing well, then we would expect them to fix it, but >> I think it's about the counts. And will we get those counts? Will council get the counts that uh >> I I don't know. I we will absolutely share. >> I would be very interested in that. >> We would share them. >> Okay. Um clerk, can you go to packet page 934? This is a a map that I both love and hate. And and what it's showing is it's showing the dangerous routes or the high injury network. And the problem is that some of the high-end networks are like by Bryant just because we have so much traffic on it. And so we don't know is it dangerous per capita or is it just the fact that we have so many bikes on it that by just even a safe bike route is going to have incidents. And so it's not very actionable. It's good information, but it's not very actionable. If we had either another map that showed the density or preferably another one that had the per capita incidents, uh that would be much more useful. But this is kind of just telling you, yeah, there's a lot of bikers on Lomma Verde and a lot of bikers on Bryant and uh so I don't know how you can improve that. Do you have count datas for how many people go on Bryant each day? [sighs] >> So you're referring to figure 14 which is the bicycle and pedestrian high injury network. And >> exactly and we show the locations where there's a lot of injuries but some of those locations have a lot of bikers on them. >> Correct. So just the fact there's a lot of incidents doesn't necessarily mean they're inherently unsafe. It's just the fact that you have a lot of bikers. There's more chances for injuries. >> Correct. And this high injury network analysis is uh best practice that's used in all long range planning efforts. So it followed the similar methodology, but you are correct. Higher usage could lead to higher >> So do you have counts of how many people use each of these bike routes? >> [sighs] >> We we did some counts back in 2024. Uh but what we did for this planning effort was we used uh big data called replica which created a methodology to try to better understand how people move locally. >> Okay. I mean that. So, do you have a table or some data that's usable that would be able to list how many bikers a day use Bryant? How many bikers a day uh use some of these other routes, Meadow Drive, for example? >> Not by day. And traditional count data is relatively expensive. And so, the city doesn't period periodically conduct citywide bicycle counts, unfortunately. So, if I'm looking at this and I'm a bicycle planner and I'm trying to say this is going to tell me what bike routes are dangerous, how do I determine that? >> How do you determine which bicycle routes are dangerous? >> Yeah, by looking at this map. Because this tells me the gross number of incidents, but it doesn't tell me how frequent they are. Yeah. the it doesn't tell me the rate you know what percentage of people who use that get injured >> right this is where collisions have occurred the dates are 2018 to 2022 is a 5year time frame for this um >> but do you do you understand what I'm saying that if I'm a planner I want to go after the places where people have a high probability of getting injured and this doesn't tell me anything about probability it just tells me the gross numbers and so it's skewed by the number of riders that take those routes I understand what you're saying. What you're asking for is actually one of the holy grails of transportation planning or bike planning because no one has the denominator to like norm the number that you want. Um so >> I mean we can't use replica or anything else or even >> could you send an intern out there and have them count bikes? >> I guess I mean it's it's a difficult thing. I mean this is there are some >> this this seems like such a lost opportunity because it's almost there. >> Yeah. So there are some cities that have invested for example in in eco count or uh counters totem pole counters where they tell you how many bicyclists have come past there that day. We don't have that. I mean we have so many cyclists on so many streets. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. My time's up. Thank you. Council member Bert. >> Thank you. Uh just a follow-up thought on Council Member Rectal's concern. Well, one I doesn't rep replica does not count bikes on routes. Okay. Um we actually had had uh a detection system like that in 2014 and 2016. So we actually had it a dozen years ago and I don't recall why it went by the wayside, but does seem appropriate. I I will say there's another factor for consideration. So, Council Member Rectal is correct that uh the the data that we have on this table doesn't um show really the the comparative risk per ride, but it does show where you'd get the most benefit for a particular pro protective measure because it is multiplied by the number of riders. Um so uh I too would like to know the comparative risk but but I I just bear that in mind as well. I also thought um maybe I got wasn't listening closely to one of the speakers but I thought one of the El Camino Rial considerations is that Menllo Park is looking at extending protected lanes which would bring more volume. But for us when we discussed it, a lot of the reason for embracing this was the close to 2,000 new housing units that were planning on El Camino that would uh disproportionately use those lanes. Um I wanted to go to this question on T-4.1 which is about um street closures and um payback had had wanted to have clearer language that filtering was not a street closure. Staff respond and said no we don't interpret it that way. problem is the same language in T41 was there in 27 and 2018 when the the Ross Road uh bike boulevard was being considered. The chief transportation official at that time interpreted that language in the opposite way. Said that filtering is closure and therefore we couldn't do filtering. So I'm glad that staff has interpreted the way they do now. But I don't see a problem with providing the clarifying language of payback because contrary to what staff said, there is there must be ambiguity or we wouldn't have those two transportation officials interpreting it two different ways. I agree with your interpretation. So don't get me wrong, but I think why not put it in there and eliminate what is was clearly some some level of ambiguity that allowed a different interpretation. Um and then um I did want to go to the uh Calab issue because I was really reluctant to at our last meeting on this say I I think we need to restrict biking on Calab because I had fought for three years to try to have it stay part of the plan. We had never done anything to do calming. We have no physical measures. We don't have signage on speed limits. We have contradictions between a sign that says, "Please walk your bikes and recently painted green bike lanes there." Um, so we haven't really helped matters that way, but I'm very one I was until hearing from so many me members of the public, I wasn't aware how heavily it must be in early morning and to some degree in the later afternoon used for safe routes to school and some other commuting. Um, and hearing that the PAUSD is wanting to move forward on this restriction, I'm interested in what actually Penny Ellson had put in writing on this uh a temporal closure that you already said, well, when we have the the evening um uh events once a month and the we already and on the um farmers market, but really whether we should consider that after 6:00 it's a no bike area and it's signed. Appreciating that we would have that in conjunction with signage on uh and and um calming measures when it is open and that there's no panacea. I mean we have people drive on the freeways at 80 miles an hour even though we have speed limits. That doesn't mean we don't have a speed limit. Um, so I I'm I am uh interested in this this concept of the calming measures, the school restrictions and the temporal closure as what might be the right balance. There really is a currently a danger in the evening. It's contrary to what some of the speakers said, it's not rare that we have u essentially the class three bikes and they're not necessarily just the electric motorcycles. they are class 3 bikes either altered or unaltered and it's a danger. So I think we have to figure out how we address the two things together. Um I also did want to uh bring up one other intersection that I'm not sure has been identified. New and Embaradero. Um when cars are or bikes are coming northbound, I'll call it on new to cross Embaradero, they come around and there's a bend there and it's blind. And um I I would just like to request that we add addressing safety measures there, whatever those may be. I don't want to engineer it, but it's a problem that I see regularly and I think it's it's a significant problem. Um, and then I I one of the things I've been doing the last couple weeks is reading some of the studies on that were very interesting and that basically have shown that Cherros are not effective and can be actually counter to safety and that merely painted bike lanes without protection or at least without a buffer area also not enhancing safety. And these have been two measures that have been widely adopted uh in you know all kinds of jurisdictions for the last what decade or two and the studies are now showing uh they they aren't working and even the sheros can be and some of these can be counterproductive um for reasons that they explain in the studies. So, I do really embrace us focusing on uh class one and four lanes and if we have painted bike lanes to really try to design in buffers because those do help even if they're not a physical barrier. Um, so I think those are uh my comments at this time. Thank you. Uh, oh, one other thing. I'm sorry. Uh Penny Elson had recommended that there really be a wording added on uh on the San Antonio area access to the Cal Train station. And I do think that's very important. >> Okay, friends, we've worn you out. I have no lights. So, I'm just going to make a couple quick questions and then I'll go back to Oh, good. Thank you. Um uh um I'm intrigued, Council Member Bert, by what you just said about the Cherros because that had always kind of been my instinct that they don't feel safe. So, it's interesting that now there's that uh analysis that sort of bears that out. Um I also uh agree about New and Embaradero Road. I live quite near there and have had several sort of awkward circumstances because of the the angle of the intersection and so then sometimes bicyclists will use a crosswalk on the opposite side of where you think they are but they're going faster. It's just an awkward intersection for bicycles. And of course we had one tragic instance which I don't think was the result of bike lanes. Um anyway, um you know, the I think we're all um really grateful for and pleased with the um the work product before us. Um and this big issue seems to be around the Calav bike lanes. Um and I mean honestly I'm conflicted about it. I have always had some concerns as to how the bikes would interact with the pedestrians there. Uh, you know, I I liked the meandering, I'll call it, uh, bike lane that would slow them down. Um, but it's still a little awkward for me to sort out how they interact one with the other. But um you know I I'm very um concerned about the parents concerns that have been expressed tonight. Um I don't think I had appreciated how many school children used that route. And I was thinking more of adults um or people going there sort of as a destination to play if they were school age but not you know not necessarily on a commuting route. So, um there isn't um an easy alternative there uh for volumes of school kids. So, that's one I would like to hear more about. But I think that's something that we need to we we need to come away from this with some sort of either plan to further evaluate it or a revision of our decision whether or not it's just to um eliminate uh ebikes but let other bicyclists through or or all but class one uh ebikes something like that. I am certainly open to hear more from my colleagues on that um because I I think it's a quite a conundrum as to what to do on that front. And now that I have two lights, uh, I will go to Council Member Lowing. >> Okay. Thank you. [cough and clears throat] This has been such a massive effort for so many years and to see it come to fruition, particularly on our last night uh before break. Seems like everyone's getting to a finish line here on our bikes and and so on. So im immense thanks and um I wouldn't think of adding something something substantive to this but I also want to just point out areas that I really appreciated. It's extraordinarily strategic uh and comprehensive, but at the same time, you did a great job on coming up with very specific details and programs and [clears throat] you know where you say first of all strategically on back page 939 you say all ages and abilities bikeway system and you put that stake in the ground. It's for all ages and abilities and I really like that. put that on on U 967 here I thought was terrific where you put in a near miss reporting program you know not just that you're going to kind of take a look at it but there's a specific set of programming um that that you've done around that so that's what I meant by being both strategic and program detailoriented so to me that just raises the quality of this [clears throat] um that said to customer Lou's point there are going to be things that come up. Um, and first, you know, be assured, council member, that we're we're still going to do those things even if they aren't in this uh uh in this plan as we get into new neighborhoods and stuff like that. But yes, it should be incorporated every few years as, you know, version 1.1 and and so on. So, [clears throat] we're not going to back off on safety in in new neighborhoods because it hasn't made the the publication of this book yet. Um, so I'm just I'm just really impressed. Just [clears throat] back on Calav, I understand the constraints, but and and we're going to have to sort it out and maybe it is certain times of the day, but it I I understand the the debate, I should say, not the constraints. [clears throat] Um on that um the transportation official, chief transportation official said that if we go with no bike lanes, then we need more budget. And I didn't understand that because if there's no bike lanes, it seems like there's less to do. So if we went with the June one motion of uh last week, why would you need more budget after that? um because the the motion was to come back with a redesign and um we actually completed the we had we thought we'd completed the >> okay >> design. >> Okay. And alternatively, I think there's also 100% agreement that Cambridge is not ready for prime time. So in any case probably in addition to whatever we do on Calab, we might want to be doing something on [clears throat] Cambridge. But if we don't do it on Calap, then we have to spend some money on Cambridge to to make it safe and make it more more travelable around the the bad pavement and the cars and all that stuff that we thought about. So, um that that's another one of the considerations at this point for maybe allowing school kids, you know, 8 to five to come down there under five miles an hour. [clears throat] But just great job and glad to have it here to vote for it. Thanks, Council member Rectal. >> Okay. First, that one that affects me directly, the cross traffic across bike lanes. There's on Wilky Way, there are some culde-sacs that don't have stop signs and Door Dash drivers come out of there in the evenings and just blow across the bike lane. And I really think that every intersection on a bike lane should either um be a four-way stop or a two-way stop for the crossing traffic. I don't see any reason why they should have a rightaway to buzz through there because they don't stop and look for me. And so that's really dangerous, but actually a really simple way of adding safety, making a four-way stop. It's two signs. It's really simple. So I think we should look into that. Um uh the El Camino Way buffered bike lane. I like the idea that's really kind of tight, but there's parking is so tight over there, especially now after losing the parking on El Camino Riale that I think the neighborhood is just going to have a fit if you try to take away parking to add a bike lane. Uh what do you think of that? What's feasibility of adding a buffered bike lane on El Camino Way? For example, in El on Cambridge, we're proposing the same thing, but there's options for parking there. There aren't nearly as many options in El Camino Way. So short of us designing the project here, we would consider repurposing some of those parking stalls to ensure there's adequate room for the bicycle facility, but that is just a consideration among other design considerations. >> Okay. Yeah, cuz people use those parking spots and the parking is just so tight there already. So, um, so in general, I mean, I like buffered bike lanes. As council member Bert was saying, that buffered bike lane is much safer than a regular bike lane. So, I like the concept, but on areas where parking is tight, uh, I I worry about the implementation of that. So, okay. Um, next, Bryant Bike Boulevard from Embaradero to downtown isn't a bike boulevard, it's a car boulevard. It's the people coming down from 101 on Embaradero. They turn there and they go fast down uh Bryant. It is not safe. And so if we could put some modal filters in there, that would be really good. We have Bryant a block over. I mean a Waverly a block over. I think it's doable. And so I really think that's something we should look at because it's a bike boulevard and it should be safe for bikes. And there's it's a car boulevard today. We yeah we agree and as noted in the staff report Bryant Street Bike Boulevard is on the immediate next steps and pro processes a project is already underway to look at Embaradero to Homer and really make it a true bicycle boulevard because we've heard similar from um from residents. >> Okay, I applaud you. I missed that. Thank you. Um, another thing, bike theft, or at least the fear of bike theft is another reason that people don't bike. And uh, so for example, well, do we have good bike theft data? I've never seen any reports that show how many bikes are stolen in Belo. >> The police department would have that data and I don't have that readily available. >> I mean, I would think that' be part of this bike report, wouldn't it? because that a lot of people tell me that their kid wants to go up to Redwood City for a concert and he has to drive them to the Cal Train station cuz they're worried about the bike stolen. >> Correct. Bike parking is a part of this planning effort. We're looking at it more from a activity center and demandbased. Um however uh working with our partners in the police department that is definitely something that we can look at as a part of that process. >> Okay. I do like the the bike hub at uh the Cal Train station. I've heard very good things of people who use that. Uh can we expand something like that elsewhere in commercial districts or >> God? >> Uh so we're part of the city's recent discussion on the new parking garage on Hamilton. Uh the design does include a bike room of sorts similar to what you're referring to. >> Yes, I would love that. So, please keep that in the design or at least considering in the design. >> Um uh any plans for daylighting areas? So, we'll have this extra area that you could have bike parking there. You could have bike rentals. Do we have any plans or plans to study that? >> Sorry. Sorry. You mean daylighting as in the corner daylighting? >> In the corner daylighting. By state law, if you have a daylighted area, you can use that for bike parking. >> Oh, yes. Yes. So, I think in um that is the plan. >> Okay. >> Um we don't have the staff for it right now, but we'll be able to soon. >> And the plan is to is this just downtown or this all over the city? >> So, the plan in terms of the daylighting is to focus first on school routes and bike boulevards. And where it's appropriate, we would consider adding bike parking. >> Okay. >> Y >> that that is good. That's a good use of it. It doesn't block the line of sight and bike parking is always good. Uh and the last one is uh a lot of maps were in there. None of the maps show the Bryant Street community center. They show the all the other community centers, but they don't show Brian. So, if you can cut and paste and throw a little bubble on that. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Anyone else? I think these folks need a vote, right? >> Council member Bert. >> Yeah. So, we've gone through some things that we may want to propose that be edits. Um, in terms of the process, uh, would if we have a set of amendments, are those then able to get folded into the plan and that would be the right recourse? >> Yes. Yeah, we can. You can, um, propose to adopt with specific amendments. >> Okay. >> Um, I'm ready to make a motion. >> Uh, so I would move adoption of the bike plan with the following amendments. And I guess on the first one um what's what's in the plan right now on Calab, we gave this other direction. Is that in the plan? >> No. So the the plan right now assumes that there is bike access along Calav. >> Okay. So I'll add that supplementally as just a direction not necessarily explicitly in the plan but kind of follow up to our previous meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, um first um to uh evaluate um extension of the two-way bike track between on middle field between Calav and Garland. Second to and I'm I'm saying evaluate. I don't know if that's the nomenclature you want in the plan, but I'll let you decide that. Okay. Uh second um to look at um uh safety improvements in the uh at the uh new embarcodero intersection. um area. Third, to add the language that Penny Elson suggested on the um in the San Antonio uh station area to add the Cal Train station specifically. Uh next to add the payback language or something equivalent to it uh that clarifies uh what staff has already embraced on the interpretation of T-4.1 regarding filters not being closures. Um and um then to evaluate um stop sign or other protections when roadways cross bike boulevards and council member Rectal, was it just boulevards, not lanes as well? You said lanes, but >> Oh, I meant just bike routes. Okay. Bike routes and and that because it's an evaluation, it's not a hard and fast rule, but just to prioritize that. Um, and I think that covers it. I did want to just note one of the dilemmas, mayor, on, you know, you talked about, well, can we regulate class two or three? That's the problem. The state doesn't let local jurisdictions do those carveouts. Um unfortunately although the state is going to >> tighten that well and even the the state legislation uh this session uh is not addressing that either. They're embracing tightening up the rules on what is a class three basically. Um so I think that captures the um changes that I would propose. Did you want to say something else about protected bike lanes? At some point you mentioned class one and class 4 and >> Well, let me ask staff on that. Um, to what degree would you characterize the plan right now as moving us away from sheros and unprotected painted lanes to protected either class one or four or lanes [snorts] with buffers. >> And that last one, I'm not sure, is there? So I think that the last time that we came to council or maybe it was the time before um some of the direction was to lean in on the quiet streets. So we're focused on the bike boulevards which we think is cost effective there. There would be sharers but they would be in conjunction with other things to slow down the traffic the the motor vehicle traffic um and then focusing on where they cross uh the high injury network. Um there are a number of projects also related related to protected bikeways on those larger streets, but that's not the majority. >> This plan does uh address um protected lanes either class one or four more than we have in the past. >> Yeah. >> Oh, and I realized there's one other area that I want to comment on, which is the um the I guess class one off-road, right? um uh between uh between Stanford Research Park and the back of Chamalus. Uh and there's concern by neighbors there of intrusions and safety. I just want to say that that it doesn't have to be in the plan, but that I want to get out on the record that I would be supportive and I don't see any reason why that off-road path couldn't be up against um the the north edge, the commercial side, so 30 ft away or so from their back fences, and have a fence on the south side of the path that would make it secure so that their concerns over security into their backyards are addressed. So I I think that is something that would be logical and I would support on that path and it has lacked a name. I would I was stumbling and we keep calling it different names. Um I was thinking perhaps something like uh the Matador uh connector uh route um or something to that effect, but it needs a name that is descriptive and uh and suggests what it accomplishes even. That's I think all I had. >> We tried uh calling it the Bullpark Path extension, Chamala's Drive easement. Um but we'll give that a little more thought. Thanks. >> Yeah, ask Gemini. I probably have some good ideas. >> Yeah. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh do you want to speak further to your motion? >> I don't. Thank you. >> Thank you. Do you want to speak to your second? No. >> Okay. Council member Lou, you had some comments. >> Uh, well, I was going to make a very similar motion, but I just have one question or a question and then a comment uh on the motion just so I can understand the point about the two-way bike track between Milfield between Kal and Garland. I see how that basically goes on the immediate south side of Green Middle School, but then on California Avenue on the immediate north side of Green Middle School, there is a protected bike lane in a little wiggle from a semi-protected wiggle from Middlefield uh or from Calav to Middlefield to North California Avenue. So >> I am probably just blanking about what the purpose of the garland is if it's parallel like one block or less than a block. >> The answer is um if you're attempting to utilize the Ross Road bike and the pedestrian signal that crosses or Oregon, um there's not a direct route to get to it. >> Ah oh yes. Okay, got it. And this yeah, >> at least on middlefield, this makes it safe. I don't know what the original plan was on how to deal with the Garland intersection, but there was a plan of sorts. >> Right. Okay. Right. Yes. And I can see how organav is just not good at all in that context and how Garland is the right way to Yes. Got it. Um, thanks for clarifying that uh and reminding me of that. Um, I'm also curious if you'd be open to accepting some of the payback language around uh uh bicycle friendly street design as a default as a city uh constructs or modified roadways. That's attachment B. Uh it is, I'll admit, not necessarily the most specific policy. Uh but I don't think it's really necessarily fully encompassed just by the city's complete street policy. I think um uh having some element of >> street guidelines thinking about widths thinking about sightelines as we repave and renovate streets uh is >> can be done in a loweffort high return way where at minimum for example when we repave and reconstruct new streets we can think about things like daylighting which may not have may not otherwise be a policy directive >> so I think that's a if you're open to it. something that I'd >> so um yeah Alan Wtel in his note to us made the point that um comp plan policy T-3.5 does state um language like um I think we would support um and then staff has made the points in response to payback that we do already have the city's complete streets policy addressing it. But then Allan says, "But that policy is not referenced in the bike plan." Is that correct? >> We'll need to double check on that. Uh, however, it's a existing city policy that we would follow like other policies. >> We This is the bike plan. if we got if it's a a critical part of what we're saying is our whole vision and plan, we ought to at least reference it. And I think that would so I would I would add uh what uh Council Member Lou was asking about, which is um the payback recommendation on um referencing uh the complete streets policy within the bike plan. Is that >> uh yeah, including bicycle friendly street design, the payback recommendation on bicycle friendly street design, I suppose. >> Okay. And both those things, the the complete streets policy and the bicycle friendly street design. And I'll just say that I'm now recalling that the argument that was made there is that we want to look at safe bicycle streets even uh when we're not specifically adding bike lanes or those particular measures but through paving or various different measures. were just conscious of um uh uh the bike safety of streets even outside those targeted areas without stipulating particular outcomes. >> And maybe one last question about the motion um uh by default because it does not mention uh the Calav close street portion uh we're sort of continuing the course. Do we need a separate motion or a separate discussion or how will we come back to the ideas of >> so I thank you for bringing that up. So these things are additions to and then in addition referral to staff to uh examine um uh uh uh safe slow biking on Calav being reconciled with conflicts from uh during peak pedestrian hours and with uh motorized bicycles and then I think you've kind of got some sense of considerations that we're now tossing out there. >> Sounds great. All right. Thank you. I think the motion does need to be does need a couple updates, but >> yeah. So, for number six, I think that was >> um the complete streets. Oh, there we are. bicycle access to San Antonio station. Yeah. >> Sorry. Mah, were you going to try and capture the calav just a referral to staff as opposed to these others being changes to the plan? >> Under number three, you can drop the rest of the sentence after to at the cow train station. There we are. Oh, and actually you can drop area as well. And then do you have wording? Maybe you can center the wording from number seven. Um, >> so that's for a separate one that the referral is for Cal A not for middlefield. So seven would be refer to staff uh evaluation of uh reconciling uh bike access particularly for school and other commutes with pedestrian safety. um during peak pedestrian use hours or particularly within that [snorts] [sighs] and I guess maybe it if it's helpful uh to add the council uh uh supports PAUSD pursuing restrictions on class 2 and three ebikes. >> I'll say we did have discussions in the city school leaison committee about this and both members we have been supportive uh the police >> but this gives the council the point here is this gives uh >> on the record that the council is >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. and we're excited with the school district's direction and >> that's great to know. So, if the city attorney is okay with that, then seconder, are you okay with that? >> Yeah. Uh, at the end of seven, can we say including the possibility of time of day restrictions? >> Yeah, I'd be fine with that. So the end is seven including the possibility of time of day restrictions [clears throat] >> if if I make >> to refer to calv >> calv. Yeah number seven should say should start with >> access along calav. Yeah. >> For reconciling bike access along >> all of seven is related to Calv. >> Um the carfree portion. >> Sorry. Carf free portion of calf. Yes. >> And number one should say on middle field not between middlefield. >> Oh yeah. >> Yes. Thank you. >> And get rid of the middle field. Get rid of the between >> the between before Milfield >> before >> first one. Keep going to the left. >> Y. >> Yeah. Okay, colleagues are good. >> I'm I'm good. >> Staff is good. Clerk is good. >> Number number six still says pay back, but I think you want the acronym. >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, [laughter] >> yeah. Auto crack. >> I don't know. That looks better. >> Council member Lowing. >> Yes. >> Council member Lou. >> Council member Bert. >> Yes. >> Council member Rectal. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Yes. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Council member Lithmes. Yes. Motion carries unanimously. >> Wow. Yay. Yay. [applause] All right. Well, colleagues, bear with me for one more moment as we conclude. No, one more moment. We got a lot done tonight and in all our meetings this month. So, thank you. Our next meeting is on August 10th, and I wish each of you a very pleasant council break. But before we go, I want us to close I want to close us out in accordance with a very good idea that council member Bert had a couple weeks ago, but which I had forgotten by the time that very long meeting ended. So it is my pleasure to adjourn this meeting in memory of longtime PaloAlto resident Clarence B. Jones. He was Martin Luther King Jr.'s attorney, speech writer, and close adviser who is probably best known for having secreted Dr. King's famous letter from Birmingham jail out of the jail and distributing it. He also helped write Martin Luther King Jr.'s I have a dream speech and was a scholar at Stanford University. I am and uh I I know Council Member Lithcott HS perhaps others of you saw him less than a year ago uh on July 17th at a rally right here at City Hall's King Plaza and it was an honor to have him in our midst. So in his memory we are adjourned. Have a good summer.

Well, good afternoon everyone. I'm going to call our meeting to order. Today's meeting is a special joint meeting of the Climate Action and Sustainability Committee and the Utilities Advisory Commission. So, thank you staff for suggesting that we do this today. I think it'll be really helpful for us to hear from each other. So, uh, before we get started, uh, Madame Clerk, will you call the role? >> Commissioner Mets >> here. >> Commissioner Tuker >> Council member Bert >> here. >> Commissioner Gupta >> Vice Chair Phillips >> here. >> Chair Vinker >> Council member Lou >> here. >> Commissioner Croft >> here. Chair Mau >> present. >> Commissioner Sharf. >> For the record, all members of the climate action and sustainability committee and utilities advisory committee commission are present. >> That is impressive. Well done, people. All right. Well, uh so item one on today's agenda is going to be our joint item with participation from both the committee and the commission. After item one, we will take a fivem minute break and the utilities advisory commission will be released and after which the climate action and sustainability committee will reconvene to hear item two. So with that uh madame clerk, is there any public comment on items not on the agenda? >> We have no request to speak for general public comment. >> All right. Thank you. So it is our tradition at the climate action committee to do standing verbal reports. So, I will turn first to staff. >> Thank you, Chair Vinker. Uh Brad Higgleston, director of public works, and I do have a few updates to share. Uh so, first, in the first quarter of this year, 2026, the city was accepted into the Los Angeles Clean Tech Incubator City Climate Innovation Challenge uh to support development of a curbside EV charging pilot program. So, that is in the works. uh and staff intends to bring a preliminary plan for program design to the climate action sustainability committee uh for feedback in the second half of 2026. So, we'll be getting that onto an agenda. Uh next, I'm sure most of you are aware that the city celebrated the grand opening of its new Bryant Street Community Center last week, which houses both the teen center and a permanent dining room location for La Coma. But what you might not have heard is that this uh building was part of the non-residential packaged HVAC pilot program which uh replaced aging gas HVAC equipment with all electric equipment. So this was one of uh 13 projects, most of which are either completed or in the construction phase that staff estimates in some represent about 25% of probably the annual turnover for uh that type of units. Uh so staff is actually ending that program and transitioning over to what we're calling the advanced HVAC pilot program. But all of these projects that included the Bryant Street Community Center uh provided a lot of important data that's factoring into the design of that next U program. And lastly, I wanted to announce that we have some new members of our climate action action working group that serves as advisors to staff on the climate action and sustainability initiatives. Uh we've added several over the past couple of months. So they are uh David Cole from Carbon-Free PaloAlto, Hillary Glenn and Andrea Gara from 350 Silicon Valley PaloAlto team and Aiden Meow who's the current chair of the youth climate advisory board. So those are my updates and utilities director. >> Uh yeah, a couple updates for this group in general. Wanted to provide some really good news on uh carb extending cap and invest and knowing that program. So from 2027 to 2030, we'll actually be receiving a significant increase in the amount of allocations and revenues, it's going to be going up by 193% which will be several million dollars that we can use for uh affordability, looking for climate action programs as well. Um and and rebates for our customers. So we're really excited about that and we'll be that's part of the discussion today. Uh in addition, we have an induction cooktop rebate program. We're going to actually have a few booths over at the uh chili cookoff as well. So, you'll see staff there um trying to show our residents induction coach tops. And that completes my report. >> All right. Thank you very much. I seem to be having some kind of allergic something. So, if from time to time I step away, please forgive me. But, uh so now we turn to committee member comments and announcements. And I invite commissioners as well if there's something relevant that the body should know about uh either from another organization you've been uh involved with or some other thing relevant to this uh meeting. I welcome you to ring in. Now there's a light on down there and it says Bert, but I think it's coming. It's either inadvertently pushed or it is one of you. >> Okay. Does any any commissioner to my left or council member want to speak? Anybody to my right? Okay. Okay, I'm going to undo this light. And I will just say um I uh saw the director of Lacy last week and so had I known about our our uh the EV opportunity, I might have lobbied a little but uh that's great news. Director Ugleston, thank you. I just have one item that I would like to report and that is that after a lengthy competitive nationwide search, the uh commission of the Northern California Power Agency has appointed a new general manager and that general manager is Tony Zimmer. Tony has been with NCPA for more than 25 years. he up until yesterday uh or I guess until Monday uh serves as the assistant general manager of power management at NCPa. So we had quite an extensive um recruitment process and interview process and I wanted you all to know uh about that change. Uh Randy Howard's last day I believe is today. um the outgoing general manager and uh I exchanged uh emails with Tony yesterday and have invited him to come to PaloAlto which he says he will do. So uh for those of you who would like to meet with him, we will let you know when that will come to pass. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Seeing no lights, we can move on to our first joint action item. >> Sure. Okay. So, good afternoon. Uh, commissioners and council members, Kylie Nose, assistant city manager. I just wanted to kick off today's item and ultimately this joint session uh at a high level. Um, and well, today is really a part of staff and the council's continuous um, strategic planning effort about how the city will reach its climate goals and the resources that are necessary to achieve them. Um while we've made a lot of progress to reducing our emissions, it will need more time uh to achieve its 80% goal, um whatever strategy and timeline that ultimately the council and the community chooses to reach this goal, it's really going to be important to balance climate progress and affordability as we navigate this. And so we wanted to invite the two bodies, the UAC and the committee to discuss this together to help give staff joint feedback on the scope of this upcoming modeling effort. Uh this really is our attempt to ensure both bodies have the information they need later this year to advise the council um on both utility impacts as well as emission benefits of these strategies. So with that um we'll kick off the joint session and turn it over to staff for the presentation. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Assistant City Manager NOSA. My name is Jonathan Oenshine. I'm the assistant director for climate action, and I I'm going to talk to you about the um the some of the strategic planning we're going to do this year. So, this year, we want to help the city council decide uh if they want to set a different timeline for achieving the 80% emissions reduction goal and what role they want the city to play in achieving that. So today we're going to talk about six proposed strategies for communitywide electrification that achieve the 80% goal on different timelines and uh whose costs we plan to evaluate using the SCCAP funding model. Now we're not use we're not asking for a recommendation today on which one of these policies to follow. We only want feedback on the range of policies so we can be confident when we return with the results later this year that you have the information you need to make policy recommendations. And we're planning to return in December or early 2027 uh with the results. We are planning to discuss the utility impacts uh of each strategy with the UAC at that time and then have the sustainability committee provide recommendations to the city council on which strategy to pursue. And that'll enable us to make sure that the next climate action work plan which starts in 2028 aligns with that long-term vision. Next slide please. All right. So modeling climate action at community scale with all the different interrelated costs and impacts is really hard and there aren't a lot of community scale models out there to draw from. that our two prior modeling efforts have given us a much stronger um understanding of communitywide electrification and we're uh well positioned to lay out some actionable options this year. So our first effort back in 2020 was a partnership between staff and a consultant AECOM. Uh at that in that study, we were only able to identify 72% reductions. And while we were still able to make some preliminary cost estimates with that information, uh staff didn't have the knowledge and time to dig as deeply as we'd like and the consultant didn't have the bud the uh capacity and the budget to do such a comprehensive analysis. But we identified some good early areas to focus on uh and we identified our knowledge gaps as far as programs go. And then we identified the knowledge gaps we needed to focus on in the next study. Then starting in 2024, we contracted with E3 and WDAN to fill in those knowledge gaps uh through studies of EV charging needs and electrification opportunities in the multif family and non-residential sector. And we also had them build out a communitywide funding model for us. Now, as part of that effort, we had uh we had to model a few illustrative scenarios with a focus on the 80 by30 goal uh which we presented to the um the sustainability committee late last year and to the council um earlier this year. Now, we learned a lot about the financial dynamics of communitywide electrification from these scenarios, but they were not intended to provide a consultant-driven definitive answer for what the city should do. We wanted that policy conversation to be staff driven and that's the conversation that we're having this year. So um as we noted earlier, we've achieved quite a bit on our greenhouse gas goals thanks to those early studies and pilots uh with the biggest contributor still the reduction in our electric portfolio emissions followed by high rates of EV adoption in PaloAlto and remote work as well which drives down VMT. Uh we still have a long way to go on building electrification. Um but we've got and that's the toughest area and the one where we do have the most influence locally but we've gotten a great start with about 6% of Palo Alons having electrified an appliance already and programs getting off the ground recently in the commercial and seen the multifac family sector as well. So our goal with this exercise is to build on that past progra progress and figure out how to make it an ongoing practice. Next slide please. So generally what we found in our prior studies and pilot programs is that while good voluntary program designs can accelerate adoption and adoption rates are up five to 10 times from where they were when we just had plain old rebate programs. They can only do so much and regulations are also needed. And then when dealing with community scale programs, upfront rebates require a great deal of upfront funding and they have other issues as well. Um that it would exceed current city resources if we wanted to scale those programs up uh citywide. But we also found that based on 2024 assumptions, electrification is a net community benefit, meaning that the long-term benefits uh offset the increased upfront investment. And this makes sense when you think about the long-term savings for maintaining just one energy system in your homes and your community rather than three systems. But there are transitional issues um in trying to transition from one system from three systems to one system. The benefits are distributed unevenly. Some people see a net benefit, others don't. And uh these are based on 2024 assumptions. So some of these insights might shift as we update our assumptions to reflect the current policy environment. Um, but we don't want to focus on the net community benefit in the 2026 modeling. The most important thing we want to focus on is the cost impact to individual community members and the city along with its utilities since that'll best inform what strategies are going to work best for us. Next slide, please. So, we will be updating those 2024 assumptions. I'm not going to go through every item on this list, but I just wanted to note a few. Uh I'm happy to answer questions on any of them, but first off, um external funding is less available. That was actually a relatively small part of the revenues and the funding sources in the uh illustrative scenarios. Um but we do nevertheless want to update update that. I also just want to note grid modernization costs have gone up, but we're developing more flexible strategies to reduce costs uh to ensure by ensuring we only build capacity when it's needed. Um so we'd update that underlying assumption. And then the future of California's signature EV legislation is uncertain. Advanced clean cars too. Um and that'll have a big effect on our EV forecast which puts more importance on building electrification as a strategy. Next slide please. All right. So when I talk about these strategic alternatives or strategic options um this is what I'm talking about essentially it's a package of policies. Um so that includes the programs assumed in the strategy as well strategy as well as the local regulations. And for each strategy we plan to estimate the adoption rates that this package of policies results in uh and then input that into the model uh to to output the costs. And we can also model the effects of carbon pricing subsidies to maintain affordability for those still using gas as community electrifi electrification proceeds and assumptions about electric rate design. Next slide, please. Uh these are the six alternatives we're proposing to model. So there's a baseline that assumes no local action that allows us to understand the impact of the other five strategies by looking at the differences between that those in the baseline. Uh strategies two and three will illustrate the cost and impact of adoption of income qualified programs and regulations by isolating each of those in its own alternative. Uh strategy four is a combination of strategies two and three. So with some some additional programs to cover non-incomequalified community members uh who are exempt from regulations. So folks who might not be income qualified but might have complex projects uh that might exempt them from regulations but uh for whom we still want to try and drive adoption. Strategy five maximizes end of life electrification through comprehensive programs and regulations potentially uh including for people who are regulated but it doesn't and the the goal here is to see what package of policies would push maximum end of life uh electrification but it doesn't push people to retire equipment early. This one would definitely require additional revenue sources. And then strategy six adds early retirement as a way to achieve the 80% goal on a timeline as uh close as possible to the current 2030 goal. Um it is it's the most ambitious uh option on the on the menu and the closest to what would be needed to reach the 80 by30. Next slide please. So with these scenarios and the updated assumptions, we plan to uh so first we're going to estimate the adoption rates for these six strategies and that'll allow us to estimate the year in which the 80% reductions are achieved for each strategy and then we'll input them into the model along with the updated assumptions and then uh that'll output the community revenue need for each strategy. Um we'll then identify a set of revenue sources and calculate the rate impacts and the impact on community member expenses. And we're likely going to need to work through a few different combinations of revenue sources. Uh and we have some additional internal discussion and legal work to do to work out what combination of revenue sources could be viable. Um we'll also need to factor in how carbon pricing or policies around gas the gas transition and electric rates could affect the outcomes. Uh next slide please. So this slide lists the revenue options that we'd use in the model. Um and obviously each source has different constraints. Um some affect the utility bill, some don't. So taxes not related to the utility bill wouldn't affect bills or energy affordability, but um funding sources related to utility usage would. Um and as they impact the utility bill, that could raise affordability concerns. Even if, as is the case in a lot of electrification projects, those bill increases could be offset by savings in other household expenses, EVs or EV adoption is a good example of that or could result in a lowerc cost energy system uh over the longer term. Uh you still when you see that bill increasing, that's what you're paying attention to. Uh I also just wanted to note the role of restricted revenues like public benefits, capp invest, and LCFS which have been our primary funding source for climate programs. So far, uh, they tend to be most useful for pilots and transitional programs in the years leading up to regulations taking effect. On their own, these funding sources are insufficient for the most ambitious strategies we're modeling. Uh, though they might be enough for some of the less program intensive strategies. And, uh, of course, as we noted to the council at its May 2025 meeting on this topic, using these revenues for climate action programs uh, does mean they can't be used for other compliant purposes. it would reduce rates. Next slide please. I just want to when we have had uh some folks um asking about uh pricing carbon um the you know the the um the price of carbon that's needed to really drive a full um electrification transition is a lot higher than what's in the market right now. you have a gradual scaling up over time. And so the question comes up, is it possible to price carbon? And I just wanted to highlight uh that there are a couple of competing things that affect the gas bill. Um when we did the gas I want to remind everyone about the gas transition study that we brought some preliminary results about last fall. Um which found that very high levels of electrification are required before many mains can be removed. and the preliminary uh so essentially we you know we looked at you have about 40% of the costs for the gas utility that are fixed obviously that varies with market prices um and so there is a certain amount of uh bill increase that happens as sales decline due to communitywide electrification and so that creates a policy choice about whether you need to find another funding source for subsidies that could help provide some relief to folks who are still using ass um and there's an interaction between that phenomenon and you know potential policies that would uh potential carbon pricing policies. So we talked a little bit about carbon pricing alternatives at the April sustainability committee meeting. You know realistically in the beginning years carbon pricing could be a tool to um affect cost effectiveness. In later years, as you have declining sales, you have a policy lever around those additional subsidies or lack of subsidies and how they affect the gas bill. If what you're concerned about is electrification cost effectiveness. Um, so essentially what we're going to do with the modeling is we're going to we're going to take a look at a baseline scenario with no carbon pricing and look at a couple of different subsidy options and then if it makes sense to incorporate carbon pricing is in into the model for one of these options to provide policy information, we'll do that. Next slide please. So we talked to the working group about uh about the this study yesterday. Um there were questions about the six options, but the overall feedback seemed to be that they made sense. Uh there was a lot of discussion about the carbon pricing and gas decommissioning um dimensions of communitywide electrification. Uh there was a comment noting that air district regulations, you know, could be delayed or didn't move for could be delayed or might not move forward and that would affect the strategic options and we have to be prepared to be able to model that if um something like that occurs. And then a comment about uh emphasizing, as I think will be emphasized today, the need to take care to focus on affordability, including looking at sources of funding that don't necessarily impact utility bills, which is definitely on the menu. Um, and then as a potential sub option, um, trying to focus on a single area of electrification to make progress. And then there was also just a a a comment to um ensure we don't delay work on other efforts like local regulations or financing while completing the analys completing the analysis. And that is definitely uh staff's intention to keep those the 2026 2027 work plan moving forward. Next slide please. So this is what we're seeking feedback from the committee and the UAC on. um is uh do these strategic alternatives are these the the six alternatives that are going to give you the range of policy options you need to be able to advise the council on utility impacts and uh to be able to recommend to them a a strategy for um communitywide electrification going forward. >> All right. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate that. I think what would be the most helpful way for us to proceed uh with 10 of us uh is to now turn to any clarifying questions about what you've heard so far and then we'll go to public comment and then we can come back and you know share our insights, thoughts and views on these uh six options. So let me first open it up. It's going to be a little I can't I don't know if I can use these lights because they're they're not helpful. So, I will just look for you. Turn your microphone on and I'll look for red lights for anyone who wants to speak. So, I think that's uh Commissioner Gupta. I happen to be looking to my left and then I'll come back over here. >> Sure. Thank Thank you for the presentation. Um just a clarifying question on option five. Uh when you say maximize end of life, are you talking about uh gas appliance end of life or are you talking about this the gas system end of life or something else? >> Gas appliance end of life. So um and and I I did have we there was pointed out during the working group meeting that um uh some of the regulations might drive a little bit of early retirement but that's the overall intent is um end of life end of gas gas appliance life. >> You mentioned just a very simple clarifying question that looking to replace three systems with one system. What are the three systems? Sorry, I meant to say three systems, electricity, gas, and gasoline. Okay. >> Yeah. Um I did not ask about this um yesterday. I'm curious um just looking at the greenhouse gas inventory where transportation fits in just 57% still coming from on transportation. Does does that fit into this or are we just looking at buildings? And is there a separate discussion on transportation? We're looking at both transportation and buildings, but we do have a lot more influence on buildings. Where we have more influence with transportation tends to be both on alternative on active transportation and then um making sure that there's access to adequate EV charging especially for folks who are underserved. >> So charging is in kind of within each of these options that you're looking at. >> Yes. Yeah. Hi. Uh again, thank you for the presentation. I had two clarification questions. Uh first of all, regarding regulations, what would be an example of regulation and we might have given that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, you know, will have their regulations going forward. uh I you know presumably we wouldn't write something that would conflict with what they're doing but so I'm trying to understand what we what would be an example of regulation we would have that would >> yeah on top of that >> yeah they're meant to be complimentary so um the two most promising looking regulations so far are uh building emission savings ordinance and building performance standards and um essentially what these do is they um they drive electrification in in in residential um as uh homes are sold and in this is something that Berkeley's adopted um and then with building performance standards through a tightening um standard on uh energy use or emissions. >> Okay. So >> generally for larger commercial buildings. >> Okay. So conservation measures that would be separate from the appliance issues that they would address. >> That's right. >> Okay. And then the other question was car what is carbon pricing mean in this case since if if we have uh you know emissionfree electricity and we offset carbon CO2 and our gas with with offsets what's left over what do we what's the price on? Well, uh, carbon offsets, the carbon offset gas program is actually a form of carbon pricing. So, um, one approach is to buy, uh, one approach is to buy products that actually reduce emissions like offsets. So, we do have a carbon pricing program right now, >> right? >> Um, >> that's what I'm trying to understand. >> There are other products. Yeah, there are other products that one could buy. um they have different pricing but another uh another approach and the simplest to simplest to model is simply uh carbon tax >> that's what I'm trying to understand on what >> on natural gas use >> okay so in addition to the offsets of natural gas we would might have a tax a carbon tax on it >> it's something that we can model um I'm not necessarily saying that we want to recommend that I'm I just want to >> definitely not ask for recommend just trying to understand what it means. >> But that's the simplest that's the simplest approach for carbon pricing to model. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Um uh following up on that uh question about revenue sources. Um there was a parcel tax mentioned and so uh how would that function to address this? It would just be uh a a bulk revenue source, not related to carbon usage. >> That's right. Um and I and I think one of the things that maybe helpful to do is to to do a scan of what sorts of approaches to funding uh climate programs are out there. Um a parcel tax is a good standin as a standin for um a non energy related um tax, but there are a lot of other mechanisms that cities are using. And so I think having a scan of that when we bring back the results would be helpful. Well, and then a legal question, uh, whether it be a carbon tax or parcel tax, uh, would either of those be specific taxes and require a twothirds majority, >> Chris. >> Chris, I think everyone's looking at you. I was going to say, >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? Um, if we explored u either a carbon tax or a parcel tax, would those be specific taxes and require a two-thirds majority? >> Uh, they they if they were dedicated to this particular use, they would require two/3s. >> That's what I was assuming. Okay. >> And you know, I I think it's uh useful to look at surveying what are all the different revenue sources. Um, but I also don't want to have lingering out there something that we are thinking may be one or two different options that if we do polling we may find out that they're off the table, especially with that threshold of 2/3 majority. Um, so rather than commissioning a separate poll, have we looked at incorporating a question or two in our annual resident survey? I forget the title of our survey. Um, so we haven't gotten that far. I think where we are right now is trying to determine whether there's even an appetite for a for, um, whether there's even a need for or an appetite for raising additional revenue in the first place. And so, um, >> well, let's start with the need part. uh we've already discussed quite a bit that if we were to really scale our programs, we're far from having the funding to do so. Um so that I thought had in one sense establish the need. Uh but if the funding to do so is not available then we would be pivoting to other approaches. So that's why, you know, a little bit of a chicken and egg issue, but I I would encourage us to look at getting a sense, even if it's not a full poll on this, can we incorporate that in our annual uh survey and see whether uh it's something that has some possibility or we just say no, those are off the table. We need to start focusing in other areas. Yeah, the I'll just add that the timing is good for that suggestion because that rules out in the late summer and this is the time that we're starting to think about any changes to questions or new questions we might want to incorporate. >> Great. And council member, I think how you described it as a sense is a really nice way and elegant way to say um because that resident uh our annual resident survey isn't going to be the same statistical sampling and valid as the council is used to and we do you know specific ballot measure polling looking at voter um profiles and the like. >> Yeah. Although even from that survey we get um uh error bands that are reasonably valuable especially across the whole community more so then we look at uh it breaks it down by segments of the community but this would be a communitywide question. >> Correct. >> Um what percentage of our citizens have EVs do we know? Um, I should have that on the tip of my tongue, but it's uh it's right around 20%. >> And isn't that some of the highest in the nation? >> It is. >> So, if we were to, you know, go full out on electrification, but didn't move the needle on EVs, would we get there to 2030, >> so that's we're in the middle of updating our EV forecasts? uh with with the with the advanced clean cars 2 regulation in place. Um I think the outlook was that EVs were a major driver. Um >> but what I'm really saying is let's assume let's assume it doesn't move. Like maybe it moves to 22%. Let's assume it doesn't move. If we went all in on the rest of the electrification, do we get there or do we not get there or do we not know yet? >> Yeah. So I I I think so I think it's unlikely that electric vehicles won't move. If they didn't move, um then it would be well near impossible to do it just with building electrific electrification because that's about onethird of the remaining emissions. Um so we do need EV adoption and we do need to make sure there's adequate charging. Um, and that will be harder to do without the state regulations, but there are a lot of different factors at play. >> Why do you think they're going to move? What's what's the what's the drivers in in people's behavior given that we're the highest I think in California and highest in the country? >> Um, we've seen continued adoption year on year on year um and increasing adop increasing purchases of new vehicles. I think we're going to have to see what happens over the next few years with changes in um incentives and changes in state regulations, changes in tariffs. Um but there's a lot of investment in this space and uh people are working to bring costs down and gas prices are high, gasoline prices are high. So there's a there's a lot of uncertainty but um there are also a lot of factors that point towards continued EV adoption especially in a place like Palo Alto. Have there been particular things that you've seen people do that have moved the needle where they adopt more EVs >> or is it just a general, you know, we want to own EVs, gases prices are higher, it's the right thing to do, you know, and people is it internally driven or we do we have levers is what I'm really asking. >> We have fewer levers for actual EV adoption, but one of the biggest obstacles to EV adoption is availability of charging. And so that's a lever that we do have. Um there there are also um I think you know paying attention to electric rates um is also important. Palatoto's lower electric rates I think provide a motivation for adoption and um there are um ways to do purchase incentives um especially you know income qualified is where where you see a lot more um a lot more focus on the purchase incentives but I'm I'll just acknowledge that we have fewer levers for that than we do for building electrification. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I just want to follow up on that. Um, so I I couldn't hear clearly that the question, but I think it was uh what portion of our uh car ownership is EV essentially. Is that what you were saying? 20%. >> That's right. >> But uh as staff has been updating us repeatedly, we're now I think it is 50 or just over 50% of all purchases or EVs. Correct. We we're verifying that number uh right now even before you asked the question council member because wanted to make that point that being at 20% if you've got 45 or 50% of new purchases EVs is continuing to drive up that. >> That's right. And that's been going up steadily. Um and uh and I've made the point that families that have two vehicles uh my anecdotal uh experience is that they predominantly drive the EV and um and so the EV use in the community today is in all likelihood above that 20% and either way we're on that track and as the point you made that um that the market forces are driving down the costs of EVs and giving greater selection. But then we still have the state mandate in place of um uh no ICE uh vehicle sales in 2035. Is that correct? >> We do, but it's subject to legal it's been subject to legal challenges. So the FA you know so the impact of it is uncertain. >> That's right. But it is as of right now that is state law. Correct. Um, that's I I will say that's my understanding. However, I think someone with a little better knowledge of the the legal landscape, you know, I need to need to rely on them and I don't know if we have that information for you tonight. >> Oh, looks like our city attorney might >> I mean, is you're correct that it that it remains state law on the books. The enforcability of that law is going to, you know, is in question and might take some time to resolve those questions. >> Understood. That's okay. Thank you. >> Can can I provide the figure we were discussing? So, um the most recent data we have on percentage of new vehicles purchased in PaloAlto that are EVs is 55%. >> Did you say what percent? >> 55. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. That is particularly meaningful because one of the things we do at the air district is give out grants to communities around the bay to build EV infrastructure. And from time to time, you know, when we get the use statistics back because we look at, you know, dollars per ton of carbon removed, they're not good. But that's because they don't have the the wherewithal to buy the vehicles and some of the lower income communities. So if ours is at 55, that makes uh then then you're right to be really focusing on the infrastructure. So um that is very good news on that front. Um I wanted to ask uh on the underlying assumptions to be updated. The very first one is external funding source availability federal state etc. And if this is supposed to be I don't know how far out we're we're looking or thinking about modeling but wow good luck with that. And I say that because um you know we we uh have seen a fall off in certain federal funding especially for EVs. We don't know in two years exactly what's going to happen. Um there's just a lot of um moving pieces on the funding. So can you talk a little bit about how you would grapple with that in the modeling process? Uh we're still working through that, but I think I think the likely outcome is that it's going to be a fairly low contribution um to available funding sources. And um and I just want to note that the the uncertainty in these projections is exactly why we wanted our consultant to build a reusable model that we can update as we need to, just as we do for utility rate models or utility um uh supply projection models. Um this is this is a changing landscape and we may need to do updates. >> Yeah. Because all all of these six options, all of the modeling is extremely multivariate and you know each of those variables could change within an option. And uh your last slide uh from the working group saved me from having to remind people that the timing of the air district regulations is up in the air at the moment. And so being able to adjust for each of these variables I think is going to be essential in getting models that we can use not just initially but you know sort of as we review um our choices. So all right thank you. Any further questions before we go to public comment? All right. Seeing none. Madam clerk, do we have speakers? I'll come back to you. We currently have two requests to speak. Our first speaker speaker is Mera J. >> Mera, you should be able to unmute yourself. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, I agree with everything that you're saying. Has to be Hold on. Like public comment. Do you have a comment on our six options for electrification in Palo Alto? >> I think not. >> The speaker has muted themselves, so we'll move on. >> Yes. >> Our next speaker is Stephen R. >> Hi, this is Steve Rosenlo. Um, I have no substantive comment to make, but uh, the Zoom feed has a traffic noise on it and it makes it very hard to hear the audio. Um, it's sometimes police sirens, sometimes heavy equipment. Right now, it's just like freeway traffic. So, there's an open mic somewhere that would be nice if you could turn off. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you, Dr. Rosen Bloom. We will attempt to troubleshoot that as best we can. I see a lot of staff looking around. So, appreciate the heads up on that. All right. So, it sounds like we have no further requests to speak. So, we will close public comment. All right. So, let's bring it back to the deis for a discussion of these options. And I I will start with you because I think I didn't quite get to you before we went to public comment. >> It's okay. I didn't know if my question was too uh detailed as in our discussion of solutions. So, um I'm super sensitive to the affordability of electricity given the goals of the city um the goals of the utility commission. We've discussed um sensitivity to all the utility rates rising. Um but in particular, electric prices rising seems problematic in our goals of trying to electrify everything. So, um I did have a question about, you know, we're always limited to cos for our pricing and um I have a question about the legality or the ability to have kind of gas transition projects be budgeted and can those go into a co-et. So, for example, if we're getting people to switch out of a gas uh HVAC system into a an electric HVAC system, could we fund a program and since it's moving away from gas has something to do with gas, can that go into a KOSA analysis? >> I think it be good to defer to our attorney. Um, so, so I mean I think that's that's a that's a complicated question um that I I'm you know that I know that our office is looking at but I I mean I don't have the answer to that sitting here. >> Can I build on that um quickly? I think Jonathan um I wanted to just thank you for the presentation. Um, but I am sensitive to the fact that in building out these models, there are just, you know, thousands of variables that are all interacting. Um, and so anything you can do to simplify the takeaway for our commission makes this both easier to interpret and apply. So something along Commissioner Croft's um line of inquiry might be what's the ratio of a electricity price to a gas price and how does that ratio end up influencing this sort of transition to electrification? Right? That's a piece of actionable policy information that um you we may still use KOSAS to set rates um but we can concretely understand the degree to which those varying prices relative to one another um are likely to impact the trajectory on which we're headed. So I would just encourage you to continue to look for comparable both like tornado plot which variables matter and and elevate those um for our visibility but also to the extent that you um create dimensionless numbers of that sort um that that can guide our thinking and our decision-m would that's an output that would be very helpful. >> That's very helpful. Um, and if there are additional model outputs that it helps to that would help the commission evaluate utility bill impacts, I think that that's definitely feedback we're looking to hear. >> If I could add, Commissioner M. So, so um, Sacramento Fellow Municipal Utilities District has some metrics like that in terms of the electric rates and affordability in terms of people potentially fuel switching um, to EVs. So, they are tracking that as well. So that's one of the things we're talking internally on the group and the previous climate action studies did take a look at a comparison to EV charging with lower rates in PaloAlto in comparison and what that means to a internal combustion engine as well >> right I mean certainly we don't have no control over gasoline prices so that that's outside of our control um on a vehicle electrification front but on a building electrification front um you know ultimately we do set both gas and uh you know and electric rates and this 18% kind of search charge also is a is a lever um it's an affordability lever but it's also a price increase lever and I think as a commission we've wrestled with that um as like how do we maintain affordability while still not undercutting an electrification transition >> is the temporal scope of the study to 2030 or when you say the modeling and or are you looking beyond that or is it and I guess the context of my question is given we can't address very much in the electric vehicle side we've heard gas the for the natural gas the baseline forecast is that it's going to go down by about 1 to 2% between now and 2030. I'm beginning to wonder if any new projects or new policies that we would institute, you said the study's going to be available in the first half of next year, would really have much impact. Um, and I I mean I don't see the levers if we're talking 2030 that would really make a substantial difference. So, and I don't see for example that we have 85% of our customers more or less residential customers have at least one gas appliance. I don't see any impact from decommissioning gas for many many years. So, just a kind of a question. I mean, are we going to be looking at now you can't tell you haven't done the study, but are we just going to be looking at really small differences here? >> Uh, no. And I think the next five years is not the it's not the not the most important time horizon for this study. We're looking out over decades um in this study. And we'll need to as we look at those longer term uh uh strategies. We'll have to look at what what are the strategies over the next what are the shorter medium-term strategies over the next five years that complement that longer term effort most effectively. And um you're right that over the next 5 years, it's what it's been over the last several years, which is um the sort of continued push to create a critical mass of um adopters to the point that it becomes mainstreamed and you can regulate it and drive those adoption rates up even higher. Um so uh just following up on that uh concern, we we had had some previous discussions at this committee meeting on the reality that um a couple realities. Our programs and our progress are really leading. Uh we're ahead of almost any other city anywhere. And yet we are not going to hit our 8030 goal. Neither is anybody else. Uh but when these goals were first set, nobody had any idea because this never been done. And um so then the question is um you know what should we do going forward both in terms of setting a time horizon on the goal or revised one which I personally favor continuing to be very aggressive uh but recognizing the reality that uh 2030 is not going to be our success date. Um and second uh we I guess 3 years ago added a goal of 100% carbon neutrality which has actually become a more broadly uh uh adopted goal among cities and um and other government agencies. Um in reality it's easier to meet interestingly than the 8030 goal. um perhaps less meaningful. Uh but nevertheless, uh if we uh in parallel look at how can we work even more toward the 100% carbon neutrality and push out modestly our 8030 goal so that we are still on as aggressive a path as we can realistically pursue. Um those would be kind of the directions that have been going on in my own mind and I want to put that out on the table for feedback. >> Commissioner Mets. >> Yeah. U well first of all I thought the uh strategic alternatives that were uh laid out seemed to you know cover the spectrum. So I thought that was uh a pretty good list. Uh I have a question though sort of what's underneath those? In other words, what would be the content? Uh specifically, we have I think we can claim a pretty successful uh heat pump out water heater program. I think we're installing a couple of hundred units per year, right? But if the air district uh regulations go into force, that will require all residential water heaters uh to be replaced over, you know, as they are as they have to be replaced with heat pumps, which would be, you know, I'm assuming a tenth someday. They have a lifetime like 10 yearish. So they'd have something like 10% of them would have to be replaced every year, which would be in the thousands. So does this program address, you know, how we would marshall our resources to be able to uh support the community in that kind of transition uh with both just in terms of logistics, in terms of finance, all the things that we're doing in the existing program on a you know like one at least one order of magnitude smaller scale. Are we prepared to scale that up? Is that intended to be included in here? Um you know all all those sort of basic questions about how that would work. uh when and if those regulations go into force. >> So it is it is in here at a high level in terms of each each in each uh strategic option we look at we have to make some assumptions about what sort of support we're providing um uh to people who are regulated by the air district regulations. So, for example, in option four, um the we would be looking at um programs that are supporting people who aren't regulated but not people who are. Um and that that's sort of the level at that level that that high level is what would be included in this analysis. But um at a much more detailed level, we're um we're both talking internally and talking with the sustainability committee. We just had a conversation on this in May about what kind of support we we believe uh PaloAlto needs to provide as we enter into these uh this regulatory environment. And we're also in conversation with the uh CCAs and other municipalities around the region to try and coordinate efforts. Um, and I don't want to go too far down this road, but just the two things I'll say is that you have a range of supports that you can provide from permitting to activating contractors to incentives or financing um for people who who aren't as who are maybe exempt from the regulations and need some support. The other thing I'll say is that the regulations uh there was just a discussion within the last month of providing exemptions from for uh as many as 40% of people from these regulations. Number one. And then number two, the way that these regulations will come into effect is is complex and uh you're likely not going to get 100% of the people who are regulated complying with these regulations as well. So, we're trying to make some estimates on what we think the impact will be um and simultaneously figuring out how to support people. >> Okay. It's So, if I understood what you were saying, it was possibly support people who are not impacted by the air district regulation. >> Yeah. And we we so we are uh we are getting a little bit of field. Um but the conversation in May um also uh talked about whether there should be any support for people who are regulated and um there was a little bit there was some interest in understanding the cost of that but um I think more support for letting regulation um uh folks who are regulated um you know don't necessarily need the financial support. Um, again, this is a very open open and fluid topic and it's not really the subject of tonight's uh tonight's discussion, but it's something that, you know, we're going to factor in different options to different strategies. >> Okay? I mean, my thought was that suddenly thousand literally thousands of people are going to have to deal with this each year within our community. and we have uh I think a pretty wellestablished program at least my experience with the program was that it was very well organized and so on. Um so it would seem like somebody who suddenly has to deal with this whether they want to or not that would be a valuable support. Um, yeah, I mean, and and it would require a substantial amount of funding to do that. And again, these are discussions, these are discussions we're having, and it's something that is, I think, applicable in the next 3 to 5 years. And it's something we're going to work into the models. Uh, but I don't have numbers for you tonight. I think we're >> No, I wasn't even thinking of financial support, but more the logistical support. here's how you go about Yeah. getting a heat pump, water heater, and all the contracting and all the all the stuff that >> Yeah, there's a there's a cost to that as well to that technical assistance, but we that that is one of the options on the table as well. For sure. >> Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I I would just add in that um you know there there it is multivariant multiffactorial because there will be some people who um want to change before burnout and so having support in place for those if they're low income or need other help is uh one thing. It's about 45% that we that under staff's current proposal at the air district that would be carved out. Part of that's income based. Part of that's if you have to update upgrade your panel. Part of that is if you have to put in what is it more than 50 feet of electrical line. There's various different things that cause those carveouts as currently proposed by staff. Um that vote won't take place till probably November. Um but each of those um the customer profiles that would end up with each of those carveouts could be somewhat different. So the support that would be needed in some cases is financial, some cases not. So, um, yeah, just to reiterate that, um, Council Member Lou, >> thank you. Uh, appreciate all the comments so far. I think, uh, setting a realistic time frame for an 80% reduction goal is really important, but one drum that I'll continue to beat as we do this modeling is I would also love to see what that what a per capita emissions reduction looks like. I don't know if uh modeling or considering any form of population growth over these time frames is something that we can do and is already included. Um uh I think that sort of removes the potential disincentive when considering the goals to adding housing when we know adding housing can actually uh reduce the per capita emissions meaningfully. Yeah, that's actually been one of the um one of the real uh triumphs I think for Palatoto so far is that we've actually reduced emissions on a per capita basis pretty significantly down to uh I think California's target for I can't remember which a chat's going to pop up here at some point with our sustainability manager reminding me. Um but yes, we could we could include that metric. >> Okay. Um I really appreciate it and agree entirely with the working group feedback. uh the working group feedback working group uh did flag uh a point about neighborhood or block level gas line decommissioning which I thought was interesting but that's not a strategy or part of any of the alternatives that we're modeling right now right is that a pilot that we do and then later we decide whether it's actually a viable thing to fold in >> so there there's a fair amount of internal discussion about electrification of whole blocks um and tracking of efforts on this across uh across um California. Um for the modeling um we're going to have to see uh we we don't really have good estimates I think of what sort of cost savings we might be able to leverage. Um so it may not be something that gets fully factored into this initial uh initial run. >> Yeah. Yes. I realized that a uh block or neighborhood level gas line decommissioning is a whole another level of geospatial analysis and a whole another level of financial analysis that might sort of blow up the complexity of this analysis. So I think uh as much as I would love for that to be included in one of the six options or be a seventh option, I realize um that that might not be feasible and I I think I'm okay with that. Um uh not to get too far into the specifics of how these alternative scenarios work. Um but I just want to think aloud a little bit about how we work with income because there is an explicitly income qualified option but I also suspect that in some of the other options um like maximizing end of life replacement and so on that there would also be some sort of income or equity based component. Um, I think income is not necessarily the full picture, right? Like a lower income renter is going to be have very different ability to electrify than a uh retiree who's technically low income but maybe lives in a $5 million house and has a $5 million brokerage account or something. So, it's not like necessarily the full picture of equity and income is also not necessarily the full picture of workability. Um uh because some of the programs that we'd want to implement would be most effective if we just did something that was multif family or uh for renters or for uh small businesses and small restaurants or something like that. Um, so can you talk more about the like how we should think about income and whether we can include that kind of nuance besides just sort of straight income into the analysis of some of these alternatives. Yeah, we've we've made a lot of progress over the last year or so um in breaking down and and we we showed some charts about this at the May uh at the May meeting where we're breaking down uh where folks live and their income levels and trying to get a sense of where do we have um low-income homeowners, homeowners versus condo owners? uh how where do we have um low-income renters and how and and where are these folks, you know, are these folks in dedicated affordable housing versus um single family homes versus market rate housing? And so, uh we've made a lot of progress on breaking that down because each of those groups are going to have different needs for program implementation. Mhm. >> Now, um I will say that the you know the um the building type is the primary driver for the the cost of the actual measure. And so when you combine that estimate of where the um uh how many um uh low-income residents that we have and what sorts of buildings they're in, that gives you the basis, I think, to be able to do some modeling of different sorts of program types. >> Okay, great. I would hate for us to do low income but then only do uh low-inccome single family homes or uh uh I think having that data incorporated into this um uh >> commissioner can I just add a couple points when you were talking about you know the funding and affordability and and income for residents. So yes, >> um as Jonathan mentioned, we are coordinating and getting information from other CCAs and they've done some surveys with their residents and do you have funds to do this type of improvement and if does that change with you know 0% financing or other financing tools. So you know that information we can we can glean off them as well also other surveys here. And just circling back to your other question on electrification of a block and um as as folks may recall back in 2023, you know, we did look at at areas where we have gas main replacement programs, culde-sacs, is that a possibility of of maybe looking at those areas and and electrifying in lie of actually um rebuilding the system that we're going to replace. So uh we have some geospaceial analysis on that. We put it in GIS, you know, we're looking at that now. So those are the one of the questions that came up yesterday and we have active navs looking at that right now. So >> right I understand that's a big and interesting but uh I I guess I just want to confirm that that was a parallel thread and not directly integrated into this >> not integrated with this but a separate path. >> Yes. Um maybe one last question uh another sort of big question that I don't mean to derail things. Will this analysis in any way help us be able to work backwards if we were to set a target date like 2050 for decommissioning 90% of our natural gas supply or something like that? Um or 2040 or some arbitrary date, some arbitrary percentage. uh uh uh yeah the question is just uh does the model in the framework that we're building also let us just sort of plug in numbers and then work backwards and see what the costs and uh friction would be or is that >> just such a different modeling >> exercise I don't know if I have the whole scope of your question but I think I think the answer is yes that we we we essentially have yearon-year information um so you can you can look at that and figure out where some of the friction points might be along the way. >> Okay. All right. Uh great clarifications. I think um uh I Yeah, appreciate the clarifications on the scope and I think most all of my concerns are already baked in. So, I appreciate that. >> Thank you, Council Member Lou. Um I love the per capita idea. Um I I just wanted to say on the um low-inccome definition, I appreciate your questions. Just FYI, what the air district has done on low-inccome qualification is to look at housing cost burden because of what you mentioned. It's not just what's your income, but like how much you're paying in mortgage or not. Um and so there are a bunch of different ways that we could look at um that factor. Um I'm going to um move on. I think Commissioner Gupta, you've gone on and off a couple times with your light before Commissioner Tuker rang in. So I'll go to you in that order. But let's I think what the staff is really looking for is if there are any uh revisions or discomfort with the six alternatives that have put out. So if you could wrap that into your answers, that'd be great. So Commissioner Gupta. >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you again for the presentation. And uh let me just quickly echo Council Member Bert's um statement that uh you know, we might be not making 2030 for our goals, but I think we should be uh aggressive and trying to pursue uh to pursue them nonetheless. Um so thank you. very excited for the the planning that you've initiated here. Um uh kind of my questions are are based on this this these anecdotes I'm I'm I'm experiencing from reaching out to residents about our utility and about electrification goals. There's a growing view in the city especially particularly from those telling stories of uh from having electrified their own homes that their bills have gone up actually. They've spent uh you know anywhere from $10 to $30,000 upgrading um the electric system in their house. they've upgraded appliances and now the utility bill at the end of the day on electric has been more expensive than gas. Um, and so that kind of informs a lot of my questions on this. I think we've talked a lot about the affordability question here and I think you know as we present this to uh to the city I think we really need to have a story about how this will save and I think you mentioned this in your own presentation how this will save you a resident of Palo Alto uh money on utility bill while being great for the environment and I think we should really clearly show that and again I don't know if those anecdotes are true. I mean there could be a lot of factors involved in you know what utility bills folks are experiencing. Um so my my um you know in the utility conversation um I've I've raised this issue of of uh having coherence between our grid mod and electrification investments and our and our gas system investments. So we're spending you know $400 million on grid mod uh to electrify but we're also spending tens of millions of dollars I think at least $50 million on maintaining our gas system. Um, and I am wondering if um, uh, uh, you know, as we look at these different options, have we thought about modeling what the stranded asset situation might be in our gas system, um, whether we can credit any avoided gas capex, um, in any of these six alternatives and present that, um, as part of it. Um, and then, um, adding on to that, u, I think council member Lou referenced this and the working group may have referenced this as well, this concept of zonal decommissioning. Um, uh, you know, what are those zones might look like best for our gas system? Um, you know, I actually do think we should try to include some of that analysis in this because it might help us avoid, you know, potentially tens of millions of dollars of stranded assets as we're looking at this on uh decades wide scale. So, that's my first question. Then I'll have more questions after that, too. >> Yeah, I want to turn to our utilities director. Um, but I I did want to say that we've, you know, we've uh made various uh to taken various looks at at capex and it is complicated. Um I do think there's that the gas transition study can provide a little bit more information for that. Um and it it's likely you know it likely has some effect but you know based on the high level studies we've done in the past it's probably not a determinative effect but I think every every uh you know every um measure that you take helps move toward the goal and so it is on our radar. Uh but just for a broader answer, I wanted to turn to our utilities director on this topic. >> Yeah. So the natural gas system is federally regulated. We are required to do a lot of inspections and replacements for our systems, not only for safety, but for frankly also affordability for our customers. So um we also actively apply for federal grants. So as as uh Commissioner Gustaf, you know, we we received grants from the federal government to replace our system that that are still affordable for our customers. Um, so have we looked into the wholesale changes and modifications of of zonally reducing? No. Uh, not yet. But part of this gas transition study, the preliminary results were more financial analysis. We do have a gas model and we're starting to look at that to see what that transition will look like. And at the same time, we have an obligation to serve our customers in an affordable and safe fashion and we will continue to do so. So those are the balancing parts that we have as having this utility. Um, in terms of the uh the question on uh on electric rates and is it is that switch moving from natural gas to electric um I will probably have to defer back over to Jonathan on that on the efficiency of some of these appliances and it also depends on how those those folks use energy. Um but as as you see folks um moving toward EVs I mean that's the primary driver for your increased um electric bill is is that type of fuel switching as well. So, we don't want to conflate those issues as well, but would love that feedback from those folks to to help us really get in tune to what they're seeing. >> Yeah. And I'll just note that Sorry, wrong with the microphone. Yeah. And I'll just note that we're we're trying to get a better handle too uh on it. It is always hard to track the impact of a single appliance um on an overall gas bill, but it is possible. And so we're trying to get a better handle on some of that tracking first in the commercial space, but um but also residential as well. So that that should help over the longer term. >> Oh, great. Thank you, >> Commissioner Gupta. I know you said you had questions plural. Um we were going to try to stick with the council five minutes per round. I'll let you have one more if you'd like, but we do have three other commissioners that I think want to speak. So it's your your call whether you want to do one more now. >> Oh, sure. I'll do >> But we'll come back too. >> Yeah, you can do one now if you want. >> Oh, sure. Yeah, I'll do one more. um just to extend council member Lou's um questions on um kind of looking at the different income groups and um I think he exposed a good question on um looking at renters. Uh I reviewed the website uh our city website maybe about a couple months ago on how can renters kind of electrify um and uh you know they have unique uh circumstances right because their their their residence is actually controlled by their landlord. Um, so I'm wondering if we're considering that as an aspect in these six uh different scenarios. Um, because I believe, you know, half of half of PaloAlto are are renters. So that's probably a big chunk of our um housing stock. >> I'll get you a new one. Thank you. this one. Okay, great. This is the specialized city clerk one. Thank you. Um, >> it's got too many fancy buttons. So, um, sorry, I lost the question. >> How do we the the rental the rental question on the six options? How do we Is that >> the question? I've got it. I've got it. Thank you. Um so the uh um what's interesting about this as a question is that those landlords are also subject to the air district regulations and so you need to factor in that regulatory effect and then um I think the question is whether we're planning to factor in uh portable induction cooktops for example or window-mounted heat pumps. Um, I think I need to check back on that, but I think this is I'll take that as a comment. Um, and make sure that whatever we're doing, we're making sure to take into account the impacts unless they're marginal. >> Thank you. Yeah. Hi. Um, so I concede I'm not al I'm not crystal clear on exactly what it is that staff would like or need from uh us um and what questions you'd most like answered. But um it's clear that you're looking at I mean from my point of view a lot of the right things uh in in considering the how we're hitting SAP goals. notably the connection to gas transition which is hugely important. Um so you're thinking about that the right way as far as I can tell. Um you're thinking about the impact on electric rates also super important. Um you're going to be u modeling and producing you know you're asking all kinds of questions like how much revenue is needed what are the right revenue sources and so forth. So I'm not sure what more I add to that. Um but uh since Pat or uh council member Bert did point out the question of power sourcing so carbon-f free power sourcing uh I'll bring up what what I think is one of the most important topics we need to be thinking here and that's gridscale batteries here locally not necessarily in San Bernardino County that too but local grids scale batteries and storage um also distributed resources so solar and storage um at large scale so on all of our commercial roofs, the roof of Cberly, uh the kind of operations that we we the utility could be operating in front of meter, that needs to be part of it. And then uh of course I'll ask about grid mod. I noticed that one of the assumptions that needs and and I think it's chart three or four that needs revisiting is the cost of grid mod. Let me ask first um in your view why does the cost of grid modu affect the questions or the modeling of these six scenarios? grid. >> All right. So to the extent that um uh grid capacity additions are needed um the the gr grid capacity additions are needed. Um that's going to have to factor into the cost of electri of communitywide electrification overall. and the utilities team has done a a really good job of of you know thinking through all the different dimensions of grid mod and which ones are you know really specifically related to that extra capacity and which are related to aging infrastructure so we I think have the the numbers at our disposal to be able to to update that assumption >> anything else because the >> yeah just in terms of grid mod I think the that's one of the the larger capital projects obviously in the city only second to the the wastewater treatment plant. But when you look at these six different models in terms of the adoption that may push some of the grid mod projects and we have 19 projects defined now maybe a little faster than others. So that would have to go into that that um that modeling as well as to the extent that our there need to be more incentives or programs or um uh funds necessary to have this adoption by the community. How do we generate that revenue and then what the expenses are? So grid mod isn't tied to it just because it's it's the win and wear approach and then how fast we adopt. If the adoption comes at a slower scale, then there are probably some levers we can pull in terms of how quickly we need to do that grid modernization so that um we we're not um building the infrastructure faster than uh the communities electrifying. >> I realize that the topic of grid mod is adjacent to it's not right in the heart of this whole discussion, but given the 440 million, it's a pretty big nextoor neighbor. Um, and one of the questions, one of the points that gets made over and over, UAC finance committee and so forth is we'd have to do a lot of this anyway. And UAC at least has never seen an analysis to estimate how much and what specifically would have to be done anyway. Um, I do know from looking at the March presentation made to this group, which UAC did not have presented, um, you begin to break down the costs in a in a better, more specific way. But that $244 million that I believe is all around 12 kilovolt uh, upgrades is so vast. It's more than all the other components of the 440 million combined. It is so big and and from as far as I can tell uh poorly detailed that it's just hard to hard to answer that important question what has to be done anyway and the when and where is promising it's really good because you can do exactly that you can phase up the grid mod spending but um I would urge uh uh analysis and answers to that question so because it has such a big effect on rates Um, one last thing I'd like to say on the battery thing I mentioned earlier is that uh I I know we've done analysis. I just don't think it's possible to it's very difficult at least to keep up with keep our analysis up to date with the plummeting cost of storage and deploying storage systems. Um, and so I really challenge the current notion that uh, gridscale batteries here locally don't pencil out. Um, I'm eager to see new analysis on that because again it affects grid mod, the cost of grid mod, the rates and um, uh, everything we're talking about. >> Do you have anything you want? >> Well, um, just just to circle back. So, one of the requests that uh we will be fulfilling with the UAC is looking at distribution storage as part of that and what those costs look like. Uh there was a presentation uh by by Jonathan and looking at that and how it it didn't meet the cost benefit ratios and we we'll still bring those back to the UAC. Um and in terms of our ability to take a look at the value and benefit from really looking at storage on a utility scale outside, it's also where the the energy is being generated. So the some of that value of the storage is the ability to discharge during uh when um when it has the most value and when you know Palaltto is using that power and having those batteries in areas where there is excess solar that so we can charge the batteries with very very cheap power is is one of those benefits. So um so when you look at bringing power and having batteries in in PaloAlto, you really don't have that benefit of charging them with cheap power because we do not have local generation here of that scale. Um even if you take into account the potential to add, you know, solar at uh at facilities, but it is something that we're bringing back and looking at and it's it's not something that we're taking for granted or or won't be reevaluating. There there's also other cities evaluate this at the same time. We know that our southern California um utilities have looked at this and looking at distributed generation and storage in lie of other types of centralized generation and they also found it was not economical. Um but you know so that's I just want to give some of that background to it as well but still something that we'll take a look at because things do change. >> Hey let's agree to disagree for now and discuss it soon because um like I said it's hard to keep up with how fast this is changing in the favor of uh solar and Okay. Um, just to give you a little solace on the other question about the um, you know, we we would need to do part of it anyway. I don't remember council member Bird exactly what the fraction was, but I remember before we embarked on the grid mod project and it came to either this committee or council a few times and we did understand that we had aging infrastructure and we were going to have to replace a fair chunk of it. So the question was what is the delta to do this additional mo modernization. So we did actually we did look at it at the time before embarking about 40% uh Pat saying so anyway um with that um council member sorry Mr. matter. >> No, thank you. >> Fair enough. >> Okay. Um, thank thank you again. I I guess I want to just come back to this idea that like we are not modeling to meet a regulatory target. So the precise number doesn't matter. um instead the actionable policies that fall out and the ability for the general public to understand how those policies relate to decarbonization trajectories is very important. Um, I would like you to think about um how we might visualize this and publish this model for as a communication tool and and whether it's feasible to do that. Um whether it's feasible to simplify things enough that you know people citizens of Palo Alto and and business owners can play with it and understand why we're going to propose the changes that we're going to propose. Um I understand that the resourcing may not be adequate to do that. Um I think the resourcing is light, very light as it is. Um but I would really encourage us to to think about that. Um again I I think that the you know that's going to push us towards kind of like metrics that are non-dimensional and and generalizable. So like for instance on the affordability thing like some very clear analysis of how total bill levels push up housing unaffordability or total housing unaffordability um and for whom would be super pertinent to a lot of this discussion right so that we understand okay look there's a cap how if we start applying taxes and to to manipulate um prices or we start to do x y and z like what's going to happen right um to that affordability stock. Um, it's not specific to your scope, but it it really is what ends up driving a lot of what happens in this model. Um, >> I'm happy to say it actually is part of the model and part of the scope that it does output that information. >> Amazing. Um, I'll just say on the parcel tax thing, I personally think it's just like economically inefficient to tax something that isn't um influencing behavior. And so like if I had to cut anything, it would be looking at taxes that aren't energy related um as a sub as a way to subsidize these activities. Um that's my own personal opinion and people are welcome to disagree. Um I do think that another question in here um is how you end up allocating revenue to different programs. Um so like what do you um how do you decide what to spend the money on first? Um, and there's a big difference. I think this actually touches very directly on Commissioner Tuger's comment. Um, which is that there are ancillary benefits to some of these investments. There are air quality benefits, there are resiliency benefits, etc. Um, to the extent that you know and those are judgment calls in the model. um the order of operations uh or the order with which you kind of like march up that curve of of technology options. Um so I'd just like to ask how that those ancillary benefits are being accounted for and the degree to which um you are weighting things like resiliency and and local air quality. >> Yeah. Um so those co- benefits aren't directly factored into the model. um the you know the the impacts on household expenses and energy costs and city revenue needs those are all factored in directly. um the co- benefits, we did take a look at those um in the 2021 study as a not a not a quantified but a um >> and in terms of uh prioritization essentially when we set up a scenario we're going to be setting up what we're planning to spend money on and then all of that money gets spent. Uh there's not a they we can determine what the cost effectiveness of different measures is. um but more as a tool as we're uh engaged in implementation as opposed to um when we're designing the model. So those those decisions have to get made ahead of inputting the the programs into >> I see. So you're not you're not spending more on vehicle electrification because that's where you see the largest carbon savings. You're saying I'm going to spend this much on vehicle electrification. I'm going to spend this much on building electrification. And that's therefore what my like deterministic >> yes but when we make those decisions we're taking the cost effectiveness into account and that was in the SAP funding study itself is that uh marginal cost of abatement curve. Uh so we're aiming for the the lowest cost basket of measures that achieves the goal we're trying to achieve. >> Okay. Um I guess I would just say like to the degree to which you can then find ways to communicate alongside this um both what like how that balance of um allocation across if not every like little sector at least like this is how much we it makes sense to to um invest in building electrification versus vehicle electrification, right? That's another kind of big picture policy decision that you could tweak in the model and either say it doesn't like it's insensitive to it or it really matters, right? Um and I think it also helps communicate why and you know here's the ancillary benefit of doing this as a to the degree that you can you can bring that in and show those co- benefits. Um I think it's going to help the citizens of Palto get on board with um with what we're proposing. I I think that's all. Uh yeah, I'm I'm done. Thank you. And uh I'll go to uh Commissioner Sharf, but I also know Commissioner Croft, you have your light on. If you want to turn it off, so because I think I'm draining all these batteries by you all having to have your lights on. All right. Thanks. >> So I wanted to come back to the strategic alternatives that we're modeling. Just so it's clear in my head. So on the baseline, it's basically we do nothing. But do you include them? Do you include the airboard regulations and the state regulatory framework that exists? >> Yes. >> Right. So it's so those would be without Palo Alto's special programs or something like that. >> That's right. >> And then when you move to the next one, the income qualified ones. Have you decided how you're modeling the programs? I mean, I thought there was a sort of a disconnect, maybe I got it wrong, between what um council member Lou was saying a little bit, what count what Commissioner Gupta was saying and you know, are you modeling this that you know, primarily that if you own the property, you know, here are the the biggest things that would move it or are we looking and saying, you know, if you're if you're a residential tenant, I actually have no idea how you'd get residential tenants to to, you know, get some sort of subsidy to get their landlord to make changes to property, but maybe you have something. But also, it's commercial tenants, right? That's all landlord tenant for the most part. So, when you talk about incomequalified, are you really looking at, you know, someone owns a and even condo association, I don't even know how that works. You know, I suppose you can change a cooktop out in your condo, but the heating and stuff, I don't know if it's more of a building or if it's more just hot water in your unit, which is probably hot water in your unit. But, I mean, I think all of that's complicated. I guess my question is are you spending a lot of time on the income qualified one and then putting all those different variables in? Do you have that information? So yes um in fact we've been doing a lot of that work uh because of these income qualified exemptions related with uh uh that are being proposed for air district for the air district rules. And so we're we've been doing a lot of work trying to understand okay who are these different income qualified folks in PaloAlto? Where do they live? How many of them own their homes? How many of those homes are single family? how many of those homes are condos. So, we have at this point the information we need to break that down. Um, and it, you know, the um the pool is rel is relatively small. um which makes this a relatively uh lightweight um option in terms of uh strategic options because as you said, you need to be a low-inccome owner um or you're dealing with dedicated affordable housing. Um but when it comes to tenants, the the options are relatively low cost. You know, it's those portable cooktops, it's the you know, it's the window mounted heat pumps and that's not going to be uh a lot. >> Yeah. So then we move on to when you when you say local regulations, what local regulations are you looking at? Like how do you model them? Is there a list of them or >> Yeah, I'm wondering if it's possible or maybe we can just look uh on our own screens at slide six uh which summarizes what goes into each of the strategic alternatives. Um, so the two most promising regulations and we looked we looked at a a bunch of regulations trying to estimate what their adoption rates are, but most most likely the building emission savings ordinance and the building performance standards are the ones that would drive adoption. Um, so building emission savings ordinance is focused on electrification uh related to home sales either funding or actual uh projects. >> So on that one, what you'd say it's a point of sale. You sell your house, you have to change it. Yep. Is that is that >> Yeah. Or you have to fund replacements. Um you know don't you don't want to slow down uh transactions in that sort of a situation. Um and then building performance standards are you know gradually ratcheting down on large commercial buildings the emissions per square foot that you're trying to or energy use per square foot that you're trying >> but only large commercial buildings. >> It's generally uh buildings on the larger side. Yeah. And so the the the you're right that those small and medium commercial u you know may get may get left out. I think you you know you have a lot of um uh th those would be impacted I think by the air district regulations. Um but it also you know leaves a space for some of the hardest to electrify uh um customers like restaurants for example. >> Okay. And then the enhanced one which is where we then basically give money for people to do this. Is that basically what we're looking at? >> Um which option are you looking at? >> Six. I'm wondering how you model six. Like you take a fund and say we're going to spend >> you know I mean obviously if you went out there and said we will pay for your home electrification tomorrow, you would move the needle dramatically. >> Well, but who pays, right? Because all the money comes from the community at the end of the day. Um so number six is uh is it's the same as number five. Um so you have a comprehensive set of programs. Basically everybody has access to the same sorts of you know we try we're going to try and model the model costefficient programs uh that take advantage of all available funding sources like savings on the bill that sort of thing. Um and uh but then you add in early retirement incentives that if you're retiring your gas water heater 5 years in that you could get an additional incentive you know for the lost uh the lost life for that and that would allow you to electrify on a shorter timeline. It's probably the most ambitious of all the different options that we're looking at and definitely requires revenue. But I think it's a good what it what it gives you is a metric on just how much effort is needed to achieve um uh the emissions goals on a nearer timeline. And I think that's a good calibration for community expectations. >> Okay. Thank you. And I just I might mention that when we talk about the air district rules on uh water heaters, if you have a large boiler like a large one that uh serves multiple units in a multif family residence or large commercial one, that doesn't come into effect until 2031. So it's only the the smaller ones first, then the heaters two years later, then two years later the large boilers. Just FYI. Commissioner Croft. >> Thank you. Um I uh in looking at the six options um and I appreciated the conversation about the cost effectiveness. Um it's kind of my comment is along the lines of both cost effectiveness uh how to get the biggest bang for the buck and also just recognizing the small size of the team. So going back to to uh the comment from the working group about um my comment is really do we want to put something on this list that acknowledges um a smaller scope. So, for example, um you can take a peanut butter approach and kind of have a lot of things on your goal list or you can really have a surgical strike approach where you find a big bogey um something you think um you might be able to put the team's efforts towards and go after one thing or maybe two things. So I think the 80% goal puts a lot of stress on us, a lot of emphasis on trying to hit that goal. But if we really want to have success with something, do we want to go deep on one thing or two things? So for example, you could say the transportation greenhouse gases are 57% on road. Let's just go deep on, you know, slipstream with all the people buying EVs. Let's try to make all of our expenditures go toward how do we enable everybody to follow on and get the penetration insanely high. Um and or you know maybe that's not our goal. Maybe our goal is uh space heating right space heating and commercial or space heating in both whatever it is but forget about all the others. So I I wonder if there's any room for running that through these models or whether that's a different model um to kind of acknowledge that we I think chance of success is low when you're spread so thin. >> Yeah, I think the way that you do something like that is uh is is build off the baseline scenario just like you do with income qualified programs, but instead of a a broad set of programs, you would focus on a single technology. um and you know you'd sort of and I and I think the question is um what's your driving goal in that in that scenario um we can measure how long it takes to reach the 80% goal. Um and if you're focusing on a single technology because to reach 80% it's really a a you know it's an all of the above. It's all hands on deck to actually hit that goal. Um but if you give a long enough timeline in the baseline scenario, you'll get there eventually. Um so so the question is like what is the metric for success for that um for that scenario and if it's you know achieving a certain level of penetration uh you know a certain level of adoption uh for that particular technology we could not just for a scenario like that not just measure the um year that the 80% goal is achieved but just to sort of recognize the particular success metric for that scenario. You'd want to measure when did we hit that, you know, whether it's 50%, 70% or whatever adoption level uh you're looking for. You know, what year did we hit that? Because that would be a milestone that would have a lot of public significance even if we hadn't reached the 80% goal by that time. Yeah, I guess kind of um that is part of my point is you want to be able to communicate very clearly what the goal is and then actually achieve the goal. So unfortunately with the 80% goal um you never want to go go say oh yeah well we set too audacious a goal we can't do it um and we did not achieve anything right because we have so many goals. So, the all hands- on deck comment, um, it just kind of scares me because it sounds like we have so many goals and to hit, you know, we're going to miss all of them, but we're going to move the needle. It feels better to me to pick a few and actually succeed with those few and then move on to something else. It's just a thought about how to get a team behind something and create the snowball basically. All right, I'm going to go to Commissioner Phillips and then back to Commissioner Gupta and we'll see if we can get close to closure because we do have another item that the three of us have to deal with. But Commissioner Phillips, >> thank you. Um, yeah, I just want to clarify. First of all, I think this seems like a reasonable spectrum. I haven't heard much else that people have talked about as levers that are missing. Um, I just want to kind of build on what council member Burch said and confirm that the outcome of this exercise is going to be over some time period, say 20 years for each of these, what do we see as the investment required? What do we see as the gas rates, the electric rates? What do we see as the carbon emission reduction relative to the baseline? And then we will have that menu of options to be contemplated by UAC, city council, finance committee as appropriate. Is that the I mean that certainly would be my desired outcome. Is that what's being envisioned? >> You're talking about the metrics. Uh I I'm talking about the outcome. So, it's a model. You're going to run a model. >> Y >> um how are you going to present the results of the model of the what's the time scope that you're going to be presenting and how are you going to present them? >> Um you're not talking about the time scope for the outputs. You're talking about when are we coming back to you? >> No, I'm talking about the time scope of the outputs. Are you going over 20 years, 50 years? >> Yeah. Um, so it it's it's going to go over the time period that each over which each strategy uh achieves the 80% goal. And um that could be out in the 2050s or 2060s. Um and of course, you know, if you're forecasting out that far, everything is extremely uncertain. Um, but what I think it does is it gives you um an understanding of, you know, if you're just relying on say the 100 or 200 homes that are turning over every single year, um what uh how long does it take to actually reach these 80% emissions goals? Um, so you you really do have to go over if we're you know if we're sticking with that 80% goal, you really have to do go do go over that you really do have to go over those longer those longer time scales, but ideally we're dealing with for most uh options with a time frame before 2050. >> So the output is going to be for each option a length of time that it requires hit the 80% reduction goal. >> Yep. the amount of reduction each year, the impact on rates relative to the baseline, the amount of external investment that's potentially needed coming from a parcel tax or some other location yearbyear. Is that >> it's the adoption rate, it's the revenue need, um the year uh yeah so the contributions to the adoption rate from the different uh parts of the the different the different um components to the portfolio, electric and gas rate impacts and then impact on community member expenses. Those are the five main metrics. And would you be doing these with baseline assumptions, single assumptions about future natural gas costs and electricity costs, or are you going to do some kind of um sensitivity analysis across those given again that you're talking about quite long time scales? >> Yeah, I mean I think we're going to have we're more we're likely to have to do some sensitivities. um was as um Commissioner M was was mentioning earlier. Um but we're we're going to have to work from some basic assumptions about the the long-term rates. >> Yeah. And I would just like to I'd like to stress what Commissioner Mauer said about thinking about how to communicate this and again the difference between the baseline. None of the forecasts they'll all be wrong. You know, things are hard to forecast especially the future. But the deltas with the um baseline at least will be reliable and hopefully insightful. Right. >> So to to focus on those >> I'm going to jump in before I go back to Commissioner Gupta. Um yeah, thank you for asking the questions that clarified that that we're going to model out however long it takes to get to 80% on the different ones of these. And uh in looking at the six options because they kind of build one on another, it's not I think that you're going to be doing six totally separate models. You can incorporate some work from one into the other like you mentioned four is a combination of two and three etc etc. But the reason I ask that is um apppropo of the discussion that my two colleagues have sort of uh had in part about if we're not going to hit our 80 by30 goal and appropo of Commissioner Croft's comments if we're looking at hitting another or setting another goal so that we can articulate what it is that we can tell our community we're trying to do. Um, it would be interesting for whichever one we seem to be centering in on if we could say, "All right, um, you know, we have our carbon neutrality goal. We're not going to hit the 80 by30, but we we would like to say, you know, we're going to hit X by Y or or the P per capita or whatever it is." And um somehow I'd like to know when we get to the leading models that number so that so in other words I don't know how much more work that is but if we're thinking that we want to have you know some other numbers when would we hit it under these things? So could that be figured out later in the process or how would we think about that? No, we have year-on-year numbers in the model. And so if what we wanted to look at was let's say that we're achieving 60% by 2040 or something along those lines. Um so that we have you know interim success metrics. California is doing that. Um we should be able to extract that from the model for different uh for different strategies. >> Yeah. I think it would be good uh to restate somehow um what we're doing so that we can say we hit it and then you know let folks know because to to Pat's point we are leading just because we didn't happen to hit this goal that we set with you know imperfect information at the time. It would be nice to say hey look at what we're doing not so we can say we're done and check it off but so it inspires us to do more. And I think just kind of hanging around this goal, we're not quite there, doesn't help us do that with to incentivize our residents either to support more or to act themselves because we're we're relying on them, right? We can't we can sit here and make all the policies we want and create all the incentives, but we're relying on our residents, our business community to actually do this stuff. So I think that that messaging, hitting a goal, setting a goal, hitting a goal would be really helpful to us in getting to our ultimate goal, which is is to uh reduce these emissions. >> Yeah, I I think trying to keep moving on a goal without milestones and celebration is tough. And I think, you know, I'm hearing the spirit of these comments and I think there are some some opportunities that we could, >> right? So, if we can, you know, sort of bake that into our uh evaluation and review of, you know, what what this output is, I I think that would be helpful. Commissioner Gupta, >> thank you. Just a quick question and and actually kind of extending I think the mayor's point about, you know, the residents and the the businesses will have to actually do the things we're asking them to do. One of the more promising programs I've heard about, and I think you're probably already working on this, is um on on tariff on bill uh financing or inclusive utility investment. Is that going to be modeled under uh strategies five and six that we have here? Um >> so I so yeah where we're offering programs um I I'm not saying that we are necessarily uh because inclusive utility financing there are a bunch of um there there are a bunch of dimension it could be a promising path forward there are a bunch of dimensions to it that are uh sort of practical and administrative uh that wouldn't be part of the model necessarily but the core from a financial flows perspective one of the core piece core aspects of a finance ing model like that is that you are getting some repayment over time that correlates with the bill savings from the people who are receiving an upfront incentive or an upfront payment. So it's it's analogous to financing. Um and I think we so we are going to model um we are going to model the financial flows that are equivalent to that and other financing potential financing measures all of which are on the table. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> I'm looking left. I'm looking right. I'm not seeing any more lights. Does anyone have anything else to say >> about this? Well, I will say that I have really enjoyed this and really appreciate the perspectives and expertise that our commissioners bring to our our thinking on this. Um, and I think it's been great to have uh have us all together. I've never seen 10 people on this deis before. So, that's quite exciting. Um, and we've also got a huge array of staff here and out in there. I don't think I've seen five quite fit across there. So, this is some kind of milestone. I hope someone took some pictures. Uh but no truly thank you for your thoughtful input and for joining us on a Friday afternoon. Uh I am very grateful and I will close out this item and we will take a fivem minute break and rejourn with a few of us. All right. Thank you. I think Oh my. All right. Let's reconvene with now just the uh climate action and sustainability committee. Feels so empty in this room now. So we'll move to item two uh which relates to the uh EV charging hub grant program. and I will turn to uh Mr. Aenshin. >> Great. Jonathan Oenshine, assistant director for climate action. Can I get the next slide, please? >> All right. So, you have the staff report. Um and when we adopted the e-mobility strategic plan last uh fall, we took that to council. One of the strategies we we're trying to expand the strategies we had. Um one of which is putting um EV charging hubs near multif family buildings. Uh we think public agency parking lots is a good place to start with those hubs. Um we also have uh so um that's PA USD the city and uh potentially I I think Cal Train potentially has some parking lots. Um we would reach out to other public agencies about interests but uh PA USD and the city have the most sites. So what we're proposing is a public agency EV charger grant program that could facil facilitate 100 plus chargers at 5 to 10 sites. It could be used to leverage other grants uh like a grant from the MTC that PAUSD has obtained uh but there are there's more money for these types of things coming um uh coming in the future. the guidelines uh in exchange for so our grant would essentially be partial funding that could then be used to leverage either agency funding or uh grants and um in exchange for the grant funding we would expect uh we have a set of guidelines we're asking you to approve we would expect the EV charging be open to the public that people can charge at cost overnight and I just want to note that there's a line in the staff report that gives the impression that the guidelines require public access 24 hours a day. That's not in the guidelines. That was a a mistake in the report. Um there are grants, other grants that do require public access 24 hours a day, but ours doesn't necessarily uh require that. Um and that they be within a quarter mile of multif family buildings, ideally eighth of a mile, and ideally uh dedicated affordable housing. Um so we're asking for you to uh recommend approval of these guidelines to the city council. Um we would go for approval in early August and do program design um in parallel. This would um allow for launch of the program on a timeline that's consistent with um grant timelines uh particularly for the PAUSD grant. Sorry, next slide. Uh the working group feedback on on this item was uh emphasizing the need to focus funding on public agency sites near multifamily. Um that you know that the the need for accessibility overnight and at cost. Uh making sure that the community knows about the availability of the chargers. So outreach and signage. And then uh there was some discussion about how this fits into the broader goals for the multif family sector that this is only one piece of a broad strategy um looking at curbside um EV charging hubs, shared chargers and multif family buildings which we've been doing and then even individual spaces uh putting chargers in individual spaces when you get enough adoption. Next slide please. And this is the staff recommendation. Thank you. Oh, my mic worked again. Um, all right. Uh, colleagues, do you have any questions before I go to public comment? >> I think I can ask. >> You both do. >> In the last item, uh, John, you mentioned something that was music to my ears that we have, uh, a you say a a new grant on curbside charging. It's uh it there may be funding involved but um it's technical assistance and partnership with um technology companies that are trying to work in this space and coordinating efforts across several agencies so that those to to help get those technologies off the ground. And within that context, is there um any uh thinking to get going on piloting this as soon as possible so that we learn from it? >> Yes, that's exactly the goal is to try and get pilots out there as soon as possible. >> Uh any estimate on time frame? Um I believe it's uh um we're we're aiming to structure the pilots by fall by uh fall of this year and then um that would imply implementation in the early the early 2027. >> And are these still anticipating tapping into the power in light poles? >> Um no I think light poles are um uh are less of an opportunity in PaloAlto. don't have those addition that additional uh capacity that you have in places like LA where the light pole um capacity was built with a lot of extra capacity and they're making use of it. Um so uh figuring out where to get the power and there are a lot of different strategies technology companies have been pursuing but figuring out where to get the power is is going to be one of the one of the challenges. >> Okay. Thanks >> council me. >> Thank you. So I just want I had a few clarifying questions. I'll try to save the more substantive questions for later. Uh there's reference in MTC grant and I think I'm a little bit confused to what extent we have obtained the grant or have I think in the staff report have approval to pursue the grant. >> So the MTC grant has actually been been obtained. >> Wait, sorry. >> We do actually have an MTC grant. It's for the P PA USD effectively has a grant to pursue charging on school sites >> and that is PAU USD only and that is 2.8 million and that's it could be used for city sites as well but there also is a local match and so funding is needed to be able to take advantage of the grant as well. >> What kind of agreements or stipulations are there for what percent of that 2.8 8 million is for PAUSD versus other sites. >> If PAUSD is able to take advantage of all of it, then it would all be for PAUSD. Um, but if it isn't, then city sites could be viable for that for the use of that grant. >> Okay. >> Or other grants for city sites. >> Okay. So then in this public agency parking lots program, we're talking about both PA USD and city sites. Both PAUSD has a separate 2.8 8 million grant and we're talking about a $500,000 program here. Is it likely that any PAUSD sites will actually take advantage of uh this separate program MTC grant? >> It is likely. Four of the sites that they've been looking at for the MTC grant are um are near multifamily and good sites for EV charging hubs. And the structure of this grant encourages the maximization of charging on those sites. So um and and also makes it more likely that they will move forward and take advantage of this grant uh of the MTC grant um because there is a there um the um funding sources that they had for the local match for that grant. Um they have money for design but for the construction local match um that money had to be expended. It was it was related to electrical upgrades that were associated with the EV charging hubs and that had to be expended before the grant was actually finalized. And so the MTC grant has actually been in limbo um for uh several months due to difficulties finding the local match. >> I see. Okay. So this is getting there a bunch of moving parts. I'm trying to think this through. So yeah, PAUSD has a grant, might not make use of it unless they can also have a local match, which they would need our grant to be the local match for MTC. >> That's how they would that's how they would they would manage this. Yes. >> And so our but then there's also this point that if they don't make use of the 2.8 8 million. It could go it could be used for city purposes. And so it sounds like they have no plans to make use of the 2.8 million outside of the four sites that we would provide the local match for. So what does the balance of that money look like? though they may you use so the four sites the four sites that are um the four sites that would be eligible for our grants um they so there are a lot of moving parts um the what they would likely do is um there's a lot of there's a lot of variability of uh in in cost projections right now and so the so the way they would likely take advantage of these two grants would be um concentrating their chargers on the um four sites. They have a fifth that that they may that that is less applicable for the city's goals. Um but they'll likely concentrate these 80 chargers on these five sites. And um if they're able to get those done within the uh grant funding amounts, they'll likely um and they have money left over, they have three other sites that they might expand to. If they either don't expand to those three sites or they expand to those three sites and there's still money left over in the MTC grant, that provides an opportunity for the city to uh put some um to to um put some chargers on city sites as well. However, you know, there is there's limited we think we can get that done, but there is limited capacity within the city and um and so our ability to leverage large fractions of that grant is probably limited. So, we do want to see PAUSD make a lot of uh take advantage of as much of the MTC grant as they can and then the city, you know, may be able to do one or two other sites. Oh, only one or two other sites on city property, >> right? >> Okay. >> That's really what we have capacity for at most. >> That still assuming that 2.8 million. Okay. Yeah. >> Um uh okay, maybe this is just a lot more to unpack uh during the main discussion and this is going way beyond the clarifying question, but okay, maybe one actual uh or two actual clarifying questions. The first one is what does overnight charging usage look like in our existing city garages? Is there already a ton of excess capacity? And if so, is trying to promote overnight charging maybe uh a would that cast out on the goal of trying to provide overnight charging for multif family homes? Um I wouldn't say that the overnight so we don't we we haven't we have some data. We don't have a full analysis yet of of um how much overnight charging is happening at the city garages. I will note that the city garages are a little bit farther walking distance from multif family than these sites would be. Um but every charger that I've seen on a city garage site is getting some level of overnight charging activity at some point. That's not saying that someone's there every night, but at some point over the month um every charger is getting some sort of uh some sort of activity. >> Okay. >> So, people are taking advantage of it overnight. >> Yes. Over a month, I think being used at least once being used at least once in one night is a low bar though. And uh uh I I I I think it's fine if the goal is mainly to provide daytime capacity and overnight charging is just a bonus that we try to optimize for. Um but it's just not clear to me uh if we're really framing our goals around the program clearly and if so uh what that means for the guidelines we'd recommend. But uh moving on to the next clarifying question. So the staff report said that maybe 5 to 10 sites were already found. Um what are the it sounded like that number might be four to five. What are those four to five sites right now? >> Um these are the um these are the um the four school district sites. Uh it's four elementary school or actually I don't it's four schools near uh near multifamily buildings um and they are within a an eighth of a mile or a quarter of a mile of um of several hundred multifamily units. Um, we also have looked at a list of 8 to 10 potential city sites, although we haven't narrowed down which of those would would have the highest potential, >> right? >> And so the city sites, we could only optimistically choose one or two and then the school sites four to five. I I I think an eighth to a quarter of a mile from hundreds of multif family units is not necessarily a super high bar. I think uh just because the number of cottage courts and ADUs and I'm not sure whatever else you might be considering multif family, it'd be hard to find uh many places in the sort of core of the city that aren't close to at least hundreds of multif family units. Um so if we have that list, I'd appreciate if we could pull that up and just talk about that in the next phase because it sounds like that list is not just a short list but is actually sort of the list of projects that would actually be built. So I think it'd be useful to you know at this stage but uh all right that was already a lot for questions and I'll hold the rest of the questions for the next step. >> Um just a couple follow-ups. Uh when PAUSD pursued this grant, they were in a situation of structural surpluses and huge reserves that is in the process of reversing itself to structural deficits and consumption of their reserves. I'll be surprised if if they continue to embrace this opportunity to the degree that they initially were. So uh whether we have capacity or not uh we should uh be talking with them about whether there is going to be greater opportunity for us and then we have to figure out whether we have that matching fund capacity. Um, and then as far as the uh utilization of the chargers on parking lots, I I like I see the uh the ones on Calab frequently and particularly the Cambridge lot and even though it's surrounded by u multif family, utilization's pretty low there. I I don't dispute that each charger occasionally gets used, but it's low. uh disappointingly low and maybe we need to uh promote it more because we may have a lot of folks who don't know what's there including property owners and uh property managers who can make sure that's case but um I I'm I'm disappointed that it's so low but it it appears to be so. Um but then um you mentioned uh Cal Train sites and uh I think those are opportunities. Um and then the last thing is we should be looking strategically at where housing will be multif family housing in addition to where it is today. And we all know that we've got certain areas that are going to have in all likelihood some major growth in multif family housing. So how do we really uh plan to accommodate that? However, this a qualifier for the new multif family housing is that in speaking with uh one of the major developers in our community and region uh who has a sustainability team in within their multif family development. They said you don't need to push us anymore. We as multif family developers are putting in charging on our own initiative because it's a competitive necessity today. Our our our tenants are demanding it which was great to hear. And so that's just another factor that we want to put in. And so it kind of counters that argument I was just making about the location because it may re-emphasize that our biggest challenge is existing multif family not new multif family. >> Thanks. >> Um I just I just want to share that uh the list is uh Addison, Hoover, Brionis and Aloney. Um and they're near uh a total of a thousand multifamily units uh between the four of them. Um so it's a lot denser. We there there have been EV chargers built at other school sites. Mo most of the school sites actually are pretty far from um far from multif family, but these four are high potential. Uh sorry. And uh so it's 750 sorry 750 units of which 250 are um dedicated affordable. >> Thank you. Um, yeah. No, I I I I I think that's a a good point. Um, uh, about um, you know, whether or not, uh, people are using the, uh, overnight garage, whether it's an issue of marketing, uh, or what. And I guess what I'm wondering is there may be people that not only don't know it's there, but don't believe it's okay like to leave a car overnight. So I think it's kind of both things that because I wouldn't necessarily know it was okay to leave my car there overnight. So >> what are we doing now if anything to really let people know? And what could we do in your judgment? >> Yeah. Um this is something we talked about at the working group is a need for that outreach and signage. Um so direct outreach to people who are within the uh walking distance um is a a really um critical item. Um and then you know signage that really grabs people um from you know from the street when they're going by so that they understand that they are that there is um availability of EV charging and some of it is just going to be a matter of growth that this will take a little bit of time. You know there's a chicken and egg problem that you you need to have the charging access but then people do take some time to get those cars as well. Right. No, but you're right about the chicken and egg. If they think that charging is relatively easy, they're more likely to get the car. >> Right. >> Um Yeah. And it's interesting. Um I think Pat makes a good point about the developers saying you don't have to push us anymore. What it'll be interesting to see is as the demand curve rises, do the does the installation curve keep up, be ahead of it, be behind it? You know, how much do we need to supplement that? And I think, you know, time will tell. They'll do the they'll do whatever's most profitable, but you know, they'll build it at one thing and then the building will last, you know, X years and that curve might change. So, >> yeah, a lot of moving pieces. >> It is. And it's the the new construction is the easy part. It's the retrofits that are really challenging. And so, being able to provide some charging near those multif family buildings means you don't necessarily have to do a whole retrofit project for that for those first few people to buy those EV chargers. >> Right. Right. Right. Um, yeah. So, why don't we uh see if we have public comment on this item? >> There are no requests to speak for item two. >> Okay. Um, well, I'll just say I love this idea. I I just think it's it's wonderfully brilliant use of uh public lands and if we can figure out the time of day in and around schools for the grant and uh uh I I I think it's pretty wonderful. I'm going to stop there because council member Lou selfcensored. Thank you uh to hold off on some of the things for this round. So, have at it. >> I'm afraid that I still don't quite understand the moving parts and that the net results is that we're not really going to prioritize the projects that at least accomplish the stated goal of supporting multif family homes. If the stated goal is were different, maybe uh I could wrap my head around this more easily. Um but uh Alomi for instance top of mind isn't next to any multifamily housing um or at least none sort of directly touching it. Uh, Juan Biones is in a pretty single family area except for maybe one apartment building that from Googling seems the the taller one uh uh uh off of Rasto that from Googling seems to have their own EV charging. And so uh at least that like super immediate capture uh doesn't seem obvious to me. So, it's not clear that we're hitting the goals that we should that we might be able to hit if we were to prioritize something like the Venture Community Center or uh uh the Winter Lodge, which is actually close to a good chunk uh both of those locations are close to a good chunk of like 60s7s8s relatively dense multif family uh housing. the kind of housing that uh we've talked about the challenges of getting renters to persuade their landlords to actually install EV charging. So, I really don't see how we're advancing the goals that we think we are advancing. Um uh and I don't really think it's an issue of the guidelines uh exactly or an issue of uh uh well well just more of a structural issue about the grant conditions and the point that these uh at least two or three of these four sites that are identified don't really seem like they're good at achieving the goals that we want them to. So >> how should we think about that? Is this just like just what we're stuck with? >> Well, I don't know what uh I you know, I don't know what you're seeing or not seeing in the casual Google Google searches. We did a we did a GIS uh review of each of these sites and um Addison and Hoover were each near 200 to 300 uh multif family units within a quarter mile um of which um 190 of them were dedicated affordable. And then Bionis and Alone had fewer, but each were within a quarter mile walking distance of 130 units each. Um, of which Aloney was 60 had 60 dedicated affordable uh units nearby. I I I think the extra layer that I'm seeing and also of course there's a lot of stuff that I'm not seeing with the Google Maps lookabout um is that seemingly a decent chunk of these will have EV charging already and also um uh I'm looking more in the immediate block plus couple blocks range so I'm not capturing um maybe some of the buildings that are more on the periphery. Uh so I think that's the gap. Um uh clearly those are non-trivial numbers that you are sharing but I do suspect the numbers could be multiple times higher if we prioritize venture community center or >> uh other places where I think there's a much more clear need that aren't where the land you sure sure there might be some apartment buildings captured but the land use is still 90% a vast percentage single family homes so it's not really um going to get the uptake we think especially if we're going to put on the scale of 80 plus uh chargers across those four sites. >> Yeah. So, Ventura is on our city list. Um and the grant program has is not just for these uh four school sites. There's enough there's enough fund there's enough um proposed budget in the in the grant to be able to do sites like Ventura in addition to uh these school sites. >> But I heard that we could maybe do one, but that was uncertain. >> We would need I if the MT So when I say when I say that I was in I was and this is where all the moving parts come in, but when I say that we have the capacity to do maybe one or two Um, we're I'm I'm talking about our capacity to be able to do projects on the timeline to be able to take advantage of the MTC grant if there's available funding from that. That's not the only grant funding source uh that we might be able to take advantage of. Um it's just that we um when we talk about the MTC grant timelines, we might only be able to uh have one or two sites ready on the timeline that the MTC grant requires, this proposed grant program, the this public agency EV charger grant program does not have those short timelines. And so the city could take advantage of this for Ventura Community Center or other sites over a longer timeline when other grant uh funding becomes available. Okay. >> So I don't think it's an e I don't think it's a an eitheror. I think it's a there's potentially an and here. >> Okay. Uh a couple more points of confusion. Council did get an email uh from the city manager as part of our regular updates and the MTC joint MTCPA USD grant was shared with us maybe a few weeks ago as this new thing. Um I'm guessing it's not actually this new thing and from what I'm hearing it's implied that we're running out of time to actually utilize this money. Yes, we are. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, and so is it a done deal if we move forward with the guidelines today that the four sites will be those four school sites and then maybe there will be a fifth site for Quenter or whatever else the city prioritizes. um at least for this first phase of funding and this first phase of like for this first timeline that we have >> those would almost certainly be the first four to five projects that um that that um participate >> um uh and there would be no ranking system or ability for us to say actually we think maybe Winter Lodge or the parking surface parking lot we have in Midtown is actually a a better fit in terms of supporting our multif family residents. I mean, you know, I think it's it's definitely possible and we do these sorts of analyses to look across a wide range of sites and say, um, you know, here are the sites that we really, you know, that would that would be the the top >> possible sites for us to implement on. But one of the challenges that we always run into with these programs is who's ready? Who's ready to move? who's ready to um you know who's who's at who has the electrical p capacity and who's willing to participate and so um we could try to optimize um and try to you know it would it would take us a longer time period and then right >> frankly I think we would lose access to that 2.8 8 million, >> right? Um >> can can I just add to that is that in the discussions that we've been having with the school district about this potential uh program and their expressed interest uh to your point, Council Member Burke expressed interest at least right now on still trying to pursue this on what's a fairly uh tight timeline. Um, I think if we introduced a lot of uncertainty into the prospects of them receiving the grant funds as part of our development of this, they would probably be unlikely to continue moving on the the pace to be able to access the MTC funds. I mean, I'm happy to do the school district a favor and give them this money so we can seed this match and we can provide EV parking for their uh employees and we can provide uh EV charging for the predominantly single family homes that actually live within a reasonable walking distance uh of at least most of the sites that they nominated. But I think uh that that's just what I would be approving. and be approving doing them a favor and giving them some money, not actually uh advancing the goals that we stated and that we thought we were going to advance today. >> I I think we just have a a different different perspective on it. Um we, you know, we we were struggling with um you know, we were struggling with this at one point um before we had community goals to push for multif family EV charging hubs. Um, and before we done the assessment to see which of these sites might actually serve as multif family charging hubs, we're satisfied that these four school sites um are near quite a bit quite quite a lot of multifamily units. And we wouldn't be proposing this program if we didn't think it advanced city goals. We're not in in fact it wouldn't be we we just don't have a um a policy mandate or a desire to spend um city or special revenue funds on something that's not going to serve multif family residents. Uh we're not we don't have a priority goal to try and provide employee charging for the school district. So, um, that that's not the reason for proposing this program. At the end of the day, >> I think >> I can't look at a map and reasonably see how Looney or Juanabriion would have any substantial nighttime usage from multif family residents, maybe from single family residents, but >> maybe follow up offline. >> I was going to say I think we have a a difference of opinion here and yeah, >> so you do what you can do, but I think we've heard from staff what they're going to say. I don't think we're reaching resolution. Do you have anything else? Because I Okay. So, um I I I do think that uh George raises a good point, but I want to wrap in what Pat raised, which is um I don't know when you last had your conversation with um the school district, but if they are feeling differently financially now, and if they weren't interested in pursuing all four sites, I take it we would push them to the two we do feel have greater impact, which are Addison and Hoover. Um >> um yes, I think Addison and Hoover are the best the best two sites. >> Yeah. So if they want to pursue all four, they want to pursue all four. But if for some reason they don't and we push them to those more highly impactful sites at that point, could we then be looking at the other city beyond just one additional one? >> Um absolutely. Um so the um uh yes and also we do have uh you know the limitations on the staff capacity on that short timeline as well. >> Sure. >> But yes >> but if um I mean to the point of uh not letting it go unused in a different uh context um if we could try uh that would be helpful. Um, yeah, because who knows? And then that might indirectly solve your concern. But, uh, okay. Because it seems to me like we we need to know sooner than later that they're still full speed forward or not on those four sites. And maybe you've talked to them quite recently, but >> uh, yeah, they do. No, they are. >> Okay. >> Um, yeah. and and I'll I don't have the the um yeah I don't have the buffer map for the or the um walking walking map for Aloney in front of me. But as I look at Briones um you know the the multif family that we're talking about is um in the quarter mile 1/8 to one quarter mile uh radius and so it's a little further away. You have to scroll away on the Google map a little further. Okay. Um I have some other comment and it's gone so I'll turn it back. Yeah. >> Um so whether it's from this uh trunch of grant funding or otherwise another site that I don't know if you've looked at is Elma Plaza which we have um public parking spots underneath the grocery store that are underutilized. Um and that construction is relatively new. So I imagine they have good amount of power but it was before we uh implemented EV charging requirements. And then I do like the Ventura site a lot uh because that is just surrounded by uh multif family and it's it's one of our lots and and and I think you're right too that uh the Winter Lodge also is one of these areas where we have um large amounts of market rate affordable housing. Yeah. Thank you. Good. >> I agree with all that. Um, do you have more you want to say? I think I could I would either need to think about this totally differently uh along the lines we've already discussed or I think I could maybe approve this if we could have some clarity in the guidelines that really prioritized at least one of Ventura Community Center so that uh uh and or Winter Lodge or and or one of these similarly identified city sites that are uh I think objectively serve the stated goals much better. I think uh if the venture is like a fifth in a maybe then it's hard for me to accept this. If it's like the number one priority and then maybe one or two of the school sites gets dropped off uh then that's fine. How can we is there some reasonable way in the guidelines to say we prioritize sites or we score sites based on these criteria? Uh and so therefore um we'll squeeze in a couple of these city sites at least the ones that we can get ready for the grant funding. Um, so yeah, I mean I think um I mean there's nothing in the guidelines that specifies how how the MTC grant is to be used and there and the program as we're proposing it has enough budget for the school site. sites the limitation or sorry I mean for the city sites in addition to the school sites you don't have to cut the school sites to get the city sites um so there are sort of two ways to think about this the first is um whether those two school sites just need to be disqualified entirely which you know and if you were looking at an eighth mile walking distance instead of a quarter mile walking distance you're potentially disqualifying those sites Um I do think there's a substantial portion of the MTC grant that probably gets unused um just because of the limitations of the grant uh if we go down that road. Um but you know that that is an amendment that that you know um is certainly possible to propose. Um the you know whether the MTC grant gets used for other school sites or for the Ventura site is not in this proposal tonight. Um but it could be a subject of discussions um with PAUSD and with our internal staff on in terms of what we think is possible to achieve um on our on our timeline. >> Right. So I think I had actually gotten confused. So there's there's not a shortage of money, there's a shortage of time. And so it's not like uh we could we need to prioritize Venture Community Center over a school site. It's just that we need to rush to get Venture Community Center uh some engineering drawing done or something like that to be eligible. How much time do we have until we actually >> about six months. >> Okay. So, it's not impossible, but you know, we we're and we're in we're internally talking about how to meet that timeline. >> What do you need, if anything, to be able to meet that timeline decisively for Ventura Community Center and Winter Lodge and or a few other sites? Maybe Winter Lodge is more complicated, managed by another entity, but you know, for the sites that we do have, six months is tough to get multiple of them, but it's seems feasible to at least get a couple. >> I think it's I think it's having it's it's the um I think first off having site control is is pretty critical. Um and uh so the Ventura site is, you know, I think the um I think more viable um and it would involve two things. First, we'd have to um make the timeline work uh internally, and that that's really just an internal discussion. Uh, we would need to get this grant program off the ground on the timeline that I was laying out in the staff report and um we would need to have a conversation with the school district about the use of the MTC grant and just be clear that um in addition to the four core school sites, Venture is getting done or you know one or two of the city sites are getting done. Um and uh and and then we see how we can make good use of the rest of the FCC grant. >> Yes. I mean, I think that sounds like a good game plan and that sounds like a minimum baseline because they're not going to be able to use 2.8 million with four school sites. I would also say that we should really prioritize the city-owned parking lot in the Midtown shopping center area behind the CVS that is similarly positioned to the Winter's Lodge. uh and actually surrounded by a lot of uh multif family housing that might not otherwise uh add EV charging. >> Yeah, that um that one actually has several there are applications for several EV chargers from private companies going in at that site. Um so it may be duplicative, but we have looked at that site as a possibility. >> Okay. Um, I I had a point, but I lost it. Might need a second. Um, uh, overall I'm not thrilled at all with where we are. I think I understand your position. I think it's also very clear if you look at a map of Janu. It's all single family, at least in the immediate block or two radius. Um, uh, I'm also fine, you know, doing the school district a favor. Uh, so even if I did swi- switch that framing, I, you know, I could accept it. Um, but in advancing this, I'm really putting a lot of faith in uh, Brad Public Works to get some more city sites that are actually going to serve multif family residents uh, toward the top of the queue. Um, oh, and I did remember the last question. One of the guidelines said that uh uh how strictly are we holding ourselves to these guidelines? One of the guidelines said that EV charging should not be within uh these hubs should not be in a/4 mile of other like EV charging, city-owned EV charging infrastructure. And that doesn't quite make sense to me in the case of, you know, downtown. You might want a few different EV charging hubs in the future. If we approve these guidelines with the language as is, is there anything actually precluding uh you know uh multiple EV charging hubs within a quarter mile of each other or is that more of a soft uh sort of suggestion for eligibility that will then be sort of scored and evaluated separately? I I think given that we have a lot of availability at existing charging hubs, um you know, like like we talked about earlier that having even more that providing funding for even more charging hubs within a quarter mile of existing hubs is probably a little bit duplicative. I think that was our thinking there. >> But is it a strict guideline or not? cuz I still think a/4 mile is basically from the top of university to pretty far down university. Um if we maybe have no uptake, no significant uptake on one part of university uh in some charger there, that's not to say that a charger at the hypothetically some other lot like the Webster Street garage couldn't be useful. Yeah, >> obviously making up uh the scenario here, but um yeah, how strictly would we hold ourselves to that quarter mile? >> Um I I think we were uh we were looking at it as a pretty strict guideline. Um but if we want to be more flexible on that as part of the part of this discussion, I don't have a good picture on how many additional sites in the city that might open up. We did take a look at it with the quarter mile radius exclusion, but without the quarter mile radius exclusion, it might open up some additional sites that become effectively workplace charging. Um, so just a little little unsure about what what effect that would have. >> If the utilization increases, we could adjust the design guidelines. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. And we have also not to say that we we can only pursue future city mobility hubs under the guise of this uh program as well. >> I mean these are >> balancing if we create a program like this then we're obligated to fund projects that meet the criteria. >> Sure. Okay. Um, uh, I'll trust that we will look at the utilization data and if there's actually, uh, some signs of demand that we can find the that we can find more sites within a quarter mile of each other. >> Are you good? >> Yep. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to move the staff recommendation and offer uh, Council Member Lou an opportunity to do a signing statement with his caveats. I'm kidding. Uh but no, I do I do move the staff recommendation. There's >> second. >> Thank you. Anything more? I think not. Okay, madame clerk, let's vote. >> Chair Binker, >> yes. >> Council member Lou, >> Council member Bert, >> yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Very excellent. Well, this was a quite a good meeting. I feel a lot of good substantive conversation. So, thank you staff for hanging in there with us for three hours and for organizing us all the logistics of this meeting. With that, I will say have a good Oh, next meeting. Sorry, >> we almost forgot. Yes. Uh, next meeting is August 7th following that's the Friday uh when council is back from its break first. Actually, it's not because we've adjusted the August schedule. Instead of starting on the 3rd, start on the 10th. >> Okay. >> I had heard the first council meeting would be on the 10th. I mean, we're certainly open to look at adjusting this meeting. Um that this meeting for the 7th was still at this time on the books >> and and we can go ahead with that, but I just thought I would note that it's now would precede the first council meeting. So I would just thought I would check with see if anybody has any disinterest in the seven. Seeing none here you good? All right then we can go ahead with that. I just wanted to lift that up. >> Okay. Uh so we are planning three topics. Uh so the youth climate advisory board for the 202526 school year is planning to come to the meeting and give a report out on their activities and accomplishments. Uh and as well we're planning to have the first review of the 2025 greenhouse gas inventory and also uh bring to the committee the regional water quality control plant bio bioolids facility plan uh hopefully in a in a state to be ready for the committee to make a recommendation to the council. >> Great. Well, I'll particularly look forward to the YAB folks coming and meeting with us. That's terrific that we're doing that this year. All right. Well, with that, I wish you all a good weekend and uh we stand adjourned.

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Why is it not Oh, it's cool that light is on on. I don't know what that light means, but it just went on. Clerk, can we call the order? >> Yes. Um, I just uh we began the webinar, but I just wanted to confirm with MidPen that it's currently being being recording. Um, if you could just give me 1 moment, please. >> Sure. I don't know what that is. It keeps beeping. It keeps going on and off. Okay. >> Thank you for your patience. We're ready to start. Commissioner Ansari. >> I'm here. Just wanted to say I have just cause to attend this meeting remotely under the Brown Act. I have not attended any meetings remotely this calendar year. I must attend this meeting remotely because I have a family medical emergency that prevents me from attending in person. And in this room I am not accompanied by anyone over the age of 18. >> Thank you. Commissioner Barr. >> Present. >> Commissioner Rosenberg. >> Commissioner Carna. >> Here. >> Commissioner Stemler. >> Vice Chair Causse. >> Here. >> Chair Cross. >> For the record, seven present. >> Thank you. Are there any in person public comments? >> We currently have no requests to speak in person. >> Okay. And nothing online. >> Just a friendly reminder, a recent change, we've moved virtual in public comment to the end of the meeting. >> Okay. We need to change the agenda appropriately going forward. >> [sighs] >> Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda at this moment? Commissioner. Okay, let's proceed. Let's talk about the approval of the minutes from the March 14th meeting. Do I have a motion? >> I would move that we approve those minutes. >> Do I have a second? >> Yes, please. Yes, please. >> Okay. Let's call the vote. >> Commissioner Stemler. >> Here. >> I I >> Commissioner Rosenberg. >> I. >> Vice Chair Kouzi. >> Commissioner Ansari. >> I. >> Chair Cross. >> Commissioner Carman. >> I. >> Commissioner Barr. >> Motion passes 7-0. >> So, the minutes are approved and we will move forward. Now, our first business item. Before we go to this, we always talk about um the absence of hate speech and in public meetings. And we will go forward and hopefully we will not have to uh endure that. Okay, business item. Our first item is the Palo Alto TMA. Let's talk about the nonprofit on transportation access and mobility support for the vulnerable residents of Palo Alto. Proceed with your presentation. >> Good evening, commissioners. Um there're going to be some slides in a minute that come up. I'd like to start by introducing myself. I'm Justine Burt. I'm the executive director of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association. We're a nonprofit. Our funding comes from parking permit fund from the city, uh general fund from the city. >> so sorry. Can move the mic a bit closer? >> Oh, it's not loud enough? >> Yeah, yeah. Make sure it's nice and close so we can hear you loud and clear and people can hear you online. >> that? Is it okay? Oh, thank you so much for letting me know. Commissioner Kou say. Um, the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association is a non-profit. Our funding comes primarily from the city. Um, there are parking permits that go into a fund and we receive some funding from the general fund. We also receive grants such as from the VTA. And uh, the Palo Alto Community Foundation as well as membership fees from businesses in Palo Alto that receive benefits through our program. Um, our mission is better commutes for everyone. Our our core values have to do with what we actually accomplish, which is to reduce traffic congestion, demand for parking, greenhouse gas emission reductions, um, supporting small businesses and the low-wage service sector workers primarily are the ones that we currently help with our programs. And what you see on the first slide are our results from 2025 from the annual report. Uh, we, by giving out transit passes, bus and train passes, um, refurbished bicycles, $5 a day if low-wage service sector workers will bike into work instead, and after-hour lift up to 5 miles for individuals who um, take the train or bus to work but get off after bus or train stops running. So, our work resulted in 482 parking spaces around town being freed up, 2.9 million fewer vehicle miles traveled, and 1,152 fewer tons of greenhouse gas emissions up from 603 tons last year. And I'd like to really open with three quick stories of people we have helped. Um one is Katrina. Katrina works at a dentist office office nearby and she has two small kids in preschool. Um she used to be stuck in in rush hour traffic getting back home to Santa Clara. Uh we through a pilot with the utilities department gave her an electric scooter. And so she now gets off work at 5:00 and with her scooter she can get um 0.9 miles away to the Caltrain station downtown, catch the 5:13 train home, and get to the preschool before it closes at 6:00. Once when she was driving it was iffy if she was going to get there before they closed. So she is super happy with the Caltrain pass free Caltrain pass she received from us and the e-scooter and it improved her quality of life. Um second person I want to share a story about is Abdallah. Abdallah is a salesperson at one of the stores over at Stanford Mall and he used to drive to work five days a week. Um we offered him $5 a day to bike in instead. When we started out it was $2.50 a day but that didn't get a lot of people's attention so we doubled it to $5 a day. Caps out at $600 a year because that's the IRS reporting threshold. So $5 a day encouraged Abdallah to leave his car at home and bike to work five days a week which he now does. Um CBS Bay Area News contacted us about two months ago saying, "Can we do a story on Abdallah for the Bay Area News?" So there was a two and a half minute piece that um uh City Council member Pat Burt was in as well. So um the third story I want to share with you is uh Rakeya. So Rakeya works at um one of the telecommunication companies. Uh they give you um internet service through your your smartphone. And she also has two kids there in elementary school and they had their own little scooters, not electric, but they had their own little scooters. Once she got an e-scooter through us, through the utility pilot department, um through the utility department via a pilot that we did together, that e-scooter allowed her to scoot with her kids to elementary school, drop them off, then scooter over to VTA bus, catch fold it up on the VTA bus, then switch over to Caltrain, and then scoot the last quarter mile to work. And she proudly told us when we were having her photograph taken by a professional photographer for the annual report, that there was one day in the previous month where there were accidents on 280 and 101, and everybody else was half an hour late to work, and she was early, actually, because she took transit. So, these are the kinds of people we're helping, the low-wage service sector workers who really contribute to the quality of life here in Palo Alto. What would Palo Alto be like without the wonderful shops and restaurants downtown, on Cal Ave, along El Camino? Next slide, please. Um so so here's we offer people information showing them maps on our one-page flyer of the best ways to get to work from with different transit agencies or biking, depending on what city they live in. We share information about the Transit app. Has anyone used the Transit app to plan their trip? Well, it also tells you if the bus that's supposed to come in 5 minutes is actually coming in 5 minutes or in 7 minutes, so it's real-time arrival information, which is helpful. And Caltrain, if you've seen the website, they have a live system map, which shows you a train chugging its way from Sunnyvale towards the Mountain View station on its way to Palo Alto. So, it's nice to know where they are and how soon they'll be there. Um we offer incentives, as I said, $5 a day, Bike Lover Rewards, that's an app that goes on your smartphone that geo-fences the commercial areas, and when you're you and your phone pass that invisible geo-fence, $5 immediately goes on a virtual debit card you can spend right away or save up. The other tools we use to convince people to mode shift, leave their car at home, uh are case studies like the three I just told you about, um Katrina, Rachelle, and Abdallah, to inspire people who were in similar situations, think about how much money they're going to save on gas, wear and tear on their car. Um our relationships with managers around town at shops and restaurants, um helps them share the information, the programs that we have, so they can attract and retain workers. In the US, the average service sector worker stays in their job 110 days. So, you can imagine what a relief it is to managers, um when previously they'd trained someone up, they're all set, and then they leave. If they have someone who stays longer because they're getting benefits through Patma. And basically what we're trying to do is present information and incentives to workers so they can make the decision. Do the benefits of leaving my car at home and taking the Caltrain to work outweigh the uh the barriers to the change? Next slide. So, we have some wonderful sustainable transportation options here in Palo Alto. People love Caltrain, all electric, brand new Swiss trains that run more frequently, that's everyone's favorite. We also um give out VTA passes, primarily for the rapid 522 and the local 22 bus. Uh the SamTrans ECR bus comes down through San Mateo County, and the Dumbarton Express comes in from the East Bay. As you know, Palo Alto is very bike-friendly, as well. Many kids bike to school. And so, biking, electric bike, e-scooter, walking are great ways to get around. So, we're we're having these discussions with affordable housing advocates. Do people really need a car to get around? Between ride hail, uh Lyft, Uber, you know, car share, Zipcar, sometimes when I used to go up to to Richmond for a project, um I would just rent a Hertz over at the Sheraton cuz they have a Hertz office right near the front counter. So, can people get around without cars? The AAA said every January comes out with an estimate of how much it costs to own a car for a year, and this past year it was 11,500 or so. So, if somebody's making minimum wage, you know, that makes a big difference to their pocketbook, for their budget, for their family, if they don't need a car to get around, and they can take these different um options. Next slide. So, these this graph shows since January 2019 and up until December 2025, how many transit passes we gave out and activated. And you might be familiar with what happened in early 2020, why there was a 90% drop in transit passes. So, our nadir was 28 transit passes given out to people as people abandoned their car pools and abandoned public transit. And we've been rebuilding ever since to So, now that we're at 482 cars taken off road, 482 parking spaces freed up for other people. And as I'm sure you know, there's a dance downtown about the the people at the restaurants who have to move their car every 2 hours. And uh one restaurant waiter told me that one shift he made $50 and he got a parking ticket. So, he essentially took home $9 that day. Take a bike Let me give you a bike. Let me give you a transit pass. Let me give you a train bus pass. Um but, it's up to them to make the decision. Next slide. This is a picture of Javier. And Javier lives in Sunnyvale and uh told me that he would like a bike so he can get in shape. He currently drives and he wants to be able to bike from Sunnyvale to work. Um but, that also his shift now starts at 6:00 a.m., which is too early to take um alternative. So, he wanted to bike. And so, um just wanted to show you a happy picture of Javier at Silicon Valley Bicycle Bicycle Exchange, which is in Palo Alto, just off of 101 near San Antonio. And we um hook them up with people who are open to leaving their car at home at least 3 days a week and biking instead. And then, we pay a Silicon Valley Bicycle Exchange $491 for these beautiful bikes. And I say to [snorts] Greg, "Can you set aside the nicest ones for my folks?" And so, I'm seeing Cannondales and Giants and all kinds of really nice bikes that they accept donated from people in Palo Alto and the area. They check the shifters and the brakes and put air in the tires. And then, also offer people like Javier a free helmet, lock, and lights. And so, that's uh that's our agreement with them. So, beautiful refurbished bikes are going to people who really appreciate use them and save money on their commute. Next slide. And uh penultimately, here's uh a quote from one of our board members who's the human resources uh manager for Coupa Cafe that it really helps reduce her uh workers parking stress. They don't have to leave every 2 hours to re-park their car. They save on commuting costs. It helps their work-life balance. And she's a a committed um supporter of Pat Mose's work. Next slide. Um the last slide I want to share with you, and the next one's my contact information, is that there are still opportunities for growth though. 80,000 people work in Palo Alto, if you don't count the 29,000 associated with Stanford Research Park, and we're not counting Stanford University either. Of the 80,000 people, there are more opportunities to help specifically assisted living workers. We're working with Channing House to determine um if they're interested in taking advantage of any of our programs. We now have the go-ahead to work with hourly workers from the city of Palo Alto, the people who don't receive benefits. The city's salaried workers who do receive benefits can get a um Bay Pass, which you can use on any one of the 27 transit agencies in the Bay Area, but the hourly workers do not qualify for that, so we can now help them. Um we're focusing on reaching out to five actual cities where a lot of people we find in the commute survey live. Um so Mountain View, Redwood City, Fremont, San Jose, and East Palo Alto to see um what information we can put out through their weekly newsletters to try to help residents who work in Palo Alto and are low-wage workers. Uh finally, we just received the go-ahead from the city to uh since they're ending the Palo Alto Link program, um to transfer a portion of that budget to Pat Mose, so that we can help low-income residents now, help seniors, people with disabilities, be able to access sustainable transportation options if they'll use it three times a week, and uh will leave their car at home. So we're excited about the results that we've been able to demonstrate. I've been the executive director for the last 4 years and uh looking forward to the near future to to grow the programs even further. And the last slide is my contact information and I'll open it up for your questions. >> Thank you. Thank you for sharing this information which I think is invaluable for the people that we are most concerned with the vulnerable the seniors, the handicapped and the day workers that come in. Thank you. Commissioners Don. Commissioner Barr. >> Yes, on your list of ride hails you have Palo Alto Link, Lyft and Uber. But if you live in Palo Alto, there's one missing which is Waymo. We see Waymos driving up and down the streets constantly without any passenger or driver in them, but they appear to be on their way to pick up someone. Do you have any data on the number of rides that Waymo provides and also the price of a Waymo drive compared to a Lyft or Uber ride? >> So, we only offer the after hours Lyft program. It's a $10 credit per ride up to 5 miles, but it's not our first choice because generally it isn't a shared ride and we're trying to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Waymo actually can be a zero occupancy vehicle, not even a single occupancy vehicle sometimes. So, we don't really get into Waymo or the costs or how many people it's moving. >> Do we Do we know how many people Waymo moves in Palo Alto? >> I can look into it and get back to you. >> should get that data. How How many rides does Waymo provide in Palo Alto um on an average day? And what is the price of a Waymo ride compared to an Uber or Lyft ride? If you could get that data, that would be very interesting to learn. I I have no clue, but I just know that there are constantly our Waymos on the streets of Palo Alto. >> I'll look into it and I'll get back to you. >> Other questions? Commissioner Rosenburg. >> Hi, thank you for your presentation. I have two questions. Um one I was just wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about how you secure the electric scooters. And then the other part of the question is are there any lessons opportunities to the communities on how to say ride a bicycle or how to operate the scooter? >> It was It was interesting. Yes, uh we we originally went into the the pilot of five people, three e-scooters, and two electric bikes. Um wanting to try out Unagi, which is a lease program. And it was the major lesson learned for that one was that it ended up being more expensive than just buying an e-scooter for people um up front. Um but it was also a really high-quality like a $1,500 um lightweight e-scooter. It's It's really important that you can fold it up and uh bring it on the bus or train and that it's not 44 lb. Somebody Some of them can be pretty heavy. Um but the most interesting lesson learned is is once Katrina and Rakeya had gotten used to using the e-scooters and the 12 months was up for the pilot, I went to both of them and asked, "What is your plan to replace this Unagi leased e-scooter once I need to send it back?" And Rakeya was horrified. [laughter] So I actually talked to my client and said, "Can I just buy her a new one that has, you know, safety features like suspension and lights on the back and, you know, and is lightweight?" And my client said, "Yes, please." Because Rachelle was now really used to it and Katrina was really used to it and they had these habits. They're using it 5 days a week. So we started with leases them and just realized it would be less expensive in in the future to to just buy them. We did run in into um some other challenges with it and we learned a lot from the process. But you had another question as well? >> Oh, thank you for answering that one. I can imagine that's pretty costly and hard to triage um who gets the scooters, but that's really interesting. I'd love to hear more about that perhaps at a later time. The second question was about lessons. Um are there any lessons beside provided to the people about how to operate the scooter or the bike? >> Um yes, we we were planning to work with San Francisco Bike Coalition that does a lot of um bike safety education to have in-person classes and I couldn't get anyone to sign up to commit for and to sign up for in-person classes. They were ready to do a few hours of of lessons and then a few hours of practice and just people were not making time for that, especially low-wage service sector workers. If you can imagine, many of them are uh moving between two different jobs and have half an hour between them and have family commitments to to spend a Saturday morning, two Saturday mornings coming out to do it to work on safety um just didn't happen. So we had an online 1-hour class and there were two people who actually came to it. One had her video off the whole time and the other one turned his video half off halfway through. So where we landed with that was I now have a bike safety quiz of 10 questions and you can't get a refurbished bike um until you return the the quiz to me. And everyone gets eight, nine, or 10 correct out of 10. Um and and one person I said, "Congratulations, you got all of them right." He's like, "Well, they're pretty they're pretty obvious like what the right answer is." So, it's a way to teach people but by giving them a quiz so they pick up the basics about, you know, intersections, how to stay safe in an intersection when you're coming to one with cars in it. So, that's where we landed was the quiz. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Um I'm just curious uh how involved you are are with um the push to build housing near transit in Palo Alto, which you know is now Although it is a rule in California that you must be building tran- uh more affordable housing near transit, Palo Alto is resisting. Um and I'm curious, you know, you know, you say, for example, fewer vehicle miles traveled. That may be true, but if we build affordable housing in large quantities and have an additional homes for an additional 6,000 residents, there will be more cars and there will be more uh emissions. So, how do you balance the need to grow housing and the population of Palo Alto? Uh how are you working with the council to ensure that they are abiding by the California standards for building affordable housing near transit? And um how how will you balance out these metrics that which look great if your population is stable or declining or becoming increasingly less mobile with a with a population that should be becoming younger and more likely to drive? >> I'm so glad you brought up that topic because you all are sophisticated and understand the housing transportation nexus. Tomorrow I am I am submitting a $25,000 grant proposal to VTA under the Transit-Oriented Communities um education and engagement program. And it basically involves doing three community bike rides with one group that lives in affordable housing units through Alta Housing or Mercy or another one in in Palo Alto. So getting 10 people to ride with us on the protected bike lanes of El Camino and getting more comfortable with that. And then loading the bikes into a VTA bus 52222. Have any of you ever tried to load a a bus while the bus driver is waiting for you to do it? And the arm kind of sticks and you got to get it up get the rack down and put it on. Um so we'll practice loading it on to either the bike rack which holds three or in the back of the bus. And then we'll ride it down El Camino Real, get off, get a snack at a restaurant, have an appetizer platter. As a way to kind of um socialize the idea that there are a bunch of great ways to get around that don't involve having a car. Which if we can popularize that and then I'll I'll take the results and lessons learned and share it with City Council and the Planning Commission. If we can popularize that idea because there is one City Council member said to me, "Are people really going to give up a car?" So you you saw one of the earlier slides how many great ways there are to get around. And when you need a car you really need a car. So get a Hertz or you know take a Lyft or Uber. Um so if we can popularize the idea that there are great ways to get around then maybe more of these affordable housing units can pencil out. Uh some of these developments that are being proposed because they won't have as many parking spaces. And the real estate value of one parking space I'm sure you know is is pretty expensive. So that's one way we're trying to contribute to more affordable housing. We're going to be um partnering with Palo Alto Forward who has a bunch of contacts in the affordable housing community. I mean, I know a bunch of people, but he had he worked very closely with them. So, to to put these together, to publicize these to rides, to find um residents in the affordable housing units. Um a second ride will be for residents who live in East Palo Alto who currently drive to their their work in Palo Alto. And as third is people who live in Mountain View. Same kind of thing. So, that's that's one way we're working on it. It's It's the case studies that really make the compelling argument that kind of stick with people in terms of what's possible. >> So, what would be a really awesome case study is someone who lives in East Palo Alto or San Jose or maybe way out in Pleasanton who can now afford to live in Palo Alto and therefore not drive 2 hours a day to their home. So, just keeping in mind that part of the reason people are driving is because they can't afford to live here. So, changing that would be really powerful. >> I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for that question and comment. >> Um I Thank you for your presentation. Um this is uh I don't drive and I think like this is such an important issue and really thank you for your work because I I love the presentation of both the data and the stories and just changing behavior is so difficult. And but you're coming in at a time where like as somebody who who doesn't drive, you know, I take Caltrain every day and the amount of people I'm seeing these days that are getting on Caltrain that are like, "I've never taken Caltrain anymore, but the traffic it's just the with the point that it's reached in the Bay Area, um it is not reliable to get me where I need to go. So, I'm I'm going with Caltrain." And they're having positive experiences. So, thank you so much for your work. Uh one thing I wasn't aware of, Palo Alto Link is ending? >> Uh, the next few months. Yes. >> Oh, man. >> They're winding it down. The grants, um, some of the grants have run out and the city was trying to figure out how to cut, um, some expenses for the budget. So, >> Okay. >> they are giving a portion of that, a fraction of that to to Pat Mott to be able to provide Caltrain passes and bus passes and bikes. So, that, um, I think a big segment's going to be either seniors or low-income residents. I've already started receiving requests from people who There are pockets of lower-income apartments around town, as I'm sure you know. And I got a request last week from someone who had lives in Palo Alto in an apartment and works in Menlo Park. And he said, "Can I Can I get a refurbished bike through you?" And my first thought was, "No, you work elsewhere." Wait a minute. Starting July 1st, we can hook him up with a bike so that he doesn't have to drive. >> Just one comment. There is in Santa Clara County, there is a building in downtown San Jose that they're changing the allotment of parking spots. And they have record vacancies because people have moved out because they need to park a car. So, I think you're probably up against that polemic of of San Jose particular residents because they're trying to lower the costs of transportation. Um, and parking spots are hilariously expensive in Palo Alto or San Jose. As you're building new affordable housing, how do you find that middle point? And boy, I give you credit for education and teaching because we can get there. But that the that building caught my attention because of that 85% vacant now. A luxury building. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Maybe you could look at the stats on that and that would be beneficial for you to see those and then be able to understand the cost of parking and what the mayor is trying to do down there. >> It's it we do live in an auto normative society, don't we? Where the default is, how am I going to get to Berkeley? Hop in my car and a drive. Oh, wait, highway 880 is horrible for for >> Oh, yes. >> for traffic. Night and day, so. >> Yeah. I was someone who is CEO of a public company in Emeryville. Try doing that every day. And that was 15 years ago. I never knew where I would when I would get in or when I would get back. >> Well, it's quite a balance. If you have to go somewhere far away and you think, can I take public transit? You obviously, if it takes you an hour to drive and 3 hours to take transit, if it's going to take three times longer, that's hard. But are there ways to kind of uh nip the margins? So, when I need to go to Richmond or Berkeley or Emeryville, I drive over to Union City BART, park there, and then take the BART up. And then I can bypass all that 880 traffic. >> Yeah. >> And do work on it. Just do work on the BART. >> Commissioner Ansari, do you have any questions? >> Yeah, um I actually do. Let me lower my hand. Um thank you so much for your presentation. Um it's great to hear. I'm actually just curious, what's been most effective in actually getting your commuters to use your services? Is it direct like directly in engaging with the commuters or is it working through employers, organizations? Um are there certain incentives that are more attractive? >> The most valuable um path to low-wage service sector workers is through their managers. So, if if I can tell a few stories to the manager, explain the programs that we offer, what the benefits are to the manager of attracting and retaining staff, then that person will most likely then share it with uh with their employees. And so, these are the gatekeepers that we need to connect with and and convince to share the information. We have a one two-sided one-pager um that explains our program and programs and on the back uh gives maps. So, just telling a few stories and asking if they would be willing to share it with their employees. Um we do three marketing pushes a year, uh spring, summer, and then in the fall we do a commute survey. So, that's another chance to get the one-pager and the programs in front of the managers and find out how we're progressing. >> How do you Thank you. How do you um how do you contact the employers? Like are you guys going on foot or is there a process or is it restaurants versus like is there a process behind that or who you're contacting as far as employers go? >> Uh it's it's really a chemistry thing. It It's going out on foot and and asking for manager and uh get being able to explain just in 60 seconds who we are, what we offer, what the benefits are. And usually when I say, "And we offer free Caltrain passes, which are worth over $4,000 a year." That gets their attention. >> [laughter] >> And you're you're going to be able to attract and retain um service sector workers more easily. So, we are working with shops, you know, grocery stores, the restaurants that are so valuable to Palo Alto, the hotels, the motels. And then when something like repaving El Camino El Camino Real project and um removing 220 parking spaces comes along, then we did advance work out to 99 businesses along El Camino Real to let them know that was coming and to say, "You may be losing a few parking spaces on street, but we have all these programs to offer your employees." Um so, let us know how we can help. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for coming in and we will look forward to continuing discussions and working with you and the other uh NGOs that we work with with the vulnerable populations. Thank you. >> Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. And if any of you have contacts with any shops, restaurants, small businesses, um I'd love to hear it so I can help even more people. >> Thank you. >> Chair, um before we move on to item two, would you like to open public comment for item one? >> Yes, please. >> If any member of the public would like to speak on item one, please raise your hand or press star nine now. >> We do have one request to speak. Our first speaker is Ming. Ming, you now have permission to unmute yourself. >> Ming, are you available? I don't think there's anybody there, is there? >> Yes, we had a hand raised, but um I don't believe they're available. >> Okay. Shall we move on to business item number two? Okay. It's our honor and and and pleasure to have the fire marshal of the city of Palo Alto. She is known as Tammy. And you can pronounce your name, please. But in any event, she is going to be talking to us about fire prevention by the Palo Alto Fire Department. And uh we've been very grateful to have the resources of Chief Larson and our fire marshal and here. And then we will have a a speaker virtually, uh Captain Wooten, that will come on after Tammy's presentation. I can't think of anything Well, there are many things that are important right now, but the Malibu fires, the Palisades fires, the Altadena fires made it really clear that nothing is safe. And that if we work with the community and educate them that we can benefit the community of Palo Alto. And thank you for giving us that knowledge. And going forward, there'll be a series of additional sessions. One is on Saturday by Captain Wooten. It's at the Rinconada Library. And those times are in the presentation. And we hope to do something after fire season together with the fire department to reassess, understand better, and go forward as other cities and other communities are coalescing around these issues because no one is immune to this. And there's a a county-wide group meeting on this exact topic this evening in San Jose. So, it's very timely, and thank you. >> Well, thank you very much for having me. Uh, my name is Tammy Jasso. I'm the fire marshal. Um, I would like to talk about wildfire preparedness today and >> And Tammy, could you please speak louder? >> Yes. Sorry. >> And on top of the microphone because we're recording. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, so, first slide, please. Can you Next slide, please. Thank you. >> [sighs] >> So, wildfire preparedness is a shared responsibility. Here in Palo Alto, although we haven't had a wildfire in our foothills in a very long time, we are definitely vulnerable in our foothills and our open space in our wee neighborhoods and the regional fire corridors. And preparedness depends on not just the city, but our regional partners and our residents. Next slide, please. So, I wanted to take a minute to talk about some of the fires that have happened in the past. There's really only one in the in the past you know, 20-30 years in Palo Alto and that was the Liddicoat fire. That was about 1,000 acres and it was on both sides of Arastradero Road. Other fires in the area were date back as far as 1962, the Leap fire and that one um was northwest of Palo Alto near Sky Londa, about 1,300 acres. And in 2007, the Stevens fire, which was in Cupertino and that was 151 acres. And of course, in 2020 when we had the CZU complex fires. Um And then the lessons that we've learned um well, even if they're low frequency, that doesn't mean that there's low consequence. And in our foothills, you know, the fire builds over time and because we haven't had fire in a very long time there, there's a lot of fuels in the area. Um And then with the weather and the top of topography there, it makes it a very dangerous situation potentially in the foothills for us. Um next slide, please. So, some of the things we learned from the Palisades fires and other fires um recently down south um is that extreme wind and dry fuels can quickly um escalate a fire more than normal. And that also causes embers that will travel very far distances and affect homes and areas outside of the WUI. So, although you know, our high fire danger, moderate high, and very high fire danger is all in the foothills, mostly um west of Foothills Expressway, with depending on winds, depending on embers, you know, adjacent communities could be affected as well. Um And the other things we've learned is that evacuation systems need to be early. Um communication needs to be very clear. And it needs to be redundant. So, we need to let people know very early to get out in areas up in the foothills. We have some areas that have one way in and one way out, and it's a crucial to get evacuation started early, especially for those residents. Um Other issues that were um brought to light in the Palisades fires were the water water issues, power issues, roads, alerts, and public messaging. And so, all of those issues need to be treated as part of the incident and not separate issues. And so, that's something that um as we're dealing with those issues, we have to be thinking about all of those things as well. And this will um In doing so, that brings in, and I'll talk about this a little bit more later, um many different departments in the city will be dealing with this, not just fire. So, um other things that were learned is the home hardening and zone zero um make a huge difference. And so, just doing the things that residents can do to harden their home and um take away the flammability, the flammable objects are 5 ft around the home, makes a huge difference when it comes to wildfires and spreading to their homes. So, um I'm not going to get a whole lot into that. Um Captain Wooten will be talking a little bit about that in his workshop on Saturday, but there's a lot of resources um and I'll be talking about a few websites that people can reference to get more information. Next [clears throat] slide, please. So, from our perspective, from the fire fire department, we are a 24/7 all hazards coverage. Um we have someone available 24/7, six stations. Um a seventh station is a part-time station. It's open in Foothills uh Preserve. That's open during fire season. It's actually opening next week. We staff that station 12 hours a day um during fire season. We also have six fire engines in the flatlands, a ladder truck, a battalion chief, and three ambulances. In addition to that, we have two wildland fire engines, and those fire engines look different than our normal engines you see on a day-to-day basis. They're four-wheel drive. They're built to go up in the foothills. They're built to to fight wildland fires. Um we also have something called a skeeter, which looks like a souped-up truck. It's um also it holds water and and but a little bit less than our type three engine uh type and um it has less hose, but it also is also a four-wheel drive vehicle, and so it's it's made to go into the foothills. And we have also a what's called a type six, which is also a truck. Holds some water, but it's mostly used for what's called mop-up. So, it's not for fighting fire initially. After the fire goes out, we go back and do more work to make sure that fire stays out. And that's called mopping up. And so, we go make sure that spot fires are out, that anything that might be smoldering gets put out. And we'll use a type six engine for that. And we responded to over 10,000 calls last year. Um and that's for the whole city. Next slide, please. So, again, I wanted to touch on wildfire readiness is a citywide system. We um we have a Foothills fire management uh plan. And we have several departments that worked on that plan. We recently updated it, but we work with OES, we work with utilities, we work with public works, community services, um which is includes the rangers, um city leaderships, and we also have um outside partnerships with uh nonprofits like Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council. Um and our goal is to work on prevention initially, but also during and after a wildfire, it would take a concerted effort by all departments to mitigate those. Um and then the other thing we've done to about approximately 2 years ago, we did a pilot program. We called did a collaboration with Stanford University and Woodside Fire District. And we purchased 50 sensors in five wildfire sensors. 25 went to Stanford, 12 went to Palo Alto, and 13 went to Woodside and they are gas monitors that monitor the area for smoke to try to give us an early alert for wildfire. And so there's 12 sensors up in our foothills that ideally, if the fire breaks out, we usually would rely on phone calls from citizens to alert us for our response. These sensors would provide an could provide an alert [clears throat] prior to that. So in the middle of the night in areas that are not inhabited, we could get an early alert and send a fire engine up to to see if it's a fire before it got bigger and and you know, more dangerous. So those have been we've been working with N5 for the last 2 years with those. Next slide, please. All right, our CWPP. So we have Santa Clara County has a community wildfire protection plan. Each city in Pal in Santa Clara County has an annex in that plan. So our foothills fire management plan is a part of a greater county plan. And that is something that we continues to be worked on um with this with the county and with you know, internally with the city. The plan aligns local priorities. So we have priorities that are in Palo Alto and then the countywide priorities. And it it guides vegetation management, mitigation priorities, even public education. And also interagency coordination. Next slide, please. All right, so I talked a little bit about station 8 already. We are getting ready to open. We staff it with a three-person engine company with a wildland one of our wildland rigs. We share that responsibility with Santa Clara County Fire. It is supported by Los Altos Hills. They also help pay for those services and so we share um coverage of the of the station and so coverage starts next week. We typically will cover for the first couple of weeks and then the next month will Santa Clara County covers and then we cover the next month. So we it's a shared responsibility and it goes all the way through October. And what this does is helps with response times. If we don't have a fire engine in the foothills during the summer and a fire breaks out, it takes 20 minutes plus to respond from Palo Alto up into the foothills and so by having a fire engine stationed up there it it greatly reduces our response times. Next slide, please. Okay, other things we're doing. Every year we have wildland urban interface inspections and pre-incident planning. And so what that means is our engine companies go up into the foothills. They visit the homes. They do inspections. They look for fire hazards and they will give them notices of things they may need to correct to make their home safer. Um the other thing they do besides looking for fire hazards. So high grass um tree branches that are over homes, wood piles um you know, a spark. They look for spark arresters on on chimneys, that type of thing. But they also, in general, look at access. So, if in the event of a fire, how would they access the home? What pitfalls they may have. Um and what, um you know, things that may make responding or protecting the home more difficult. And so, in that way, hopefully, we they are more aware of the hazards in the area in the event that they have to respond there. Next slide, please. Um I and I'd be remiss to say to not mention, um our Foothills Park and Open Space treatments. Our, um rangers do a ton of work in the open space. And they are approximately 70% or so. I just spoke to, um the supervising ranger. So, they're about 70% done with, uh the work up there. And they do about 400 acres every year of mowing and disking up there. So, if you can imagine, that's a it's quite a bit of work that they do themselves. Um and they also helped coordinate all of all of our, um the work that gets done there. Um and just recently, um we worked with the Fire Safe Council and we finished all of our roadside clearance work. This is work that we do every year dur- and we clear all the the grass. And every 3 years, we try to do more, um you know, clearing brush and trees, but along the evacua- evacuation routes. And that's Los Trancos, Page Mill Road, and La Cresta Road. So, we just completed the roadside clearance work on May 29th. Next. Thank you. And, um lastly, what can residents do? Um I talked about what we do as a city and um there are many, many things that the residents can do. And so uh um I've put together some websites. Ready, set, go through Cal Fire has a very extensive website on different things how to prepare your home and harden them. Um that gives you lots of tips. Uh how to get ready in the event of before the wildfire happens. So we're coming upon wildfire season. So if you live in the in an area that is a high fire danger, you should have a go bag. You should if you're you have medications, you should have them ready to go quickly. If you have important documents, you should have a way to to get have them prepared. So if you need to leave, you can take them with you. That type of stuff. If you have animals, what are you going to do with your animals? So those are the types of things that um citizens can do to to prepare. Um the other really important things, um sign up for Alert SCC. Alert SCC is um for the whole of Santa Clara County. You um put your area in. If there's evacuations, if there's other emergencies, it doesn't have to just be wildfire, you will get an alert from from Alert SCC. That's one of the ways we will get the word out. Um the other thing is go to Genesis Protect. And you will look up where your zone is and if there's an evacuation required, it will go out on Genesis Protect. So if you know what zone you're in, you can go online and it'll show the the the zones or areas that are being evacuated and it'll also also show evacuation routes. Um another website or it's still on Cal Fire is um part of their ready, set go, but during the ready section they have um a pretty good information, you know, about zone zero, the first 5 ft and defensible space, what you can do. Um and then just lastly, a prepared home makes our job easier. And so when we come up there in a fire, if we're looking at um the different homes, we can protect a home that has defensible space much easier than a home that does not. And there's only so much we can do and with so much time. So by preparing your home, you give us a much better opportunity to protect it. Um and then the other thing is and Captain Wooten will I'll invite him to speak um on Saturday, there is the Firescape Workshop um at Rinconada Library from 12:30 to 2:30 and that will give a lot of information on the types of plants that you can that you can plant around your home that are that will be safer from fire. And is Captain Wooten available? >> Yep, I'm here if everybody can hear me. >> Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. >> Chief Jasso, did you want me to speak on anything particular? >> Can can you give us kind of um what you're going to be presenting on Saturday? That would be great. >> Sure. So um I'll be presenting um ahead of a Firescaping expert who's a landscaper who will be going over um all the plants people can put around their homes um and she'll be much more knowledgeable in that area than myself, but um I'm also uh certified as a firescaper and a firefighter with the city of Palo Alto. So I'm going to try to cover um basically just, you know, it can be very overwhelming for a homeowner to to look at their house and try to figure out what they need to do to be safe um when you look at all the code enforcement, fire code that's out there, insurance company um uh requirements, uh you know, getting into fire escaping, what Cal Fire says. And so, I'm going to try to to to put all that into simple terms and show people how they can get started and give them a little bit of education about what they can do um to start down that path um towards getting their home safe. Um so, we'll we'll we'll cover everything from uh you know, Cal Fire has an excellent zone system, which Chief Jasso mentioned with zone zero in her presentation, um which is integrated uh into how fire spreads and and uh unfortunately uh burns down homes at times. Um I'll be covering that and uh talking about what people can do to harden their home, what kind of construction features need to be looked at. Um and then just kind of uh preparing everyone then to to look at then, once they've done all that work, how do they come back with um fire escaping, which is a form of landscaping, and and beautify their home again in a safe way. >> Thank you, Jesse. That ends our presentation. Is there any questions for us? We can go with commissioner questions first. Thank you for your presentation. I wanted to ask, in one of these links, can you find the CWPP for Palo Alto? Not in the links there, but if you go on our website, um it was posted for um comments. And so I think if you just do a a quick search for um Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan, it should come up. If not, um please feel free to email me and I can send you a link. >> Thank you. And then I have one more question. Um in terms, I know you spoke a little bit about preparedness in the state or situation of a prolonged emergency, has there been any study on how we would handle the load to our electricity and water? And was there any like weaknesses or anything we identified with that in the city? >> I I have I'm not aware of any studies. Um we are definitely we work with utilities. Um I actually forgot to mention utilities has done a ton of work um to make our to make it safer up in the foothills. They are currently um undergoing a huge project to underground the the overhead wires. Um and so they've been working on that in in the foothills and they will continue doing that in the open space in Midpen. Um so they have definitely been trying to do a lot of work. Um and then our water, we have several water tanks up in the foothills to help with our water supply in the event of um a fire up there, which is you know, I would I I can't compare cuz I don't know exactly how much other jurisdictions have, but it's it was built um for a a lot of homes up in more homes than we currently have. And so we have quite a few water tanks and so that is going to be a plus a bonus for us because we'll have access to water, which is often an issue. >> Thank you. >> Uh-huh. I have a couple questions for you. You know I do. Um is there any way that we can run a workshop with land lords that we can make sure the city has about 50% of renters and it's going up. I'm a renter. I live on the on the outskirts of a very beautiful public park that's part of the property. Is there any way to get information to people who own these buildings of what they should do? We can't compel them to do it, but is there anything we can do when it's such a large portion of the civilians that live here? >> Yes. Um I could I'd be happy to talk to you more about doing some education, but we do do um inspections for um R2s which are high-density housing or any three or more units. So, we do annual inspections and so if we do see fire hazards or you have overgrown weeds or things that need to be um taken care of, those will be written up as violations as well and we do work with the Santa Clary Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program and so if we have issues with um property owners that are not coming into compliance, they can be put into the Weed Abatement Program where the um weeds will be um cut down and then the owners will be charged for that. >> Okay. I mean if we could enc- encourage you or work with you and the chamber, >> Mhm. >> I think it would be valuable that's information. I mean, it's 50% of the people who live here live in these buildings. >> We do respond to complaints. Occasionally, we get complaints about properties um and then [clears throat] we will follow up with sending inspectors out inspectors out. >> Thank you. >> contact the owners, but I'd be happy to talk to you more about it. >> Sure. I'd be happy to help. Um because the way that you live in, commissioner, have huge vegetation. The buildings that I live in, you've seen the vegetation that I live in. What? >> Downtown Palo Alto a pretty low-risk area, just judging from the maps I've been looking at. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Probably okay. >> Not with the size of the trees. I mean, they're 6 ft. They go all the way up the building for six or seven or eight stories. Anyway, and they haven't been cut back since the beginning of time. >> Well, hopefully the more dangerous trees or the trees that are um are dying or dead, um those definitely need to be trimmed back, but trees that are green and healthy are less of a fire hazard. >> Okay. >> And and especially down here being this far away from it, although we have other areas like out of the baylands that could burn as well. Um you know, with the winds and you can have spot fires even with house fires. Um if you know, it's it's it's not something that you can completely be safe from, but you can definitely um you know, cut down weeds, cut down dry trees, make sure gutters are clear, um things that would, if an ember were to land on it, it hopefully would not accelerate a a a or the spread of the fire. >> Thank you. Anyway, thank you for this invaluable information. I know there are neighboring city, as you said to me, it's a long time coming what's going on in Berkeley. It's years and years of education. And thank you for being as diligent. >> Thank you for having me. >> I'm sorry. >> Oh. >> I am Are there any questions? Anywhere? >> If any member of the public would like to speak on item two, please raise your hand or press star nine now. We do have one hand raised. Ming, do you now have permission to unmute yourself? Ming, would you like to speak on item two? >> You know, I I agree with um I agree with um what's the name? The woman that she was talking about the public par- parks. I agree with her. Cuz it's like way it's like it's like way over too much and I can't handle it. It's like, you know what I mean? Like if it's on and we need to upgrade the uh the cities to make more like public property. So, to make it even more better. So, I agree with that woman what she said. I trust her. So, yeah. I'm happy about that. And even though it needs to needs to be more better um and more beautiful outside. Like, no more cutting trees down to make the animal for the um for everyone to use it on the animals, you know what I mean? So, this is why I'm doing that. So, I'm helping I want to I want to help a lot of people there. So, that's why. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ming. We appreciate you calling in. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jesse, for being here. >> Thank you, everybody. >> And thank you for having us. >> Okay, we're going to go to business item three. And we want to talk about the subcommittees and what you were what you've done, who you've uh contacted, what the what the uh what you're going to go forward with uh over the next couple of months. So, we're going to talk about the community mental health subcommittee, the community the community engagement, HERD, and CEDA. And then when we're finished with that, I'd like to talk about the agencies that you've been assigned to and if there's anything you need with your council body, if they've been able to to reach out to you and you've reached out to them, just let us know so we go on forward with the August meeting being connected. Who would want to start? Commissioner Barr. >> Uh yes, I'm talking about the HERD committee that we we had a a meeting um and the an issue that came up uh on the whole issue of uh housing and economic recovery and development is housing for lower-income seniors that I'm sure you're all aware that Palo Alto is struggling to get the 6,000 housing units by 2031. Um but so far they haven't actually had any um um approved for lower-income seniors and there's extensive data uh from A from a survey that Avenidas did I think it in '23 called the the community assessment survey of older adults CASOA and it showed that housing particularly for lower-income seniors was the number one concern for seniors earning less than $70,000 a year. 64% said housing is my main principal concern. And so if we're going to develop 6,000 new units we need to plan for uh housing for seniors and in particular um the city has been talking about uh downtown parking lots. I know that there's a legal issue that came up over lot T on Lytton uh that Alta Housing proposed uh low-income family housing and then there was a legal issue raised. I'm hopefully that's going to be resolved soon because the city also at the same time did put out request for interest in lot C, the lot on Ramona Street behind Abvenidas, and MidPen Housing said they would like to build senior housing. Um so what the HERD Committee suggested is that in in the August uh curriculum meeting, we have a listening session on uh the need for housing for lower income seniors, where we would have a couple of uh with like Alta or MidPen Housing, and um Abvenidas, um and other senior organizations um about uh talk a listening session about uh what it takes to get housing for low income seniors. So I'd like to propose that we have a listening session in August uh on this issue of housing for low income seniors in Palo Alto. >> Commissioner Kou say, do you have anything to add to the HERD Subcommittee? >> Okay. And the only thing I will add for you, Don, is I've been reaching out to Alta Housing and making the introductions so we have yet another uh builder in the affordable housing arena. >> Yeah, I talked to the uh manager of MidPen Housing and they would like to come to a listening session in in in August to tell about their perspective cuz they're one of the biggest housing developers. MidPeninsula Housing is up and down the peninsula. They don't currently have anything I think in Palo Alto, but they are a very successful uh low income housing developer, so we'd like to have MidPeninsula Housing uh as uh at the listening session uh and I'm the I have the double hats of being the liaison to Abvenidas and being on the Abvenidas Board of Directors. So, I think that uh Abvenidas I we can find someone else from Abvenidas to come and talk about their support for housing for seniors. >> For Community Mental Health, Commissioner Canan and Commissioner Ansari, please. Do you have an update? >> We have I think we met about last month, but we haven't uh had a chance to sync up again. I think we have confirmed to have that parental uh listening session um after the schools are open. But, now that since we don't have a session in July, so we'll make an effort uh in the next couple of weeks to finalize on some of the details. And >> I'm waiting for Dr. Jose to confirm a date. It's moving out, Commissioner Canan and Commissioner Ansari, uh because I'd like him to be able to attend. So, I'm on hold with this person at Stanford and waiting for those dates. >> So, you're planning to push it out to September? >> It may be September. >> Okay. >> I didn't want it to be after going back to school, but I do also think that we'd be well served if we could have Dr. Jose um with us. So, we'll give him a few more a week, and if I don't hear something, then we'll go back to the other psych psychiatric team that we met and we're doing our own session and we'll put that together. But, I've gotten a lot of support from YCS for doing this, from the Stanford faculty, from the other mental health youth groups have all chimed in and would love to work with us. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. >> Should it be that specific person and push out or should we just continue to have something in August and maybe we can pin down for something again with Dr. Joshi on uh September in October, maybe? >> Let me find out. I'll I'll I'm I'll wait another week. >> Okay. So, as a subcommittee, maybe we can uh sync up in like 10 days. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Cuz I'd like us to book book a facility so that we're not all the way out and then we don't have a room. That would work. Commissioner Ansari. >> Okay. Um my only update is that I have talked to the the school and some of the the PTA folks that are kind of involved with the communication that goes out to the parents. So, they have said just because of timing and stuff, they'd be happy to share kind of the calendar as it comes together before school starts. Um and I think actually personally as a parent, I know how it's how it gets in August. September is not a is not a bad idea. Um >> I agree. >> Just be you know, if if it ends up being September uh because we're barely just trying to get reacclimated to everything and then there's there's back to school nights and there's all kinds of things. So, that's my update for that and then I have a I have an update for our community engagement as well. If I should just jump right into that. >> Please. >> Um so um Commissioner um Stimler and Commissioner um so I've been um we've been meeting weekly on this. And um we have set a date for October 4th for the community event for nonprofits and service providers in the community. Um October 4th, I believe at Mitchell Park is what we have tentatively on hold. We have um we're gathering a list of nonprofits that we will be reaching out to. We have an interest form already pretty much ready to go, an email copy to send out to all of the nonprofits and service providers asking them what would help them, what would make it valuable to them, um and just kind of gauging interest. And then we're just going to basically build on that. And so kind of how we're handling it is we're just making meet meeting weekly and getting through everything together. >> That's wonderful. Commissioner Stimler? Do you have any thoughts? >> Uh yeah, no, I Sorry, I agree uh on the engagement committee update. Uh we're making solid progress. Um I'm really actually quite excited for the event that we'll be having in the fall. Um and then moving forward, should I talk briefly about CEDA? Should I move Should we wrap to the next CEDA one? Should we go to CEDA? Um well, I think that's it on the event. I mean, we're meeting weekly. We're we're doing the outreach together. >> I mean, uh >> Okay. Was there any questions? Sorry. >> No, I was just wondering if Commissioner Ariel wanted to add anything or if she had any. >> Oh, Commissioner Rosenberg? >> Oh, sorry. Um yes, Commissioner Ro- >> [laughter] >> Yes, Commissioner Rosenberg. My email has your last name down differently. >> That's fine. People mistake it all the time. Do we to ask about outreach here? Should we do that? >> We can check in with Sophie right after. >> Yeah. For outreach, are we allowed to directly reach out to the organizations or should we be passing that to someone else? >> Let's talk about this offline cuz I have some ideas that I want to run by you guys. >> And I'd love to share the sponsorship list for the pride event. It was blue chip of all the people you probably want to come. So, I'd be happy to to work with you. Fair enough? Who do you want to go on to CEDAW? >> Yeah, the CEDAW committee has been meeting. We unfortunately couldn't meet right before. We are trying to grab some time with City Deputy Manager Chantel to talk about some additional ideas for increasing engagement with like political engagement for women. But we We're actually really excited to see the expanded roles for remote participation that recently came down. I feel like that's one of the one of the main concerns that we talked about was like how do we increase There's only I think been Now I forget the stat. Sorry, I don't have it at hand but it was something like there's only been 12 city council members who've been women in Palo Alto. So, that was something that we really anchored on like how could we increase political participation at the local level for women even though we know that it is an incredible amount of service that goes often late into the evenings and is a financial burden for families. So, it's is a challenge to think about what what we could do better. But that's one of the things we were thinking of. And I think the additional participation that is allowed because we now allow public comments remotely is a significant movement in that direction even though HRC didn't have anything to do with it. It was great to see. >> I'll just add to that. So, um Commissioner Simler and I met about a month ago, went over There's been some draft slides that cover the city and past commission's previous work on CEDA, looking at what um how cities similar in size have implemented CEDA. And as Commissioner Simler alluded to, it allowed us to narrow down the focus of how what we want to see in Palo Alto. Um now that we have Commissioner Rosenberg on board, um we have a meeting scheduled with Shantel Cotton Gains, who also bring her insight. And so, we'll be having that meeting in a week or two. Um yeah, to determine next steps for her insight. >> You know, as a footnote, we've I've been approached and I need to make the entree to you from Steven Lee, who was at the beginning of CEDA, and he'd love to be able to have the input and work with all of you. So, I'll do the formal. >> District question, um do I need to make a motion to have um a listening session at the August meeting? Or can we just concur that we'll have a listening session on uh housing for low-income seniors um in August? >> So, please, do we have to formalize that or will we do that? I thought when we're doing agenda, we're okay. Done. >> I'm sorry. >> We're okay. >> Okay, okay. >> have to do a motion. >> then can we have the the um the HERD subcommittee kind of organize it or We have to figure out who we're going to invite. And so would that be that'll be the job of of the herd of the three herd subcommittee. Okay, so the herd subcommittee will will communicate with each other and we will indicate which organizations we would like to come for a listening session on the issue of housing for low-income seniors in Palo Alto. Thank you. >> And on community safety, uh we have a new police chief. And I have approached him for our coordinated meeting and he's still getting his ship sailing in the right direction. So we should meet with him probably in the September fra- framework. On other issues, um I've moved forward in our discussions with a fraud workshop that overlaps many of the subcommittees. We will do it with Avenidas. We will hold it at Avenidas and we're hoping uh for an August date. Um Don, so you I'll give you the dates under consideration. I just want to confirm that our lead speaker is available on that date. And then we'll proceed. >> Okay, you'll you'll let me know more information by email or something like that. >> Now, has everyone made headway on our agency uh assignments? >> So Chair Cross, I just want to remind us that our agenda item is limited to the subcommittee report out. >> However, >> while we're doing our commissioner reports, if anyone wants to update the rest of the commission on liaisons they've had with their council buddy or any conversations that they've had with the agency that they are working with. That would be the time to do that. And in your packet is a reminder about who your agency is and your staff your council liaison. >> Thank you so much. Now, do we have to go to public comment? Is there any comment comment from the public online? And there's no one in the auditorium. >> If any member of the public would like to speak on item three, please raise your hand or press star nine now. We do have one hand raised. Our first speaker is Ming. Ming, you now have permission to unmute yourself. Ming, would you like to speak on item three? It appears we have no request to speak. Thank you. >> So, let's move forward on the city official reports. Are there reports or information that each commissioner wants to share? Won't we start in your direction? >> I have nothing to share at this time. >> Commissioner Causey. >> Um I'll just say and I'm sure I'm not the only commissioner who will speak to this was a wonderful pride celebration this past weekend. Um it really surpassed all expectations. I think they're still getting, you know, the estimate for attendees was originally they were predicting 500 to 1,000 and I think it's looking like the actual attendance turned out to be well over 2,000. I think they're still getting count. But um I know many of us were able to make it out. It was packed all day. It was wonderful. >> Oh, just a just a shout-out to Commissioner Rosenberg for her her um role in helping plan that. That was awesome. >> Commissioner Barr. Commissioner Cormack. >> No, I I was just curious to see if any of us spoke in the HRC from the HRC at the event. No, okay. Thanks. >> Well, I'll concur that the pride event was a rockstar event. The the planning commission that was part of that, I look forward to working with throughout my years in Palo Alto. Uh YCS the chairman was involved, their executive director, and the latest numbers I've heard were 1,500. It was truly exciting. It was an honor to share this with our new commissioner. Uh the programmatic work was stellar. And uh working with the rest of the planning commissioner, it was a true gathering of the community coming forward. And the program rocked. It really did. Thank you. And Commissioner Lorne Sorry. >> I have nothing to add at the moment. Thank you. >> Do you have anything you want to tell us before we move on? >> I do not. No. >> I wish your mother health. >> Thank you. >> All right. I know our council liaison is not here. He messaged me and uh we'll talk about his progress in August. And staff, do you have things to update us? >> Yes, I have a few things. Um so, in regards to uh YCS's application for emerging needs and our obligation to speak, they ended up um backing out of their um request. Um so, we're evaluating what we will do with that portion of the funds, but just wanted to update the commission on that. Um so, you didn't have an obligation to speak at that event. Um we have two events coming up in June um that may be of interest to the commission. Um one is the resource fair for our unhoused individuals. Um this will be at 33 Encina. Um we're collaborating with Life Moves, Peninsula Health Health Care Clinic, um and many other providers to support our low-income and unhoused members um of the community. There's going to be haircuts and it's a great It's great fun. So, if you guys have time to come out, you should. Um and then there will be a mental mental Oh my goodness. Mental health first aid training um at the downtown library. Um sorry, 1 second. Give you exact dates. Um and that will be on June 27th. So again related to some of the work that you guys have been doing on mental health for youth and others. And it's going to be Yeah, did I say it was at the downtown library? But I can share with you guys that information. And then finally we will not be having our commission meeting in July. We will break for summer. >> Could I ask what the date of the August meeting is? >> August 13th. >> 13th, is that correct? >> Are there any virtual public comments? >> I have to turn it off and then I have to talk. Um Is there anything else? >> If any member of the public would like to speak on an item not on the agenda, please raise your hand or press star nine now. We do have one hand raised. Our first speaker is Ming M. Ming, you now have permission to unmute yourself. >> [clears throat] >> It appears we have no request to speak. >> Okay, I think that we're going to adjourn. And thank you and have a safe, healthy, and happy break. And cool.

Perfect. All right. >> Recording in progress. >> All right. I'll call the meeting to order. First item uh on the or are there any um agenda changes, additions, or deletions? C >> can I call the RO? Oh yeah, sure. >> Yeah. Uh, Chair Roman, >> present. >> Uh, Vice Chair Willis, >> Board member Elinskas, >> present. >> Board member Eagles, >> For the record, we have quorum. >> Okay. Now, are there any agenda additions or deletions or changes? >> No changes are planned for this morning. >> Perfect. And is there any inperson public cond comment on items not on the agenda? >> Um through the chair I have not received any inerson public comment cards at the moment. >> All right then we can move on and we're holding Zoom comments to the end. Correct. Correct. >> Perfect. >> Um then we can move on to the city official reports. >> All right. Well, good morning and welcome to our June meeting. just have some brief updates to share here. So, we have six meetings remaining out of the year. Um, depending on any planned absences, please direct that to staff's attention and we'll note that for the record. And I did want to provide some updates. Since our last meeting on April 24th, the city submitted the annual report uh to the state for the certified local government status. Um in there's some upcoming changes, should I say, in late July and August with the historic resources board appointments. Um so that was originally planned uh before council's break in the month of July. Um but due to some heavy packed agendas, it has been postponed to um that late uh August um time once council comes back. So uh for the time being, the board is of the composition in front of us today. So um and I wanted to make note that on May 28th, we did hold the historic uh awards in the city hall lobby. I did have a photo from the event. Um, so we did have uh two board members that were present. Only one's pictured. Um, and we did have a council member uh that also came, but it was towards the end of the the ceremony. So, well attended. Great. And with that, I can entertain any questions before we get into some of those other agenda items. Perfect. If there's no questions, we can move on to the action items. >> All right. Well, starting with the first action item at 439 Lincoln Avenue. Uh this is a demolition uh within Professorville. [clears throat] So to orient ourselves here, uh this is a R1 single family zoning district in Professorville and the property is located near the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Waverly Street, just three blocks or three lots over from that corner, should I say. Um, as for the property's historic significance, in June of 2024, it was surveyed and it was determined to not be individually eligible for listing in the California Register. However, the property was determined to be a contributing property to the Professorville Historic District and some of those details are provided in that attachment B of the staff report. And with that, we have a request to demolish a detached garage highlighted in yellow and pictured on the screen. And you may be asking yourself, why is this coming to the board? Um if we look at our municipal code section 1649070 uh demolition permits for significant buildings which significant buildings are all structures within a historic district are subject to a 60-day uh demolition moratorum that allows the historic resources board to make a recommendation to extend any moratorum to city council. So um in addition to the historic resources board, any member of the public may uh request to an extension of the moratorum on the on the demolition permit and city council can extend that up to one year from the date of application. So um I did want to note that this was sent as noted in the staff report to city council as anformational item. Um that is another requirement in the municipal code but um we're satisfying the second requirement coming to the historic resources board for the detached garage. So the recommendation for today is that the uh board is requested to review said application and provide a recommendation to council regarding whether to extend the moratorum or not. And that concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to um entertain any questions and I do believe that the um applicant's team is here as well. Um I believe one covered parking space is required. So, if the garage is demolished, is there plans to create a new covered parking space? >> Yes, there is a associated building permits um for a junior accessory dwelling unit as well as um some other improvements on the property u just one story that um would be providing that replacement parking that you're mentioning in the municipal code. So, I I have a question about just sort of the general purpose of the moratorum. Is it to find you know an alternative use or site for the structure or there are other purposes associated with it like aside from you know delay I guess or additional study time. >> Sure. Sure. I I think the the intent of the moratorium, if we go back to when that code section was added uh in the municipal code, it is to allow all of those things that you mentioned. Um whether it would be say a structure such as a home or perhaps a a shed um kind of allowing maybe the community to um have a a look into if something could be preserved elsewhere rather than on the site. um should a property owner not want to um pursue say preservation of of a certain structure. So, it's a myriad of of options that could be that could occur within that time or it could just be waiting before it's demolished is another item. So, >> so it it's really a timing thing. It doesn't really change the ultimate outcome. >> Correct. It is just a timing. So um addressing um Getty's question, they are proposing a new junior ADU attached ADU and an attached garage. So it would break the pattern that exists right now between this house and its garage and the neighboring house and its garage. All right. If there are no more comments from the board, we can move on to do we have a presentation from the applicant or the applicant? I >> believe they're available for questions and maybe >> Yeah. >> Morning everyone. My name is Nandini. I'm with Arcanum Architecture and I'm here on behalf of the owners of 439 Lincoln. I had written up a little spiel, but I'll keep it really short. Um, I just want to talk about Paige and Turnbull's documentation of the garage and how they describe it. Uh, so Paige and Turnbull's documentation describes the garage as a simple stuckleclad one-story structure. It has a flat roof, sliding wood doors, no other openings, no architectural detailing or distinctive features. So, the garage was built in 1924 for a sum of $500, and it was actually built by a different owner. It wasn't built at the same time as the original the main house and so you know it was not part of the original design or construction of the development at 439 Lincoln. [clears throat] I think Paige and Turnbull's report describes it as it has limited historic significance. It is a accessory structure that is part of the entire property and it doesn't define the features of the property. But just apart from that, the garage is in fairly poor physical condition. Um, I think the permit application describes it, but I sent Stephen more pictures this morning. The doors are warped. They're pulling away. There's significant wood deterioration visible at the header. Um, it's not a building that can be successfully rehabilitated to today's use. It's really an accessory structure at the end of its life. And so we do ask the board respectfully to allow the application to move forward and not delay the demolition of the garage. Um my question is just why not maintain a detached garage that's more in character with the neighborhood rather than having one that's attached to the house that wouldn't have happened in the 20s. Um, so the the attached garage is really a rear attached garage. It's sort of set back so far from the property just based on the the setbacks and the way the new design is configured. It's set back far enough. I think it it it in fact is set back further than the requirements of a rear attached or detached garage. So I think the presence of that garage is going to be mitigated and you're not going to really p perceive it as a you know as a attached garage because it's set back so far. >> And when you say set back set back behind the facade of the house, >> right? >> Yes. And that was part of that building permit process that we went through for the first floor edition remodel. There is also an ADU on the property. So technically we did not need to provide any replacement parking. That's also part of the Yeah. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions if any come up. >> Thank you. Um so I took a look at this property. I walked by it and um saw the green fence indicating a project and I was very relieved to see that it is a uh renovation rather than a de demolition because this is a beautiful house um and it deserves to be cared for. I think it's been neglected um over the past years. I am of the thought that we should not delay the demolition permit here. Um, this is a structure where the new owner is going to renovate it and a new family will be able to live in it. It's a beautiful property. Um, and I think it's a great example of meeting the community halfway. Uh if I may public, we perhaps should take public comment and then >> Thank you. >> public, we will take public comment before I continue. >> Yeah. And to the chair, we do have two requests to speak. Our first speaker is Karen H. Karen, you may now come up to the mic. >> [clears throat] >> Good morning and thank you all for um holding this this meeting. Um there are a few things that I think kind of convolute this from being a straightforward application for a demolition moratorum. Um, one thing and first thing I would say is according to page and turbles and I just heard something I did not read in the page and turbul report that the garage has lost its integrity. So the application the permit application indicates does not indicate this is historic. It indicates it's in historic district. That's very different. So applications need to be accurate. Um, another thing is I would actually I would strenuously ask you to please extend the moratorum because there's much to be learned here and I think much education that probably needs to happen as well. Um, the moratorium at the end of the moratorum the demolition permit if it goes forward as it is now as I understand it would be granted. Sequa says you cannot segment a project. So, as has already come out in this meeting, there's another garage being proposed. That's segmenting a project. You can't look at a demolition of a building and not also look at the at the um new building. That's segmenting SQA. That's not okay. It's really not okay. Um also, there are rules in PaloAlto that um if you demolish a building, you have to have uh permits for the replacement building. That's so we don't have vacant lots around town, all that sort of thing. Maybe there's a loophole for garages that I'm not aware of, but my understanding is for a long time if you demolish a building and there's going to be a replacement, those permits have to be approved before you can demolish anything. Um the um commissioner um or board member uh Willis has it right that the lot pattern is correct. Um about lot patterns is correct. I'm very tired this morning. I'm so sorry. The lot pattern comment is very correct. The lot pattern as um is described in the uh professorville design guidelines is very important and critical to the nature the very nature of professorville. Um one other thing about discretionary the um oh so that's one thing and another thing about um I am very tired. I do apologize. Um another thing about discretion and squa is while a demolition moratorum if you take it alone which I'm saying I don't think you can uh might be ministerial if you take it in toto with the replacement as well it's not ministerial individual review applies that's discretionary and individual review actually requires that garages in professorville and in neighborhoods they are detached and at the rear so what's being proposed is in violation of of that so there's a lot that needs to unwound here. And I'm not being very articulate this morning, but there's a lot that needs to be unwound. It's not a simple like, oh, it's okay. It's at the back. Um, it's just the garage. It's not that simple. And I would say that potentially >> potentially the future of Professorville could be hinge on what happens at this hearing and at this this project. >> Our next speaker is Michelle D. Michelle, you may now speak. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Oh, hi. Um, very nice to uh to to to meet all you and thank you for the time. I'm one of the neighbors. Um, I had to restore my house. It was termite ridden and in deep disrepair. So, I don't understand why the state of disrepair matters in this decision. Um, you could completely gut the entire uh entirety of the inside of the garage while keeping the look of the facade. Uh, and I don't know why you need to uh remove a garage to put another one. Just fix the existing one and call it a day. Um, and I disagree with the idea that it doesn't contribute to the look of the neighborhood. It does. The fact that it's set back very far with a lot of trees in front is the exact reason why I wanted to move to Professorville to start with. Uh and therefore, um I'm very concerned about what it will be replaced with. There is enough space on the lot, by the way, to add a detached garage somewhere else behind. So, it's not a requirement of removing this to put another garage. You can add that if you will. So, that concludes my comments. I respectfully ask that we are given more time uh to consider all this >> and to the chair that concludes public comment. >> Thank you. I'll open up to my fellow members of the board. >> Well, I think that leaves me with a few questions for Stephen. Um so, um from the professor real guidelines, is there anything that would apply to this garage? I mean is I mean obviously my feeling is walking by it has a strong relationship with the adjacent house to the right that the houses are set back similar amounts the garages are set back similar amounts um so I'm just curious I did not look at the guidelines before the meeting um and then the other question that Karen brought up about segmenting squa I know we don't have plans for the new garage um is that an issue or a non-issue in your mind, >> right? I think to orient the conversation here, let's see. So, the um applicant or property owner, should I say, uh did apply for um some ministerial permits. So, just subject to a building permit. They're not triggering the individual review process that was mentioned, which is a discretionary process um that would invoke SQA. So, um a ministerial process is exempt from SQA. So, they're proposing an ADU as well as a junior accessory dwelling unit and some first story additions to the structure, all of which only require a building permit. So, um before those permits can move forward, um the the demolition of that garage and that replacement parking will need to be tied in with that. So, um these are viewing say in concert, they're they're together um for that replacement parking component for for the new residents. um or remodeled residents, should I say. Um so I think that that captures the the SQA component. I I do not believe that this would be an issue of of segmenting. There's SQA is not triggered by by this work. Um, if we're talking about the design guidelines, um, the the project with the additions as well as accessory dwelling in it that was reviewed against the guidelines and, um, would be still considered say a contributing property within the historic district for for that proposed design. So, um, though that's not up for discussion on this agenda item, it does provide a little bit of color and context to what potentially would be replacing that uh that garage on the site. So, I think that's what I can offer. Let me clarify, [clears throat] Stephen. Our role today as the HRB is to make a recommendation to city council if we agree that the moratorum should be extended or if it remains as the 60 days. Correct. >> Correct. It would be a recommendation to extend that 60-day. So, um either you can make a recommendation to extend or no recommendation um would be the option. So, And how far in >> I think the microphone wasn't connected. >> Yeah, it's on. I don't think it's working right. Oh >> well, how far into the 60s are >> uh I believe the question was just for the record u for those people online um how far along we are in the 60 days. So we are right at um that threshold. Um so we are you know it's it's scheduled for city council. blanking on the exact date. It is listed in uh that staff report um as anformational item as well as going before the historic resources board today to um to make the recommendation or not uh to extend the moratorum. So um we are towards the tail end. >> I mean I guess I sort of get the sense that extending a moratorium in this case is really unlikely to change the outcome. Um, I I don't think anybody is going to pick this structure up for reuse. Um, and I I I really I think it's unlikely that anything would change as a result of the extension of the moratorum. >> I'm with you. Um, but I do feel like um it's an opportunity to put our opinions out there and I do feel like it's a disservice to the neighborhood to um disrupt this garage pattern. And I and also I I wish we had the plans. I mean it does make it a little harder like you're you know I I I I'm going to imagine the best possible scenario and it's set way back and it doesn't show and it's not obvious that the pattern has been disrupted but um but also you know not having the plans makes you a little you know what what is going to happen you know we don't know. So, um I I guess I would just make the point that when we make our motion, it would be nice if we register the fact that it would have been nicer to if the owners were willing to stay in sync with the neighborhood and maintain the pattern, but you know that we also understand where, you know, it's their property and they can do what they want with it. Um and you know it's it's not the best outcome but it's not the worst outcome either. >> So I also uh agree that um it doesn't seem that extending the moratorum is warranted. >> If I may just u comment back. So the reason why the plans for that replacement project are not um I mean that's not subject to the the board's review. So that's why that's not being uh presented today. So while it does provide some context as to what will be replaced, the the board does have a narrow purview for just reviewing the demolition and extending that delay. So that's that's the reasoning behind >> I think you what you just brought up is great that we need a clear definition of what we review and what we don't because okay I'm still wrinkled by the Julia Morgan next door that we didn't review um and it drastically changed the property. Um, so I think that if you have guidelines, please share them with us because I still do not understand what we review and what we don't because to me, this new project that we haven't seen that's on this Lincoln property is probably going to impact Professorville in some way, shape, or form. and the fact that we're not seeing it. I would like to understand where the line is and why, you know, and I I think you must have that because somebody's directed you about what the HRB reviews and it seems to be drastically different than what we reviewed a couple of decades ago when I was on the board before. Um, so I think it would be nice to clarify with us and just give it to us in writing so we understand and when somebody comes to us and says, "Why did you guys not review this?" we can say because you know so it would it would help us defend our position I think that um if we knew exactly where our purview was and I don't I don't think I do know that at the moment >> I think that would be a great addition to add to the work plan this upcoming work plan um that >> don't you already have that I mean how do you decide whether it comes to us >> I believe that the the purview of the board is clearly outlined in uh chapter 1649. I'm happy to set up a meeting outside of that uh of this public hearing right now on this item uh to discuss that further just to add some clarity, but um just to comment uh on the item that was brought up. I think it would be a great item to add to uh the work plan should there be other concerns from board members about uh that. So, >> and if I if I may just to step in and suggest the work plan could be an [clears throat] opportunity to have a discussion about the role of the HRB and what's laid out in the code and what um you know the kind of what the staff follows in terms of what things get brought to the HRB whether it's actually an item on the work plan or not. It could be a venue for discussing that to make sure that there is some clarify clarity on that topic. >> Um, Stephen, I just want to clarify something you said. Um, and I think I heard you say anything that meets a threshold for needing IR review goes to the board. If it doesn't require IR review, it does not go to historic board. Correct. discretionary projects have the opportunity to go to that. If it is a discretionary project on a category 3 or a four perhaps that is not subject to the board's purview. If it is on another property and it's falling in under what is defined in that 1649 as a minor um you know alteration that is captured at the staff level rather than at the board level. So um thank you Okay, great. Um, then I would like to uh make a motion to recommend to city council that we do not extend the moratorum for demolition at 439 Lincoln Avenue of the proposed garage demolition. >> I'll second. And I would like to add a little amendment if we could that says that we are reluctantly [laughter] um caving uh it's a better word um where we're reluctantly accepting the demolition the garage even though um there is a strong relationship with its neighbor to the right matching house setbacks and garage setbacks in maintaining the pattern of the neighborhood which will now be disrupted. Anybody willing to accept my I just think it's important for council to understand our logic. No. Okay. If we don't educate them, we'll never win. >> Board member Elinskus. >> Yes. Uh board member Eaglesen Chiswitch. >> Yes. >> Uh Vice Chair Willis. >> Thank >> uh Chair Roman. >> Yes. >> Motion carries 301. >> We may move on to the next agenda item. >> All right. Well, let me share my screen here. Well, um, how about we take a trip to 243 Webster Street. So, this is a category 2 uh rehabilitation project. This is in a R2, which is a two family residential zoning district um on our downtown north neighborhood. The lot is here pictured in yellow or outlined in yellow, should I say. So, a little bit about the uh construction chronology of the of the property. It was built in 1904. Uh the architect and original owner is unknown. Um but we do have some records from the Sandborn maps which I'll be uh going through. I pictured on the the right of the screen. It first appears in 1908 um on those maps. And between 1908 and 1924, a onecar garage was constructed pictured there in that 1924 Sanborn map. And then following that there was a one-story addition uh around 1924 and 1923. And in 1957 uh it was identified as having two units on the property. Um though there's no permits for that rear structure. It um it has been constructed and been there for quite some time since the 50s um as indicated by the Sandborn map. So, um that is part of the proposal here uh today and what's listed in the um packet on packet page 29 and 30 for that project description for for this property. So, a little bit about the architectural style. It's an eastern shingle cottage. Uh it's popular from the 1890s to the 1910s. It has uh some typical features of a symmetrical A-frame second story uh typically a large massing on that second story u with a wide u multi-wind dormers on each slope uh wood shingled cladding and um some detailing of colonial revival and classical revival. So, as mentioned, I'll go through the plans um briefly on the following slides. Um and just referencing back to that packet page 29 and 30 for those um project descriptions. So, for the proposal itself, um it is going to be raising and lifting the house. So, um that currently has a basement um albeit uh not too much of a headroom uh in it. So, the owner is uh electing to move the residence approximately 3 ft um on the property and uh approximately 3 ft above as well as uh increasing the grade of the property um that would effectively kind of mitigate against some of that height on the structure. So it would be a less perceived impact and we'll get into that on some of these elevations. So here's the original footprint and highlighted in yellow is where um the original house is and we can see that kind of approximately 3 ft kind of shifted to the right if you will on the screen. Since there are raising the the property, there are some additional light wells um for those windows uh to bring light into that as well as stairwells. So that's kind of the the perimeter if you will on on that. And if we look at that unpermitted portion in the rear, while this isn't subject to the Historic Resources Board purview because it is an accessory dwelling unit, um that is going to be replacing that uh that back unpermitted structure um from the 1950s. So outside of the period of significance for the property. So if we're looking at the front elevation, here's the existing conditions. And then I highlighted in yellow here where that uh previous grade is or existing grade. And we can see a slight elevation of the grade as well as kind of that underpinning being raised up. So, um, if it were just to be, um, without having that raised grading on the site, it would be a little bit kind of imposing to have that, uh, extra head height on on the basement. But, um, trying to mitigate some of that. And the Secretary of Interior standards, as detailed in the staff report, kind of notes some of these um some of these mitigation measures, if you will, or or features that the the architect has chosen to um provide less of an impact to the historic resource while still trying to accommodate the rehabilitation of the structure for that additional unit on in the basement. So, um, a lot of these or guidance, should I say, is is driven from flood standards that we have, um, and and those federal standards of either raising a site and providing either landscaping or raising the grade. There's there's a lot of different creative techniques that can be applied that can uh, lessen the impact of of a structure while also still providing some uh, protection from those. So, when you're relocating a house and raising it, those are the most applicable standards. And then also noting on the left hand side the fence uh that's going to be added to kind of screen the the stairwell uh if you will down to that um that basement unit. So, if we go around the house to the southeast side elevation, here's the existing um conditions. Then highlighted in yellow are the proposed. So we have that basement unit as noted earlier as well as a window change on this facade and that small rear addition. So there is already a rear edition that was non-historic as detailed in those application materials. Um, and the owner is choosing to have uh what is currently a deck on the second story enclosed and expanding approximately about like 50 square ft or so of additional floor area. So, pretty minor um changes to the rear, but um it will be adding, you know, some additional floor area to the property coming in below the 150 ft threshold for the individual review process. So, not triggering that um discretionary process. And then if we go around to the rear of the property where that addition is going to be located and a majority of the work as noted here that second story porch and there is going to be some window changes and the architect has noted that there's going to be some differentiation of some of the siding to note that the new addition uh is not trying to say invoke a false sense of history. so compliant with those um those standards there and as well as all around the [clears throat] the underpinning of the the structure of the introduction of some of those um some of those lights to bring uh light into the basement unit and a second story window if we teeter between the two would be changed for a restroom the interior and as we're going around the house on the other side elevation here, existing conditions in that rear edition as well as those uh basement additions. So with that, uh, staff is recommending that the application is consistent with the standards of review in the municipal code as well as the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. And the historic resources board may also um take the following actions. they could continue the project to a date certain with specific direction to either the staff and the applicant or recommend that the application is not consistent with the standards. So, and to direct the board's attention that is uh detailed on packet page 31 through 35 um the compliance and the reasoning or analysis if you will for each of those 10 standards for rehabilitation. And with that, I do have the uh applicant uh with us uh today. So, um I believe that they have some some words to say. So, thank you. Uh good morning. Um I'm the project architect. The I'm a historic architect. So, um, from the beginning, uh, this house originally wasn't a landmark building, but we, um, worked with Paige and Turbo when they did their survey and it was landmarked later and then it allowed us to use some exemptions and incentives, which helped us with the project. We've always intended to restore the house, rehabilitate it, and keep it in its original uh character and form and uh but yet get some better utilization of the site by um incorporating a unit in the lower area and then uh demolishing the old kind of non-historic building in the back and do something that was um more in keeping with the front. So um that's essentially it. Um we've um been working closely with Steven and um Amy prior to that. We're looking forward to moving forward uh with the project and uh restoring the house and adding some you know housing units for the downtown which is badly needed. It's close to the downtown and we feel like this will be some you know direly needed housing units and um looking also forward to restoring the house and getting it back in service. So, I'm just available for questions if you have any. And uh the primary reason we're moving it, I did want to mention the primary reason we're moving it is to allow for um access to the basement unit on the side in a discrete location and then still provide a six-foot setback. Uh after the 3-foot stair goes down to the basement, it's behind that fence. this provides um the firefighters you know access and other things and uh accommodates the light wells. So that's the basic reason why we're doing the move. So anyway, thank you very much. >> Is there any public comment on this item? >> Um to the chair, we have not received any public comment cards and there's also no raise hands on Zoom. >> Perfect. Then I'll open it up to discussion from the board. >> Um I have one question. Um so raising it three feet. So um I'd like to know what it how high above the current grade it is and how high it will be above the current grade. >> Yeah, the actual height that we're raising it is 18 in. Um, we have to do a we had for the flood zone, you know, mitigation, we needed the light wells to be raised 3 ft, the curbs of the light wells to be raised 3 ft to get them above the baseline flood zone, flood plane area that's estimated. Um and so one of the um one of the tools we used was to raise the house 18 in so that then the retaining walls or the light well walls would only have to be raised 18 in as opposed to uh 3 ft 36 in. So it was a way of kind of splitting the middle to accommodate an appearance that won't be too imposing. Otherwise we would have had kind of a moat effect of a wall around the house where those light wells were. So, um, it's a fairly gradual rise when you think about it because it will come from the very front property back rising slowly and it actually um facilitates better drainage for the site. So, there were some benefits that came out of this particular raise of the site to get it higher. So, that's that was it. But, um, it shouldn't have a significant impact. In fact, when we kind of did the front elevations, it it didn't have much of an impact on the overall appearance u relative to the neighboring houses or the house itself. So, hopefully that answers your question. >> It does. Thank you. Um, but I do I'm just curious, but the adjacent house on the right is very much a twin. So, what will the height relationship be in the end? I mean, now it looks like this one is just an itty bit bit higher. >> Yeah. So, we're going to be gradually grading back down towards that house to where we're back to their height, their their sight lot. So, I worked closely with our civil engineer to come up with a a gradual stepping down terracing of our um our landscape around the house and then coming down. And so, we have a nice driveway there. So we have a enough area to make that transition. And um so as it comes out and runs out to the uh neighboring property, there'll be a small probably um maybe six four to 6 in curb that will support a fence and that's that'll be the only height change there. So it's going to be fairly insignificant as far as the impact on the neighboring property. So it should work out fairly well. Yeah. >> Any additional [clears throat] comments or questions from the board? >> Um I have one question which is um is the house zone for multif family so that the upper unit and the basement unit are two. >> Yeah, it happens to be an R2. >> It's an R2. Okay. Yeah, it was one and then it had two addresses because that back unit had an address. So, it's it already had been used and I think the house according to the owner was always a kind of used as a rental property. So, from very early on when it was built This is somewhat off subject, but um I just want to confess that I did go through the house um when the current owner bought it recently. Um well, not that recently, a couple years ago, so I am familiar with the property and and the owner. Okay. Okay. If there's no further discussion, um I would motion I motion that the Historic Resources Board uh finds the project at 243 Webster to be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior standards and uh recommends to council that it moves forward. >> I'll second. If I may just a correction, not to city council, the director, but >> the director. So, let me let me restate that. Uh, the historic resources board finds the project at 243 Webster to be compliant with the secretary of the interior standards. And we recommend that the director move forward. >> I'll still second. >> Um, board member Eagle Chzoich. >> Yes. >> Uh, board member Yilinskis. Yes. >> Uh, Vice Chair Willis. >> Yes. >> Uh, Chair Roman. >> Motion carries. 40. >> And I just want to add a thank you to the owner for um doing such a nice job with this lovely little remnant of our past and um and I I'm sure it's going to turn out great. It's really nice to have it remain with us and improve its appearances. Thank you. >> Yeah. And and historic multif family is really cool. So, thank you. and raising a house and moving it is super cool. So, we are we we love we sign off on this project fully for what it's worth. >> All right, we can move on to the next step agenda. And before we get started, perhaps um we now might be the time for uh disclosures, recusals, or any of those items. So, okay. So, I need to recuse myself from this project. Thank you. So I leave the room. Yes. All right. Well, um we can continue down uh towards the bay um and go to 855 Hamilton Avenue. So this is a rehabilitation project. So, this property is um zoned R1, so single family. It's within that Crescent Park neighborhood. Um I do want to note that the as noted in the staff report, um this property was evaluated as part of the 2023 uh reconnaissance survey. So, while it is not currently designated, it was recommended for listing as a category 2 resource. um that is on the consent calendar uh with council following this meeting. So um staff in an effort to advance a project forward wanted to bring this before the historic resources board for a determination of the project's consistency with the standards um that shouldn't have a bearing or would not have a bearing on the designation of the property um as a project if it is decided um would be consistent with the standard. So um just wanting to make that minor note and the previous project 2 was part of that 2023 recon survey. So the difference there was the property owner had affirmatively chosen to list their property. This one there was uh no response. So following that um as noted in the staff report the property owner of this 855 Hamilton Avenue has expressed interest now in listing uh to utilize some of the incentives that we have in the zoning code for historic properties. still putting to use some of our um incentives here. Um so just wanting to frame the conversation. So a little bit more uh construction chronology than the previous property. So this was built in 1915 um and early so and uh the adjacent property 865 Hamilton was also constructed around the same time. So, this was built for uh Carolyn Ray and the property uh to the the north um or should I say east um on Cynica and Hamilton on the corner there was built for her son Robert. So, um and this is by the uh architect Sumner. Um there's about 50 homes um of his work within PaloAlto. So, kind of a prolific architect in in the area. Um, as we go through, uh, history, uh, Toll House was constructed in 1924. There were some repairs in the 70s for termites. Um, and some first floor additions and alterations in the '90s. uh re-roofing in 2003 and a kitchen remodel in 2005 as well as some uh minor addition and some site improvements uh more recently in the um mid 2000s uh 2009 and 2010 um with a trellis, a pool and a garage and some associated landscaping. So, if we get into the proposal, um just wanting to note that on packet page 88 is the um what's listed as the um project description. Actually 87 um and highlighting that through the plans here. So, um there's a few items to note before we jump into that. There is a junior accessory dwelling unit component of this. So that is not subject to the historic resources board review, but um as part of the incentives, um the property owner is um has an application, should I say, for a home improvement exception to have that additional floor area. So that additional floor area would be bridging um the main residence between the junior accessory dwelling unit. So adding as pictured here, um the junior accessory dwelling unit is in yellow and there is that tiny little sliver um that's marked maybe if I can get on the screen here um with my cursor that would be subject to the home improvement exception. So um if the property is listed uh they would be able to have that additional floor area on on the property. So, and there are some other rear changes with the new pergula added on the property. And we'll walk through some of the elevations. If we're looking at the front elevation, there is a minor change of a window changing to a door. So, essentially kind of busting out the the bottom of the the window and extending it down. um still keeping that same uh width of the opening. And if we go around the structure, we're looking at um the southern elevation here. And you can see that uh junior accessory dwelling unit being added in the rear of the property as well as uh if we go on the second story where there is an existing um patio kind of doing some some modifications to that. So this is really the line here um where the old structure is and everything here is the junior accessory dwelling unit. So, all of this would be changing though um with the with the remodel. If we go on the rear elevation on the western, there's a few changes to some of the windows. Uh relocating on the second story as well as uh the patio on that um second story. So, swapping out some of those doors there on on that addition as well as those windows. Um, just slightly relocating for some better interior circulation of of those spaces. And if we go to the northern elevation, they're noting that uh some few window changes just between the two elongating one window and replacing one larger window with two. And that addition um on the right pictured in yellow. So with that um as detailed in that staff report page let's see here 89 through 93 of the packet the project um staff has um analyzed and determined to be consistent with the standards of review in the municipal code as well as the secretary of interior standards and is recommending that the board also make that recommendation to the director. And as noted on the last project, uh the historic resources board may either continue the project to a date certain and provide some specific direction to the staff or applicant, or they could also recommend uh that the application is not consistent and should specify which standards they're in not complying with, should I say. And with that, the applicant is here. Um, and they do have some a presentation. So, turning it over and I work with Gasulinskas Architects. Um and I just thought I could uh share a few images of the property and uh including our proposed uh perspectives. Um these are just a few aerial images. Uh so you can see the property, the main residence uh which dated 1915. Um and then the accessory structure that is a much uh more recent from probably 2010. Um which is the garage. Uh in these images you can see uh top right uh that is the uh existing garage and the main residence. uh to the right at the center image you can see uh the front facade of the residence and the the most top right image shows um the dining room window that we are proposing to be replaced uh with a door so the owners can also utilize the front yard of the property. Uh and then at the bottom images you can see the rear of the home. Um bottom left shows um the existing family room uh which we are proposing to expand by 211 square ft um using home improvement exception. And I just wanted to note that um page on turbo report it says that this is not uh historic uh volume. It retains more or less historic footprint. Uh so there were permits in uh 89 and 2005 I believe which modified this area and in uh 89 the family room was adjusted to have an octagonal shape. Previously it was a laundry room here and then in 2005 it was returned to this more rectangular shape and slightly expanded and also the kitchen was expanded towards the northeast. Um and this is our perspective showing the front of the home and here you can see the um dining room door now. So we intend to keep as much um existing detailing as possible and um introduce the doors um below the transom. We are not doing any changes here. Uh well except um moving the fence closer to the uh front of the property. Uh this is the image of the rear. So you can see the ADU um on the left in the house in the behind the the two trees that we want to preserve. And this is also the ADU unit. And you can see the family room expanded. This is the uh existing accessory structure with a new pergola. Um this is another view towards the main residence and I think this image probably um shows the full picture of the family room being expanded. Uh this is our materials board. Um we are aiming to um retain as most existing windows as possible and recreate the detailing of the ones that are to be replaced. Um we are also um planning to replace the roof finish and our intent is to match existing or to relate as closely as possible to the um sister home at uh 865 Hamilton. Um and the the brick finishes and the limestone, those are to be used for the new elevated deck in the rear. And um the limestone is to be used for the ADU JDU finish to contrast slightly with the existing residence. And um here I just have our plants. If any if you have any questions, I could just um bring them up. And I guess to summarize from the public right of way, the major change we're doing is replacing the dining room window with a door. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? >> Um to the chair, we have not received any public comment cards and there are no requests to speak on Zoom. >> Okay, I will open it up for board discussion. I have a question for Stephen, of course. [laughter] Um, and and this is in no way an objection, but I am just curious, is there any requirement for an ADU to be used as an ADU when you build one? >> I guess I'm not fully understanding the question, but um the construction of a accessory dwelling unit, whether it's junior, say attached to a structure, um would have the items uh defined in state law. um that would define a dwelling unit. Um so whether it's rented or provided, you know, a space for a family member, um those uses aren't necessarily regulated. Um it's >> that's what I wanted to know. Yeah, >> nice house. [laughter] This is a beautiful house. Um, okay. I'm going to go back to my last uh verbiage for this motion if I can find it. Okay. Um, I motion that we find the project at 855 Hamilton to be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior standards and recommend to the director that we move forward. >> I will second. Um, board member Eagles and Chzwitch. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Willis, >> yes. >> Chair Roman, >> Motion carries three zero. >> All right. Well, let's get board memberisk back and then we can do the uh the minutes. And through the chair, I uh did want to share that everyone was present for the April 9th meeting. So, no one would have to abstain. Okay. Are there any um additions, changes, or deletions to the minutes from April 9th? Okay. If there are not, I move to approve the historic resources board meeting minutes from April 9th, 2026. A second. >> Um, board member Yulinskus, >> yes. >> Board member Eagles, >> Vice Chair Willis, >> yes. >> Chair Roman, >> Motion carries 40. And uh at this time, do we have any virtual public comment? >> Uh to the chair, there are no raise hands on Zoom. Thanks. >> All right, then we can move on to board member questions, comments, announcements. >> Yeah, I actually did have a question about um some of the public comment we received in written form prior to the meeting. Um there were a couple that looked like they were pretty straightforward, like either staff or council type response items. Um, the one I'm curious about is the one that arrived um kind of like right before the deadline that we got last. Um, and it looked like it was from the uh a realtor associated with a a prospective purchase of a property. Um, you know, inquiring about the property's historic status, but then also kind of referencing some experiences that maybe a friend of the client had had. um that sounded to me like they were really inconsistent with what would typically be required of a preservation project in PaloAlto or historic rehabilitation. So I guess my question is like you know while it seems like outside of our agenda today to respond to that inquiry directly like what resources are like generally available to somebody who's you know coming and expressing that sort of concern and also may not have you know like ideal information about the process in general for you know rehabilitating a historic property which I guess also to just be clear with this it does not look like this property was historic. So that that's my question. >> Correct. I believe that that would be the Emerson property that was included in that uh most recent public comment um that I believe came in over the weekend. Um so I did respond to that email um and tried to provide some of the information and resources that we do have available while albeit um they are on the website. um that is a little difficult to find. Um so I provided the links to the the uh real estate agent I believe uh for that prospective buyer and tried to clear the air if you will for some of those um you know misconceptions for some of the permitting process. Um and this is correct that the property is is not historic. Um is a non-contributing resource within Professorville. um it has a contemporary uh build date of the 1970s. So well outside of the period of significance for the historic district. So while the standards or guidelines um design guidelines should I say do apply to the property that's just to keep the compatibility of the district. So um and keeping some of the the more contemporary designs um making them compatible. So, all of that was provided to to the real estate agent. >> Thank you. I think like the more we can do to like clear up misconceptions probably like the better off because, you know, there there definitely some I don't know some things out there that are, you know, just things that a purchaser or homeowner does not need to worry about. >> Did you ask for clarification on that $2 million? you know, wasn't that the number that she sort of came up with for the extra cost of the historic review and things required, >> right? So, um, rather than getting bogged down in some of the details, um, I I think, you know, if we view the glass still has water in it rather than maybe it it's not necessarily full or empty. Um I I think you know centering the conversation about um kind of warding off some of those misconceptions rather than getting into some of the details. I I think it's probably a more constructive way to kind of face some of that. So at least that's the staff's approach. So >> yeah, I I just curious what kind of things might have fallen in there that you know maybe we could you know address more directly in the future. I don't know. Where's our intern? I was hoping that we would see him today. >> They are starting on the 15th. So, um >> on the what they did the 15th. >> The 15th. So, next week >> on Monday. >> On Monday. >> On Monday. So, just uh right following this meeting, but um I think one of those items that actually how fitting then this is brought up. Uh some of the items that the intern will be working on is the historic inventory. um as we've as we've noted um in carrying on some of the the work or passing on the torch if you will from um Vice Chair Willis and uh Chair Roman and for some of the work that they've done on their ad hoc for um the work plan goal for updating the inventory as well as um I believe that there's some other items in the work plan for community engagement that we can work on. um to kind of ward off some of those misconceptions that the community might have about historic resources. >> I I am here next week if they need any misdirection, anything I can provide, [laughter] I would be happy to, but I also, you know, would, you know, I'm willing to be an in the intern's intern if they need, you know, extra resources for anything. I just I would really like to have an updated inventory when I leave this board. Um and I I know that sounds like a a you know a minimal goal, but it's been elusive. Um and I um would I'm really hoping to push that forward and I'm willing to put some energy into that. But um >> so one thing about the inventory I think Caroline you and I spoke and currently the inventory lives in like a spreadsheet or that's about it. >> So there's currently the city inventory published online is a list but then Stephen has a copy of it that is a spreadsheet. Yeah. Um, and I showed Carolyn an example of the um, property database that you know, San Francisco Planning has. That's actually a really great template. And if the inventory could become something like that and uh just on that note um I will say that at the historic preservation conference earlier in the month of May um I was able to attend a session for creating um a more engaged inventory and community. So there's been a few pro uh certified local government programs across the state that have uh digitized versions and kind of interactive whether you can you know click on a property and it provides all of the u building permits or historic resource evaluations that have occurred over the years. So believe that we have a lot of great examples and hopefully we'll have a great example to provide to that community uh as we build ours out. So, >> so yeah, if we could sit down, if you and I could sit down with the intern next week, that would be amazing because I just feel like even between Sam, you and Sam and I, there's some discrepancies about how we want to approach it. And I just think that maybe um addressing kind of what we're looking for as an end product um not, you know, not totally defining it maybe at this point, but at least, you know, sort of laying out the parameters and the decisions that need to be made. I'd really like to get that moving so we can get a manageable inventory that you can look at and understand because I think that if there's a we have different kinds of historic districts and um different properties involved and I think that um there's there's um we can it wouldn't take much to improve what we have right now but um I would like to um get it to a point where we could just do it once and you know have something we can update, modify and be, you know, basically done. >> All right. If there is no other comments or agenda items, I will join the meeting. Thank you.

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Transportation Commission for Wednesday, June 10th, 2026. Mr. De Vera, could you please take the roll? >> Yes. Uh Chair Chang? >> Here. >> Vice Chair G? >> Commissioner Aiken? >> Here. >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Commissioner Heckman? Commissioner James? >> Here. >> Commissioner Templeton? >> For the record, we have quorum, noting that Commissioner Heckman is absent. >> Um Ms. Armor, do we have any agenda changes, additions, or deletions? >> No changes. >> Okay. Uh at this time, we'd like to take in-person public comment for any items that are not on the agenda. For Zoom uh or remote public comments, we will address that at the end of the meeting. Are there any comment cards? >> Uh to the chair, we have not received any public comment cards at the moment. >> Great. Thank you. Uh on to city official reports then. Take it away, Assistant Director Armor. >> Thank you. Let's get the PowerPoint up for you today. So, as usual, we'll just go over your upcoming meetings. Um so, on the next slide, our next meeting on June 24th will be canceled due to a lack of items. Uh we have currently scheduled for your July 8th meeting two discussion items, 470 Olive Avenue rezoning and the PTC work plan. Now, I recognize that we've got two commissioners who uh may be absent for that meeting. And so, um depending on whether they are able to review and provide written comments, we may continue it for further discussion or could potentially to the second meeting. I will consult with the chair on how we want to manage that in terms of those agendas. And then next slide, a little bit of update on council. They did approve the draft ordinances for Senate Bill 79 and directed continuation of the work on the downtown housing plan at their June 1st meeting. There will be follow-up work for SB 79 based on the discussion and the motion from them that evening, but the second reading of the ordinance and the urgency ordinance to carry us through to that implementation, all of that will be on consent next week's meeting as well. On June 3rd, the Economic Development Committee considered and unanimously recommended approval of both the retail ordinance and the shrink wrap rule that were both recommended by the Planning Commission. And on June 8th, just this week, they discussed the San Antonio Road Area Plan and recommended we proceed with the additional studies for the core scenario developed based on their study session. There were a number of other things on that agenda including discussion of some of the work for or taking the Coverley Master Plan issue and putting it on the ballot. And so, that proceeds forward and and other work related to California Avenue. And then next week, the final week before or final meeting before council does their summer break and there are There are consent calendar items, but no discussion items related to planning and development services. Their next meeting will be on August 10th. They will have three council meetings in August, but it'll be the 10th, the 17th, and the 24th, rather than starting with that first Monday in August. And with that, concludes my presentation. We do have Ozzy Arce here to speak to transportation. >> Go ahead, Mr. Arce. >> Thank you, chair and members of PTC. My name is Ozzy Arce, senior transportation planner with the Office of Transportation updates for June 10th. Uh I presented a couple weeks back. Uh so, this will be a shorter update focusing on previewing upcoming transportation items slated for council consideration at the upcoming June 15th meeting. Moving to slide two, I want to highlight a major milestone for our city's active transportation infrastructure. The final 2026 bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan. I want to extend a sincere thank you to this commission for your foundational work on this project. Your review and unanimous recommendation of the draft plan back on November 12th were instrumental in shaping the document. Following your recommendations, City Council conducted a comprehensive review of the draft plan on December 1st, where they provided direction to refine policy language around e-bikes and e-cycle management, and tighter uh synchronization with parallel local area plans and projects. Staff has spent the last several months incorporating incorporating that feedback into a final plan document, which will officially go before the City Council for consideration and and adoption this coming Monday, June 15th. So, we're excited for that. Slide three outlines a very busy June agenda for the Office of Transportation at Council looking ahead at the upcoming items on June 15th. As mentioned, it's the last council meeting before their summer recess. Council will be evaluating the College Terrace Residential Permit Parking terms, reviewing the Alma Charleston Improvement Project, and as mentioned, voting on the formal adoption of the 2026 BPTP. Additionally, we are bringing forward the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association, known as PATMA, contract. We are launching a new 3-year agreement with PATMA. This year's contract features an important expansion that we want to highlight. As the city begins to transition and wind down the Palo Alto Link service, the micro the micro transit program here in the city later this fall, PATMA will scale up its capabilities. While the previous year's suite of services focused heavily on low-income workers downtown, their expanded offerings will now also be available to support seniors, disabled residents, and families with disabilities citywide, which is great news in today's context. And that concludes my OOT staff updates for this evening. I'm happy to take any questions you have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions? All right, let's go with Vice Chair Gee. >> Thank you, Chair, and I will continue my streak of always having questions for staff, so apologies for that. Um, my first question is for Assistant Director Armor on the retail ordinance and the shrink wrap rule. When the committee recommended approval for this item, were there any major changes, or did they recommend the PTC recommendation forward to council? >> There was a an addition >> [clears throat] >> of two personal service to include certain types of testing. Um, it was a narrow definition based substantially on the language that was recommended by a member of the public um to allow certain types of medical testing where they are doing scans and and things. So, it was a pretty narrow definition uh that was added and you can see that in um in the draft ordinance that's in the packet for Monday. >> Yeah, and I presume it's probably the same public speaker that came to us that provided that language. >> Correct. And so, as a response to the comments that they heard here at Planning Commission, they developed some language trying to keep it narrow and address the concerns so that it would really be very focused. There may be additional discussion with the Economic Development Committee later. They did ask that a few items, for example, allowing housing to be built above ground or behind some of the the Middlefield Shopping Centers, that that come back for further discussion at another time, but not hold up this ordinance moving forward. >> And no changes to the shrink wrap rule? >> No changes. >> Thank you. And then I had a second question, which is about the item that's coming before us on July 8th for 470 Olive. This is a partial item that we've actually discussed before, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay, thank you for the clarification on that. And then my other questions are for Mr. Arce. So, I had a question about the dark downtown parking project, which we've seen kind of pushed along through the year. Do you have any updates as to when that might come back to us or any explanation for this continued delay? >> As I reported last week uh or I would just say last meeting, the parking program's update and modernization initiatives that's specific to downtown needs a little bit more time. We are uh doing internal coordination as well as additional engagement with our downtown stakeholders. So, that's all I have for now. >> Okay, so we So, we think maybe sometime in Q3? Like I guess do we have an estimate on when that might come back? >> I asked the parking manager and they did not have an estimate at this time. >> Thank you. And then I also was wondering, could you provide a brief description of what the Alma Charleston Improvement Project is that you have the OTs working on? >> Yes, they are looking at Well, let me just pull this up so folks know. >> Yeah, I think Commissioner Templeton I probably frequent that intersection. So, I think we are curious. >> Yes, so I think this was I part of the uh work uh to accelerate the improvements around the Charleston and Alma uh im- corridor. It looks like they're looking at traffic signal modifications, street lighting improvements, and roadway resurfacing as the big ticket items for that effort. Um and yeah, council's looking at uh moving that forward at their June 15th meeting. >> Okay, great. Thank you. I just want to do a friendly comment to look into the potential loose wires that may have caused the issue at Meadow just to flag that potentially as an an issue that might come up here. So, just thank you for resolving that and I just want to make sure we don't repeat that here at Charleston. And then my last comment is more just a comment, which is I think the commission here really enjoyed the report produced by Patma that we saw during the pro-housing designation discussion and we're excited to see that. Well, I I will say I am excited to see that, but I think many commissioners will agree that the report was pretty thorough. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Commissioner James. >> Um I'll second the Patma love. Um I think that was uh I like what they're doing. I like how they're doing it. So, I'm real glad to see that move forward and expand. Mostly, I just want to say thank you for forwarding my concerns about the the reach to from Newell Bridge back the renovation re-engineering of that area and to flag to your colleagues working on that that this might be the perfect time to um address that vexing problem of the the maintenance easement there. So, thank you for doing that and following up with me. I appreciate it. >> Commissioner Aiken. >> Thank you, Chair. First for Vice Chair Gee, there's a nice summary of the Alma Charleston project that appeared in Palo Alto online this afternoon. So, if you haven't had a chance to look at that, it's a good explanation. My question is for Mr. Barton Mr. Orsay, can you summarize what is in the works for the College Terrace RPP? >> I don't have any specific details on the RPP other than it is It's the It's just the It's the terms for the RPP, but I don't know what exactly it's looking to update. >> Yeah, that one's an unusual one and that it [clears throat] does allow commercial parking in a way that some of the other RPPs don't. So, I know people would be interested if that's one of the terms that's going to change. Okay, that's it for me. >> All right, seeing no other lights, I'll jump in with my questions. So, Assistant Director Armor, do you know I know that there's quite a lot that City Council asked the BTC to look at regarding SB 79 just recently. Do you have any sense of when that will be coming to the PTC? >> So, the original plan was for, um, an ordinance to basically implement, on a more permanent basis, the temporary ordinance that was drafted, um, and that that would have been coming to you in July. However, the direction from council was more involved. They are interested in having some consideration of looking at some of the properties where development might be likely or would we would like to encourage it to allow a bit more than what is allowed under the draft ordinance, is my understanding. And so, the, uh, background research and preparation for that will take a, uh, some more time. So, I would expect it's going to be at least a couple of months before we're able to bring that to you for discussion. >> Thank you. And then my other question, um, you had mentioned that at the next City Council meeting there's going to be a several items on the consent calendar, but nothing for discussion. Are those, are any of those items items that have come to the PTC or are they only >> They're They are. So, for example, the recommendations from the Economic Development Committee that I mentioned, those are both going to them, uh, first reading of those ordinances on consent. Uh, so there are a number of things, but none of them, any that are on consent, uh, that might be discussed, like, if they were pulled, they would then be discussed after the summer break. >> Okay, thank you. Uh, I have no other questions, so let's move on to our only action item of the evening. Um, so this action item is to recommend the City Council adopt a draft ordinance amending the special setback map to update the special setback along a portion of Hansen Way at 3300 El Camino Real. >> And I'm going to jump in here. You have met Senior Planner, Kelly Chao [clears throat] before, but I want to take this opportunity to thank her for her hard work because this is going to be her last planning and transportation commission with the meeting with the city of Palo Alto as next week will be her final week with us. So, big thank you to her for all of her work and this one final thing. I think she's going to provide us a nice short meeting. Um, knock on wood. This evening. So, take it away Kelly. >> Thank you. Good evening chair, vice chair, commissioners. My name is Kelly Chao. I'm [clears throat] here to present the special setback update on a segment along Hansen Way, specifically in front of 303 303 hundred El Camino Real. Next, please. This project was initiated by the city council as part of their motion back in May 2025 when they adopted the expanded El Camino Real area focus plan. The city council asked staff to explore reducing the existing setback of 50 feet to 20 feet to be more consistent with the intention of the focus area plan. And so, staff recommendation aligns with the city council's direction because reducing the special setback would remove the barriers of the development to development and provide more buildable space and of course consistent with the the focus area plan that will encourage higher density development along transit corridor as well as allowing maximizing allow maximizing housing potential on this site. And reducing the special setback also aligns with the site space zoning, which is RP. This is a correction from the staff report. We have mentioned that it's a CS, commercial district, but it's actually research park. Um, next, please. So, um, this is visually presenting what it is now and what it will be upon your recommendation and city council's adoption. So, the left side map is showing the existing special setback of 50 ft along Hansen away. And we're looking at the segment in front of 3300 El Camino Real. And the right side map shows the staff recommendation and city council. Next, please. Upon, um, recommendation from the PTC tonight and, um, staff will take this item to the city council for adoption. And as always, the ordinance, um, will become effective on the 31st day of the second reading. Next, please. This concludes, um, staff presentation and I'm ready to take any questions from the commission. Thank you. >> All right, does any body on the commission have clarifying questions before we take public comment? All right, Commissioner James and then Commissioner Aiken. >> Um, I just wanted to, maybe I overlooked this, but the way this is ordinance is written, it would only pertain to that one lot and that one that one side of Hansen. It would not extend to I thought the way it was written it it felt like it might extend to both sides of the street. >> [clears throat] >> That's correct. So, only in front of the the blue portion, um, Mr. Tavares, if you could pull it up. >> Oh, uh, >> Um, so we have a map also in the packet, um, that's page 17. Uh, it's showing just the blue portion, so it's just in front of the 3300. And um, anything below that site, south of the site, wouldn't have any impact with this particular item. >> And to add some context to that, across the street there already is a modification to the special setback on the property directly across Hansen Way. And so that was described in the staff report that there was a previous project that came through but wasn't built. Um but the modification to the special setback stayed in place that if they were to develop for mixed-use hotel use that they um would not be that the special setback would not be applicable to them. So that's already in place. >> Uh just to clarify, was there a specific language in the ordinance that you were concerned about that you wanted to ask? >> So I just um it just says uh um Yeah, it just looked to me like it was explore reducing the special setback setback along uh Hansen Way at El Camino to 20 ft. I just didn't see where maybe I overlooked it. Uh but I didn't see where it was clearly specifying one side of the street and not the other and you've kind of explained it but I didn't know if that should be captured in the wording and not just the map. >> Yes, I think um uh I think Commissioner Aiken also pointed out um prior to the meeting and we will be um making some revisions to clarify the location as well. >> That we could include a specific reference to the property that is the portion that is applicable. Um this was Thank you, Commissioner Aiken, for also providing that um just yesterday a suggestion cuz I think that will clarify and make it really clear. The map I think would be sufficient but it's good to have the language be clear as well. >> Um and it makes me so happy that I spotted the same thing as Commissioner Aiken. >> [laughter] >> And and I do want to use this as an opportunity to say that as we discussed at the last meeting, if we got those questions or comments early on Monday, I might have been able to put together a report for you. >> And my apologies for that. I think I there were some questions that I did not have until I drove by the site today. >> All right, uh Commissioner Aiken. >> Um and I will just follow up with the obvious follow up which is uh was there any interest in extending this blanket change to 3200 El Camino as well rather than just making it conditional on mixed use or hotel? >> So the council direction was specifically on this particular segment. Um so we're following that direction. Um if the PC is interested, you could also suggest that City Council consider in the future, but um for the purpose of making this quick uh adoption and make the change so that it's available for that housing develop future housing development, um I think the motion could be that it's just uh this that segment is considered and then perhaps in the future they could consider additional um study on that uh special setback across from the site. >> Thank you. I think that I think that answers the real question I had. Um but it uh does occur to me that if we were to make that change at 3200 El Camino, I assume that that would have to go through the regular noticing procedure and all the other >> Correct. >> processes. >> Correct. We would not include that at this time. Um it's not something that would be part of your recommendation on this item since that wasn't noticed. Um it's something that I will definitely keep in mind for future work efforts in case it ties into some other discussions, maybe more broadly about special setbacks on Hansen Way. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. That covers everything I had. >> Commissioner James, did you have another clarifying question? >> Um, I just want to say that I I I too had this thought of like, is this something we should be doing more globally? Uh, and I think probably just kind of not give the appearance of doing a special um sort of concession for one developer, one property owner, whatever, uh, just in a sense of appearing to have more fairness. But, I kind of came back to the idea that I'd like to see how it works on this one first. Um, but uh, I I do think there's virtue in uh it makes me a little nervous when we're doing little carve-outs one at a time because I think the the public could perceive that as as special treatment. >> If If I may provide one additional thought on that in terms of the context, um, sometimes the specific context of the particular property does actually play a factor in in this consideration. And so, in this case, the fact that that diagonal utility easement that cuts across the property um really impacts the ability of them to for them to use the parcel and redevelop it for housing, and it is a a site that that we do envision for housing. Um, there are Yes, it's one property that we're looking at at a time, and generally with planning we like to look more broadly. Um, but there are special circumstances here that that I think do make this appropriate. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, I did have a quick question. So, Ms. Chan, in your presentation, you mentioned that the 20-ft setback would make it more consistent with RP. Um, is that because RP's uh If it If there were no special setback, the typical setback in RP would be 20 ft? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Thank you. Okay, I don't see any other clarifying questions. Mr. Chavarria, do we have any speaker cards or raised hands on Zoom? >> Uh, to the chair, we do have one request to uh on Zoom. Uh our first speaker will be uh Laura B. Laura, you may now speak. >> All right. Thank you. Hello. My name is Laura Bowser, and I am with Stan Hill Property Company, the ground lessee for 3300 El Camino, who's been working with the city to develop a mixed-use project at the site. We'd really appreciate all the work that staff, Planning Commission, and City Council have done on the El Camino focus area to accommodate more housing in this key part of Palo Alto. We [snorts] support adjusting the Hansen Way setback to 20 ft. As staff has mentioned, this will provide critical buildable buildable area on the site that's encumbered by other easements. The existing 50-ft setback is no longer necessary, and reducing the setback will create better activation on the corner of El Camino and Hansen Way. Thanks for your time, and Kelly, thanks for all your work. >> Thank you. All right. Then, uh since that's the only public comment, correct? >> Yes, uh we have not received any other public comment cards. >> Okay. So, we'll bring discussion back to the commission now, and close public comment. Anybody have any comments? Great. Uh Vice Chair Gee. >> Thank you. I had a quick clarif- Oh, I guess it's not a clarifying question anymore, but about the RP zone, we had previously discussed, I believe maybe Commissioner Aikins I brought up the idea of housing in the RP zone. Can you briefly discuss, is that currently allowed? Cuz I think my mental model was it wasn't, so I was just curious if staff had a comment on that. >> We can take a look. I know that that housing in the research park is a topic for future discussion based on the policies in the housing element. >> Yes. So, we can come back to that later. I just wanted to throw that at the beginning. Oh, you already have the answer. Well, >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> So, we do allow multi-family development with conditional use permit. So, they would have to go through the process of getting approval. But, it is a use that can be allowed. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And then, do we know the timeline for the project that is on this property? Cuz I think Ms. Armor, you might have mentioned that previously. >> We don't know the timing. They have not submitted an application yet. >> Okay, thank you. Did you want to add something or >> Yes, just realized that this is a housing element opportunity site. >> Okay, perfect. >> So, it is permitted without conditional use permit. >> Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to clarify that. And then, I just had a couple comments and then I will wrap up. So, um I want to say that I support this and also support the language that Commissioner Aiken proposed as well as Commissioner James about clarifying that this specific sub ordinance is only for this property. I also uh agree with the fact that the geometry of this parcel makes it particularly unique with the easement. And I actually think that the geometry of 3200 right across also has some weird geometry and that's why we have previously done a carve out for that. And while I don't know if that's something that we want to apply wholesale across Hanson, I think that I would be in favor of adding to the motion to explore potentially just those single parcel, the Hotel Parmani site across the street just because it's so narrow already and reducing the setback seems to have allowed a current business to flourish as is. And [snorts] um yeah, that's my comment. Thank you. >> Commissioner Aiken. >> Thank you, Chair. I think Vice Chair Gee has summarized the direction that I'd like to follow as well. And just a side comment, there actually is housing in R-P already on El Camino. So, there is an existence proof. Thank you. >> I don't see any other lights, so I will go right now. I'm also supportive of the um changes that Commissioner Gee suggested and also uh recommend to council that the in the future we maybe want to consider the hotel par money uh setback as as well. Um I did have a question about and now it has flown out of my head. >> [laughter] [gasps] >> Uh that's fine. Can't be that important if I didn't remember. >> [laughter] >> Does anybody Is there a motion? >> I'll I'll make one. >> Oh, I know what it was. Sorry, sorry, sorry. So, this is just a question about the El Camino Real focus area. This parcel is part of the El Camino Real focus area. It is also a housing element um opportunity site. So, then it wouldn't require any conditional use permit. All parcels within the El Camino Real focus area, do they uh do they have to still apply for conditional use permit? >> So, yeah, so the the question was about the RP. Um and so that was where that answer came from. But with these other layers uh process or the the other rules and categories, we are trying to loosen those. So, I don't believe a conditional use permit would be required. They just have to go through architectural review. >> That makes sense. Okay. >> And if I may also clarify in terms of staff's recommendation, um we hear the interest in and support of changing the zoning or the the special setback across the street for future consideration. Um our recommendation to you in terms of uh providing a clear and clean recommendation to council would be to focus at the issue at hand. We can make note that there was the this discussion. >> Is it possible for us to make two motions? One motion with So, I was going to I was going to go ahead and make a motion with amendment just with Commissioner Aiken's comments on this and then make a separate motion for consideration on the other >> Staff would not have any concern with that. >> Okay, thank you. So, with that, I mean, I want to make sure other commissioners didn't have any other comments. >> Well, only only thing I was going to say is I I I I was sure do you want to make a motion on something that's not the agendaized item? >> Deferring to staff on that. >> Check in with our legal support. >> Counselor Yueng, are you there? Anyway, I I think it while he's on the line. Okay, there we go. >> Uh I'm I'm sorry. Could you repeat that question? >> I can jump in if you'd like. >> Uh the question was uh there seems to be at least partial support for a recommendation that in the future we consider reducing the special setback um on the other side of Hansen Way. So, not the property that was under the notice um now. So, it's not making a decision on it. It was just recommending to council that that be an item that staff could uh bring forward at some future time via a motion. But, it would >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And that that kind of general direction is um fine within the scope of this item. Thank you. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. So, Commissioner Gee, did you have a motion? >> All right. We'll go ahead. So, I move staff's recommendation with the uh attachment A, the ordinance, with the guidance that we include reference to the specific property at hand uh 3300 El Camino Real in in with any addition like potential some language that Commissioner Aiken might have referenced in that email to you. >> Do I have a second? >> Uh I'll be happy to second, but I just wanted to clarify that I did not suggest any specific language. >> Okay, then I will scratch that. So, I will I will start again. So, I will just Yeah. Okay. >> We can take just the first part of the motion stopping with any reference to specific language. >> Well, so yeah, I will move staff's recommendation of attachment A, the draft ordinance, with specific guidance for adding reference to 3300 El Camino Real. >> Can I have a second? >> Second. >> Great. Any discussion? Mr. Rivera, could you please take the roll call? >> Uh Commissioner Aiken? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Templeton? >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner James? >> Vice Chair Gee? >> Yes. >> Chair Chang? >> Uh motion carries 6-0. >> All right. Do we have a second motion? >> Yes, I will If If anyone else wants to I can take this again. Sure. So, I will move that we recommend to council to consider exploring reducing the setback on along Hansen Way for the property I believe it's 3200 El Camino Real, which is across the street from this property across Hansen. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Great. Any discussion? >> Yes. >> Go ahead, Commissioner Templeton. >> Thank you. Um just from a procedural standpoint, I want to discourage this kind of thing when um a motion is not necessary. We can make this recommendation through staff alone. Um because you can imagine in the future how it could be um could get out of hand. I don't think a a vote is necessary for us to pass this recommendation along. So, um I think from a procedural standpoint, I kind of prefer a different approach. >> Any other comments? All right. So, if we're speaking for my own comment, I like the idea of documenting things that are clear direction because we are moving to um summary minutes instead of verbatim, so things tend to get lost. >> don't give direction to the council, anyway. We only give recommendations. >> Right. Sorry. No, what I'm saying is that I like this the I the idea idea of doing a motion because it communicates something that we do think is important, and I liked the um point that Commissioner James made about you know, we want to be kind of fair to everybody. So. >> Is that the case, staff, that if because the new way the minutes are done that even if we talked about this and you say you'll include it that it won't be in the minutes? >> I will I'll have to take a look at at how the >> Well, in that case, let's do it tonight, but it would be great if you could get back to us because we're going to do this a lot more if that's the case. >> Just from my own cursory review of the summary minutes, it is pretty high level, but motions are captured pretty detailedly. And so, having the motion, I think, agreeing with Chair Chang, assuming that this is how the minutes will go in the future, I think that I would prefer documenting discussion items that we want to pass along here as well. >> we're all in agreement about documenting. The question is is the minutes a document that will include this if we don't make a motion? To date, the minutes has been a place where that information could be found, but if going forward that's not going to be included based on the reduction in information provided in the minutes, then I agree with you. >> Great. Is there further up? Commissioner Peterson. >> Uh this is a question for staff. So, uh Ms. Armor, um you don't have to take this recommendation, correct? >> We will make note of this recommendation in the staff report when we bring this item to council so that they are specifically aware of it, um but it will be up to direct any future staff work. >> And that's my question then is is do you have a filtering on this of how you can, you know, rank order these motions we give you cuz I definitely have one on Cal-Ab that I'll start thinking about. You're going to You've opened the pipelines like agree with Commissioner Templeton and Commissioner Jang that this is helpful, but it will be a pipeline. How would you >> ask that they be tied to the item under discussion since this is related. It's on a separate parcel, but it's adjacent and it's the same topic. >> Okay. >> Um then our legal counsel has said that that is acceptable. Um going to a totally separate topic would not uh work. >> Okay. I did hear California coming up, but it's like is this some ground rules of some >> Correct. >> decorum. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, is there uh further discussion? All right, then Mr. Javeria, can you please take the vote? >> Yeah. Uh Commissioner Aiken. >> Yes. Commissioner James. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Peterson. >> Commissioner Templeton. >> Yes. >> Uh Vice Chair Gee. >> Chair Chang. >> Yes. >> Motion carries 6-0. >> Right. So, then on to uh next item which is approval of the minutes, the draft summary minutes for April 29th, 2026. >> And uh through the chair, I just wanted to share that everyone was present for that meeting, so no one would have to abstain. >> Okay. So then we can do a voice vote with the people who are present. Is that correct? >> Is there public comment? >> Yeah, no but So is there any public comment? >> Uh there is no public comment. >> Great. Uh would somebody like to make a motion? >> Move approval as revised. >> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay, any discussion? Mr. DeBerry, could we Oh. Commissioner Gee, or Vice Chair, do you >> I had a quick question. Can staff remind me when we moved to summary only? Was this Is Does this meeting have verbatim as well, or is it >> No, this one does not have verbatim. >> Okay. So So we we stopped having verbatim minutes from April 13th. >> Uh that was the last one, yeah. >> Okay, perfect. I just want to make sure we're not missing anything. Thank you. >> All right, I don't see Oh. Okay, yeah. I don't see any lights for discussion, so let's uh take a voice vote. So all in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? And any abstentions? All right, so motion passes unanimously. Or I guess 6 0 1. >> That is unanimous with Commissioner Heckman absent. >> Great. Thank you. >> [laughter] >> All right, on to Commissioner questions, comments, announcements, or future meetings and agendas. Commissioner Tomlinson. >> Yes, um I have been reviewing the 26-27 school dates, and I will be absent on the 18th of November. So much to my surprise, but normally it wouldn't have been a problem, but we had to move it because of Veterans Day. So, unfortunately, it is what it is. Um Thank you. >> Commissioner Peterson. So, this is a question I should have asked earlier, but I was still parsing through the bicycle and pedestrian on page 124, it uh has study uh study number five, which is close the gap uh between California Avenue and Page Mill Road. I'm assuming we can't discuss it right now, but is there a way I can look into more information on that study? >> Yes. Um go ahead and and send that question to me via email, and I'll connect you with the appropriate staff. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Seeing no lights, we'll move on to the final item, which is virtual public comment. Mr. Cabrera, are there any comments coming in through Zoom? >> Uh through chair, there are not. >> Okay, great. So, then this meeting is adjourned.

Good evening. Welcome to the Peloto Policy and Services Committee meeting on June 9th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role? >> Absolutely. Vice Mayor Stone >> here. >> Council member Rectal >> Chair Lith Cotes >> here. >> For the record, all are present. >> Thank you. Now, let's turn to public comment on items not on our agenda tonight. >> We do have one request to speak. Our first speaker will be Mr. S. >> Terrific. You have three minutes. >> Uh, good evening committee members. I'm here to request a review of Palo Alto Barking Dog Enforcement Framework. I live adjacent to commercial property in Baron Park area. Between our properties is a narrow alley. The neighborhood property keeps the dogs in the yard that directly face my house across that alley. The dogs are exactly 20 ft 24 ft away from my bedroom window and routinely react to inact to the activity in the alley, including the pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles passing by. For more than a year, I have been working with the code enforcement regarding excessive barking from these dogs. Despite numerous complaints and ongoing communication with the city staff, the problem remains unresolved. My concern is that there appears to be gap between the ordinance requirements and what can realistically be enforced. Under the current ordinance, a barking dog is defined as a dog that barks continuously and in incessently for 10 minutes within the 15 minutes window. I have been informed that the enforcement personnel must personally witness the violation and that video recordings from the residents are not accepted for enforcement purposes. In practice, this creates an almost impossible standard for many residents. The problem is that even more acute at night, 2 minute barking episode at 2 a.m. may be enough to wake up the entire family and disrupt their sleep. And yet, it may not qualify for enforcement under the current process. The ordinance appears to assume that the dogs are indoors at night. However, in my case, the dogs live outdoors in the backyard 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. City staff has acknowledged that reasonable mitigation measures exist. For example, staff agreed that installing a visual screen could reduce the barking by preventing the dogs from reacting to the activity in the alley. Yet, despite that recognition, no effective remedy has been implemented. I'm asking I'm not asking the committee to resolve my individual complaint. I'm asking whether the current barking dog ordinance and enforcement policies are achieving their intended purpose. I respectfully request the committee consider a future agenda item or a staff report examining complaint volume, enforcement outcomes, and evidentiary requirements and whether residents have a practical path to relief from recurring dog barking disturbances. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Now, we'll turn to our action agenda. The first item is our nonprofit work plan. uh follow-up recommendation on the lease for the Lawnbs Club uh for the Lawn Bowls Club. >> Thank you. Good evening, chair, council members, assistant to the city manager. Um and tonight's uh focus um will be the discussion on the cons on the continue um consideration of the nonprofit work plan phase two and specifically on the long-term lease um framework and to recommend council extend the Palto Lumbles Club's lease. Um so the nonprofit work plan um consists of four um next slide. Next slide. Thank you. Um the nonprofit work plan uh consists of four major bodies of work. Um those are the phase one funding requests that we've uh we had been working on. Um the multi-year service agreements um strategic review of all grant programs and then um as we're considering tonight the nonprofit lease agreements. Um, and that um that will help out the I'm sorry that helps flesh out the nonprofit guiding principles. Um, and we first came to this committee back in November 19, 2025 um to discuss the nonprofit leases. Um, we introduced the framework that we'll be talking about today to evaluate future leases that build on the 2022 audit recommendations and best practices. Um, as well as the nonprofit guiding principles that were developed back in October of 2024. Um and then to test that framework, staff presented um three long-term leases that were nearing expire expiration to serve as the leading examples to the framework and those were Gamble Garden, Winter Lodge Tennis and Powto Lambs. Um the committee at that time reviewed the first two and um tonight's discussion will then address the third. Next slide. So to help evaluate the nonprofit leases, the proposed framework provided guidance on three overarching themes. Um the public benefit of the relationship, the financial relationship, and the stability of the partnership. Those were described and defined in the staff report. Um, on that November 19th, 2025 policy and services meeting, uh, we crosswalked each of the nonprofit leases to this framework and receive feedback from that committee to return with more information and improvements to the public benefit um, um, theme and specifically on uh, public access and pricing uh, for Winter Lodge Tennis and for the Powellto Lawn Bowls Club. Um the Gamble Garden had also been part of that, but since their grounds are open to the public, um they uh felt like they uh fully met this uh this first tenant. Next slide. So, a little background on the Paloto Lamb's lease. So, they've been long-term partners with us since 1964. Um the property consists of Lombing Green, clubhouse, and a storage shed. The annual rent is approximately 16,000 a year with 2% increase increases each year and uh the Paulo Tombbo's Club is responsible for minor clubhouse maintenance, operating expenses, utilities except for water and insurance. um for this property. The city is also um contributing to its maintenance of the Lombul Green um as well as structural uh maintenance and repair to the clubhouse as well as um the water costs. Um this is approximately 55,000 annually. And the current uh 10-year lease expired back in March with a holdover clause in effect. Um, I also want to acknowledge that we do have Sunny Tong, our real estate manager, that is online and available to ask to answer any uh technical questions about the lease after this presentation. Next slide. Okay, so um in this slide we'll be covering uh the return of um with more information on um access and pricing. Previously, the palmold uh public access hours were only Sundays at 1 p.m. Um and to that the previous uh policy and services committee um specifically discussed the limited uh public access and membership fees as barriers to public enjoyment of the property. So since then the Pal Lombals Club has responded to the committee's feedback and is now proposing the revised public hours that are captured on this table. So the public would be able to access the grounds during these times for an introduction, a demonstration lesson or just to enjoy the property um of the grounds at no cost. So what that looks like in the summer hours in the col in the right hand side column is on Mondays the property would be closed. Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays would be open from 10 to 1. Uh Wednesdays in the evenings uh they have uh opening hours of 5:30 to 7 and then Sundays from um 1:30 to 4:30. And I was just informed that I I believe that also now encompasses noon um time as well. So during that time the public can I as I mentioned could come and access the um property um at no cost. Um the clubhouse is also currently available to the city when it's not in use by the Pelto Lombals Club. Um and since the club relies on membership fees, tournaments, and clubhouse rentals um to pay its rent, it uh also proposes to reduce rental rates to the public by 10%. Um, so that's an additional um an additional um accommodation um that while still maintaining its membership and and and rentals uh revenue, they could also offer a 10% discount to the public. Um, but I would also still like to note that uh the grounds will remain locked outside of these public hours to maintain the integrity of the Lombul green as the grass is very sensitive. want to manage um the its misuse or um or or um access that wouldn't would not be bullying. Um, so if the next slide, so if the committee recommends approval of the lease, um, tonight staff would be working with the Lombals Club on finalizing those terms, including adding annual performance measures and reporting such as, um, public use statistics to ensure that the facility remains um, a public uh, valued resource. Um staff would also take the proposed framework and include it in the real estate policies and procedures for evaluation of future leases. Um and that concludes my presentation. Chair, back to you. >> Thank you very much. Why don't we go to public comment next? Do we have anybody? >> There are no requests to speak on item one. >> Okay. Thank you. Um well, thank you, Miss Elmos. And uh colleagues, who'd like to go first? Go ahead. >> Okay. >> Council member Rectal. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, years ago when my kids were very young, we were wandering by and the door was open. So, we went in and people were playing and the kids were just toddlers or maybe early elementary. And the guys were so nice. They showed the kids how to roll it and the we must been there for an hour and it was one of the best times they had. And so, I really that was a very fond memory. Uh, but now we're always looking for things for youth to do. And could high schoolers be interested in this? This might be a good youth thing for a Friday evening or something like that or maybe even foster intergenerational activity. So, I like the lawn bowling. I want to renew the lease, but I also would like to see incorporate more people because I think it'd be healthy for the club to have more interaction and healthy for the kids, too. >> That's it. Yeah, I looked online and there's 130 members, which is quite um I thought it would just be a handful of people. So, I was quite impressed that we have that many people in the organization. So, >> okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. >> Thank you, chair. uh just appreciate staff working with the Palo Alto Lawnbowl Club on this and I appreciate the Lombore Club's willingness to expand those uh those free those free lessons. I I think this is I think we've we've found a really good community benefit here that is that is kind of I guess worthy of the of the the city's continued financial support and um of of this uh of this lease extension. So I appreciate it. Looking forward to I've never tried lawn polling. It does sound like does sound like fun. So I'll have to stroll in there sometime. hopefully this this summer and and check it out. So, I'll I'll move the staff motion. >> Second. >> Would you like to speak more to your motion? >> Okay. Well, before we vote, I'd like to say a few things, ask a few questions, actually, but thank you to my colleagues for their comments. Uh, unlike Council Member Rectal, I didn't discover lawn bowling when my kids were young. I discovered lawn bowling when I got on the city council. It was yet another thing I learned about this great little city. like, "Wow, we have lawn bowling. What is that?" Um, uh, amazing. Um, you know, we were tasked with really digging into is this truly conferring a public benefit? It seems to be public access and pricing. And so, I just want to drill into that a little bit. I know we've been comparing this particular um partner with Gamble Gardens and Winter Lodge Tennis specifically. Um, and I wonder if we have any data on how many members of the public annually use Gamble Gardens, Winter Lodge Tennis, and Lawn Bowling. Do we happen to know that or do we have anyone here from Lumble that can help us with their number? >> Um, we do have two representatives from Palon Bowls, but uh be as they make their way up if they have any other information on that. that is something that we're going to start requiring is to get a sense of how many uh members of the public, how many members are utilizing the resource. So, I'll invite um >> yeah, I would just comment that I think that's a good example of how what we're now establishing through this framework will set some uh hopefully comment uh uh metrics that our various community partner organizations can use going forward that really have not been in place to date. And I appreciate that. I think it's important. It's two acres. It's gorgeous. Lawn, clubhouse, and 130 members and which is fantastic. And council member Rectal said he didn't expect it to be that high. It's a great number. I think it still begs the question outside of membership given that this is subsidized by the city. Um, how many others are are really aware of this? How are you reaching out and inviting people to know more? Hi there, sir. Welcome. tell us your name and your role. >> Uh, thank you, council members. Uh, my name is John Yei. I'm currently the president of the Palat Lombals Club. And, uh, to your questions about the high school students, we do, not lately, but in the past, Castilea High School, their coach asked us to uh, have the kids come over. So, we did have them over to our lawn bowl club on occasions. Also, we lent them about 20 boxes of bowls and mats and and jacks, the equipment so they could practice on their artificial green in their, you know, middle quad area. So, they they had it for about two weeks. Uh we do have uh some uh I I should say middle school, high school which uh a couple of uh their uh the son and daughter they come and play and they do invite their friends to come and try it out. uh in order to uh to uh help the uh city uh the residents of Palo Alto, of of course, we do open our doors and and now we we used to have just Sundays for free uh beginning bowling for anybody who comes through our doors. Now we offer them to learn the game anytime when they come in. And we we gave you the or uh Lupita gave you the hours and the days of our uh of the times we are open. We do have a lot of rentals from the high-tech areas uh in which they do come and use our uh greens as part of their uh I guess training or or social events. and they are uh they they love the game but a lot of them live out of the city and it's uh not convenient for them to join because they may live in the city or down San Jose but uh they do show interest in the game and and uh it it could range from anywhere from 10 to 40 people learning how to bowl and uh we don't have any paid staff at our club. Everything's volunteer. So, we have to recruit our from our members people who want to come volunteer for uh for these rental to help the uh the guests how to bowl. >> Thank you, Mr. Ye. Can you I appreciate you're sharing this. We do. Um, do you have a way of tracking the number of non-members that are either coming for a lesson, dropping into play? >> We do have >> reserving the clubhouse. Also, I'm interested. >> Okay. We have people who come in just to learn how to bowl. We do have a waiver for them to sign. So, we keep track of that. Uh other than that, our rental uh chair, she keeps records of uh the businesses or uh companies who want to rent our place and the amount of uh guests are able to bowl or just use our clubhouse. Um, I am curious about how you let the public know uh that they're welcome. I've visited the website and it's not immediately jumping out to me. It instantly says become a member, but it doesn't say drop in. >> Yeah. Well, you have signs visitors welcome. You know, I joined after I retired back in 2009. I thought lawn bowling was 10pin bowling. It wasn't until I actually went in and when I went in, I was welcomed, you know, it was like a sort of family. So, uh, they they helped me learn the game and I became a member ever since. >> Thank you. Uh, I noticed the website says the clubhouse is not available for public rentals October to April or it says it is only available April through October. >> It It depends. Uh it currently uh I know last week we rented to the Santa Clara register of voters for the whole week and they came in a week ago Friday to set up and they stayed until uh Tuesday. Uh and they uh took apart you know they uh clean cleaned up the following day. So we again plan in November the same thing for the general election. So possibly that is why. >> Okay. >> There's also times where uh in the spring and also in the fall which the city wants us to close so they can uh fix the green. you know, they could fertilize and core core the green. So, we can't use the green that, but they should be able to use the the clubhouse except for the time when the register of voters come in. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate you answering my questions. >> Thank you for having us. >> Yeah. Um, so I remain interested in this question of equity across as city manager pointed out. this why we're doing this. So to get a better handle on the number of members of the public who are utilizing this resource, I think ultimately we have, you know, tremendous amenities here and um resources that we can offer the public. And I, you know, we we need to make sure that we can we understand why these two acres for which we receive $16,000 a year costs us $55,000 a year. You know, what is it? What are we getting? And are we satisfied that we're getting something that we can justify alongside how we're treating Gamble Gardens, Winter Lodge, or some somebody that would like this partnership and hasn't kind of bubbled up to the top. Um, so I look forward to, you know, continuing that conversation about why we make the choices we do and can we really um are we confident that that we're doing it equitably. All right. Any further comments before we vote? I mean, do we want to give someone an action to look at metrics and come back or is that >> those um those will already be reflected in the lease that uh move forward for council approval? Um and we they will be reporting annually on that. >> Okay. And how about outreach? If do we want to have discussions with the lawn bowling club and see what kind of outreach they could do? Yeah, as part of this um these next few weeks when we'll be looking at that lease vehicles, we can certainly look at opportunities where they could amplify their um message and and uh see how we could also list it on our website. Um if if that's u something that >> can we do some matchmaking, for example, high school kids or junior high kids, they don't know to go on the lawn bullying. The lawn bullying doesn't know who to contact if they wanted junior high students. And so how could we facilitate that? >> Yeah. Um I I I feel like we could um during this next few weeks um advise uh the Palto Lombals Club on outreach strategies with the high school um and ways that they could engage um youth and um intergenerational um um >> connections. >> And could we tell the youth council for example, >> this is an opportunity and then the youth council could reach out to the law bullying. Yes, definitely. >> Because it is such a beautiful facility, I really want to make the most of it. >> Thank you for that feedback. >> All right, let's take a vote. >> Uh, let me know if any revisions are required before I take a vote, please. Um to that motion, I just um also am wondering if we could also include a formal support of the framework just to kind of formalize that and conclude um that that piece of the work plan. >> Yeah, it's whatever was the staff recommendation in the memo. The mo the staff recommendation actually says continue discussion of the nonprofit partnership work plan on long-term lease framework and recommend a council extend the Paloto Lawnbull's lease. I'm not sure that we've had the framework in front of us. So we uh we had I think the bulk of the framework discussion at the November 19th policy and services meeting and then we continued that through the leading examples. So we had on that November 19th the bulk of the discussion with Gamble Garden and then we came back specifically with um Winter Lodge Tennis and then again now with POW with Lomb's club. So, it's kind of been um I guess a meandering of of that discussion, but the the tenants are those that were presented today and described in the staff report, which was the public benefit of the partnership, the financial relationship, and stability of the partnership. >> So, those three prongs are the framework. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I just need a little bit of help on wording this, please. Would it be that the committee wants to approve the nonprofit partnership work plan or recommend the council approve? The committee recommends that council approve the long-term lease framework and extend the Palo Alto lawn bowls lease. >> Is that right, Miss Almos? Okay. >> Yes, that's correct. Thank you. >> Thank you. How about we call it approve the um in front of the word long-term? Could you put nonprofit partnership work plan? Ready for a vote. Council member Rectal, >> yes. >> Chair Lithcott Hayes, >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Thank you so much. Thank you, Miss Elmos. Thank you, Mr. Ye, and your colleague for coming and sharing with us a little bit more about your wonderful program. All right. U we'll move on to action item two. This is a recommendation to the city council regarding adoption of an ordinance adding new chapter 9.75 fair chance in housing to title 9 public peace morals and safety of the Palo Alto municipal code to limit the use of criminal history information in rental housing decisions. Director Lee. Yes. >> Thank you, uh, Chair Scott Hayes. Um, I'd like to introduce, um, Rebecca Atkinson, planner, uh, who's presented to the city council on this item before. Um, Miss Atkinson, uh, you can take it from here. >> Is this on? Is that on? >> Okay. Good evening, chair and committee members. This agenda item is, as the chair said, the revised fair chance and housing ordinance. I'll briefly cover the item history, the main revisions made after council's review in April 2025 and staff's recommendation. Again, I'm Rebecca Atinson and Jonathan and I are joined by Meline Salah and James Reich Schneider. Next slide, please. Tonight, staff is asking the committee to review the revised draft ordinance, receive public comment, and consider a recommendation to city council. Next slide, please. Fair chance policy is a part of the city's broader rental policy work in recent years to add more certainty, stability, and fairness in the rental market. On fair chance specifically, after discussions with the human relations committee, city council reviewed a draft ordinance, requested additional analysis, and referred the ordinance to the policy and services committee for refinement. At a high level, next slide, please. Thank you. The revised draft ordinance has the same purpose as originally presented. That purpose includes facilitating a fair opportunity between applicants to compete for rental housing. The ordinance would create a new chapter in the municipal code and would establish procedures for how criminal history may be used in rental housing decisions, if used at all. Next slide, please. City Council's refinement topics focus mainly on look back periods such as anchor dates, offense type, and period lengths, as well as specific topics, clarifications on the California sex offender registry, exemptions, and circumvention. Next slide, please. On anchor dates, staff recommends a minor adjustment to use the date of disposition because it is the most reliably reported date. The main reason is administerability. Other dates such as release from incarceration or other postconviction milestones are often unavailable. If the anchor date is not listed, the revised draft allows a directly related conviction to be considered by default while giving the renter an opportunity to show if it falls outside of the applicable look back period. If the committee prefers a different approach, staff ask the committee to discuss an alternative anchor date structure. Next slide, please. Regarding look back periods to reflect severity of a directly related conviction, the revised draft now introduces a tiered approach. A three-year look back period for misdemeanors and five years for felonies. The revised draft uses the conviction classification in the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred. It allows an out ofstate felony to be treated as a misdemeanor if the renter shows it would be a misdemeanor in California. The rise draft also includes exceptions for certain convictions under federal or other state law for conduct that is lawful in California. Staff did not include additional offense tiers such as for serious or violent crimes as explained in the staff report. If the committee prefers a different approach, staff asks the committee to discuss an alternative to carry forward. Next slide, please. The revised draft also makes several additional changes in response to council feedback. First, it exempts all single family residences from ordinance applicability. Second, it clarifies that landlords may consider current sex offender registry status at the time of the background check. Third, it clarifies that the ordinance does not prohibit landlords from using other lawful screening tools such as employment verification. Staff did not add further anti-ircumvention text to this revision because the current draft already relies on providing as clear as possible procedures, documentation, and implementation guidance. Next slide, please. In sum, the revised draft ordinance keeps the core fair chance framework as recommended by the human relations commission while responding to city council's requested refinements. Staff recommends that the committee provide any further feedback on the revised draft ordinance and recommend city council adoption of the ordinance. If the committee agrees, staff recommends placement of the ordinance on the consent calendar for a first reading. On a brief administrative note, the published staff report has a footnote numbering issue caused by a software conversion error. The citations are correctly associated with the text and no footnotes are missing. However, foot footnote 41 refers to footnote 38. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Atinson. Uh why don't we go to public comment? We do have one request to speak. >> One moment. >> Perfect. You'll have three minutes. >> One second, please. >> Our first speaker is Hamilton H. >> Hi. Long time no see. No, just joking. California already has extensive protections for renters with criminal histories. Under the California Fair Housing Law, landlords cannot use blanket no felons policies, cannot consider arrests that did not lead to convictions, and must show that convictions are directly related to legitimate housing safety concerns. California law also prohibits tenants screening agencies from including criminal convictions older than seven years. This proposal goes far beyond existing California law. It prevents landlords from conducting criminal background checks until they have made a conditional offer to rent, effectively requiring them to reserve a unit before obtaining information they may consider important to the safety of their property and to other residents. The ordinance then imposes a complex process of notices, waiting periods, individual assessments, written justification, and opportunities to respond. Any mistake can expose a landlord to complaints, litigation, and significant legal expense. This ordinance also contains a major flaw. The look pack period runs from the date of disposition rather than released from incarceration. A person who served more than 5 years in prison could therefore receive these protections immediately upon release without demonstrating any period of law-abiding behavior in the community. According to the CDC CDCR in California, approximately 39% of released prisoners are convicted of a new crime within three years, including about 22% convicted of a new felony. Public safety should be the city council's first responsibility. Palatoto should support second chances, but not at the expense of the safety of the current residents, including families with children and seniors. I respectfully ask you to reject this ordinance and rely on the existing state protections instead. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, colleagues, who would like to start us off? >> Go ahead, Council Member RD Doll. >> Okay. Yeah. So, and this was sent to staff in 2021, but since then the the Clean Slate Act has been passed. Uh have you examined the Clean Slate Act? It seems like we're kind of duplicating the clean slate act with this. >> Uh the clean slate um has come into effect and um after a certain period of um a demonstrated track record think uh certain convictions can be you know eliminated from people's criminal record. uh it is my understanding is that it's uh generally automatic but it also hasn't been in effect for very long and so um you know I think people could have their own opinions if it's um duplicative or not to have um the clean slate in effect as a substitution for a local fair chance ordinance. But um I do think that there's value in what uh the ordinance does outline in terms of when it would come into effect and uh it is uh a three-year look back period which is different than um you know the the parameters under uh clean slate. >> Yeah. So I mean clean slate was part of this was that they were debating what do we do about um excons going out and and trying to apply. It's just not um housing. It's also jobs. It's also applying to be licensed if you want to be a hairdresser or something like that. All these issues excon were coming up against. And the state legislature decided these all have the common problem. Why should we solve it just for housing? So they did this clean slate and and it has some limitations what you can use if you have a misdemeanor one to two years depending on the offense it's automatically sealed if you have no offenses after that after release. This is after release not after convictions. And if you have a low-level felony four years after you've completed parole that's automatically sealed if you have no offenses in that time. And that to me sounds pretty much what we were asking for it last time. the state has already written this. I would think that that would be a better route than trying to write our own uh our own legislation. That that means that we have to maintain that. Um it's u more both both from a financial standpoint and also from a work staff standpoint. I would think it'd be much preferable to say, you know, we were ahead of the city. We identified this before this we were ahead of the state. We identified this as a problem. We started solving it. The state stepped in and solved it for us. I don't see the incentive to reinvent the wheel. And on top of that, what Hamilton mentioned is, you know, we also have the the ICA and that says that if you are renting, you can't use any data that's more than seven years old. whether that's a bankruptcy, whether that's a a criminal background and all that stuff is also state law. And so between these two things, the ICA and the Clean Slate, I think we've done a pretty good job of of solving this problem. >> Could we get some guidance perhaps from our legal team on the Clean Slate Act? >> Sure. So the cleanates act clean slate act is in effect and uh if as council member rectal indicates those are the thresholds that the committee wants to recommend then uh there would be limited utility in passing a uh further local restriction on when uh criminal history information can be used. there is um still utility when uh convictions have remained on the record, slipped through the cracks for whatever reason. Commercial criminal history databases are notorious for sort of erroneous uh unreliable records. So the value of um having a procedure for the presentation of mitigating information or evidence of inaccuracy is valuable there. And the Clean Slate Act does not allow for the presentation of mitigating information or evidence of inaccuracy. >> The Clean Slate Act has to do with uh the the existence of the of the conviction in the record, but it doesn't regulate um the interactions between uh landlords and renters. So, it it doesn't have any uh uh provisions that regulate th those communications. they're sealing it at the source. And the nice thing about that is then however that's gets distributed, if it's sealed at the source, then you solve a lot of problems with one act. But I believe the ICA does have um methods for if you find bad data, you can challenge it and and the landlord just like we would we would challenge it if if someone used old data in Palo Alto. Palo Alto had to go through some hoop jumping. I think the ICR has that same hoop jumping in it for clearing your name if you have erroneous data. >> I believe that's correct. But those that hoop jumping would be uh with reference to the credit reporting agency and not uh the interaction with the landlord. So your remedy might be um sort of further upstream and it wouldn't necessarily help you if you are um applying for to rent an apartment now and need the landlord to understand that there's an error. I could be mistaken, but I thought that it also included landlord. But regardless, for me, it's a simplicity is like if we can solve 99% of the problem with the state law, that seems a lot simpler than us recreating that and and having a bunch of legislation that we have to monitor and update it to be consistent with state law. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, chair. Just following up on on clean slate. So, what's the what's the amount of years then that clean slate applies for misdemeanors and then felonies? >> Uh I believe it's uh one year from the completion of the sentence for misdemeanor and four for felonies. >> Four for felonies and completion of the sentence meaning like if parole was granted at the end of parole >> that I don't know. I can check. >> Okay. Yeah. if if if you could because I mean because that's significant because you could be released and be on on parole for for years and I I think then this concern of redundancy is is um is is not an issue because then I think the the proposed ordinance will will have an impact there especially since the staff report lays out a strong argument for the most challenging time and um is kind of shortly after after release. So, yeah, if you could if you could confirm that and then it's just a you said a year for misdemeanor. Wow. So, then yeah, just kind of a a question if we're doing the cuz I appreciate the the three-year look back here for for misdemeanors. Um I guess just practically what is that what will that show with if with with the Clean Slate Act recognizing yeah criminal databases are are notoriously wrong oftent times so staff have thoughts on that >> the ordinance as drafted measures the look back period from the uh date of disposition and this is from the the clean slate act oper operates from the data from the >> and to the question about misdemeanor. Do misdemeanor do you get parole after there is no parole after misdemeanor >> it's up to a year oneear sentence >> for a misdemeanor. >> So yeah. >> Okay. >> I think I believe if I'm remembering right back to criminal >> law that's that's the legal standard. I think um custodial sentences for misdemeanor convictions are are relatively rare in Santa Clara County. >> Nice. All right. Thanks for the the criminal law refresher. Um, yeah, sorry. So, I kind of got a ahead of myself on on thoughts on on look back periods, but let me get a few more questions out and then kind of go to some of my my thoughts on on this. So, the one area I'm a little confused about is what are I mean, so are there cuto off periods for look backs under under state law? It's been referenced 7 years for most crimes, but can can staff clarify that? >> Can you repeat that question, please? >> Is is there a cut off period for under state law for a look back period? I think the public speaker referenced seven years. >> Seven years is the cut off for when it can be reported. >> Okay. So is is there any difference between what kind of state law requires there and what we are proposing besides just that number? I know we're I know the staff recommendation is 5 years on misdemeanor, sorry, five years on felonies, three years on misdemeanors, but the the actual kind of function of that state law, how is that different than what we're proposing? So, state law, including the state law that limits when uh criminal history information can be reported, but also um state regulations implementing the Fair Employ employment and housing act in uh include recommendations about procedures for showing that uh a a uh a landlord's policy in considering criminal history information is not going to have a discriminatory effect. But generally, those procedures are encouraged and not required. the part of a sort of balancing and burden shifting framework that can be um you know analyzed by a judge. But the benefit of having uh those those um procedures required and written out in a local rule is that there's a a bright line about whether or not they are violated. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I think oh thought brilliant addition of ensuring we're exempting convictions from other states that have criminalized reproductive or gender affirming care. So well done staff kind of flagging that early and and incorporating that here. That to be clear that is included in the proposed ordinance. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And I know we got our our chief here. Chief, I've got a just kind of a general question for you on on just kind of thoughts on this ordinance from a public safety perspective. I mean, I think you are the real expert in the room on recidivism rates and risks and kind of ex exposure to all of this. So, just kind of general thoughts on on what you think of an ordinance like this on and its impact on public safety. Uh, respectfully, I'd actually defer to staff who drafted as to their familiarity with recidivism and sort of policy on this. I would say certainly from the perspective of uh a landlord, from just a purely safety uh perspective, a landlord probably wants access to as much information as possible in deciding who the best tenant is. But I think it's an appropriate policy decision to weigh that desire by a landlord against our desire as a society to allow folks an adequate opportunity to have writed the ship so to speak and uh and and needs uh housing stability to continue to be a you know sort of reform their behavior. >> Thank you. And any update on the question? Yeah. >> Okay. Um, so I'm, you know, I'm I'm I'm in favor of I'm in favor of the staff recommendation of the three-year look back for for for misdemeanors. If we are stick I think I think that I think that makes sense if we're sticking with the staff recommendation of the of using the anchoring date as date of is it date of conviction or disposition. Did you are you recommending >> disposition? >> Okay. So, I think we're if we're sticking with that, uh, 3 years on the misdemeanors, I know when this came to council, I preferred 10 years on felonies, but now understanding this this I don't know if this change in state law has happened since that that council meeting, uh, I think then we should I I think we should mirror then the state look back for felonies at seven years. >> Years, >> is it four years? >> Four years. >> Wow. So, it's four years. >> It's four years from the completion of sentence. >> Four years from the Yes. Okay. From the completion of sentence, which we're looking into if that includes end of parole. Okay. Cuz that's that could be a very big window. Um, so, okay. So, we'll need clarification on on that. I do think absolutely we should include hate crimes and and and treat hate crimes as the most severe for if I mean if if we're just if we're looking at just misdemeanors and and felonies, I then think we should treat hate crimes um as the as as felony like with the longest possible look back. Yeah, I would prefer to do the three tier approach, treating misdemeanor felonies and then serious/violent felonies as as different. But I think I think the staff made a really strong argument in the in the staff report on how that would be really difficult and of inequitable just based on how different states treat different different um classes of felonies. So, I think I'm I'm persuaded there to that we that we can just use the um that we could just treat misdemeanor and felonies different. And yeah, those are are my thoughts. Still need more time on the Okay, sounds good. So, I think I think that remains to be a critical point on our decision- making. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, I also appreciate the work to um address the fact that um people who have been convicted elsewhere might have sort of a different status or terminology in that city versus this and that we want to bring them in line with how California regards their actions. Um, also appreciate that we've exempted all single family homeowners whether they live in the residence or not. Um uh my question first of all, thank you council member Rd Doll for bringing up the uh Clean Slate Act. Um because I do appreciate the desire for efficiency and if if it ain't broke or if someone else fixed it, why are we trying to fix it? Um and yet there are nuances that the state has not addressed that we might want to at the local level. Um, so my question for staff is how practical is it for us to incorporate and refer to the Clean Slate Act in our ordinance um on the number of years and on the um anchor date being the date of release. uh but then keep our provisions on for example a tenants's ability to correct the record and the other protections the additional kind of tenant landlord conversational protections that our ordinance includes. >> I think that would be workable if those were the thresholds that the council that the committee wanted to recommend. >> Thank you. Um you know I did read the minutes. Thank you for putting them in the staff report. It was a lengthy conversation and we were all there from the council meeting and I think to a person uh we were or almost perhaps uniformly concerned with the disposition date being the anchor um because it's so long ago and somebody could have you know committed a heinous crime a long time ago and so the look back becomes it just doesn't feel like it's addressing the situation but I understand the data is cleaner on the disposition dates. So I was surprised. So that's what we were told um as a council that there really isn't a lot of or the the reliability of the data on release dates just isn't anywhere near as robust as it is on disposition date. And so that was the reason staff continues to recommend the disposition date. But now we have the state of California with the Clean Slate Act going with the release date. So why does the state feel confident in relying on the release date and we should not feel confident relying on the release date data? when I looked into the Clean Slate Act um relative to also what was in the uh criminal history records and so forth and the different types of databases and things like that. Um and I I would look into this further, but um my understanding is that um that the the records are can be just out there and um I I think that the state is working with itself to close records or seal and so forth, which isn't necessarily the same type of material. that may or may not be in criminal history databases. I think that um that the the recordkeeping agencies can work with itself. That was my impression. was working with itself and not necessarily um uh it it seemed like they had the control over over that, but they didn't necessarily seem to trickle into some of these other things immediately. I'm I'm sorry that that might not be the best explanation. If you have >> I'll I'll second Miss Atkinson's point which is just that um there are reliability of data concerns, recordkeeping concerns that come into play when we're talking about private parties including you know credit reporting agencies um that are are less salient when we're talking about uh official agencies relying only on official records that they already have. And I'll answer Vice Mayor Stone's question. Uh the Clean Slate Act does uh include uh completion of uh probation or parole. It does uh the the 4-year period runs from the completion of probation or parole for both misdemeanors and felonies for all of it. >> U I I I we would have that's certainly the case for felonies. We would have to confirm that's the case for misdemeanors. Okay. So, I'm just trying to run through this like where So, you have a landlord and they have an applicant and they want to run a background check including criminal record and they go to these databases that are now automatically sealing data because of the Clean Slate Act. They're sealing data about misdemeanors one year beyond the completion of the misdemeanor situation and four years after felony, including probation or parole. So, if those records are sealed, we can't we couldn't go to a 5-year term because the state is sealing those records. We couldn't go to a longer period of time. So, as the ordinance is drafted now, it wouldn't necessarily be a longer period of time because those periods run from the date of the end of sentence and the ordinance is drafted to run from the date of disposition. But your your point stands for if the reverse were true. >> And I'm revealing my bias, which is I think I'm much more in favor of the release date because it feels like the date of disposition, however more inconvenient it is, because it's more, you know, those data are seemingly most often available. it just doesn't feel tied to the ultimate concern which is how long ago was this person in the system and um we shouldn't be able to ask that question forever. We should be able to ask it for a short period of time after the completion of that rehabilitative process. that point is taken and I'll just take this opportunity to add one additional piece of clarification which is that the the criminal history databases that landlords will be pulling from or that the commercially available criminal history checks will be pulling from will not necessarily be pulling only from uh official state records. So if something is uh sealed as of the date that the record is pulled, it does not necessarily mean that it won't somehow else end up in the a commercially available criminal history check by >> sounds like a flop camera situation where different people are dipping into the data. How you're saying a third party has access to it's the state or the county that has incarcerated or adjudicated this person? Yes. Our understanding and Miss Atkinson can and can uh elaborate. Our understanding is the commercially available criminal history databases are pulling from sort of a broader net than that publicly available data that's just like on the internet. >> Yeah. I mean, what the internet says is that once a state once California seals a record, private background check companies are legally barred from reporting or relying on that expuned information for employment or housing, >> right? It it would be an error in that case, but it does still happen. >> And then um is a landlord. So we've acknowledged that maybe somebody has a criminal background from behavior in a different state and so each state has searchable databases and anyone can search them. Is that correct? And so Clean Slate Act exists here, but if a potential tenant came from Nevada or Arizona and had been involved in the criminal system there, that database could still be searched. >> That's right. Although there there are 12 states that have passed clean slate law. So there it is. California was one of the first ones and now more have passed. So they would have similar. But regardless, even if they came from a state without the Clean Slate Act, the landlord still cannot use any information that's more than seven years old. That's California state law. And so if if there was a conviction in another state, if that was recent three or four years ago, then you can the landlord still could use that. But if it's seven years, then that's old information and California law prevents that. >> So my concern about that is it then begins to undo the protections we were putting in place for you might have done something in Arizona that's considered a felony there. We only considered a misdemeanor. So, in terms of your efforts to get housing here, you ought to have a better shot at it. Um, and so I'm I'm less comfortable allowing that fact to uh be the inevitable flow that um that you just described. I'm feeling that the Clean Slate Act is really gerine here. And um attorney Sally is looking at me like, "No, it's not." >> You know, I'm always reading your faces to see what you're trying to tell us. >> Just listening. >> Just listening. Um and so I don't know if it's best practice for us to say, you know what, the Clean Slate Act seems very derain. Could we ask you to go back analyze it in the context of what PaloAlto is trying to do come back with an ordinance that really uh meshes them based on what you've heard if that's how my colleagues feel or are we going to try to kind of massage this from the deis right now? Vice Mayor, >> I mean I I I I think it is, but what I I think the issue with the Clean Slate Act based on the clarification from the from the deputy city attorney is if it it so four years for a felony after after completion of parole or probation. Very common in California. Let's say somebody is sentenced to 30 years. Maybe they're out in 10, 12 years and then they are on parole maybe for the next right 18 18 years or so. That can go for a very long that can go for a very long time. And so that Clean Slate Act will not apply until four years after they are done with that. All that all that time, maybe over a decade, the person is on parole seeking housing and and so that's where I think this ordinance would be able to to come into effect. Staff agree with >> and you're advocating for that. That's where you want to go. as far as the seven-year window if we want to like if if we if we feel if we continue to feel that we want to have a fair ch chance chance housing I think that's I think that's an important enough distinction if we feel like no we don't and and state law is is sufficient then it's nice to see that the state law has moved in that direction but I do see there is a I so I see that they are different enough. I mean definitely there's some crossover there but I think they're still different enough that this that this ordinance will achieve part of our desired effect. >> Council member Rectal. >> Yeah. One of the things I'm struggling with is that we're kind of guessing well what's a good lookup period? Three years, four years. And in the state they would bring in professors who study racism and say well how long is it before someone really has reformed? and they have data and they look at that and they make an informed decision. It's still statistics. You're rolling the dice, but I suspect that they're going to be able to do a a better job of um estimating that that probability than we could just here in Palo Alto. And the the other thing is that then down the road if if new data shows that oh under these conditions people uh get redemption earlier they can shorten that and we don't have to monitor that and keep on looking at the current data and and adjusting that. So, I I just think we can make a better decision than we would. And when looking at the some academic papers about what's what's the probability for different types of offenses that you're going to recommmit after so many years, they did find that release date is by far better than the sentencing state just because when you're in jail, you don't mature. When you're out, you released and you're on your own, you're maturing. And so that type of thing is what's the state is studying is they're not picking release date versus sentencing date for convenience. They're seeing what's most effective. >> Thank you for that. And I'll add the catch 22 is the data also shows that recidivism is less likely when someone is housed. And so as a society we have an interest actually for the safety and protection of us all to reduce crime to reduce recidivism. We've got to help people who are coming out of the system get into housing. So, it's an interesting competing set of of values here. We want to protect society from anyone who's potentially um harmful and we want to help people reenter society and um and lead a better life and they need housing in order to do so. >> So, one more clarifying question. So there's the clean slate which really has nothing to do with with fair chance how like housing issues. It's just record gets gets cleaned. And so if you are doing a a a criminal background check, you just can't find that information. And then there's the and then there's the state's own kind of fair housing law or fair chance housing law. um that caps that so that caps the look back at seven years. Uh so state regulations implementing the fair employment and housing act do reference severed state statutes and incorporate the same standard that says uh this information can't be reported past seven years. Um, it also those same state regulations impose other limitations on the use of criminal history information like you know you can't rely on an arrest that didn't result in a conviction, you can't rely on a a juvenile conviction, etc., etc. And one small clarification, I think I might have misspoken when uh we were discussing the Clean Slate Act in terms of misdemeanors. It is not one year from the expiration of the sentence. It is the sentence is completed. The legal standard is one year. Uh and it has been one year from the date of judgment. Oh, so so misdemeanors is one year from date of judgment >> and the sentence has been completed. >> Oh, and and the sentence has been completed. Okay. Thanks. Um, so even if we so let's say we let's say we wanted to do a look back period of 10 years on on felonies are we procluded from doing that because of state law like seven years would be the cap that we can do >> I I think there would be a a conflict with with state law I mean there you know there's it gets a little complicated because they're different definitions of of you know that you're different definitions and different information. Um, so I mean there there at least is a potential conflict with state law. Um, you know, just at a high level, I mean that there are are still probably gaps that the city could fill. Um, I I think outofstate data is is a pretty significant gap. um because you know there's you know there are other states that have this kind of statute but it's a minority of states and and you know this conversation wouldn't really apply to data from those states. Um, so I I think it's it's um a question um for for council just sort of like ho how you know h how much of a priority it is to fill those gaps and and create a you know a new program and new ordinance to fill those gaps. Um the other significant difference about you know this proposed ordinance is it would uh give the you know prospective tenants a remedy against the landlord uh you know and that that's that's that's a policy decision for for council to make whether it wants to create uh that remedy. So, so I think I think you know, so I I think there um there's room. I think it's actually a pretty complicated um analysis to figure out how you know this ordinance would sort of mesh with state law given the way different you know there are different definitions in different places and figuring out exactly where the overlap is is is not uh straightforward and I'm not sure that that has been um been entirely incorporated into the current draft. >> Yeah. It seems like most of the kind of maybe most of the the issues we will see that state law will likely will likely cover for the seven years um for the seven-year look back. I I I would say I mean and this this is consistent with with the either the observations council member Rectal made at the outset is state law has moved the you know the the the goalposts quite significantly on on what is covered and and what is protected. That's not to say that there aren't some gaps left. It just it's really it's really you know council's decision whether you know to address resources to fill those gaps. >> Okay. Well, I I sent the clerk a draft motion if he'd like me to present one to see. So, if the clerk can put the motion on the on the screen >> and let me remind our colleagues that it only goes to the consent calendar if there's a unanimous decision. >> Yep. Thank you for that. >> And frankly, yeah. Okay, I'll just stop there. So I I think it put down look back period will be from from date of release from incarceration when applicable disposition or sentencing where where no incarceration is is imposed. When I was looking back on the summary minutes I agree with the the chair looked like pretty much we were all aligned that that was that was the better policy. I understand staff's perspective on administrative challenges, but again to the chair's point, the state is is doing that. So, um I think it I think it does make it a little more administratively burdensome, but I I just think it's the right I think it's the right way to to go. And then on the look back period, I think 7 years for felonies than consistent with what state law is. We really can't go beyond that. I do think we should we should treat hate crimes, whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony, uh, as the same as that seven-year look back. And then uh I think three years for for misdemeanors is is is is appropriate because I think those are I think those are the type of um those are the type of of kind of potential tenants that were likely more concerned about being uh locked out of of housing when um when I mean a misdemeanor can be can be as we're not we're not dealing with with right uh violent crimes at at that point. So I think this prov I think this I think I think this motion kind of achieves that that um the balance and incorporates the feedback that we heard from our colleagues last year and I do appreciate staff's work on this. I think you added a bunch of things in um that we we hadn't considered that strengthens this and really responded to to most of that feedback. And I I I also think too the I think the research that staff provided on on recidivism rates and how that ties into our policy objectives here are are good. I mean I think the you know clearly the state has good researchers but we do too which is great. So, thank you to all of you and I think the I think the research you provided in the staff report was um was really strong and so I'll stop there. Do we have a second? So, hearing no second, let me ask you some questions about this because I'm confused. Um, I'm confused about where this seven years for felonies is coming from because I heard the Clean Slate Act designates four years for felonies after completion of probation or parole. So, where is the seven-year piece coming from? So this the seven years comes from and and staff can clarify the the act but the the I know you said it a couple you said it a couple times. What's the act? >> Uh the investigative consumer reporting act I believe >> that was the ICA that council member Rdall was mentioning. >> Correct. And what I mean what the what this the statute says is uh an investigative consumer Thank you, Shenton. An investigative uh uh consumer reporting agency um you know and we'd be in that situation with this particular report cannot release a report that contain that includes a report of an arrest, indictment, information, misdemeanor complaint or conviction of a crime from that date of disposition, release or parole. um that antidate the report by more than seven years. So it's it's it's it's referencing you know basically all of those records uh cannot be drawn in. You know that said you know whatever the most recent of those events it would be seven years from the most recent of that event. So, it's um so so that's what I was alluding to earlier that there is that there are different definitions in the draft ordinance and the state law. Um and so there's probably a way to try to make sense of that, but it's that's it's a pretty significant u intellectual lift to try to to put all those pieces together. >> Thank you for that. It is complicated and it seems to me that therefore what the motion proposes is more conservative than state law when it comes to the Clean Slate Act. It's more conservative than the staff recommendation which was uh I believe was it three years for misdemeanor and five for felonies. And so the context of this was trying to pass a fair chance in housing ordinance. And we seem to be circling around something that is more restrictive. um um less focused on the fair chance for the uh formerly incarcerated people and taking a more conservative approach extending the amount of time uh for these look backs and I'm not sure that that is the direction we were headed as a council. Yeah, I mean I I think that was part of what the council kind of referred to us to to to do. Um, again, I know I was originally supportive of of 10 years on on a look back for for felonies. Um, so for for me, this is a bit of a compromise. um up from the 5-year recommendation of of staff. Again, I think clean slate doesn't I think that's something we don't we shouldn't really be concerned about with the with regards to the felony piece because of the four years after parole or after parole or probation is completed. So, that's that's a that could be a really really broad range. Um, I just think I think philosophically I think it's Yeah, I think it's a I think it's a balancing act. I do believe that that landlords as well as other tenants should have the right to be able to know the to some extent the criminal history in particular violent felons who might be moving in right next door. I if if we were able to break it up in a more administratively doable approach, I would I would, you know, then I could see supporting five year for felonies and then 10 years for or even more for violent felonies. It just seems like that would be really challenging to do. So, I think the seven-year just kind of tying that to the state law seems to be a good compromise here. So, we still don't have a second on this motion. So, I think that means the motion >> Do do you mean do you have a would do you have an amendment that you'd want to see in order to be able to second it? Well, I like item one, uh, defining the look back period from the date of release where applicable. Um, I am much more interested in the period of time the state has indicated in the clean slate act of the one year for misdemeanor and four years for felonies as defined in the clean state act, clean slate act. And I'm interested um I guess the rest of what staff has got in the ordinance is all we're doing is amending that. So I think I'd yeah I'd feel better with those with those years. It just feels strange to have the state with all the research having been done articulating this period of time for these different types of offenses for us to come out more conservative than that. I'm not sure we have any justifiable evidentiary reason to need those additional years in this city. I guess just my my response on on on the clean on the on the clean slate act is I think you're actually look you could you could be looking at a much longer window of of time than than 7 years. If it's 4 years after parole is is completed, that can be far more than than a 7-year time that somebody has been has been released. So I, you know, I I I don't have the data as far as what is the average amount of time that somebody is is serving parole and then add four years onto that, but I I think seven years could be I think I think it's reasonable that that's not too far off of what would the average be. So I I don't think I don't think the state I guess my point is I don't think the state chose that four years as a look back period. I don't think that was a part of their their analysis. four years after completion of parole. That's that's a long time. Can be a long time. >> Yeah. And you raised that you said if somebody had been convicted and did 10 years, they might be on probation for 18 years. You said >> be on probate for I mean you could be up to the up to the length of the of the original sentence. And many people get out after serving third of their time, half their time. >> Okay. So I guess the state's definition is um further extends the period. We we had not contemplated probation and parole as a council. We were looking at release or disposition. Um so I agree with you that that is potentially a very very long time which is a concern for me. Um, council member rectal, you got an assist here. >> I mean, this is a hard question just like OSVs, right? You have bad apples and good apples and you want to be good to the good apples and you don't want to be lean over backwards for the bad apples. And so it's a trade-off. And I think the state really struggled with this and that that's you know they all the apartment owners were up there uh yelling at Sacramento and the and I'm afraid that if we try to reinvent the wheel we have that we're just also reinventing that that uh interaction and I think the state has done a decent job on this and for me it's conservation of resources and also uniform for many across cities. Both of those are really good reasons just to stick with the state unless we think we have a really good compelling reason not to follow the state and I haven't seen it and maybe after more research we'll find out that oh there is some holes in this but I I don't see the holes. I think it does a decent job right now from at least from my lay opinion. But I guess so if we if we rely on the on the state no and we haven't done the analysis so I won't I won't ask the question. Um well I guess I mean and then chair back to your your point that maybe even the three years is is is too long. seems like under a clean slate the the three years might not necess So what because it's a it's a year after after um conviction and release right for for clean for clean slate on misdemeanors >> it is uh a year after the date of judgment and so two separate conditions a year has passed since the date of judgment and the sentence has been served Okay. Oh, gotch. Okay. Yes. So, you'd have judgment then with a misdemeanor, let's just say a year of of sentence, then it's a year after that. >> No. So, so uh both things must be true. The first is that a year has passed since uh judgment has been entered. >> Yes. >> And uh the sentence is the sentence is complete. But not that a year has passed since the sentence is complete. >> Gotcha. Okay. Okay. So, a year after after the judgment is enter. So, maybe you're sentenced six months. >> Yeah. Or or somebody could somebody could you know not serve the sentence immediately upon um you know sentencing a conviction. Right. So there there are different reasons there are different ways it could play out. >> Okay. So so it's a year after that. So, I mean, so, so if the if the clean slate law is going to work the way it's intended, our three-year look back period here won't matter much. I >> By which you mean the records will be sealed? >> Yes. >> Except if somebody's coming from a different state that doesn't have a Clean Slate Act. >> True. >> Okay, that's true. So, yeah, I think it's still I think it's still valuable. Um, and if it would you be more comfortable then if we did the staff recommendation of 5 years for felonies, but keep the seven-year if a hate crime was was uh a part of the conviction. Yeah, I think so. Let me now try to find the staff recommendation. It's actually Can somebody can we find the language that the staff had recommended recommended for the look back period? Are you looking for it specifically in the ordinance or are you looking for in the staff report? >> Well, I was looking for both. Initially didn't make much sense, but uh vice mayor just pointed out to me on slide seven. Okay, great. So the staff report staff recommendation with So the staff recommendation was with an anchor date of disposition. So we have all agreed that that's less desirable >> Yeah. >> than the release. But setting the anchor date as the release kicks the number of years that a person can have housing much farther out than if the date was anchored in disposition. >> True. >> Staff didn't include a recommendation on the number of years if another alternative anchor date was utilized. Yeah, it'll be really five years. >> I feel like there's so much information here. There's so many moving targets. We don't know the average date that a person's incarcerated for a felony or the average amount of time they're on probation or whatnot. Um, So >> um chair chair chairs um so just I mean we're just we've obviously following the discuss the the discussion among council here and you know there um as you know I mentioned earlier there are a couple of gaps that council could fill. One obvious one is, you know, out of state convictions. Um and um a and you know the other would be you know the some of the procedural protections that are in the the current draft ordinance. Um, one approach, um, to to, you know, fill those gaps and and have those procedural protections would be to to, you know, incorporate, you know, state standards to the the, you know, greatest extent possible in, you know, the time frames and definitions that we use in the city. Um, extend those protections to out of state convictions. um you know uh you know uh you know on the same time frame that apply in state and and then you know again keep the procedural protections in the ordinance. I mean so I mean that's just um it'd be it'd be one way to to reconcile u some of the issues that you know we're all struggling with right now. um you know it's it's obviously you know that there are are policy implications that council should consider in doing that but I just sort of throwing that out there as as a potential um path forward if if there's a a challenge uh you know coming to a solution. >> Thank you city attorney Jensen. Um that is hitting me um in a good place. Um, so with we can either do a friendly amendment to your motion to uh if you're interested in what the city attorney said or I can start. >> I'll just withdraw the motion. >> Okay. Well, we'll withdraw the motion and then I will move that we um recommend the ordinance incorporating state standards to the greatest extent possible. I'm trying to repeat what the city attorney said. Incorporating state standards to the greatest extent possible. What did you say around timing? >> Um yes, state standard state standards on on on look back time and definitions to the greatest extent we can harmonize them uh with our local ordinance uh uh extend those protections uh to out of state convictions. >> Yes. Right. Yes. I'm going to add those. So incorporate the state standards to the greatest extent possible. Um on look back time and definitions to harmonize with our local ordinance. um uh incorporate the outofstate issue. >> Correct. >> I shouldn't have stopped you. And incorporate the prospective remedies pro the prospective the procedural remedies. >> Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And there was the provision about um hate crime. So I'm just wondering if that was also part of the motion. >> I am happy to include that. >> Yeah. So I think there wasn't anything on hate crimes in the original. So adding a provision on uh >> so so allow landlords cons to consider hate crimes to the maximum extent perid permit permitted under state law is would be the um I think the the the intent of um the vice mayor's proposal. >> Okay. Thank you. So the you'll just I'll second as long as it's um if we change to recommend the city council and just maybe to refer back to policy and services because I think this is this is too much and we should see Adian. >> Yeah, I agree with that. Sorry. I know we want to move as expeditiously as possible, but this has been really quite a hornets's nest of issues, and I think we don't want council to have to go through this same conversation we've just had. So, we've got to get some of these things a little bit more ironed out. >> All right. uh the the the language regarding uh hate crimes >> also the procedural protections. >> Yes. Two two more parts. That's correct. >> Yeah. Um so so um number um uh that's yeah that's I think we could work with three and then then four would be to um you know to to in incorporate the procedural protections in the current draft ordinance. into the revised ordinance. >> I wonder if three should be revised to uh allow hate crimes to be considered to the maximum extent permissible under state law. Just to >> I I think that I think I do think that that's clear. Yes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And I believe the vice mayor said he would second it if we made those changes. Does it look secondable to you? So the second is the vice mayor, please. So I think just on two we want to maybe associate that more with the um the clean slate act. So, um, just so we're drawing that connection that we're going to apply the Clean Slate Act to out of state, uh, convictions is the intent. Is that am I understanding that correctly? >> Yeah. I I I think that that I I think that that that incorporates the intent. Um, >> it's the definitions we want. >> Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Does two when we're looking at this a couple months from now, is two going to give us the direction that we need or do we need to add more language to two? >> We could say extend the protections of instate standards to outofstate convictions. I'm just I'm just because I'm I'm definitely totally fine with 2, three, and four being being incorporated. Maybe one can we can we say explore incorporating state standards on on look back times because we don't know what that will what that will look like and I don't want to fully just lock it in yet. That way at least we we'll have we'll kind of see that what those standards look like compared to what staff's original recommendation was compared to my failed motion. If it's explore, then that's going to be in the staff report as opposed to getting a draft ordinance that does incorporate. Well, I mean, I think however staff wants to wants to handle that and maybe helpful for staff to kind of provide what because I think there's there's a you know, I guess what I'm worried about come they incorporate it into the into the ordinance and and it's and it's doesn't go far enough or goes too far for for me or council rectal or for the chair. Um it's just cuz that that's such a I think two, three, and four we have a good sense right now of what that looks like. One is so I think is just so unknown to me right now. Even though I prefer the the simplicity of state, I think we're moving in the right direction here. Um, I would say I would just leave it as incorporating the state standards and if we don't like it when it comes back to us, we can tweak it next time around. Otherwise, we're kind of giving them vague direction if we say explore. >> I don't think it's vague. We generally do that quite a quite a bit. Um, but yep. what for I guess for for staff is it easier to just incorporate it now and we then sorry incorporate it while you're drafting the ordinance or what's kind of the better approach for you? >> So I I mean I I think I mean I probably I think I speak for everybody here that we're we're going to try to figure out how to make it work and if there are issues with with how that you know if with making it work we will we will make sure to call that to to your attention next time we come back. Um, but you know, I I think at least from my perspective, I understand council's direction and and and you know, staff will bring back in ordinance that is as close as possible to that direction as we could get. >> I appreciate that. I would propose a potential amended language which would be compare state standards on look back times and definitions and explore uh the extent to which we can harmonize them with the audience. We do want to see the comparison. We do want to see we want your help with the analysis of the nitty-gritty of what this actually will result in if we go with the state route or the staff recommended route. or the vice mayor's field motion route. >> Yeah, I'm much more comfortable with that. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. So, it's compare state standards on look back times and definitions and explore whether they can be harmonized with this a ordinance. And we don't need to say Clean Slate Act in item one because we all know what we're talking about. Okay, I think we're set. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Please take the vote. >> Chair Lith, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> Council member Rectal, >> yes. Motion carries unanimously. >> Well, that is how the sausage gets made. It's not even made. It's like partial sausage at this point, but we just got a glimpse of it. We can only hope it'll be very, very tasty in the end. Okay, moving on to item three. Um, recommended approval of the And thank you so much to our staff from planning. Thank you. Um, Director Leate and Miss Atkinson, thank you. And to the city attorney staff as well. Thank you so much. And Chief Rif Schneider. Thank you. And to everyone, literally everyone who is here. Much appreciated. You too, Miss Cotton Gains. All right. Uh, item three, recommend approval of the Office of the City Auditor annual risk assessment and FY 2027 audit plan and corresponding task orders. We're going to have our city auditor here, Kate Murdoch. Welcome, Miss Murdoch. Take it away. >> Good evening, chair and committee members. Kate Murdoch, city auditor. I will be presenting the results of the citywide risk assessment and proposed FY27 audit plan. Next slide, please. Each year, the city auditor's office performs two key annual functions. uh citywide risk assessment and development of the annual audit plan. The purpose of this process is to identify the city's most significant risks and to help ensure audit resources are focused on the areas of greatest importance uh to the organization and to the community. For this year's risk assessment, we interviewed executive leadership and key staff, facilitated risk workshops, collected input from city council, and reviewed organizational documents and data. The results of this effort inform the proposed FY27 audit plan. Um, and our objective is to align audit resources with the city's highest risks and highest priority areas while ensuring that we do not duplicate other efforts. Next slide, please. Our methodology follows a structured riskbased approach. We gather information from multiple sources and then consider risks across several categories including the ones listed on this slide. Once we have a comprehensive list of risks, each risk is assessed based on impact and likelihood to develop an overall risk rating. This comprehensive approach helps ensure we capture both current and emerging risks that are facing the city. Next slide, please. For this year's assessment, we conducted risk synergy sessions with leadership and key staff from 15 departments. These discussions focused on departmental objectives and operations, organizational and staffing changes and emerging risks and challenges as well as as well as existing controls and mitigation efforts. Um, we also incorporated feedback from all city council members to ensure strategic priorities and community concerns were reflected in the assessment. Um, and the outcome was a prioritized list of risk areas across the city. Next slide, please. As briefly mentioned before, each identified risk is evaluated using both impact and likelihood criteria, which you can see on the slide. Uh impact considers financial significance, effects on residents and customer experience, and potential influence on city council priorities and organizational goals. Likelihood considers such factors as uh the complexity of operations, the regulatory environment and the effectiveness of monitoring activities as well as current conditions and known challenges. We also consider fraud risks across the applicable functions. Um and through this framework, we're able to consistently compare risk levels across diverse city operations. Next slide, please. So kind of the result of some of this work with um working with uh the executive leadership team is the what we call the audit universe. It represents the major operational areas and activities that could be subject to audit review across the organization. Uh this year we revisited operational areas for each department and updated them based on management's feedback and this is helping to ensure that all significant city functions are considered during the risk assessment process and in the audit plan. Next slide please. The next three slides show the highest rated risks identified during the assessment. The objective of the assessment again uh in the audit plan is to provide assurance and recommendations in areas where improvements can create the greatest value. Um the arrows indicate the functional areas being included in this year's proposed audit plan. Similar to prior years uh this year's plan proposes a mix of both audit and advisory projects. You'll note that there are many possible risks risk areas that are not on the plan. Uh some of the things that we consider in determining whether an area is included on the plan or not is whether the area has been recently audited. If the area is currently being evaluated or improved by management, uh we might defer looking at that area until changes are complete to ensure that audit findings and recommendations are not redundant or irrelevant. Um so I'll move through the next two slides quickly as I know they're also listed in appendex C of the report. Uh next slide please. Um, you'll note that many of these functional areas and risks involve complex operations, uh, significant financial investments, uh, regulatory requirements or rapidly evolving environments. Um, and understanding these risk relationships is part of what helps us develop uh, a balanced and strategic audit plan. Next slide, please. This is the final group of top rated risks. Um, several of these areas were audited over the last two years, including building permit fees, utility billing, and traffic safety improvements. Next slide, please. I'm pleased to present this year's plan. As you'll see, there are two proposed audit projects at the top and four proposed advisory projects. The first audit project will look at the city's capital improvement project management. Our preliminary objective is to determine if management and oversight processes support timely, coordinated, and cost-effective delivery of capital projects that are operationally ready. The second audit will look at the city's performance metrics across departments to determine if key measures are helping departments to ensure efficiency of operations and that processes are actively being monitored and managed. The first advisory project will look at service models and approaches for supporting and improving outcomes for individuals experiencing homelessness in small cities and see what services might be helpful for PaloAlto. The second advisory project will look at council meeting management best practices. The third advisory project will look at best practices as well as risks related to AI governance usage and training for the city to consider. And the fourth uh advisory project will look at the most effective processes and programs to support employee mental health, wellness and resilience in high stress work environments. So this proposed plan seeks to balance assurance and advisory support uh while also covering emerging risks. Um we believe this plan will provide meaningful insight and support continuous improvement across the organization. So, this concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions. >> Thank you, Miss Murdoch. Let's go to public comment. >> There are no requests to speak on item three. >> Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, which of you would like to start us off? >> I can go. >> Thank you, Council Member Rectal. >> Okay. Okay. So, when I'm looking at the the slides here, um let's see slide seven. And what are the arrows? Those indicate that these are the the programs that ended up on that final audit plan. >> Correct. Those are functional areas that that are being incorporated into the audit plan. And so when I look at that there's there's five arrows but we have six elements. >> Correct. So um AI governance uh is included in there. Um >> I'm trying to think which >> so you split one of them in two. Is that how we got six different elements? >> Um the employee mental health and wellness I think is the one that I that I must have not flagged on here. Um, and I'm trying to recall. Apologies. I think it may have been Well, no, that one is on there. Which arrow did I miss? That's a good question. Um, it might have been Oh, let me see. >> It looks like it was the council meeting management. Um, so that I think may have been um one of the the medium rated risks, but it was something that was uh we got quite a bit of feedback about from council and from staff that that would be a good area for an advisory project. >> Okay. And this the ratings that's is that the multiplication of the likelihood and the impact scores? >> Correct. Okay. >> To council member rectal, if I may um point y >> the city clerk item, council meeting management rated a 12. So, how do we justify pulling that all the way up to be one of six things that we focus on when there are so many things in that red category of 20 points? Did you hear me, Miss Murdoch? >> Sorry. Could you repeat that? >> Sure. Um, in furtherance of council member Rectal's question about where was the sixth item, you discovered that it was the council meeting management item, which comes under the city clerk's office. And I note that it is way down on the list, having scored a rating of only 12. And I find it curious as to why an item with 12 points gets pulled up into an audit plan of only six items when we have so many issues that were rated 20 um or close to 20. How does something that rated so medium get pulled up to be such a high priority? So I I think that the the rating system is really it's guidance, but it is not a hard and fast, you know, set of um I guess it's not the only thing that we consider when we're looking at how to prioritize what we're what's on the on the plan. Um as mentioned, you know, oftentimes there are things on if you look at that list of 20, there are a lot of items in there that we've already audited. Uh and so some of it is also balancing. You know, we don't want to hit two departments uh or we don't want to hit a department with two audits at once. So that's another thing that we consider. So there are a lot of different factors that we're trying to balance. Um as well as you know, sometimes we may look at something that's lower on the list but is getting a lot of attention from people. So it may not represent a huge financial risk to the city, but it may still be a problem that um or an issue that uh you know requires attention. So um >> so for the impact score, did you look at how big a problem is this or what can we feasibly do? What kind of feasible improvement we can make? Does that make sense for >> for that particular item >> or just in general because you're giving these scores of impact one through five is that like anticipated impact because if you have a really hard problem that's impossible to solve but you can make a little impact versus a really hard problem that you can solve those would even though the problems may be the same difficulty your anticipated improvement might be smaller on on >> right. So I would say that the impact is really looking at just the the potential for the potential impact on the city. So it isn't necessarily can we completely mitigate or or triage this problem. Um that that is not part of our scoring. Um, so it it's we do look at kind of financial and and um reputational and and other other areas when we're scoring that. We also did have um leadership help with the scoring this year. Um so we did have some of that feedback too. And as as as much as we try and make it an objective process, it's not a completely objective process. This is, you know, people's uh perceptions and and experience that are that are helping to inform a lot of this as well as things like budget documents and and more objective manner me excuse me, more objective measures. >> Yeah, understood. And I think if you're saying that uh you know when you when you do this risk rating it's just kind of a guidance of roughly what's important but it's not like a a 16 is necessarily worse than a 15. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And so do you have a list of what did not make the cut? You had six programs here. What was number seven 89? Do you remember? >> Sure. So, one of the issues that um we did consider was looking at code enforcement. Um one of the factors that um or one of the things we considered um when we looked at whether to have it on the plan was that currently that area is getting significant attention by management. And so things are actively changing and it's very hard to audit things when they're changing because it's you know which period are we looking at and we're oftentimes then in the report saying and they're already addressing this and fixing it. So um you know one of the things that we sometimes will do if if an area is under active active change is we'll look at it say a year out to say okay management did all these changes are the changes working right so we we have data from before the change now we're going to look at data after the change has it has it made an actual improvement so that is one one of the items that I have as a as a possible audit for next here. Another area that we that came up was uh the procurement process. So, that is one that has kind of been on council's radar for the the entire time that I've been um in this seat. And one of the things that we thought about there was that we just recently did the contract solicitation and authority levels advisory project. Um and so I know that the administrative services department is going to be bringing those changes forward in the fall. Uh so again it was you know a lot of the procurement timeliness issues that we might see we're hoping will many of them may be resolved when those contract solicitation levels and authority levels are updated. So it seemed like starting to look at the issue before those those changes have been implemented and taken effect might not be the best use of our time. Um few other I can talk about. Um another area that um had come up previously was records retention. So that's just been one that I've been aware of, but it has not been as as higher or it has not been rated as higher risk. Um, another one that that has been on um that has come up in in various reviews is the permitting process. Um, but that is also a process that is has gone through quite a bit of changes. So, that's a possible one for next year as well. >> I would say those are the biggest ones that that I can think of right now. >> Yeah, that was useful. Thank you. So when you look at the six here, were any of these had significant changes and then this is their first year to be evaluated after the changes. >> Sure, that is a great question. You just pull it up for me. Um, so I would say the capital project management. Um, that is just one that we that has been mentioned a number of times. I'm not I'm not personally aware of of recent changes, but that's not to say that there haven't been some. Um the looking at performance measures is um you know part of that was we were know that a big council priority is is government efficiency. And so really looking at, you know, one of the ways that um departments manage resources is is having key performance targets and and seeing if those targets are helping departments really have a have a good beat on operations and and how how they're performing. So that was an attempt our attempt to kind of address efficiency across the city and just see, you know, what it's looking like with a broad brush. Um, I am aware that there have been, you know, in the last year quite a bit is done with oversized vehicles. Um, and I think there's been, you know, certainly a lot in the in the media about concerns with with a growing um, population of people experiencing homelessness in PaloAlto. So that was an area where it seemed like this might you know be good uh area to research for the city and provide um kind of best practice research of other small cities different models of services that have been provided and you know if there's information on how successful those have been. Um >> yeah I think that's a good example is that it's a really hard problem but having another set of eyes on that and giving suggestions may be valuable. So I concur. Okay. And so one last question is looking at this as a wide variety of projects. Uh do you have in-house experts for all this or are you going to have to hire consultants or how's that going to work? >> Sure. So that's you know I think one of the benefits of Baker Tilly is that we are a a firm of 11,000 employees in counting. Um and we really do have subject matter experts in all of these areas. So uh we have people who have not only worked in these areas um as kind of city man anything from city manager to police chief to you know people who have formerly worked in nonprofits or uh worked in in um uh what am I trying to say in in university and academia and so have kind of that subject matter expert. So, we we definitely have people on staff who I can pull from from various groups to to work on these. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Anything? >> Okay. Um I just have a few more questions. Thank you so much for doing this. um the $517,000 budget um uh which this project is stated to cost, is that already been through finance committee and it's allocated for the fiscal 27 budget. So this is not a number we have to worry about or pay attention to. Right. Okay. Miss Mos is saying yes. >> Sorry Kate can't see me. Um so yes, thank you Kylie Jose, assistant city manager. And yes, this is in alignment with your current 2027 proposed budget. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> And um to the question of how the big list of potential audit items got winnowed down to six and given the ratings and whatnot, I appreciate council member Rectal's inquiry on that. Um I was curious as to why then two or four of them say advisory and the first two don't. What does that mean? Does that mean a little bit less attention is paid or these are more subjective if we have to like there's clearly a distinction that's meant to be meaningful but I don't understand what it is. >> Sure. So I would say, you know, in a traditional audit, you're going to have findings and and recommendations. And I in advisory project, I would call them more observations and recommendations. um they're a little less binding is not the right word, but um you know, we've done a couple advisory projects now for the city and their intention is more to provide information rather than to identify um you know problem areas. So it's a little bit the focus is I would say the focus is different. So it's not that we won't identify when there are issues, but that our intent is not to kind of quantify those those problems. It's more directed at, you know, what are what are solutions that are out there and and what is, you know, what could the city explore. >> Thank you. And I noticed that um fewer hours, a substantial amount of hours are devoted to each of these, but the greatest number of Baker Tilly hours are devoted to the non-advisory items. So does that correlate findings require a greater amount of investment on your part? Whereas if it's advisory and you're only making observations, it just requires less time. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um I am delighted to see that improving homelessness outcomes made the cut. Um because you're absolutely right. This is uh I mean all of this matters and yet this is clearly one of the most confounding problems of our existence as a society, as a region, um as a city. Um and I want to be sure you mentioned OSVs a few moments ago. I want to be sure that the issue of people looking uh sorry, living in their vehicles is part of the consideration. In many places that is not yet the lowest level of supportive housing, if you will. It's shelter. And here in California, we now know, nope, there's one level kind of below uh what we might call a shelter, a homeless shelter. It's does someone have a safe place to park their car and live in it? And so when you're doing comparables with other cities, they may not be doing safe parking. So please, you know, focus on cities where the m, you know, where they have a percentage of their population that lives in vehicles. It will not help us if you're comparing us to cities that have largely encampments of unhoused people. The majority of Palo Alto's unhoused are in vehicles. Do you get me? >> I do. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, uh, when it comes to council time or council meeting management, um, I imagine that one of the issues is how long does it take to get an item from start to finish, uh, whatever that means for the item, you know, from start to conclusion, from start to passing it or rejecting it or whatever it is, as opposed to having a lot of eddies where we go around and around, we go back over here, then we come over here and we Right. Like just tonight, we had a really meaty item and it wasn't yet something we felt we could move forward to council. Um, and none of us is trying to stall the process by coming to that conclusion. Uh, but nor should we allow that to happen too too often or else, you know, we're sort of uh constantly in our own way. So, I I offer that maybe that's an element um that uh a subheading of this of of this audit um ought to focus on kind of how how long it takes to get from start to finish and how many times are we referring it back and forward and backward and forward. Um the last thing was employ for me was employee mental health. you had an arrow corresponding to an HR item that didn't seem to relate. It was human resources, employee benefits, and workers comp. And I just wonder if that's the best alignment for this item. Um I'm not sure >> I can speak a little bit to that. I think one of the things that we noted when we did the overtime audit was that there has been an increase in um in workers comp cases that are related to mental health. Um and so this was something that we talked about with HR. Would this be a helpful topic? Um and and they agreed that it would be a helpful area for us to look at especially for those high stress uh jobs. And I can see why additional workers comp claims uh present a risk uh for the city and we don't want people you know being stressed to the level of uh sort of qualifying for workers comp. I also see it as a employee retention issue like this city is stressing me out man I need to go work at a different place. Um so I could see it belonging there. I could see it under recruitment. So, I just think this is an example of something that's fuzzy and I don't know how often auditors are asked to audit mental health. What is it? How do we know if it's good? How do we know if it's bad? Who decides? Right? It's it's a very subjective in the grand scheme of all the things you look at. This is like at the opposite end of anything financial, you know? It's like how are humans feeling, fairing, and doing? So, I'm excited that it made the cut. And I want to just acknowledge that this, you know, I don't know who within the Baker telly 11,000 employees has like the expertise at the soft fuzzy stuff, but go find that person because this is a different kettle of fish. >> Absolutely. We we do have um a group that does do a lot of performance audit work. Uh and a lot of that is around organizational behavior and um structures and uh they they have touched on these issues with other cities before. >> Great. Thank you so much. Well, that's it for my questions. Any further questions or comments from my colleagues? All right. Then do we have a motion? I move the staff recommended pardon the staff motion staff recommendation. >> I'll second. >> The city auditor recommends that the policy and services committee recommend the city council approve the citywide annual risk assessment and FY 2027 audit plan. Great. We're ready for the vote. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Yes. >> Council member Rectal. >> Yes. Chair Lith Haynes. >> Yes. And I note the vice mayor has become a rap star. Vice Mayor Stone X. There's a little Nazax and Vice Mayor Stone X. So, nice to meet you, sir. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right, Miss Cotton Gains, is there anything else we need to discuss or will you release us for the evening? >> Such power you've given me. We work for you. >> Just want to say this is your last meeting before break. Your next meeting will be on the second Tuesday of August. I know. Go enjoy yourself, do something fun. I believe that's August 11th. I'll have to double check. Uh, and I'll be working with the chair on the agenda items for that meeting. In the meantime, enjoy your break. Terrific. We are adjourned. Thanks, everybody.

going to call to order the June 8th, 2026 meeting of the PaloAlto City Council. Would you please call the role? >> Of course. Council member Bert >> here. >> Council member Lowing >> Mayor Vinker >> here. >> Council member Lou >> Council member Lithcons >> here. >> Vice Mayor Stone >> here. Council member Rectal >> here. >> For the record, all present. >> Thank you. Well, we get to start with a couple of very special items to honor people who have served this city. The first is a proclamation expressing appreciation to Daniel Bergen upon retirement. And I have asked uh Council Member Rectal, would you kindly? >> Okay. Yeah. Dan, are you stand up? Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations, Ste. Um, this is for expressing appreciation to Daniel Bergen upon his retirement. Whereas Dan Bergen joined the city of Powalto in 2002 and has dedicated 24 years to serving the community through his career in the library services department. And whereas Dan skillfully managed the Mitchell Park Library staff work schedule, balancing library tasks and ensuring that staff provided a variety of services and was an active participant on the libraries branch leadership team. And whereas Dan has tirelessly committed himself to circulating library materials, contributing to a team that moves more than 1 million materials annually between library branches and directly into customers hands. And whereas Dan wrote and hosted lively, engaging trivia competitions as the resident quiz masteraster for the library's annual volunteer appreciation lunchon over the past several years. And whereas Dan created and presented a number of history related library programs, sharing his passion with the public and building rapport with loyal library users who appreciated his positive, engaging, and good-natured approach to community service. And whereas through every challenge in the last 24 years, Dan has contributed his invaluable insight and considerable expertise to help create a stronger library department. Now therefore, Vicky Vanker, mayor of the city of Powalto, on behalf of the entire city council does hereby recognize Dan Bergen for his dedication and excellent servants rendered to the city. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan. And if you'd like to share a few words, >> can't miss this opportunity to say two quick things. Thank you and a comment. Um, I do want to thank first the city because um, way back in the 80s, I actually got a masters in public administration. So, I have a little bit more of a city point of view than perhaps some of my co-workers, and I try and gently remind them of that during labor negotiations. Uh, so, uh, thank the city for sure for marvelous support. I thank my co-workers and managers who invariably have been wonderful people to work with, um, all the way through 24 years of it. Uh, and lastly, most importantly, the customers who just keep coming and coming and coming, keeping us relevant, keeping us active. Um, so that's the thanks. And then the quick comment kind of based on yesterday at the library Sunday afternoon Mitchell Park. People of every demographic moving in every direction. Some going up, some coming down, some going that way, some going that way, some going out, some coming in. And I just realized this is really the crossroads of anyone and everyone. And our uh our library motto is libraries are for everyone. And I just want to let you know what a special thing we have going in Mitchell Park. It's not just the library, community center, Ada's Cafe, uh the park in general, and obviously the magical bridge. It has created this synergy that is just so special and I've loved working there. >> Thank you. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Bergen. You certainly have made the libraries a very special place for everyone and we're very grateful. Um I understand you have some family and library staff who are here with us. Maybe you could point them out. >> Jay, 44 years married. a tremendous part of got me where I am and uh who I am and who I am just happened to fit perfectly with the library. >> A well that's terrific where and we all benefited from that. So thank you. I don't know if uh library anyone else had any uh comments to make um but if not if Mr. Bergen if you'd like to come up on the dance and we'll we'd be happy to take a picture with you. All right. That's not And we have a second uh joy and and a little bit of sweet tonight. Uh so we have a proclamation honoring Julie Weiss for 32 years of service to the city of PaloAlto. And I guess Director Egles, you will introduce this item. >> Yes, if I could say a few words. Brad Eglesen, director of public works. >> Uh, so as you mentioned, uh, Mayor, tonight we're recognizing Julie Weiss, who is our watershed protection manager and a public works veteran of almost 33 years on her upcoming retirement. Uh, and as you'll hear in her proclamation, uh, Julie's been involved in many areas of environmental protection and sustainability. um really ranging from uh storm drain protection, pesticide reduction, green purchasing, plastic reduction uh to sea level rise mitigation uh and even efforts to limit access of youth to tobacco products. Uh really just a wide range of accomplishments and uh Julie has led these efforts for decades with grace, a smile on her face and uh ongoing perseverance which has been great. and she's really going to be missed throughout public works and the organization. Um, I'd also like to recognize her husband Rich and daughter Chloe who are in the audience and really just express uh public works and the uh city organization's best wishes for her um adventures coming in retirement. Thank you. >> Excellent. Well, thank you Director Egleston and I I'm now going to ask Council Member Bert to read the proclamation so we can hear all about your good deeds. >> Thank you. Um, so this is actually a personal pleasure to be able to uh recognize Julie. Um, we as a community uh take great pride in having long been environmental leaders and uh Julie has been at the center of so many of our accomplishments. When you think about a career and how many of us can look back and say look at all of the longl lasting very positive accomplishments of my career, Julie is one of those people who can do that. So whereas Julie Weiss joined the city of Palo Alto in 1993 as an employee of the zero waste team was promoted in 2000 as an environmental specialist in the city's public works watershed protection program to policy and public education manager in 2016 and ultimately to the watershed protection manager in 2021. And whereas Julie developed the city's integrated pest management policy, coordinated the city's integrated pest management or IPM program, collaborated with other city departments to reduce pesticide use and promote less toxic alternatives, which resulted in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation twice acknowledging the city of PaloAlto as an IPM innovator. and Julie developed the city's green purchasing policy and efforts that align the city's environmental policies go and goals with its purchasing practices. And Julie expanded the plastic reduction ordinances in 2013 and 2015 to eliminate single-use plastics and plastic foam foodear at all retailers and food service establishments elements of which were among the first in the nation. and Julie managed the 2013 landscaping redesign of the regional water quality control plant, which improved the screening and wastewater treatment plant, enhanced public access with improved paths and interpretive signs, and improved habitat and native plants. and Julie developed the city's sea level rise adaptation policy, led the subsequent development of the sea level rise vulnerability assessment, and initiated early sea level rise adaptation planning efforts in collaboration with several city departments. and Julie actively participated in the Bay Area Clean Water Agency's Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group and was instrumental in spearheading outreach to veterinarians and community uh to reduce pesticides entering water wastewater from flea and tick products. and Julie co-led and subsequently updated the city's 2020 tobacco retail permit ordinance that aligned the city with the Santa Clara Countyy's efforts to prohibit the sale and distribution of all electronic cigarettes and flavored tobacco products to decrease tobacco related litter, the number of people exposed to secondhand smoke, and the ability of use to access tobacco products within the city. And whereas Julie Weiss completed 32 years of dedicated service to the city of PaloAlto's environmental service division, now Vicky Vinker, mayor of city of PaloAlto, on behalf of the entire city council do hereby recognize Julie Weiss for her years of dedicated service. I just want to say Julie, thank you on behalf of the whole city. Your legacy and impact will live on in healthier, happier lives for generations to come. So, we are so lucky to have you. Um, and unless anyone has any other comments, I would invite you up here to the deis. >> Uh, it I I understand that that she was not interested, but you're certainly welcome to if you've >> Oh, please then. Now, I I had first declined because I thought I'd get too choked up, and I still may get choked up, but I reserve the right to do that um tonight. Um I just want to say how fortunate I feel to have worked with this team of people, some of whom I have almost literally grown up with. Um Karen North, who's been my boss for I don't know how long I've worked with Brad. You know, you know, as you grow up professionally, you raise your kids together, you buy houses, you get married, you experience career highs and the lows, you have some accomplishments, you have some lessons learned. Um, the team that we have in environmental services is A+ and I know that several of you know that, but I could not have ever felt more privileged to have the career I have in this city that values environmental leadership. And I could not feel more privileged than getting to work with these people who are behind me. They are our A+ and they will um carry forward all of the environmental initiatives that our city has with class and a lot of fire. So they are change agents. So I want to thank them as well. >> Excellent. Thank you. You want to come on up here. Wow. how fortunate we are in this city to have such talent and such talented people working for us. So, thank you both. Truly enriched our city. All right, so we're going to move on to agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Mr. City Manager, >> thank you, mayor. No changes to the agenda this evening other than just to note uh probably for uh public awareness that on item number five which is the acceptance of the uh utilities reserves advisory report and public safety staffing audit that uh staff issued a supplemental memo today and that uh attached the management response to the utility rever reserves advisory report really clarifying uh that uh tonight's item does not really reflect any policy direction. It simply reflects a report, a resource report from the city auditor that will now lead into uh discussions with the UAC, the utilities advisory commission as well as the finance committee and city council. And with that, no other changes this evening. >> All right. Thank you and thank you for that clarification. So, we will move on to public comment on matters uh not on the agenda. So, Madame Clerk, how many uh commenters do we have at this point? >> We have 12 requests to speak for items not on the agenda. >> Okay, let's go with uh two minutes each, please. >> Our first speaker is Austin M. >> Good evening, Mayor. Excuse me. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Austin. I'm with Indivisible Palo Alto Plus. First and foremost, I want to thank the council and police department for your continued partnership and for last year's resolution reaffirming your commitment to Palo Alto values and interests in the context of recent federal administration actions. Today, I'm speaking on behalf of the safety over surveillance coalition and here to introduce a letter we shared with the council. The main point of which is simple. We appreciate that the city is conducting an audit, but the audit needs to answer the questions that matter to the public. There are four key areas we are asking the city to include. First, data retention and access. What data is retained and for how long? Who has access? What systems are in place that would allow the city to independently verify claims by the company? Second, accountability and compliance. The audit should confirm that Flock's administrative safeguards and internal controls comply with California state law, PaloAlto municipal code, and police department surveillance use policy. Third, effectiveness. If the city is going to accept the risks of this surveillance system, the public should know what benefits it has produced. That means looking at whether flock improved case closures, what kinds of cases it helps solve and whether the evidence supports continued use, not just individual uh not just individual and emotionally charged anecdotes. Fourth, vendor use uh data use. The audit should ask whether flock rema retains, aggregates, anonymizes or uses paloto data for analytics, product development or AI modeling. If the answer is yes, the city should require evidence, not just asurances. For example, what reports can the auditor run to confirm the data has been sufficiently anonymized? Our goal is not to make the audit harder for its own sake. Our goal is to make sure the audit is meaningful. A narrow audit could create false reassurance. A serious audit can help the council, the public, and the police department understand the real risks, benefits, and obligations. We ask the council to direct the auditor to incorporate these questions into the scope and to allow the community stakeholders to meet with auditor and share the information we have gathered. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is KBT. >> Hi, I'm also with the coalition of safety over surveillance and I just want to echo uh what the previous speaker said that the audit scope is very important. There are lots of things that need to be considered with this because just having asurances is not really enough. You really have to have actual uh audit trails to show where these things are actually being stored. What are they doing with our data? And even if they're not necessarily doing anything with the data, then where is it being stored and how are they protecting and making sure that for example they actually qualify of passing a sock 2 report which is one that actually makes sure that they have the security measures in place to ensure that they can't be hacked that it can't be accessed by anybody who doesn't have permission. And so that is why we introduced that letter. It's to make sure that the IPA considers all those things because it's can't just be from a a law enforcement perspective. Obviously, they are the whole the users, the end users. So, it's important that they do have their questions answered, but the public is the one that's subjected to this flock camera system. So, we need to have our questions answered, too. So, thank you again for allowing us to introduce that letter to you and we hope it is considered by the IPA as they work that into their audit scope. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Tim M. >> Greetings council. I'm Tim McKenzie with the Silicon Valley Democratic Socialist of America and the Safety Over Surveillance Coalition. Um, I would like to also suggest in terms of the audit scope to include research into the false positive rate. Uh, last week the police chief said he thought it was 99% accurate. Let's say it's 10 times better. 99.9% accurate. With 750,000 measurements every month, that would mean that there are 750 incorrect readings every month, which means there are 25 incorrect readings per day. How much time do we want police officers to spend every week sifting through AI hallucinations, deciding whether it's signal or noise? Just yesterday, a news report came out about a man who was arrested for a month in San Diego erroneously because of a misit on the ALPR system. This these are real specific harms there. The false positive rate is not known. It should be included in the audit scope. A lot of tech companies like to move fast and break things. Flock has already broken the public trust. We don't need PaloAlto to be beta testers for faulty technology so that Peter Theal can make money off of his investment trying to dismantle our democracy. I I would also like to echo a point that I heard I believe it was the mayor make last week about the consideration of a lawsuit seeking damages from Flock. Um, I think that that is a very good idea. I think that there's potential class action status given how many cities in California have had contracts violated, have seen flock violate state law. So I ask that in addition to researching false positives which is unknown and we can't just take flock at their word because they'll say anything to get money from you to also include the the with perhaps within the audit scope the idea of lawsuit with damages. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Brandon D. Hey there, my name is Brandon Downey. Um, I've lived in Silicon Valley for 25 years, uh, working in information security the whole time. Uh, I helped build a secure Wi-Fi network for Mountain View, attackers attacking Fortune 500 companies, and I've done hundreds of security and privacy reviews for vendors trying to sell me things. uh in that entire time. I'm here today to talk to you about Flock. Uh I'm sure we've all heard all the problems with Flock, unpatched security vulnerabilities, poor architecture for privacy, and a pretty much complete absence of public transparency about who is really looking at the data that that Flock gathers. But along with these problems is a political one. Flock sells itself as a kind of arsenal of democracy for protecting life and property on the level of local communities. But when you look at what what they say, you hear a very different story. Um Garrett Langley, Flock CEO in the last year, has had a lot to say. Uh he accused the Flock, an activist organization uh for wanting to spread chaos for identifying the number of flocked cameras in the community in a neighborhood. What you or I might call democracy in action he named he named as terrorism. He wrote a letter to police agencies all over the country warning them that public records were being turned into weapons to attack law enforcement. I call it spreading the truth. And when those same requests journalists at 404 media documented were leaking license plate information to let people know who were the targets of public surveillance, he called those people activists trying to let murderers go free. Um I call it citizens trying to protect their democracy. And while he talks a big a big game about democracy, when he was on stage, he was the first one to laugh at what a city council meeting is like. uh one of the act one of the lobbyists who was on stage said that city council members were cons consisted of yahoos and drunk baseball coaches uh and he laughed uh I don't I don't like that and I think that motive should be an element of the vendors that a city uses. So thank you for hearing me and if you have some time look into what their investors have to say too. >> Our next speaker is Brian E. Hello, my name is Brian Eaton. Uh, council members, thank you for your time. Uh, I live next door in Mountain View, about a quarter mile away. So, every time I drive to Summer Winds to buy a new plant, I get an entry in a government database. Uh, I do think proceeding with the audit is a good idea. I'd also like to ask that the council cover the cameras now because they're an immediate threat to public safety. Uh, I worked in the tech industry for about 25 years. The entire time in information security, privacy, and user trust roles. Uh, I've run security reviews. I've responded to security breaches. I've worked on both sides of security and compliance audits. Audits are good, but they're slow and they're not appropriate to deal with an immediate threat to public safety. The problem here is that the Trump administration still has access to these cameras. No one denies it, including Flock. Flock admits they comply with legal warrants. The Trump administration has control of the Justice Department and they make up excuses for warrants all the time. Does anyone here seriously think Flock is going to fight Trump about a fraudulent warrant? They're not. They're going to hand over the data. And also Flock isn't permitted to say a single word to anyone in PaloAlto when that happens. No one in the city will know. The only thing we can do to stop it is to cover the cameras. Um, in case you doubt me on this, you can actually read it on the dhs.gov website. I'm going to try and save time. Uh, just say ice query data is not retained by the vendor except to maintain audit logs for use by ICE. PaloAlto won't be able to find anything. Uh, Flock and DHS both admit this happens and so we don't need to wait for the audit. Please make us safer by covering the cameras. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Helen C. Hi there. Um I'm Helen Kaine. I am from PaloAlto. A graduate of Addison Elementary, Jordan Middle, Pali for High School. Um and I'm sharing about an experience I had as a worker at the Graduate Hotel on University. Um on April 14th, the graduate by Hilton Palto fired me with no notice along with the majority of non-managerial staff at the hotel. Losing my job has been hard and I'm shocked that The Graduate by Hilton, a brand that themes itself as part of our community, would do this to us. This job was important to me. I grew up in Peloto. I went to preschool at Downtown Children's Center near the Graduate. My family knew people who lived in the President Hotel before it was turned into the Graduate. And I know many of us are familiar with all the controversy about the evictions at the President Hotel so that the graduate could be developed. I came back to PaloAlto because my dad was diagnosed with cancer last spring. I was excited to get a job at the graduate because it was perfect for me. I could bike to work. I worked mornings which gave me afternoons to take my dad to the doctor. I had a stable schedule. I had benefits. I love this job. I know I've I've served some of the people on the council as a server there. Before we were fired, we were getting ready for the busy season. We were training new staff, fixing equipment, and getting ready for Mother's Day brunch and Stanford graduation. And on April 14th, I got a call from my general manager and an HR person I had never met before, telling me I was no longer an employee of the company. Almost all of my co-workers started to call me and tell me the same. Uh members from housekeeping, engineering, kitchen, and serving staff. We were shocked, hurt, and we heard that they kept operating the hotel by replacing us with uh with temp agency workers. We were held to a standard of hospitality. Hospitality is what we do. Being warm is what we care about. And the coldness of management was really hard to experience. I'm angry that a hotel that worked so hard to open in our community did this to the very people who are the face of their hospitality. And I'm urging each of you to use your influence as leaders in this community to convey to the general manager of the hotel, John Reynolds, and the hotel manager private equity firm that the graduate needs to treat the surrounding community with respect. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Sven T. Sent Tissson here, 20-year Palo Alto resident, chemical engineer, dad, and now drifting into ministry. As I drift, all of you, all of you, especially children are I am concerned with your health and happiness, your well-being, and I'm I'm ministry. So that brings me to cancer because that's my topic. Natural gas stoves cause cancer and asthma. Asthma particularly in children. Running a gas stove is like having a smoker in the house. So I want to say thank you to the city for putting in place an induction stove and hot plate rebate program hot plate pro program and uh shifting the city's marketing focus from greenhouse gas emissions to that of health. Yay. Everybody go yay. >> Yay. So now unfortunately we have one-third of new builds homes uh still running natural gas lines primarily likely for stoves because people have this perception this natural gas stoves are better now thanks to some shenanigans by the natural gas industry. The city can't ban new residential gas line connections directly but we can make it hard. Just like now you need a notary signature to take your natur to decommission your natural gas at your home, you should have to need a n a notary to sign at the build that you're going to put one in. And that would include acknowledging that your gas stove causes cancer, acknowledging that the gas appliances are likely not going to be available thanks to new regulations at the Bay Area Air District. Thank you, Mayor Viker. and a big chunk of money to pay for that early decommissioning of that line. And we would I don't have time to talk about you, Babina, but please let's not put in natural gas and electrics at that park. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Matt S. >> Hello, council. My name is Matt Schlegel. I'm a Powalto resident. Flock cannot be trusted to prevent the sharing of our data with federal agencies that are actively harming our community members and are violating our Fourth Amendment rights. There's only one way to know for certain that Flock is not sharing with those federal agencies. That is to shut the flock system down and cover the Flock cameras. As our elected representatives bearing the responsibility for protecting us and our rights, it is imperative that you direct the city staff to shut down the flock surveillance system and cancel the contract with Flock. While the Flock system is operational, we cannot know if Flock is sharing data with ICE, which is the immigration and customs enforce enforcement. Case in point, DHS, Department of Homeland Security, does not permit flock to maintain auditable records of ICE data inquiries. On page 10 of the DHS's license plate reader data privacy impact assessment, it says, and I quote, "ICE query data is not retained by the vendor except to maintain audit logs for use by ICE." On page 16, it says, and I quote, "The vendor only retains this information for audit purposes. No other entity with access to the vendor's LPR database can access or use information pertaining to an ICE query. If Flock is complying with this DHS policy, then there's no way of knowing if ICE has queried our data. Please have the independent police auditor confirm this and please cover the cameras and shut the system down. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Cat S. >> Hi, I'm Cat Snider. So on election night, I was hanging out at the PaloAlto Buddhist temple because that's a vote center. And I was waiting about 10 10:30 for all of our ballots to make it to the registar of voters when about 10:15 a lady comes knocks on the door said, "Hi, can I clean inside of here?" And she doesn't speak any English. And so I tell her in Spanish, I'm like, "I'm sorry. Um, you know, right now because we've got the touchcreens and the ballot printers, you can't come in, but you can come in tomorrow." And and so she said, "Okay." And so she cleaned the rest of the campus. So, I just wanted to let you know that undocumented folks, they're the types of people you're going to see taking these nighttime janitorial positions all around the city cuz none of the rest of us want to do it. So, they're cleaning our religious spaces overnight, our educational spaces, our businesses, and our hospitals. They'll be driving by the ingresses and egresses for PaloAlto because more likely than not, they don't live here. And as you've just heard, DHS can take a look at that without getting it in our audit logs, which is a little bit troubling. We have been really lucky with respect to ICE in comparison with other places around the country. We have not seen as many mass raids, for example, as you've seen around the country. And Representative Sam Licardo says one of the reasons that that has happened is that we don't have any mass detention centers anywhere close to us. So, it's a logistics thing. This however may change pretty soon. So we know of two things. One, ICE is just they just broke ground on a 20,000 square foot detention center in Gilroy. And there's like little whispers about possibly using the currently closed down uh federal corrections institution in Dublin, but they'd have to renovate it and things like that as a mass detention center. So, I just want you to be aware of this that there is going to be a lot more ICE activity, I believe, in the future and I don't think we should have flock cameras tracking our workforce. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Melissa D. >> Good evening. On behalf of Indivisible PaloAlto Plus and SOS PaloAlto, safety over surveillance, thank you for your service and thank you for the recent study session on flock surveillance cameras. We really appreciate that you are investing the time in getting this right. And we want to help you do that. Which is why I'm here to invite you to Who's Watching? Safeguarding Our Privacy, a symposium that's part of our Democracy Forum series. We are bringing together some truly remarkable experts. Cindy Conn, who led the Electronic Frontier Foundation for 30 years. Brian Hoer, executive director of Secure Justice and former chair of Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission, and several other nationally recognized voices on surveillance technology, civil liberties, and community policing. The event is June 28th, 3 to 5:30 p.m. here in PaloAlto. A plenary session followed by smaller group deep dives. You have each received an email invitation. This is a real opportunity to hear from people who know this landscape best right as you are making decisions that matter deeply to our community. We would love to have you there. Find out more at indivisible paloalto plus.org. Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Q. Hello everyone. It's uh nice to see everyone. Uh tonight I'm speaking on behalf of PaloAlto Ford. I lived in PaloAlto for years. I now live down the road in Sunnyvale. Um, we would like that the uh SB79 ordinances please be removed from the consent agenda and put on the regular agenda. Neither the staff report for the June 1st meeting or the council's discussion on June 1st uh made clear that they were taking final action on the urgency ordinance with no further opportunity for public comment. The council's consideration of the SB79 ordinance on June 1st didn't start until well after 900 p.m. I believe it was. I mean, I'm a relatively young man and I was uh struggling to stay awake. It didn't end until after midnight. Many members of the public had to leave before public comments started. Again, I was able to participate because um of caffeine and the fact that I'm single. Members of the public, including myself, have uh serious concerns about the fact that the uh legal justification for adopting the urgency ordinance um is potentially putting the city at risk for lawsuits, which um I think in particular makes it necessary for greater public comment because if you have to defend the lawsuits. You'll be burning public money on that. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Fritz K. >> Hello. I'm Fritz Coler. I'm a resident of PaloAlto. I'm here with SOS PaloAlto. Um, as the work the city works through the scope of the flocks IPA audit, I'd encourage the council to keep the following items in mind. First, a trust and verify approach for Flock does not really work. As for trust, Flock has not shown itself to be trustworthy. As for verify, the Flock system is not designed for third party verification, and there are not likely to be reliable ways for the city to monitor and or audit the actions of Flock system administrators, as was spoken to earlier. Second, Flock has an $8 billion valuation based on its last financing round with a customer base of 6,000 customers. That equates to roughly $1.3 million per customer. That high valuation multiple assumes Flock's ability to exploit the massive amounts of data that it controls. Flock is highly incentivized to scale its business quickly and monetize as much data as possible. Three, when the primary driver of a multi-billion dollar technology company is data monetization, we have seen time and time again that compliance can become an afterthought and compliance lapses are just a cost of doing business. Four, Flock is highly incentivized to bring on lucrative federal customers. Flock is vying for contracts with multiple federal agencies, and those federal agencies will have direct access to Flock systems, which raise a host of potential compliance risks. Lastly, I'd strongly encourage council members to read the memo uh from the Berkeley Attorney's Office. Your time is up. >> Thank you very much. >> And that concludes public comment on items not on the agenda. >> All right. Well, thank you, Madame Clerk, and thank you to all of our public commenters for taking the time to address us this evening. And with that, we will go to council member questions, comments, and announcements. And uh in a departure from usual practice, I'm going to start because wow wow wow. PaloAlto Pride. I am still on a high from yesterday. And uh what a joy and a privilege to be part of PaloAlto Pride. I I think all of my colleagues who were all there enjoyed being part of it. And I want to report that every one of us was there to raise the new pride flag. It was just just thrilling. So, huge thanks to all of those who over the years hoped, dreamed, and advocated for this. And a special thanks to Kristen O'Cane here at the city who worked tirelessly along with the rest of the city team, including I know she worked on that all weekend. Thanks to council member Lithcott HS for sharing her journey as a queer person. It was nice to have that special uh personal uh story there. Uh the planning committee with Mora, Leaf, Sally, Pastor Tom, and so many more was amazing. The sponsors were generous. The community groups tableabling were voluminous. We had 40 tables at PaloAlto Pride. But I especially want to thank our teen leaders, Iris and Alex, for stepping up and driving it forward to actually make it happen this year. So I think we really tapped into a community desire for this celebration. It was palpable yesterday and I for one can't wait till next year. So just thank you and congratulations to this whole community. Um and since I have the mic, just one more thing. Um, I wanted to report out on uh my trip last week to the US Conference of Mayors down in Long Beach. They move it all around the country, but this time this year it was in California, so I didn't go very far. Um, on Wednesday, I uh was invited to facilitate a data centers meeting uh along with the mayor of Mesa, Arizona, and the mayor of Mapleton, Georgia. We had representatives of Meta, SoCal, Edison, and Seammens on the panel. And and I would say that the takeaway message, which is very similar to the takeaway message over at Stanford at that data center conference, was that cities really have a lot of leverage in negotiating with data centers, whether they are the smaller like 50 megawatt or less ones that we have here or the larger ones that are down the road in the city of Santa Clara or the hyperscalers located in Utah and other places. you know, we share air, water, and electric resources with those other cities. So, it's really key that those cities know their power and know what to ask for in negotiations so we can all avoid the downsides of these centers. So anyway, it was um really a a good session where cities are beginning to learn about how the right agreements can actually lead to greater capacity, reliability, and affordability and cleaner air um and maybe even a community benefit or two. So that was a a uh an interesting session. Um, I also learned of innovative housing practices, public private partnership arrangements, some potential free design services for our for a city neighborhood here, uh, cool sustainability practices, and more. So, I know I sent staff sort of a barrage of emails last week as I was learning these things, but uh, I have some more, and when there's time, I'm eager to to share that. Um, and finally, there I got to see a milestone. Um, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria brought the US Conference of Mayors Presidency back to California, but he also became the first openly gay mayor in the country to hold that position. And so, you know, he sent a nice note to our pride uh celebration yesterday. I texted him last night to thank him and he was delighted to hear about the success we had here in PaloAlto with that. So, lots of good things going on and uh I'm looking forward to lots more. So, colleagues, uh any other council member comments this evening? Council member Bert. Thank you. Um so, a few things. One, uh maybe other of my colleagues will speak to the um opening of the new uh Brian Street Community Center that occurred last Wednesday. It was uh a great uh multigenerational event um because that's what that center is going to serve at Lakama and lunches and a teen center and and a whole bunch of other exciting things. Um I also wanted to mention that um I was able to join two meetings um last week with Uberly uh tenants, the various nonprofits and user groups uh because they really had an interest in understanding um more deeply the plan uh that we have going forward and how uh it creates um opportunities for them and and um and so we were able to have a really uh positive dialogue and I think they have a a fuller understanding of uh where we're hoping to go and and the role that they can have in in uh making this a success. Um and then um the other last thing is that I want to share that um we had our uh on last Friday we as you may know uh at VTA we have an ad hoc committee on the University Avenue um station area and really focusing on near-term medium and long-term initiatives. We got an update on the uh Quarry Road uh extension and the redesign of uh circulation that would occur uh as a result of that. Um the feedback that we gave on the committee was a real concern that um the extension of the roadway uh actually rather than enhance the bike circulation through that station and to that station, it actually created new uh detriments of signal to be cross and safety measures. And so we've um really encouraged a re-examination and a uh a greater focus on um the need to have the bike circulation be improved concurrently with the Cory Road extension. So uh we look forward to um hearing feedback from from the staff and consultants on that. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Liths. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh just want to add to what council member Bert and the mayor um recently said first with regard to the opening of uh the Bryant Street Center. What I'll add is it was lovely to see the president of the PaloAlto Youth Council take to the mic along with dignitaries um to add his perspective on what this new teen center in the downtown area means to our youth. I think anytime we give our youth the opportunity to step up to the mic, they astound us. People around me were whispering, "He's so articulate. He's so composed." And uh they of course grow and we give them the opportunity to share their thoughts in a uh format like that in public. And we grow by listening to what they have to say on the subject. So it's incredibly exciting that the teen center is going to be paired with La Coma. Uh the research shows that when you put youth and seniors together, it reaps benefits for both generations. So, I'm excited to see what is to come as the programming begins to get further underway and perhaps the hours increase for the teens. Um but just kudos to everybody and um especially to the youth involved in uh helping to design the teen center. I'm rooting for it to be a big success. And then similarly uh with thanks to Mayor Vinker for her kind remarks about the Pride event, I share my gratitude to all who played a role in pulling it off, particularly uh director Okaine and her staff who just uh on top of everything else. This was really an add-on to the work plan and um really a passion project I think um and it really showed. So they did a remarkable job. We had a greater turnout than I think we anticipated. The count is 1500 to 2,000 over the course of the day which is fabulous. Um but again, uh the event opened with two youth stepping up to the mic. Um Alex and Iris, they were, you know, on the steering committee. They were there right from the beginning and they really led the entire way. And to open the event with two recent gun graduates um uh stepping up to share their thoughts on the on the magnitude of this event happening in their city. It was really moving. So, here's to what our youth are able to do uh when uh when they have the support they need from the city. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank thank you both. And I have to say, I remember walking through what was to be the Bryant Street Community Center when it was just kind of open and we were trying to imagine uh all the different things that could go there and and what it would take. And so it's it's delightful that that milestone has been reached. So thank you both for reporting on that. All right. So we will move to our consent calendar items 3 through 12. Madame clerk, do we have any public comment? >> Yes, we do. We have three requests to speak. >> Okay. Our first speaker is G. Uh good evening uh honorable mayor and council members. Uh my name is Gupta. I serve on the utility utilities advisory commission but these comments are on my own personal capacity. Um uh I'm uh making a comment on item five on the consent calendar concerning the Baker Tilly report for our utilities reserves. Um, first I want to thank the several council members who investigated this after reading my uh public comment um and confirmed that he here the word accept uh is being used to really to mean acknowledge receipt. Um so I really appreciate that and I further appreciate the city manager's confirmation of that as well and that the report is not being implemented yet uh but will go to UAC and finance committee. Um, I do feel for the historians that will have to untangle this this word choice in the future just a little bit. Um, I do want us to make sure we are crystal clear um about um council's intentions here um just because there are real stakes for utility rates and there are real conversations happening by UAC commissioners and others on how should our uh reserves look. Um so again tonight's action uh shouldn't be to accept this report in a way that kicks off a process um to that would review and implement it. Um the right sequence is for UAC and finance committee to review this report first uh before any implementation process. Um we don't ne yet know whether this report is good or bad. um we need to kick the tires on it and uh as I mentioned before the the UAC as a whole seems to be very um very engaged on on this question of um reserve uh policies. Uh also if accepting is uh merely acknowledging receipt um which um does raise the question in my mind of why have this process at all? Um maybe it is to check a milestone um with the consultant's contract or maybe it's something else. Um, my recommendation would still stand to be to defer this to uh the UAC to uh uh to kick the tires on this. I'm sure that the there's a lot of interest on this. I'm sure we could review it um relatively quickly and and um and bring any recommendations back uh to the city council. Um and nonetheless, it would help um alleviate the re residential concerns, including mine um seeing something like this on on the city council's uh uh consent calendar. But if you do choose to consent uh to accept it or acknowledge a receipt tonight, again, please make uh crystal clear that the report uh won't be implemented and that uh your various uh advisory bodies will have a chance to take a crack at it. Thank you again so much for your service and for your time. >> Our next speaker is Becky S. >> Good evening, council members, Mayor Banker. Yeah, I um a quick check-in about process. side too. I'm speaking about uh item number five and I did talk to and I found him very persuasive but I went and talked to a whole bunch of other people because I don't really understand um everything with great clarity about the consent calendar. So here we go. Um we we are we are putting a report we paid for but whose results might we might challenge on consent without public discussion. I understand that putting this item on consent doesn't mean anything. It's a formality as it will be discussed at the UAC. So why not wait until it goes to UAC before taking time and money to put it on council consent. The report is brought forward here I think without a staff impact report. Did I get that right? um not 100% sure but I was looking for something about the uh what the impact would be and I was just wondering well why that is not there and will that be included in the report going to UAC so anyway one takeaway from the impact report is that there will be rate hikes within the range of recommendation from Baker Tilly I think that's a quote but what if we don't like that range and does that tie the hands of UAC and maybe it's just a rubber stamp but I think rubber stamps have consequences and so I don't understand why this is non-consent signaling it's a done deal when it isn't. But again, it's my process lack of understanding process. So, I'm just wondering if you guys and thees would consider taking it off the consent and just popping it over to UAC. Like, is that an issue for you? So, thank you very much for your time this evening and for hearing me. Our next speaker is Herb B. uh Mayor Rinkler, Vice Mayor Stone, and council members on item number four on the CEO evaluation process as part part of uh the process is to see uh you know h how uh council appointed officers like the city manager and city attorney did on the council identify priorities and performance indicators. Uh and what the uh schedule leaves out is the public part of it. That is prior to going into close session, the public has an opportunity uh to for evaluations uh to give their opinions about how the council appointed officers have done. But if we don't know what those identified priorities are uh or what the key performance indicators are, uh people just come up here and and speak about something, but they're not directly related to the criteria that you be using and evaluating each council appointed officer. So it seems to me that as soon as you determine what they are uh they should be made public and uh then when people come before you to give their opinions they will have some standard to speak to and also uh in uh the uh questions for for each CIO uh they are recommending what those priorities and KPI should be. And it seems to me it would be helpful uh for the public to address those also before you go into close session to determine what those are. And I suggested pulling this from the consent calendar so you can include those uh in in your process. uh the ones that I know of from VTA are are quantitative uh key performance indicators which are similar to the kinds of things we'd have in the budget. So it may be that you don't have any quantitative ones. They're all qualitative or what you or they're both some quantitative and some qualitative. But whatever they are, uh, nobody from the public or from the press can speak, uh, meaningfully to you when you go into session on evaluations if we don't know what criteria you are using to evaluate each council appointed officer. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Winter D. >> So I wanted to just take this chance to address one thing. Item 12, the uh map buo vista. Of course, this is rather pro- fora. I understand that. I don't have a problem uh with uh that uh uh being approved tonight. I did want to say that I am concerned uh that still uh buistans have not getting gotten any uh notice. They have to get a 30-day notice of relocation and uh so they have no way to plan for their summers. I just talked to a resident yesterday. Her family bought tickets to go to Mexico as they do every year to visit their grandma and who's very elderly and I said, "How's that going to work?" Because if you get uh the city manager, others have said, "Well, we think it it will be in July, but there's no way to know." And I just wanted folks to know this. I mean, this is just kind of awful. And that's all I really want to say. And I know it doesn't have to do with the map, but it does have to do with how these folks are getting treated that they can't make plans for their summer. That's it. Thank you. Thank you for your good work generally. >> That concludes public comment on consent calendar items 3 through 12. >> All right. Well, thank you to all of our public commenters. We appreciate it. Um, generally, uh, it had to be said. Um, uh, colleagues, are there any no votes or request to pull or recusals or perhaps a motion to approve the consent calendar? >> Oh, if there are any disclosures to make on the quasi judicial matter, now would be a good time to do that. I, Mr. City, man, city attorney, unless you have other thoughts. Yes, that that would be appropriate. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for flagging that. Council member, are there any disclosures on item 12 >> or 11? 11 is 405 Kipling Street. 12 is the Buenov Vista property. >> I move the consent calendar. Second. Excellent. Thank you both. Um, all right. Uh, let's take a vote. >> Council member Rectal, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> Council member Lithcods, >> yes. >> Council member Lou, >> Mayor Vinker, >> yes. >> Council member Lowing, >> Council member Bert, >> yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And with that, I will turn to our city manager for comments. >> Thank you, mayor. City clerk, could I ask your assistance with a just a couple of slides or a few slides here? Next slide, please. Just want to highlight as uh looking forward to the council's July recess that you could spend it reading and uh super uh exciting opportunity with the library summer reading program. We've discussed it among our department heads. We're trying to get a little competition going to see who could get the most hours, but it's not quite picking up yet. But we'll we'll figure that out. Hope the council will join us in uh taking part in this annual uh enjoyable opportunity for learning. Uh oh, did want to note as noted on the last bullet here, there are prizes for uh read participants and and not requiring any particular level of involvement. These are raffles uh with a number of prizes available to community members. Next slide, please. Also want to note as we move into what is uh I think the fire professionals are not calling it fire season anymore just because uh it's so unpredictable as to when uh the risk of wildfire is most acute. But that said, I do want to take the opportunity to uh uh remind community members about this topic. Also, we recently released a community update with resources and tips uh for preparation and uh availability for of resources. This is at powalto.gov/w wildfire prep. Next slide, please. Then here a little bit of an eye chart, but really just a resource uh that folks can download or at least uh I take a quick look at at all the wide variety of summer activities that will be ongoing throughout really the summer uh starting now uh through August uh including family movie nights, Twilight concert series, the Fourth of July chili cookoff, annual uh clay and glass festival, as well as our municipal service center openhouse. house again. Last one there on Saturday, July 25th. Uh information on this and other events are on our city website. Next slide, please. And finally, uh looking forward to upcoming council agendas. Want to flag just one more uh scheduled council meeting uh before the July recess next week. We'll be discussing the budget as well as the bicycle and pedestrian uh transportation plan. Then looking forward to August, noting that the uh August schedule of uh meetings has been shifted to the 10th, 17th, and 24th. Uh and we have quite a laundry list of items. Really just want to flag uh that these are the action items or study sessions anticipated in the month of August. Uh specific dates are still being finalized. uh but uh want to uh make this uh list available so community members know if they're keeping an eye on an item that we're working on tying those down to specific dates. And with that, mayor, back to you. >> All right. Well, thank you. Um I am told by a friend who works with the blind that ebooks count as reading and I do a lot of ebooks, so I'm going to I'm going to try to participate that way. And I also want to note that our Fourth of July chili cookoff is on the 250th anniversary of the United States. So hopefully we can do something special for that too. All right. Well, thank you very much. And we are close to on time here. Uh so we will move to our first action item of the evening. It is a public hearing on the urban water management plan. and we will start with staff once they are able to get seated and sorted. Welcome. >> Good evening, mayor and council. Um Alan Curator, director of utilities. Uh today we'll be presenting the urban water management plan. We'll have Lisa Bolier, our assistant director of resources, give the presentation. We also have uh Adriana Arto, she's our senior resource planner. She'll be in the back here answering all the hard questions as necessary. I also wanted to also note that uh Commissioner uh Utaf Gupta is always is here as well. He's the UAC representative uh for this action item. Thank you. >> Oh, sorry. Okay. And there's also Tom Spingle with uh with Bosa here and and so there's any questions for him um we can we can send his way as well. So Lisa, >> yes. So I'm here to talk to you about the urban water management plan. This is a regulatory compliance document that we need to submit to the state uh the department of water resources by the 1st of July. If you could go to the next slide, please. The city has actually been filing urban water management plans for the last 40 years and our next one is due in July. The state requires urban water management plans every 5 years and one of the main goals of the urban water management plan is to demonstrate that uh we have water supply reliability over a 20-year planning time frame. PaloAlto needs to have a current urban water management plan on file to be eligible for any state grants or loans. And that is really critical for PaloAlto because we do have state grants and loans. For example, we have $192 million of a state revolving fund loan for the secondary treatment upgrades at the regional water quality control plant. So, we have a really excellent interest rate on that of 0.8% 8% and that's a very important um project that we're funding. So, it's something we take very seriously to maintain our compliance through this filing. Next slide, please. I'd like to talk a little bit about what the urban water management plan is and also what it's not. This is a, as I mentioned, a prescriptive uh document where we're following the uh requirements in the California Water Code. We have to, as I mentioned, demonstrate that we can meet future water demands given growth and we are basing our growth requirements on our planning uh departments planning uh numbers from the regional housing needs allocation and from the housing element. Uh there's many different required components. A couple key ones I've listed here are the water demand analysis update, water supply reliability update, and the water shortage contingency plan, which really is our plan when we enter into a drought. And I just wanted to note that you know all of Palo Alto's water supply comes from the regional water system which is truly an amazing system coming of pure uh snowmelt water coming down from Yusede through a series of tunnels and uh pipes into Palo Alto through gravityfed system. What the urban water management plan is not it's not a contractual or legal agreement. We do have a contract with SFPUC, our water supply agreement, and so that addresses the the contractual issues. It's not a long-term commitment to any of these demand forecasts or alternative water supply investments, and it is not a rate setting document. So, the results of this urban water management plan are not going to raise or lower Palo Alto's rates. Next slide, please. So in terms of what you'll see in the urban water management plan, we have a demand forecast. You can see on the chart the demand over the last 40 years or so in PaloAlto and you can see that going into the future, we do actually have a declining slightly uh demand forecast there. Even though we have increasing population included in this forecast. So some of the reasons for that include increasing water conservation and efficiency also the assumption that new housing is um is high density and multif family and uh also some new requirements new regulatory requirements both for efficiency and also for things like not watering non-functional turf. I also want to mention on this slide this the slide deck doesn't go into it in great detail but as I mentioned one of the key items is water supply reliability and our supplier SFPU has provided two scenarios for water supply reliability with the Bay Delta plan amendments and without the Bay Delta plan amendments both of which are included in the urban water management plan with the Bay Delta plan amendments implementation the wholesale cutbacks range from 31% to 48% during multiple dry years and this is reflected in the urban water management plan and has been discussed in more detail with the UAC and uh without the Bay Delta plan amendments there will be no cutbacks in multiple dry years. Next slide please. A little bit about the water shortage contingency plan or WSCP. This is a series of six stages. The stages are required by the state. the as listed on this slide. And this plan identifies the actions that the city of Palo Alto is going to take if we need to get cutbacks of up to the different levels listed uh for each of the stage. When we implement the stage, we will come to the city council and we can make changes to the actions in the water shortage contingency plan. So this is a plan, but it doesn't bind us to these actions. Next slide, please. So the adoption schedule that we've gone through this year is we brought the uh preliminary information on urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan to the UAC on March 31st and then on May 6th we brought the full urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan draft to the UAC who then voted to uh approve the urban water management plan and water shortage contingency plan and also voted to attach a letter from Commissioner Gupta that you can find in your packet tonight as attachment C to this item. That's for the council members awareness. And then tonight we're here on June 8th for council review and adoption. And then the deadline to file with the California Department of Water Resources is on July the 1st. And the motion on the next slide is a recommendation to adopt a resolution adopting the 2025 urban water management plan. Um and resolution adopting the 2025 water shortage contingency plan. And with that, I'd be happy to try to answer any of your questions. >> All right. Well, thank you very much. I certainly appreciate the presentation. Given that this is a a public hearing, uh I will ask council if they have any clarifying questions. Um we will then take public comment on the matter. See if there's any more clarifying questions for any of the multitude of resource people we have here here. Um and then we will close the public hearing and have council debate and dialogue. I think Mr. City attorney, I got that right. Okay. >> Thank you. Uh, so colleagues, do you have any clarifying questions at this point? Council member Bert, >> thank you. Um, well, I Lisa, thank you for those clarifications on exactly what it is and what it isn't. Um, I was very interested in understanding um, kind of the U, UAC's direction. It was interesting that they did not incorporate Commissioner Gupta's recommended language changes but did advocate that it be presented which is a little unusual. um as I read them um I found many of them uh pretty compelling and so I I didn't want to commissioner Gupta is here to represent the full commission and um and then separately we have his recommendations. The staff have any insights on the discussion that the UAC had and why uh what they disagreed with about Commissioner Gupta's uh recommend recommended changes. >> My perception of that discussion was that it didn't go into a lot of depth about each of the commissioners concerns and comments about it. Uh that was that was my perception, but some of the commissioners expressed that they didn't agree with all of the points in the letter. So >> So I I guess I would have hoped that they would have flushed out what they agreed with and what they didn't agree with and and then made recommendations on that basis, but we are where we are tonight. Okay. Uh thank you. >> Director Curator, do you have something? I just wanted to add that um as part of this uh regulatory document um we we have been including SFPU's projections and what it looks in terms of the potential uh reductions um during those those scenarios of of reduced supply and that is consistent what we've done in the past and it's also consistent with the rest of the BOSA members as the other 26 members. So um I think that also was a discussion point as part of the UAC in terms of what this document is and what it does and what it does not do. Um so that was part of the discussion as well. >> Well and I'll just say at a high level this set of um of the the basis for these recommendations that Commissioner Gupta has made has been something that the council has for a number of years discussed and really in principle embraced as a city. uh we we took a position uh before BOSA uh that was a minority position a number of years ago and we've continued to uh successive councils have looked at it and and I think largely uh continued to uh support that position and that position seems to be aligned with Commissioner Gupta's comments and not with what we receive uh in the staff report, but I'm not. So, I want to really ask, am I missing something? >> Are you alluding to the the support of the the city's position for the Bay Delta Plan as part of that or >> Well, that is part of it. Yeah. But it's the the set of assumptions that um that the SFPU PUC has made uh on worst case uh drought forecasts and what would be the shortages all the things that are reflected in in uh the red lines of Commissioner Gupta. That's they they kind of emanate from the same set of principles. Uh >> yes, I think that that's a really good point and those are some some items that the council members um and uh Vice Mayor Stone as the as the boster director has raised. And so I think that the reason you're seeing a discrepancy there in terms of what staff is raising in this item specifically is because we're viewing this item as a compliance document. This is a regulatory compliance document and we are it really isn't a forum for uh bringing those those issues such as the design drought um and trying to make a change there to the SFPU. So that's that's that's the reason for it. It's not that those types of um positions are not important or that work doesn't h need to happen. It just needs to happen in a different forum. This is about bringing a compliance document to the state following those very prescriptive requirements in the California water code and then putting that information according to those prescriptive requirements into the urban water management plan um accordingly and just meeting the state's requirements. >> Okay, my last question um given that it's a compliance document, does it in some way prohibit us from uh incorporating uh these edits? Um let me comment on that a little bit. I'd say that you know because it's a regulatory compliance document and as I mentioned it's not a forum for uh our water uh contract we have a separate contract with the SOP the water supply agreement. So to the extent that there's statements that we put into our urban water management plan that may conflict with the water supply agreement we think that that would require legal review. Um, and also it could potentially raise confusion or conflicts if that information goes to the state and has different information than what's in our water supply agreement. Um, additionally, in terms of uh staff validating and vetting some of the statements in in Commissioner Gupta's letter, we have not done that. So, we are trying to prepare an urban water management plan that uh is um has complete and accurate information in it. And so that's something that that's a step that we would need to take. >> Okay. I'll I'll come back under comments. Thank you, >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just have a couple clarifying questions on the population projections through 2050. You talked about it, but there's one thing that just doesn't quite make sense to me. I know the study assumes our population increases to 91,532 people by 2035. assuming we meet our arena targets, which would be great. I hope we get there. Um, but then it stays flat for 15 years. And of course, we know we know our housing numbers. Well, sorry. We don't know what our housing numbers are going to be for the next housing element. We do know it's going to be zero in every single housing element. They're significantly higher. I would imagine the next one will I think good chance it's the higher than the the current one we're in. So can you can you talk about kind of how then that and why the assumption is we stop in in 2035 and and the assumption is kind of based on that. >> So the the numbers I'm trying to see what where the year 2035 is. Um the the numbers don't don't quite work like that. It's not just stopping at a certain point in time. Um what's going on here is there's a uh per capita forecast going out into the future and that it dep um depends on a lot of different factors including price elasticity as in addition to population in addition to efficiency um and then that per capita number is multiplied by the number the population number and so it is very slightly changing over time. It's a little bit hard to discern it in the chart, but it's not just a flatline number. It's a number that has forces pushing it up and down and so it's kind of changing only a very little bit over time. >> So I was I was referring to uh table one on page 207 population current and projected and it increases until 2035 and then at least according to that table remains consistent. So am I am I mis am I misreading the table? I I totally get what you're saying on multif family housing has has less demand than single family with all the irrigation demands and everything else and we're getting more efficient and better at being able to conserve water. I I get all of that because I'm just kind of confused on that on this piece of the population. >> Thank you. And I apologize for my confusion. Um Audriana is going to try to answer your question. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Hello. Good evening everyone. Um yes, I can see why there might be some confusion around looking at those population numbers. Um when we were preparing the urban water management plan about we started this process about a year ago um we w we discussed or we coordinated with our planning department. So we worked with our planning department, worked with their um analysts to determine what was the best approach for updating um the city's demand forecast um using the the model facilitated by BOSA right so we're working with this model working with consultant to figure out what should Palo Alto what what is Palo Alto's um approach to this so we did decide to follow exactly what's in our council approved housing element which is to take the random numbers take the population assumptions um in the housing element which uses um AAG 2040 projections that's a the APAG is the association of Bay Area government agencies um so we use those population assumptions um where the reason why it assumes the population growth um occurs through 2031 and then flat lines from there is really has to do with um their approach for the model, updating the model, kind of thinking about, okay, if we're adding um population um with in correspondence to housing development growth, how is that going to look on a per capita basis? So, it's kind of a little bit of backing into these um population numbers into our model that we were working with. Does that answer your question? >> If if I can add add real quick. So these are our best best projections that we can make to to 2050 at this point. We do anticipate some changes in state law in terms of as uh uh assistant director Billy mentioned on this non-functional turf. We actually see some reductions in that. So if you look at over long-term projections that we're seeing now, we do update this every 5 years. So this is not static. U we are far below our uh individual supply guarantee with San Francisco PUC. So I wanted to mention that as well. And we're not alone. We're, I think, one of three agencies in the Bosa service territory, and I can be corrected on this, that have actually shown lower projections over time. Um, looking at our per capita water use and the potential growth and intensification and types of residential, we're probably going to see that that average use per capita go down. Um, so it does look a little odd and strange, but if you look over our long-term trend in our water use, it's actually gone down over several years. It's peaked, you know, decades ago. So it should focus more on the kind of per capita use rather than the actual kind of projection of people living in the city. >> Correct. Per capita use and added. So it it does balance out. >> Okay. Thanks. And then one final question. Uh I know one of the big concerns is that in multiple dry years we might be asked to reduce water usage by up to 48% of the demand projections, not the individual supply guarantee agreements. Uh to be clear, are those the SFPUC's demand projections or our own? >> The the reduction is based on an average of the most recent usage that Peloto has. I think it's a three-year average of the most recent usage. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks for that that clarity, which is just kind of frustrating that I feel like we get penalized for being so efficient and having um done all this work to be able to encourage our residents to be able to conserve and use less water and now so now we're going to be starting off of a lower baseline than a lot of other communities, but I know we're just on questions right now. So those are my questions. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um not seeing other any other lines. I just have a follow-up question to uh council member Bert's uh questions. Um, so I follow that staff is saying this is not a forum for bringing the design drought issue to SFPU that it's a compliance doc following prescriptive requirements and in fact is one that uh if we get it filed within the month uh well that's what makes us eligible for that $192 million water loan that we uh that we pursue. So that's that's important. My my question is um there has been interest in um this design drought issue um around town around council various uh and and as council member Bert said um not just this year but previously. So, is there is there sort of a a parallel track that this could be pursued? Um, you know, is this if if in in other words that UIC um could consider it or just in other words, this isn't our only shot. That's what I'm I'm trying to get at. Is that the case? >> Actually, I want to defer to uh Vice Mayor Stone um in terms of his representation at Bosco. Uh yeah, I think the I think that the the route likely the most appropriate route is through our representation on the BOSA board to be to be doing this and I'm happy to to speak about it in more kind of more detail. Um but yeah, these are I would say most of the issues that are contained in Commissioner Gupta's letter and uh are issues that I've been raising at the BOSA board since 2023 now and probably almost at every meeting to sometimes our our director I I question him quite a bit on on it. So I'm sure he can um he can speak to that as well. So I think this is an issue I think most of these issues especially with regards to design drought and demand projections etc are are I know I've been advocating for at the at the BOSA level and seems to be really the one place that the that the city has a little bit of leverage when dealing with the SFPU if we can all speak collectively as 26 agencies. And I know in particular the issue of the design drought I brought up at the last meeting. My my hopes that the board could take up and make a formal recommendation to the F SFP to re-examine the the design drought and maybe consider other options since such as the the drought of record which I understand Valley Water and other large agencies around the state do. And uh there were several other board members that expressed interest in that. I have followed up with the chair of Bosa multiple times and just received confirmation from him on Friday that they will be agendaizing that discussion sometime before the before the end of the summer. So hoping to be able to get a majority of the 26 agencies on the BOSA board to agree that this this design drought really makes no sense and um and that they should be that they should be re-examining it. So I think that is definitely the most probably the most appropriate place for us to be pursuing these type of um frustrations. >> Very helpful, Vice Mayor. Thank you. All right. Right. And with that, seeing no lights, I will uh turn to public comment. Madame Clerk, how many speakers do we have? We have 11 requests to speak. What time is it? Okay. Um Oh, boy. Given our full agenda, let's go with two minutes each. Our first speaker is Susan S. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Susan Stanbury. I've been a resident of Palo Alto for 30 over 35 years. Uh I first came to PaloAlto to volunteer for the international Earth Day campaign which was on Emerson in 1990. And I stayed in Palo Alto in large part due to our community's environmental leadership. One of Palo Alto's positions I wholeheartedly agree with is the city's support of the Bay Delta water quality control plan. The Bay Delta and the rivers that feed into it are near ecological collapse, which I find alarming. If the Bay Delta water quality plan were implemented, more water would be released into the rivers and give salmon, other fish species, and the ecosystems at large a chance to rebound. My understanding of the SFPU numbers is that the drought design is unrealistic and the demand projections are inflated. Yet, the PaloAlto urban water management plan is required to use them. Commissioner Gupta's suggested edits leave these numbers in yet give clarity to their providence. I urge you to adopt his edits so we have a more accurate urban water management plan. Just for the record, thank you. Our next speaker is Cedric DLB. >> Um, hello council. Thank you. Uh, Cedric Duardier. Uh, so the SFPUC is basing its decisions on a mega drought scenario that is estimated to only occur once in every 8,000 years. Each dry season, fearing this this will be the year the mega drought starts, the SFPU hoards water behind its dams through the summer months, causing low water flows, which get unnaturally warm, killing salmon, causing al blooms, and causing massive die-offs. The salmon populations are down to 1% or less of their historic counts. We've lost over 99% of the salmon since we started counting. Thus, out of a fear of this highly unlikely one in an 8,000-year event, we are creating the near certainty of the extinction of salmon and other species. The SFPU is not being a good steward of the rivers it manages, and its policies could be considered crimally criminal insanity. Climate change is upon us. Ecosystems are on the brink of collapse. Species are going extinct. We cannot survive business as usual. Business as usual is what got us into this mess. We need to pull our collective heads out of the sand of these artificially dry riverbeds. We all need to do our part to protect and restore. The good news is if we start doing things right, or at least stop doing harm, nature can recover. So, as a city, let's insist that the SFPU endorse the Bay Delta plan, start releasing more water into its rivers, into our rivers regularly, and facilitate the healing of our riparian ecosystems. Please adopt Commissioner Gupta's recommendations into our urban water management plan. Our plan should reflect the city's values and priorities. If this leads to confusion at the state level as to conflicts between our plans and this and the SFPUC's positions, then I would say that is a good thing as it will raise awareness as uh to the at the state level as to the SFPUC's failures to properly steward our rivers. >> Uh finally, locally, we have two riparian related projects, the stream corridor protection ordinance, >> uh and the restoration of Madero Creek in North Ventura area. I hope we will be good stewards of our move these projects forward. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Becky S. >> Okay. Yeah. Becky Saunders from Ventura. All righty. Right quick. Okay. So, I've attended presentations by Peter Dremmyer about the modeling that's undergurting uh the drought modeling and I talked to some other really smart people and I took a walk through the scenarios with them and seriously the numbers SFPU are using are way overblown. Uh they're planning for the worst worst worst case scenario. Nothing like it yet to be seen but no basis in climate change or any data except what they whipped out of their arsenal of bad data practitioners over there. Are we really compelled to submit our UWMP knowing the numbers are facious? Is verifying Commissioner Gupta's numbers not something staff has time to do? This document will govern us for the next 5 years. I congratulate the UAC Commissioner Gupta activist Peter Dremmyer, Vice Mayor Stone for bucking the rubber stamping syndrome and calling out the emperor's new clothes here. Not reserving the right to challenge FAPU's disaster drought modeling will lead to unnecessary rate hikes. That will be a burden not to just PaloAlto but to all of SFPUC's customers. Plus, the real catastrophe will be the undermining of PaloAlto's own stated environmental records of goals of aligning with the Bay Delta plan. So that's our current plan of record. So rates going through the roof and starving the bay of promised water for no good reason are the net results of this modeling. Please accept Commissioner Goodab's amendments to the urban water management plan and submit it with those. We will meet our deadline while calling out the garbage in garbage out put forth by um FFPU. Double quickly thank you Vice Mayor Greer for being the lone voice crying in the wilderness at Bosa. I really hope they will listen, but most agencies seem to be dialing it in. So, thank you very much for your time and consideration. This is super important. Okay, thanks. Our next speaker is Peter D. >> Good evening. Peter Dremmyer, policy director for Yusede Rivers Alliance. We have a really great utilities advisory commission. They put a lot of time in and save you a lot of work. Um, Commissioner Gupta is especially um, wonderful on that commission. Um, we also have a very good Bosa representative in Greerstone. Thank you for that. Our staff has disappointed me. Uh, they're more loyal to Bosa than to Palo Alto. There was this question about verification. Everything in Commissioner Gupta's memo came up on March 31st, more than two months ago, and staff was asked to verify anything that needed verification. Well, nothing's happened. This is right out of the playbook of the SFPU in Bosa. They want everyone to think it's like, oh, there's a different opinion. Well, opinions are based on fact, and we're always willing to participate in public forums. They don't show up. Vice Mayor Stone will recall last October, Pala League women voters had a forum right here and the SFPU in Bosa declined to participate. So, I hope you'll stand strong. Uh supporting and incorporating Commissioner Gupta's language is not going to cause any problems. Um and it's just a first step. Every time we talk about water, you express interest. I know that you care. We need to do something. We need to have a study session as soon as possible. get BOSA and the SFPU and the staff if they want to participate, show their work. We will show our work. Okay. I'm hoping we can do that shortly after the break. Not a whole lot of time here, but a lot of people covered a lot of good things. Um it's interesting that Valley Waters urban water management plan has no alarm bells. SFPU says 43% rationing, maybe 48 for PaloAlto. Um San Francisco has a much more reliable water supply. uh eight reservoirs, a water bank, enough water to last six years in storage, three years worth of water in an average year. Valley Water doesn't have any of that. They depend a lot on the state water project. The big difference is the design drought versus the drought of record. If we plan for the drought of record, uh we could manage that with the Bay Delta plan in place without five years without any rationing, without any new alternative water supplies, six years with rationing, seven years with realistic demand projections. >> Your time is up. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Julian F. Okay. I'm Julianne. I am a PaloAlto uh resident for 30 years. Um I've strongly encouraged the council to incorporate um utility commissioner uh Gupta's suggested language into the I just broke it. The UWMP prior to approval. We in PaloAlto are fortunate to have a diligent UAC. They have looked carefully at the SFPU water use and population projections for the Bay Area. Our UAC has noted that the SFPU numbers are incorrect. Because of these incorrect projections, there are many costly water related projects proposed by the FSPU and absurd threats for more than 40% water rationing in the future. The SFPU has imposed large water rate hikes on BASA members. I have attended several SFPU meetings over the years and a BOSA meeting. The SFPU meetings are particularly discouraging as the board allows staff to drag out the same tired statistics year after year in spite of the excellent scientifically based information presented to them. I see a glimmer of hope for Basa as our rep. Greer Stone and Betsy Nash of Menllo Park have been encouraging other BASA members to do more than sit in their chairs. Um I became interested in the workings of the SFPU back in 2018. At that time my main reasons um had to do with environment. However, I I still feel that way. that I am also now concerned about our residential water rate hikes. Water use throughout the Bay Area, as we all know, has either decreased or been flat for at least 30 years. Our thrift shows up in the published water statistics. Yet, the SFP Your >> Time is up. >> I urge you to um adopt Mr. Gupta's amendment. Thank you. Our next speaker is Dave W. >> Thank you. What service? Thank you. Thank you all for your service. I'm Dave Warner. Uh and thank you for agendaizing the approval of the urban water management plan. Um, as you likely know, it h it has alarmist rationing language uh from our water supplier, the SFPU, including calling for 42% rationing or stage five rationing plan uh in year two of a drought. So, I really have three should the Delta plan beta plan be implemented, I've really got sort of three major concerns. The first one is it's a compliance doc, but the compliance doc should reflect our city's values. And the second thing is a lay person that reads that compliance doc will look at it and say, "Holy smokes, 42% rationing in the second year." That leads to my third point. Anyone that reads that is going to say, "Why in the world is Palo Alto supporting the Bay Delta plan when we're going to face 42% rationing in the second year of a drought?" So my big itch here is to me when the SPC provides these percentages in a way it's a political presentation. They're saying, "Okay, you all, anyone that reads your UWMP is going to look and see these percentages." Uh, and that's why I really support, uh, Commissioner Gupta's language. Um, so, um, I hope you'll press to add language to our urban water management plan, uh, to put these alarmist percentages in context as Commissioner Gupta's letter does. Uh, and I please, uh, please pass a resolution to do this. I don't think it's in the proposed resolutions that were in the packet. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sonia B. Um, hi, my name is Sonia. Uh, I live in Palo Alto also 30 years. Uh, please accept and incorporate into PaloAlto's urban water management the amendments written by UAC Commissioner Gupta and forwarded to the council by the UAC. Having reviewed this material, we're convinced the information from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is wrong and will trigger unnecessary and huge rate hikes to all customers of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Thank you. Our next speaker is Phyllis B. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Phyllis Brown, more than 40 years in PaloAlto. And I I need to revise my remarks a little bit because I came confused by the material that we were given. And now I know that I'm not the only one who was confused. I'm troubled that the staff did not do the research into the numbers, the information the Gupta Coun um Commissioner Gupta provided. seems to me that that would be the job for due diligence to prepare for this meeting. Um, I've heard a lot about other concerns that go even deeper than my concerns, but I'll add to the group of people who are saying, "Please incorporate Commissioner Gupta's amendations into whatever you approve. We don't need to rubber stamp something that we know is not in the best interests of the our city um and our long-term planning. So, thank you. >> Our next speaker is Terry H. >> Good evening, council members. Uh, I'm here tonight. It sounds like a broken record, I know, but I'm here tonight in support of utility commissioner Gupta's letter to you, expressing the flawed modeling and statistics that the San Francisco Public Utility Commission is now pushing to us to jack up our utility rates to all the citizens throughout the Bay Area. It's vital that our city push back as much as possible on what the SFPU is proposing around a so-called drought emergency that they that they stop including these massive water um proposals which they know won't happen for another 8,000 years. Please take the comments that Commissioner Gupta has put forward to this council and include the amendments that have already been approved by your own utility advisory commission. We must put a stop to these proposed measures because they truly impact residents. The rate increases that people are experiencing not only in utility rates but in water rates must come to some controlled end. It's really truly impacting residents and it's time to say no to the SSP. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Claire E. Hi, good evening, Mayor Vinker and fellow council members. My name is Claire Elliot. I am a Pelta resident and retired water quality engineer and ecologist. I want to start by thanking staff, commissioners, and the council for supporting a water shortage contingency plan with conservation at its core. But I hope, like many others, that the council will not adopt the urban wershed management plan until staff can incorporate commissioner Gupta's proposed edits to the plans. His edits will ensure that the city voices valid concerns about SFPU's drastically inflated design drought scenarios and address other issues related to finance and water storage. Please also ensure that Palto holds the SFPU to implementing the version of the Bay Delta plan that the city supported in 2018 to provide more water for the Towami River. On a related topic, I hope Palotto does not support the pure water peninsula plan. Although I strongly support recycled water projects, our tax dollar should be put to use supporting projects that decentralize the capture and treatment of storm water, gray water, and waste water where they are generated. This water can then be used downstream for non-potable purposes, eliminating the need for expensive and CO2 generating pumps and treatment by reverse osmosis. Thank you very much for attention to all of our comments and for making smart use of our dollars and our even more valuable asset, our water. Our next speaker is Chris B. This is Chris Tuker. Chris T. Is this May I proceed? Yes. >> Hi, Chris Tuker. I'm Utaf Gupta's colleague on the UAC and I'll speak briefly because I'm sure you've heard comments from our meetings. I simply want to emphasize the the point made earlier that we're basically looking at a certainty of doing serious harm, permanent harm to a a salmon and fishbased ecosystem versus the one in 8,000year possibility probability of uh the what I've called before a Frankenstein design drought model. So of course I strongly support uh the comments the the memo from UTF Gupta into the UWMP like others have said I do not consider the uh this plan just a formality just uh something a box check exercise to assure our grants. It is a chance to make a statement and I think with all respect to our you know the terrific work that Greer does with Bosa uh the timeline and probability of this working through BOSA only approach uh is will be too too long and drawn out. Uh and therefore I would urge council to consider other ways to bring political and PR pressure on SFPU and with as many BOSA colleagues as we can get uh to join the message but uh working solely through the BOSA membership and board I fear will be too long a process. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Chris B. Hello, my name is uh Chris Brosman. I'm a Pow Alto proud Palo Alto resident of 38 years and I would like to express significant skepticism that we are going to increase our population by 50%. and we're going to lower our water use. I mean, I I just don't believe you, be honest with you. But anyway, I would also like to say that there is no nonfunctional turf left in Palo Alto. Uh turf exudes more oxygen per square inch than any other alternative. And in our extremely polluted urban environment, it is very imperative that we have as much oxygen coming out as possible. I mean, if you're telling me that little Johnny doesn't deserve to have a little, you know, yard that he could actually breathe in, well, there's cars coming by, trucks coming by, all kinds of stuff like that. I mean, that is just such a cynical view of humankind. Um, I don't have a whole lot more to say about this, but I do want to thank all of my fellow uh residents for their very informed and very uh interesting comments. And uh this is one of those moments where I'm still proud to be in Palo Alto, man. I mean, I don't think you really find this around the world as much in my experience anyway. But thank you very much. >> And that concludes public comment on action item 13. >> All right. Well, thank you to all of our public commenters. We appreciate uh you being here and sharing your thoughts with us. So, we will return to the uh public hearing to see if there are any more clarifying questions from council before we close the hearing and then we will move on to uh council dialogue and debate. Um council member Rectal. >> Yeah. A question for the city attorney. You know, this is a compliance document. Is there any potential downside of including policy remarks in the compliance document? >> I think it's more of a question of effectiveness rather than a legal risk. >> Okay. So, it may not have any upside, but you don't think it has any downside? >> I I I'm not I'm not aware of any uh significant legal risk from including these comments. >> Okay. Thank you. in terms of from a perspective of um anything that could harm the city. Uh we just want to make sure that as we prepare this information and provide it to the state for our compliance purposes that it's clear and doesn't create any confusion uh or discrepancies in information that's out there. >> Can you elaborate on that? Yes. So, for example, there's some statements in the letter that reserve certain water rights and uh say that we will um take certain positions in order to implement drought stages. Um these are things that are governed by our water supply agreement which is the uh uh contract that PaloAlto has with SFPU and with the other uh 25 wholesale customer agencies. And so to the extent that there's any conflicting information, we would uh prefer for that to be reviewed uh internally by legal and and others in order to make sure that that doesn't become a point of confusion at the state level where this is being reviewed by state agencies and um being used for water supply planning at a state level. So we just want to make sure that the information that we're providing is clear and uh consistent. >> Okay. Okay. So, if the council wanted to include those comments, would you then feel utilities would have to review that before we would send it on? I >> I think utilities would want to take out any of the language that really may conflict with our water supply agreement. Um, putting a table with say the alternative u scenario. I mean, we looked at those scenarios. We have the we have the bell curve. So under one scenario, we don't have any uh drought restrictions or cutbacks under the the Bay Delta plan, which I know is is controversial and provided by SFPU in terms of their analysis. That's the other end of the bell curve. The the information provided by Commissioner Gupta is somewhere in the middle. Um that said, there are some positions that that the urban water management says we'll that in there that we'll take on a policy level that probably shouldn't be in there. That would be probably better for a separate document, not as a part of the urban water management plan. >> Okay. So, if we have a July 1 deadline, is that something that you can turn around in time? >> Uh if that is council direction, then that is council direction. >> Well, let me let me add if I could. Um given and and staff can correct me if I'm uh not stating this correctly, but given that the state uh department water resources or others maybe will be reviewing the report, it would actually maybe in the city's interest and necessary to preview the language with them in advance of submittal rather than submit and then have it create some complications on their approval. So again, in in the turnaround time um between now and the end of the month, we I think it's fair to say we don't know if we'll be able to get a clear read within that time frame. >> Okay. So staff, if if we did agree with those comments, what's the best way to go forward? So I think as Vice Mayor Stone pointed out there's a lot of these comments that can be addressed through working collaboratively through our collection collective action with our neighboring cities with Bosa staff and bringing that information forward to the SFPU. Um, I think that if in terms of some of the other information, you know, for example, if you agree with changes to the water supply agreement, um, you know, there are changes to the water supply agreement that happen from time to time since I've been here over the last nine years. There's been two rounds of amendments. So we can work again with BOSA with our BOSA director and and try to advocate for changes to the water supply agreement. Um if there's positions on capital projects such as Pure Water Peninsula or other capital projects, those we would want to address and we plan to address. It's very important for Palo Alto staff to be looking out for any costs that PaloAlto residents and businesses may experience and that could impact us and those we need to be advocating in the capital budget process as well as the alternative water supply plan update in 2028 at the uh SFPU. So those are some of the forums and places that we need to be um bringing that information forward. >> Okay. So would you recommend if we did agree with the comments that we don't do anything with this document or that we make limited changes? What what's the best way? >> So something opine if um and really council's direction is important here. Um we would recommend going with this um the baseline document as prepared. If council wants to include an alternative and talking about a middle scenario, um we would want to keep that um narrowed in that perspective in terms how it's discussed. And some of the other items that we were talking about that are more our position or what we want to pursue or what we're looking at in terms of some of these pure water projects. There's other venues for working with uh Vice Mayor Greer as our Bosa representative who's already broughten this up. there is an opportunity in 2028 when they when BASA and SFPU look at their alternative water supplies and looking at being other customers into permanent status. So there's there's time there's a there's a time and opportunity coming up but in terms of working on the urban water management plan we don't see that as a best place for that action uh in trying to get this this document through. So there is a timeline where we would have to talk to the state in in terms of these changes. Um, it may be that it it we would have to submit or we would want to submit the current plan in it in its existing form. If council wants us to resubmit an amended plan that that we just want to make sure we we meet the deadlines and our obligations. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, I was going to ask if we somehow if we send this in as staff has proposed if we somehow waved our right to object to the SFPU design drought. But I've heard the comments that to have a document out there where we appear to sign on to them that, you know, that raises some some issues uh given that we do have these concerns. So my question instead is would there So I I I understand the concerns about confusion and that kind of thing if we were to add these in now andor needing to vet them. Would you have any concerns about this meeting the deadline and getting through and all of that if we added somewhere wherever appropriate in the document a caveat that said something like while our response is based on the SFPUC's design drought and water supply reliability analysis. This is not an endorsement or concurrence in those analyses and the city reserves our right to object to those analyses in other fora. I mean can we just say that and make it really clear and then you know that we're not necessarily saying yes but we're giving you what you need for this purpose this compliance purpose and we may well you may hear from us other places. Would that be something that would be workable? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Lou. >> I was really just about to ask a question on the same point, but firstly, I'll say that I do appreciate the staff's work here. I think it is hard to really read what the right action to take is in taking uh from the UAC record, bring this to council. Uh, and I understand that finding the right venue to uh take these uh really valid uh points is difficult. Um really pretty much along the same thread of what the mayor was just talking about. Would it be workable or potentially more effective to include a transmitter letter with this plan and in that transmitt letter include a few paragraphs with uh points that are aligned maybe with similar letters or points that our vice mayor has made before to Bosa? Um, if so, could that be a viable option to just get this submitted on time and also have more effective advocacy because a transmitted letter would have a few paragraphs up front in a clear way rather than including some paragraphs sort of dotted throughout the document. Um, so yeah, what's staff's reaction to that as a potential option? >> Conceptually that sounds just fine. I do need to check the uh urban water management plan guide book to see if there's any guidance on transmitt letters. So I need to do that. I try to do that quickly. >> Okay. Yeah. Um yeah and I would just add that I mean there is language in the water code that would you know support that kind of approach because it does provide that as you know we can pro rely on information provided by a wholesale water supplier for some of to meet some of the requirements in the report. And so, um, it might be possible, you know, we'd have to work with utilities on how to to frame that, but it might be possible to reference that language just just to sort of, uh, give the context that council is trying to provide. >> Okay. Uh, when it is the right time, if it is not already, I think Okay. I can come back to the idea of transmitting and comments. Thanks. >> Yes. So, carrying on with the questions, council member Bert. >> Thank you. Um so I was interested in exploring similar avenues. Uh um I think each of these is interesting. Um I was initially inclined to uh ask uh that the staff incorporate uh Commissioner Gupta's comments to the maximum extent that it is compliant uh with the um with the guidelines. Um either of these other two approaches uh also seem uh interesting. Um but from a process standpoint, we have one more meeting u or possibly two um uh next week and this is due on July 1st. So, uh, how would any of these options be able to be, uh, incorporated that rapidly? And I I will add that, you know, it's been months that um uh staff has had the UAC referral of Commissioner Gupta's comments. And I'm I'm surprised that there hasn't been a review of that lets us understand more substantively what the problems are with incorporating them. And I'm not saying there wouldn't be problems, but we're not getting any real substantive explanations. Um, so going back to the process question, if we go one of these other avenues that seems to be all of them reflecting the sentiments of the council, um, what can be done and how and still meet our required deadline? So depending on council's um prerogative, we could um you know review the tapes in terms of the mayor's comment and incorporate that in part of the urban water management plan. We can also work with the city attorney into creating the transmitt letter that takes the body of this information provided by commissioner Gupta. did also want to mention just on a process level um the commissioner Gupta's letter was not um recommended by the full UAC so um I just wanted to mention that as a as part of that process >> I understand that but it was also clearly that it was going to be part of the staff report their recommendation and we would be discussing it and it is largely in in terms of the policy positions it's consistent with past council >> direction to just to formalize the record. So um as part of looking at the um urban water management plan, we received the letter I believe from BOSA and SFPU on on March 11th. So we actually took this to UAC as mentioned in Lisa's presentation twice to UAC on the first available meeting to talk about it in March, provide our preliminary information. We also received a lot of public comment in terms of that and then provided our full our full report. So, I I do want to mention and just push back a little bit on on that that staff was not responsive in terms of um the comments coming in. U Commissioner Gupta's information, his revisions came, I believe, the week of of the meeting. And I'm not saying that as a negative to Commissioner Commissioner Gupta. It's it's part of our process of of giving um the reports to uh to the commissioners. Uh it it's not two or three weeks ahead of time. Um, so we were able to talk through those um issues at at the the UAC as well. So I I did want to just to mention that as well that that staff to the extent they could um tried to address some of those concerns and um and also kind of be respectful of that of our of our current process and how we vet our plans um through the city. So, I'm I'm still looking for some more clarification. If we take one of these actions tonight, how does that work in timing? What What do you need the council to actually approve tonight? Um uh and what kind of latitude could we have to incorporate the the essence of what we're interested in incorporating? >> Yeah, let me take a shot at it. I think in in perhaps um some order here that the simplest approach would be as the mayor had suggested which is something of a a global um uh I don't know what we would call it preamble to to the submitting that involves a more specific um edits uh I think comes back to the question of what would not to to your point council member Bert what would not um compromise the ability ility of the plan to be approved and we if that were your uh direction I think staff would take what we have and try to vet it and with the state to the extent that they could before the deadline include what would clearly not um compromise its approval and and basically run with it uh from that perspective. So those are a couple of options uh that come to mind. And again on the more uh specific uh recommendations from commissioner group that I think at the UAC meeting staff was pretty clear that fully vetting uh some of the assumptions and what went into the various pieces would take more resources than were available at the time and even to this point. So uh I don't think that that really works from a timing perspective for this submitt. Thank you. Okay. So, seeing no um more lights on the question front, we will close the public hearing and move to council deliberations on this matter. Um, I would first like to observe that, um, depending on which way council wants to go with this, uh, if they want to go the way that I suggested, uh, with respect to some preliminary comment to the document or wherever in the document is appropriate to make clear that we're not endorsing the premise for this and that we reserve our right to object to this. um that we could I am open to working with staff on um scheduling some kind of study session or something where we can really vet and understand this on a as a council that will give staff some time to to look more specifically at these suggestions and we can give staff further direction on whether to amend this or do in another forum or we can hear from from BOSA we could invite them to come. I I I like that idea. So I just wanted to observe that uh you know I'm happy to explore that in our agenda management. Um if that's if if the council is uh interested in having sort of a broad reservation you make the motion now. Um all right well actually so I I I I will move um this we're I will move to shape the the conversation and get reaction to it. I I will move the staff recommendation with the amendment that we add a caveat to this document. That was as I stated before and I sent the language to the clerk. Um and that we uh direct staff to return this the underlying issues uh raised in uh Commissioner Gupta's uh amendments uh bring it back to council for a study session after the council break. second. Do you want to speak to your second before I move on to council member Lowing? >> Yeah, no, that'd be helpful. Thank you. And I appreciate the the motion and nice to be able to have an opportunity tonight to not only talk about the urban water management plan, but also real substantive issues that Commissioner Gupta has raised in his letter. I I appreciate that. I mean, I definitely feel the frustration that Commissioner Gupta has has raised. many members of the of the public. As I've said before, I've I've expressed this um this far too many times that I can count now at at BOSA and with SFPU representatives that are at BOSA meetings. So I I and and so I understand that that frustration. It's it's real. I think a little kind of important context to BOSA and the and the F and the SFPUC. I think one of the real challenges here is that is that the SFPUC really is a monopoly in this in this space and BOSA being the largest customer. the BOSA agencies, the 26 agencies make up twothirds of essentially SFPU's uh customer base through these individual supply agreements that the 26 agencies take from the uh 2/3 of that water from SFPU and PaloAlto share is only about 7%. So I think all that to just say that the leverage we have being one customer with this large and powerful monopoly is very small. But as a BOSA agency that represents the vast majority of that customer base, I think Bosa has far more influence. And um I've been frustrated in in finding that through Bosa's enabling legislation and subsequent agreements even that tends to be a bit limited in what we can and cannot require from the SFUC. My experience though has been now been on the being the Bosa representative for a little over three years now I think is that kind of more relationship building soft powers that we that we have to be able to bring together fellow Bosa agencies like Menllo like Menllo Park has been a really strong partner on that on that board has I think that is the the most appropriate way to move forward on that I I don't see the UWMP as the most kind of appropriate time or place to to really make those substantive policy centered arguments. I think this I think this motion though by the by the mayor strikes what we're kind of looking for. Um and so I think this I think this language is is really helpful because there are several things in that letter. there's there's a lot of just facts and context that is great and and critical, but then there were there were some pieces of it that I that I kind of am concerned about like just language around kind of conditioning cost sharing commitments with SFU and and BOSA and kind of conditioning that on SFPU. uh their their actions I I I think are are challenging and concerning and not a not a I think a decision that this council is going to be ready to make tonight with the level of information that is that is before us. These are some very complex issues and so the idea of being able to bring those substantive issues back to the council for a study session and really do that that deep dive. I mean we got several experts already in the room um both from the public and from Bosa. So appreciate director Smeiggel being here. I think we can get them back into the room for that study session and we can do that deep dive. And as staff has pointed out in the in the staff report I mean the UWMP can be a can be amended at at any time. I mean, if we are so compelled at that at that time to do it, we can. But I think the most important thing, meeting that July 1st deadline with this caveat and then doing that deeper dive later seems to be the kind of the perfect move for tonight. Thank you, >> Director Curator. >> Yeah. Yes. I was wondering if it would be uh appropriate to actually send this back to the UAC for them to deliberate as a body before bring it back to council >> before the study session, you mean? So, yeah. So not the um the document but the uh study session. >> Yes. >> I would I would expect their input um as part of that study session. This is a as it was referred for information to city council. I think it would be appropriate or ideal to bring it back to the UAC for them to make a recommendation and bring it back for full counsel so you can get the uh input from the UAC as a body. How about we work with staff on this? It may make sense to schedule as a joint session of UAC and council if that works out both for timing and substance. >> So we can we can work through that on some of the um agenda planning sessions as well. But uh I don't have any objection to that. I just want to get it back here and I I think to the extent there is helpful input from the UAC more broadly um all the commissioners I would uh appreciate that. Now to our to our council member liaison who's been patiently waiting down there to the leazison to the UAC. Council member Lowing. >> Yeah, I was ready for the comment section. I didn't have any questions. So uh as you see we have an extremely qualified and dedicated UAC UAC that wants to dig into issues and solve problems in advance of crisis. Uh this one is sort of in the middle of that. But um you know kudos to them for their uh work on this and and the debate on it and the the willingness to express a lot of different ideas in the context of getting to the to the right solution in the con in the specific context of our agenda item tonight. Um as the director pointed out the motion was to approve the staff recommendation and then there was the extra letter for I think it said additional information which we got and we're debating. So my biggest concerns with the agenda items were one the the date because it's July 1 and number two it states here that the city is required to use information provided by the SFPU. So what has just been proposed in this motion obiates that it's a workaround and I think it's terrific. That's exactly, you know, we can what we what we should do uh to kind of try to get get our cake and eat it too, if you will, on on in this context. Um secondly, the second part of my comments are going to be really brief because apparently I I mistakenly sent my notes to the vice mayor. So everything he said, I completely agree with the context and uh the context and the and the reasoning and and and so on and and even the timeline. Um the I've used that word monopoly in a couple of different settings. I think maybe even on even on the finance uh committee and when you're dealing with a monopoly it just takes a different set of tools. But I I do think that the starting point for the tools is what you have and we have present here tonight the president of Bosa which is telling us something and we have an active member who has already made some progress um inch by inch but when you're climbing a big mountain it goes inch by inch. You don't do leap by leap. Um and other people have said you know we get head public commenters have said we have to put our collective heads together. We do but the starting point of those collective heads is the 20some agencies that are in this with us uh to get some leverage. And someone else said um we have to put pressure on uh SFPU beyond Basa. Don't disagree with that either and we can talk about that in the now proposed uh study session. Uh, and all of those need to be brought to bear because this is a very serious problem. Very serious problem. And the the public needs to know that. They need to hear that. They need to hear that this problem is being caused is not what these seven people up here want for our citizens. And if it's not stopped, then not next month or next year, but down the line, this could cause severe rate hikes uh in in water. And that is not what this council wants. So we want to put some leverage in, some timing in without because we don't have leverage right now. Some time in to figure out, you know, what's next, what are the next steps and there are also elected officials uh at the state level that we can lean on uh cooperatively as that goes forward. So more on that when we get to the study session. I do think there are a lot of tools here. We need the cooperation of our BOSA folks and our our own partners in this problem. uh as as the sort of the starting point. So I'm very supportive of this motion. Thank you. I see no further light, so I'm assuming there's no further discussion, colleagues. All right. Well, Madame Clerk, please call the role. Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Mayor Vinker, >> Council member Lithcods, yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Council member Lowing, >> Council member Bert, >> yes. >> Council member Rectal, >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Excellent. Well, thank you all. Thank you staff. Um, we really appreciate that. Thank you, Commissioner Gupta, for being here. Appreciate that. Um, and, uh, with that, we are going to take our council break. so we can get fortified because we have two more meaty items tonight. So we will be back in approximately 15 minutes. All right. Thank you. item 14, which is uh relates to the ordinance and resolution calling an election and placing a halfsent uh transaction and use tax measure on the November ballot. Uh, so I will turn first to staff and director Okaine. Nice to see you again after the excellent work this weekend. >> Thank you. Nice to see you, too. Um, good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Kristen Okaine, community services director. Um, the item before you tonight is a followup to the May 18th council meeting when the council adopted the Cubberly conceptual master plan and associated squa document and directed staff to pursue a ballot measure for a half cent sales tax in the November 2026 election. The recommended actions for council consideration tonight are the related next steps in the ballot process and administrative services assistant director Christine Paras will provide the staff presentation. So Miss Paras over to you. Thank you Director Okaine. Uh next slide. Tonight we're here to present the recommended ballot measure and advisory spending guidelines related to the Cubberly Community Center project. Our goal is to give council a clear overview of what's recommended, what actions are needed tonight, and what comes next. This work also includes legislative action to increase the local sales tax cap. We're joined by Carly Shelby of Towns and Public Affairs, who has been supporting these efforts in Sacramento on behalf of the city, and she's available for any questions related to this. Thank you. Um over the past two years, the city has completed extensive community engagement, including four polls, community meetings, and commission reviews. Tonight launches the formal election timeline. And it's important to note that after council votes to place the measure on the ballot this evening, from this point on, staff may provideformational material that is impartial, fact-based, and avoids advocacy. Key deadlines here on the calendar include August 7th for the ballot submission to the county. Um, submittal of arguments in favor or against the measure are due August 11th. Impartial analysis and rebuttal arguments are due August 18th and the November uh November 3rd is the election. Next slide, please. Council may designate up to three council members to write an official ballot argument in favor. The proposed ordinance recommends the Cubberly ad hoc members, Council Member Bert, Council Member Lithcott HS, and Council Member Rectal. Rebuttal authors may be the same or newly designated. Next slide. The Cubberly ad hoc uh committee has prepared advisory spending guidelines that may be adopted in parallel with the placement of the tax on the ballot. The measure is a general tax and the advisory spending resolution provides transparency for the voters by stating the city's intended use of the sales tax proceeds including purchase of the land from PAUSD and beginning implementation of the Cubberly conceptual master plan. Next slide. This final slide presents staff's recommended council motion. The attached ordinance allows the city to apply the tax at the maximum rate possible, which is a quarter cent. And as noted, we're working on legislation to raise the sales tax cap by a half cent. And we'll know by August of the bill's approval. Adopting the ordinance to place a half cent sales tax measure on the ballot, selecting argument authors, and adopting the advisory spending guidelines is what we're presenting with you tonight. This action keeps the city on on schedule for county election deadlines. The recommended council action also includes the advisory spending guidelines for proceeds of the sales tax. And this resolution was modeled after previous guidelines successfully honored by the city council for the 2014 and 2018 toot tax increases and the 2022 BA business tax. And that concludes my presentation. and I turn it back to council for comments. >> Did you want to turn it over to Miss Shelby first or no? >> Or just note that she's here. >> Yeah, just noting she's here. Yeah, if in case you have questions. >> All right. Excellent. Um well, so I would like to now turn to the ad hoc and I'll start with our chair. >> Thank you, mayor, and uh thank you Miss Paris and director Okaine for your tremendous work on this project. Um I have a couple of technical qu the ad hoc would like to um share with our colleagues and the public um the intent behind uh the resolution uh stating what our intent is for use of these funds should they the measure pass. But before we get to that, I think a couple of technical questions have arisen in uh some of the public letters we received and as I'd just love for you to have the opportunity to address those first. Um um the first question I saw was why does the ballot language not mention the purchase of the land? It only mentions uh potential use for renovations at Cberly. >> Thank you for that question. Um and we did test for the purchase of the land within the with with the voters in poll number three. And as a rule of thumb, we kind of selected the um areas and aspects that resounded and that had the most voter support. And the purchase of the property received about 34% of voters saying that it was extremely or very important. So it didn't fall within that 60% guideline. >> Whereas renovations, yep, electrical, plumbing, those kind of basics really resounded with the voters. Thank you for clarifying that. A second question was what if this half cent sales tax uh increase uh if the cap on our sales tax maximum is not increased by the state even though we've been advocating for that and other jurisdictions have. Do we have a backup of a quarter cent? If you could just explain um how it is that that kind of all proceeds. >> Absolutely. Um our resolution for and our backing documents for the ballot measure does say that um we can assess the tax at the maximum authority limit which is now a quarter cent. If we do, if let the bill does pass and is signed into law, then we'll have that flexibility for the additional half cent, which is what our ballot measure um is written as. >> And if the state does not ultimately sign that bill into law, if the governor doesn't, then we have the automatic built-in fallback of the quarter. We don't have to come back to council. It just automatically becomes that. Isn't that correct? >> Correct. That is correct. Thank you so much. I know a lot of people were concerned about that. Uh so I appreciate your clarifying. Okay. Um with those technical questions, I'd like now for the ad hoc uh to just have an opportunity to share uh why we thought it was important to um speak to our intended use for this general sales tax revenue should the voters pass it in November. I'm going to turn to council member Bert to share his thoughts. I'm going to share my thoughts and then we'll close with council member Rd Doll on that. >> Thank you. >> Well, I I would just like to um give the context of this goes back to 1987 when um uh post Prop 13 and severe declines in enrollment meant that school districts throughout the state were in dire straits, including our own PAUSD. And at that time uh we had uh several members of the city council who came forward and said the school district is and our school system is vitally important to our community. We want to see if we can help bail them out in this difficult period. And they came forward with the utility users tax uh which the voters supported. And uh interestingly on the school board side, the uh their counterparts in the negotiation on this were um uh uh then board members Sidian and N. Um and so uh at that time school districts throughout the state were selling off their lands to meet operating expenses. Uh the voters came forward. We leased uh Cberly uh Ventura uh what was then the Turman site uh we actually purchased that subsequently and um and in addition at Cberly uh the city agreed to not only the lease payments but a $1.8 million a year co covenant not to develop and that was to pay the district to not sell off the land. Two years later, the state changed the law and made it very limited uh on the ability of school districts to sell off the land and basically uh rendered the covenant not to develop as unnecessary. It came back up in 2012 when uh Foothill Deansza wanted to build a satellite campus um and we realized that the district said no. They they thought that they needed to land for a full school site at that time, but why were we continuing uh to pay the school district a covenant not to develop to land bank their land? So, we redirected those funds to a the two years later to a a Cberly infrastructure plan. But over that period, the city paid the school district um what in today's dollars about $90 million. Um and out of that we're now at the at the point at which uh we have an opportunity to finally obtain the amount of land that we need to then invest in Cubly. Um and so we are uh looking forward to continued collaboration from the school district. Um uh the the dollars that we would purchase from the land will go to the district. Um and uh so we think that the entire community will benefit from this. The school district will benefit if this passes and the community will very much benefit because we will finally own all the land that has the buildings and be able to invest in those buildings going forward and really make it what um everyone had hoped would become and what it really needs to become with all of the growth in our community and particularly in South Palo Alto. Thank you. I want to thank you for walking us through the very intertwined history of the school district and the city on Cubberly. Given this history, given the decades that this community has been in conversation about this dilapidated but beloved former third high school, we are fortunate that the stars aligned a few years ago with the Palto Unified School District board and seven council members being more or less on the same page as it would turn out about the possibility of a real real estate transfer. The school district offered to sell us their acreage of buildings and we were all quite interested in that possibility. That offer led to a conversation that led to a memorandum of understanding for how the purchase would take place, led to a tremendous amount of community engagement with so many of you, led to a conceptual master plan, and a funding strategy to enable us to purchase the remaining buildings and begin meaningful renovations. Critical to that funding strategy was locating and beginning to speak with five or maybe six programmatic partners who would step up to the plate and contribute andor raise funds for their portion of the overall project. It is going to take a village to get this done. We need the voter support. We need support from philanthropy to pay for it. We need support from programmatic partners. We have other ideas for where to obtain revenue to kind of fill that therm thermometer all the way up to the top. We have the momentum. We have been at this for over two years now. But time is no longer on our side. We by which I mean our entire community and city leaders and staff. We here, those of us here right now in this time in 2026 in PaloAlto are the people who have the chance to get this project over the finish line once and for all. So people can stop saying when are you going to get Cberly done and start saying let's meet up for this awesome thing that's happening at the new Cberly. >> Keith. >> Okay. Yeah. I want to say a few words about the current tenants and you our current budget even with this tax measure the budget for the redevelopment is going to be pretty small and we're really trying to maximize the value for the community and so for example instead of knocking down buildings we're remodeling wherever we can and the other thing we've done is we brought in these partners and these partners will help fund the devel development that'll be really good for adding value but we understand that the existing tenants now have heard about these new partners coming in and they're getting a little nervous. Are these you know new kids on the block going to displace them? And that's not the case. The reason that we are redeveloping Cberly is just what we see the new part the existing tenants doing. They have just extraordinary programs that add a lot of value to the community and we want to retain that and that's why we're doing it. We're not trying to displace anyone and Cberly can accommodate both the existing tenants and the new partners. We are taking over space from PAU USD so we'll have more space than we have right now. Some of our partners will be building additional buildings and so we expect to have a somewhat larger coverly and we can accommodate both and so our intention is not to displace anyone. We want to keep the current tenants and their current great programs running. Uh in addition to keeping the tenants, we also worried about the transition. You know, if you gone through construction, it really displaces, really messes up your life. And these tenants are not going to be any difference that they have programs they're putting on every day. And if construction's going around them, how's that going to affect them? And so we will have to have temporary space and an orderly transition because if if they're displaced or if they're shut down for even a short period of time, they can really damage these programs. And these programs are why we're doing this. And so we will do everything to not only retain these current tenants, but also make sure that we have an orderly transition. And so just in summary, you know, these existing tenants and and what goes on at Cberly is really an important part of the fabric of Palo Alto and we are going to work really hard to maintain that that quality that very important part of Palo Alto. >> We have voted to put a general sales tax on the ballot and by definition a general sales tax will go into the general fund. Um and how the future councils determine to spend that money will be up to them. But this council that has put this all in motion has the right to declare its intent uh for use of these funds which is why with we have put a resolution together to inform voters of our intentions regarding the uses that would be supported by these proceeds. And I will close by reading the vision statement that this council came up with for Cubberly. Uh that it would be uh a vibrant, beloved, and adaptable destination that promotes learning, interconnectivity, joy, and well-being where all cultures and generations belong. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you uh to staff and to our uh three members of the ad hoc and uh who along with our community have put an awful lot of uh work in to bring it to this point. We're all really proud to be on the council that is in a position that's on this precipice uh to perhaps finally bring this home uh so that we can as uh the council member Lethon said get to that next stage. Um, all right. So, with that, uh, colleagues, any, uh, questions or comments at this point before we go to public comment? Seeing none, let's go to public comment. We have 12 requests to speak. All right, let's go with two minutes each. Our first speaker is Henry Y. Welcome, >> Vinker. Uh, Vice Mayor Stone and city council members. Uh, my name is Henry U. I am president of the uh friends of the Palo Alto library uh known as fauxal. I am also a longtime resident of Palo Alto. Uh fauxal uh founded in 1938 has resided at the Coverly Community Center since 2002. Uh our presence at the Coverly mobilizes hundreds of dedicated volunteers from the community who help with our operations and monthly sales. Thousands of local residents attend these sales in addition to a global following for of our online marketplace. Since 2004, uh, Fauxal has provided over $3.6 million in annual grants to the city of Palo Alto library, including 150,000 in the recent fiscal year. Our vision is to consolidate our footprints in the new center, enabling us to increase revenue and provide larger grants to the Palo Alto library for vital funding. We're certain the coverly redevelopment will bring immense value to our community and we are committed to securing our future there. We urged the city council to place the halfsent transactions and use tax measure on the November 3rd, 2026 ballot to support improving Cubberly Community Center. Um on behalf of some of the volunteers uh who are with me today from our organization, our board of directors, and of course our uh friends of Paula Library at large, um thank you. Our next speaker is Sonia B. >> Hi, my name is Sonia Bradsky. I am nextdoor neighbors with Cberly for 30 years now. I have a huge interest in seeing Cberly fixed up because I'm there every day. It's a total dump. Um, and we've been at this now for years to deal with Cubberly that I've been living there. So, I'd really like to see this tax measure really applied to Cubberly and not just go to the general fund. I'm not sure how that's all done, but I'd like to make sure that it's really applied because you guys won't be here probably whatever when things really get going. So I'm not sure how the how how the procedure is but please make sure that that half percent is really applied to coverly and thank you for fixing up coverly. >> Our next speaker is Phyllis B. Hello. Thank you mayor and council members. Um I'm also a neighbor of Green Meadow. I've lived in my house right across the street from the playing fields since 1982 and enjoy the place enormously even as I see it deteriorating. Um I strongly support the advisory spending guidelines that you've added as a third a second resolution this evening and I'm I'm very very grateful that you've done that. I understand that uh council members change and it's not going to be totally binding, but at least it's written. It's out there and it expresses what we care about. I'm not entirely convinced by the reasoning about not specifying the sale in the ballot language. It it just seems off to me that I mean, we can't really do it without the purchase of the land. Um, but uh I I heard what you said that that's not what the polling uh recommends. I am um I guess um grateful for the clarification about the one quarter um percent tax cap. Um, I kind of wish that had been talked about back in May when we when we had the other discussion, but I guess behind the scenes there has been work going on. And then just a couple of things about the um language. Uh, why does it say implement part of phase one in the guidelines? Um, it just seems limiting in some way. and then maybe add to the existing valuable community spaces all in North PaloAlto which has gotten funded much more than South Palo Alto has that um the art center is another really important facility and it will be stretched by the growth in population like all of our community centers will. So thank you. >> Our next speaker is Jennifer D. Hello, uh, Madame Mayor and council members. Um, thank you so much. I didn't think I'd have two minutes, so I'm just going to take a moment of privilege here. And thank you all for an amazing Pride event yesterday, especially to Kristen O'Ne. Um, and to all of you for your financial support, for your enthusiasm, for showing up, for supporting it. It was a needed event and it was a joyful event and I'm really grateful to all of you for making it happen. Um, one other quick complaint. How you schedule a city council meeting in the middle of a Nick game. I will never understand, but I'll try to get over that. Um, I stand here um on behalf of a group of citizens that are really excited um that you are approving this language tonight and moving forward. Uh we are gathering supporters. Uh you saw many of them at your last meeting where this was agendaized and some of them again tonight. Uh if anyone out there is interested in joining us, um pa future26gmail.com is an email you can write to to get more information and get on our list. Again, pa future26gmail.com. Um but we are going to be working all through the summer and we'll um really kick off a full throttle campaign in the fall um to get this over the finish line. And as you all noted, there are many partners um both working with us to rebuild Cubberly, but also they are um organizations in town that have a lot of beloved members and dedicated supporters and they are really excited about this too. So we really have a whole sort of spiderweb of support and um we are grateful for the way you have gone about this and um we are confident that we are going to be able to um communicate to the the whole city all of the voters as to why this is really important to do right now. So thank you. >> Our next speaker is Jack Jackie W. Hi, Jackie Wheeler. Uh, Green Meadow resident for over 60 years. We're trying to up the level. Um, I of course live near Coverly and have watched what's been going on for so many years and I'm thrilled that this is on the table. And again, I just want to say that I will work with people like Jennifer and the committee to see what we can do to make sure that this passes. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Betsy B. >> I'm Betsy Beal. I was a city council member for nine years and a mayor of PaloAlto, but it's a long time ago. And yes, thank you, Pat. Uh, I was on the council at the time we made those decisions to help out the school district. Now it's our time finally to do something. I am on the board, new board member of HeartFit for Life. If you don't know about that, it's a great thing that helps people who have had any kind of heart or diabetes or other kinds of health issues. And I'm also on the board of Aanitas. Heartfit for Life is one of those people that are that we're there now. And we're also partnering with Avanitas for the future. And just let you know that we have many members and many members have friends and we will help with getting the vote. That's the first thing we got to do is get it to pass. So, thank you for doing this. >> Our next speaker is an C. >> Good evening, mayor and uh city council members. Thank you so much for the enthusiasm that you continue to show for this project. It makes me so happy to hear all of the exciting things that you are talking about. Um, I'm here as not only a resident since 1966, but also a member of the uh, Friends of the PaloAlto Recreation and Wellness Center and um, a 1960 Olympian that believes absolutely incredibly in the power of exercise for lifelong aging. So, this project is really, really important to me. Um, I want to say that our friends group definitely supports the entire Cuby project, but we're laser focused on the recreation wellness center, which we would like to see be the kickoff to this Cubberly campaign. And um I also want to make sure that everybody who's listening knows that this isn't a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity um for the city, for the community, for the seniors, for the kids, for the school district, for the parents, for the families, for all of us to make something that we are incredibly proud of. So, thank you all very much for what you're doing and we look forward to working with all of you to get to the finish line. Thank you. Our next speaker is Joe H. >> My name is Joe Hirs, Mayor Baker, and city council members. I'm sitting here laughing because Betsy and Anne took all my comments away from me. They've already said everything and they didn't even look at my notes. I've been in cardiac uh therapy program, HeartFit for Life, since I had my heart attack in 1997. It is a wonderful organization. It is a nonprofit that could not exist here in Peloto uh if we had to go out in the forprofit rental market. So, we need we and others like us need a home, a long-term home where we can live with the type of rent that each of us can afford. We serve about 225 to 250 people per year who have cardio cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other related conditions. Since we have been here continuously in Peloto since 1970, we have served thousands of people such as myself and Betsy. This program, this concept has been studied extensively. the citizens advisory group first uh Concordia at least twice and maybe others as well. As uh an just said I personally feel we feel that this is a one-time opportunity to move forward and to do something that is really first rate and will be world class. This community needs it. We need to think back to what Lucy Stern, people who created that over a hundred years ago and what that has meant to the community since then. The Cabe Community Center could be another example of that. Cardiac therapy heartfit for life pledges ourself to do what we can to pass the ordinance and the resolution. We urge you to adopt it tonight. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Chris B. Hello. I've been going to Coverly my entire life and I'm against the project, but I will say it's very well thought out and I appreciate that, especially I mean, I've noticed anyway that the city projects are a lot more well thought out and a lot more uh I don't know communityfriendly than the uh private projects, private developments that are on the slate. So, thank you for that. But I'm against the project. Uh, one reason is that uh, it's a sales tax, which I find inappropriate. I think uh, that should be, you know, a corporate tax, something like that. People actually have money. I, uh, I heard that the, uh, sales tax is going to be paid by people out of out of town, but every single uh, municipality in the uh, the area has the same idea as you guys. And so, you know, everybody's trying to raise their sales tax right now. But the real uh the biggest reason I'm against the project is uh I have seen just the reckless just the murderous removal of just the giantest most beautiful redwood trees like over and over at Carly. There was one maybe three months ago just ripped out. Just a huge tree. Just a giant tree I've seen my whole life. Just completely ripped out. And I do see in the project that there is going to be an increased amount of open space, quote, which is good, but I'm very concerned that that uh we're going to lose trees. So, I would really like to see a uh increase in canopy as well as an increase in uh open space. But, um thank you so much for actually like caring about everything and stuff. But, I will say I just don't understand why people need to subsidize other people's uh exercise programs. I mean, there's exercise programs all over the the town and all over the place. So, I really don't understand why I need to pay more for your exercise program. But anyway, thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Katie B. >> Good evening. Uh, my name is Katie Blahit and I'm speaking on behalf of Theaterworks Silicon Valley as chair of the Theaterworks Board of Trustees. After the prior discussion on May 18th, I want to reiterate our support of these efforts to improve the Cubberly Community Center and our collaboration as a partner in these efforts. We support the recommendation to adopt an ordinance and a companion resolution to place a transactions and use tax measure on the November 3rd ballot. We also wish to convey our support for approving advisory spending guidelines to ensure these funds are directed as intended toward the improvement of the Cubly Community Center. Thank you all for the collective efforts of the board, the city, and the community on behalf of this important community asset. Our next speaker is Penny E. Good evening. Uh I'm Penny Ellen. Um I'm speaking as a resident um whose whose children have when when I first moved to Palo Alto um we found affordable preschool child care at Coverly. Later my kids studied and practiced music and dance and sports there. They learned a lot at Coverly at prices that we could afford as a young family. Um, so I want to thank city council for that, but I also want to thank Christine Paris for answering detailed, she sent some very detailed and thoughtful responses to questions that I emailed over the weekend. So, thank you to her for that. I want to strongly encourage council to expediently move Coverly forward. This is a community gem. I think it's going to be the the it's going to provide enough commu community service capacity in PaloAlto to really serve our community going forward as we grow so that our existing community service facilities do not become overwhelmed. I think this is a wonderful vision and I hope you'll do all that you can and I will do everything I can to help you move it forward. Thank you for everything that you do. Our next speaker is Scott O. >> Hi, thank you. Uh, I'm speaking as a neighbor close to Cberly. Uh, it's been in its current state for far too long. I just want to thank the committee and everyone involved for taking this effort to where it is today. And I hope council will approve. Thank you. >> And that concludes public comment on action item 14. >> All right. Right. Well, thank you very much to all of our public commenters for spending time with us tonight on this issue. I'm going to bring it back to the deis for any motion questions and discussion. So, colleagues, council member Liths, thank you. Um it's strange to go from advocating for something and studying it um and all the back and forth for so long to reach a point like tonight where if we pass this we then become not capable of advocating for it further. It's a strange feature and facet of uh being a local government. Um, and so I am weirdly feeling and my colleagues are not surprised because I cry all the time, but I'm like feeling emotional right now. Um, because we're about to hand this off to the public and um, just wow, look how far we have come and we still have so much more to do. So with that, I uh move that we adopt an ordinance and resolution calling an election and placing a halfsent transactions and use tax measure on the November 3rd, 2026 ballot and a resolution adopting advisory spending guidelines for the use of the proceeds if the measure measure passes to support improving the Cubberly Community Center. >> Is there a second? >> I will second. >> All right. Thank you. Further discussion >> just a brief >> if you speak to your second. Yeah. >> Yeah. Just brief comment. Um I did want to follow up on the importance of the advisory resolution on our intention for how these uh new revenues would be spent. And while um the advisory resolution is not legally binding, we have a strong history in PaloAlto of similar advisory resolutions when we had the two different hotel tax increases. Those were committed to be devoted to our capital improvement plan and I think every single dollar from them have been dedicated to that. Similarly, when we uh uh asked the voters to approve our business tax, we put it together one-third toward affordable housing, one-third toward uh transportation, and one-third toward restoring public safety. Each of those dollars have gone into buckets in our budget. So, um woe be to a future council who would uh betray that trust. I have great confidence that um that future councils will also live up to the commitments that uh we are making to the voters. >> Thank you. So, I'll just say that um in addition to this odd position that we're in in this sort of transition on this vote, um we also are putting a lot of we're putting all our trust in our residents and uh and what we've heard and what we've seen as you've participated and you know been in conversation with us and imagined and envisioned what can be and all of us up here in the deis are used to just you know putting our putting our all in and working and doing and it's odd to to not be the ones that really push, you know, over the finish line in the same way as we could if we were out there. So, but I do trust our residents. We have the most magnificent group of residents. Uh we've seen it time and time again as Jennifer alluded to yesterday. I mean, yes, some of the city staff worked hard and we but residents really made that event happen and just like here, I just am confident that you will uh I'm excited about the support the motion and I do want to uh thank uh those who put together the intent uh resolution as well because I do think that's important to state that at this time. So, thank you for that innovation. Council member Lowing. >> Yeah, I just want to comment that um way back 40 years ago or so when I started on the parks commission, they were working on the coverly coverly advisory commission uh to get this project going and they worked for years on it and they came out with a very full report that I'm sure is on a lot of uh bookcases around the city. But I think it's appropriate that we started with a Cberly advisory committee and we're ending with a Cubly action committee. You guys have it from here. Take the baton. Well said. I see no further lights. So, Madame Clerk, please call the role. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Council member Bert, >> Mayor Vinker, >> yes. Yes. Council member Liths. >> Yes. >> Council member Lou. >> Council member Rectal. >> Yes. >> Council member Lowing. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Go team. >> All right. Well, thank you staff and thank you residents. And we will conclude this item and move on to our last action item of the evening. Item 15, the San Antonio Road area plan. welcome, director, whenever you're ready. >> Great. Thank you, mayor, and good evening, city council. Jonathan Le, director for planning and development services. I'm going to turn over to Robert Kaine, a principal planner, who uh presented this uh back to you in April. Good evening everyone. Um my name is Robert Kane. I'm principal planner for the department of planning and development longrange planning team and the lead for the San Antonio road area plan. Next slide please. The purpose of tonight's item is to discuss uh a way forward for the plan. We came back, we came to you in April with a study session and we heard your feedback on a lot of items as well as feedback from various other advisory bodies and from the public. So tonight we're asking you to endorse a core scenario and authorize a transportation analysis that will evaluate the implications of that core scenario. Endorsing a core scenario today does not constitute a final land use decision for this plan. our analysis that we'll do over the rest of the year. We'll validate, re, refine, and adjust the core scenario as necessary and we'll bring that all back to you um in Q4 and take your direction then to adjust the plan based on uh after you have a chance to review that analysis. Next slide, please. So, just as a reminder, we're talking about the San Antonio Road area plan. It's about 275 acres along the border of PaloAlto and Mountain View. We're looking to create a more livable community, adding a lot of housing to this uh area, but also other um other aspects that will enhance that housing as well, including improving mobility and safety in the corridor, supporting sustainability goals that the city has, and enhancing economic vitality. Next slide, please. We are coming to the end of phase two. So our next phase will run um from after this meeting until roughly the end of the year where we'll be doing a lot of analysis and start developing some policy recommendations for your review when we come back. Next slide please. So, I want to talk a little bit about what we heard from the council specifically, but also um as we took this through a lot of public engagement and through a lot of advisory boards, um we heard that dividing the area plan into sub areas um that can be their own neighborhoods perhaps was the right approach to take on this plan. Um, we heard that this was a key area for housing production. Um, and we should consider a diversity in in that housing types um as well as affordability levels and that that housing growth needs to be really supported by mobility improvements and that travel along and across San Antonio Road should be comfortable for all users. Um, we heard that office and research development space should be developed in a way that reduces the uh, city's jobs housing imbalance. We heard that there should be incentives to create large neighborhood parks um, in the areas closest to US 101. We heard that retail should be neighborhood serving um and sufficient amount to help reduce trips outside of the area and that building heights should take into consideration neighboring uses such as single family homes and creeks and other sensitive um parcels. Next slide please. So having heard all that we've developed this core scenario um which creates new residential and mixeduse neighborhoods at a diversity of income levels. It creates multiple new outdoor spaces. It improves the job housing balance. Um it adds new retail and commercial uses to serve um the existing and new residents. Um it enhances streets, sidewalks, bike lanes and transit connections. It reduces commute trips, integrates green infrastructure and builds resilience into for climate change and establishes new development standards which will encourage new development while protecting the existing neighborhoods around uh the plan area. Next slide, please. So, I'm going to go through these pretty quickly. Um, central San Antonio, the main thing we're advocating for is increasing the heights on the south side of San Antonio in line with development projects that we applications we've already received as well as really improving the transportation piece along San Antonio and at key intersections. Next slide, please. um in the CTI area. That is the one area that we're proposing as a really truly mixeduse neighborhood with office and R&D space as well as residential. Um it's also an area that we've highlighted as in need of a new outdoor space such as a park. Um that area we're recommending a 90 foot maximum and we're going to focus on connections um through this area including into Mountain View. Next slide please. In North Fabian, we're looking uh there as a more residential focused area. It's currently uh mostly industrial, but we're looking at requiring uh enough neighborhood retail to support the residents as well as a large park or outdoor space there. um and allowing 90 ft heights um in the area between Fabian and 101 in San Antonio while keeping 60 foot heights um between Fabian and the Adobe Creek. Next slide, please. Um, South Fabian. Again, we're looking at a residential mixeduse with ground floor retail and other uh neighborhood serving uses. Uh, 90 ft again between um, Fabian and San Antonio. Next slide, please. East Bayore, we're not recommending any changes to. Next slide, please. Same with West Beayshore. Um, next slide, please. and the greenhouse. We're not recommending changes, although we um would like to explore the possibility of easements that will help some of the mobility improvements um for bikes and pedestrians. Next slide, please. And South San Antonio. Um this area again, we're not proposing land use changes, but it will be a focus in helping us build a better connection to the Cal Train station. Next slide, please. And in Alma, again, we're not proposing land use changes, although um there are two sites that are currently housing um element inventory sites uh that uh are also able to use Senate Bill 4 to develop. It's also within the uh SB79 splash zone. Um so that will come into play, but our focus here is going to be the transportation improvements along Elma or parallel to Alma as well as to the Cal Train station. Next slide please. So that um is a highle summary of the core scenario. Um the transportation analysis we think is really vital because we see transportation and land use as two equal parts of this plan that really support each other. Uh we talk a little bit about this in attachment B of the staff report. Um, but in order to help describe what those are, we're going to do some analysis over the next few months and have that for you when we come back. We're going to look at both quantitative and qualitative measures to compare what the core scenario um would uh have as as far as outcomes compared to what if there's no plan adopted, what the current zoning um would have as outcomes. and bring that back to you to sort of highlight where improvements are made or where there are trade-offs that need to be considered by the council. Um so this is really key to helping create the final plan. Next slide please. Um this slide just gives you a highle sort of comparison between what the core scenario is trying to do and what the current zoning currently allows. there's already a lot of housing capacity built into the area either through um focus areas or through um approved developments or through housing element sites that were um selected uh prior to 2023. Um so but with the plan we'll have additional capacity but we'll balance that with other things that will help um bring in community benefits such as outdoor space such as hopefully more affordable units hopefully as well as funding for these mobility improvements that we're hoping to bring to the corridor. Next slide please. So tonight we're asking you to endorse the core scenario with any uh direction or changes you wish to add um to what we presented to you in the staff report and then also authorize us to conduct this transportation analysis um as described in the staff report and attachments. So we'll have that when we come back uh by the end of the year. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you Mr. Kaine. I know that's a lot of work that gets wrapped up in a few slides there, but we're grateful. Um, colleagues, uh, do you have any, uh, preliminary questions? Otherwise, I'll just go to public comment. Right. Seeing none, Madame Clerk, uh, how many commenters do we have? We have 10 requests to speak. All right, we're we're going to go with three minutes. Our first speaker is Sonia B. What can I say? I like to talk. My name is Sonia Bradsky and I spend a lot of time on San Antonio Road and I'm I'm a bicyclist. So, I'd really like to see some major improvements to San Antonio Road for biking. It's It's not safe. I mean I and I'll tell you the worst intersection is actually Charleston in San Antonio. My husband actually had a bike accident there. So really improve it for bicyclists and of course there's going to be additional cars with all that new housing and there really is no public transit there either. Not that I take so much public transit. I'd rather ride my bike. But yeah, please improve San Antonio for bikes at at least definitely San Antonio and Charleston. Thank you. Our next speaker is Phyllis B. Hello again. Here we keep on going. I hope it's not as late as last week. Um so I'm um Phyllis Brown, long-term PaloAlto resident. And um I think that the attention in the core scenario to the need to improve transportation mobility before the housing gets built is really spoton. I'm really glad to see that and it strikes me as being a a very sensible um plan of action. Um the um information about travel across Alma and the railroad tax is kind of slim. um maybe getting an easement through the Google campus. We certainly don't want bikes going up on something next to San Antonio Road. So the the bike path that'll go along San San Antonio Road, I don't think that'll work at all once we get to that going up and over um those the the tracks and the road. Um so I I hope there'll be more work on sorting that out. It seems as though other work going on in the city about getting across the railroad tracks is probably relevant to this as well, even though I'm not sure where Mountain View is and where Palo Alto is, but we got to work together. Um the something that I was puzzled by and would like more information about is the the report explained to me that the city's housing element allocates 1,500 5959 new housing units in the plan area. But the we've got the scenario of 5700 units versus 6,700 units. And that's a big change in the number of units built. Um I'm all for housing, mind you, but I I really want it to be done well. And I wonder whether and and I I did read the growth projection section um that lists some basic assumptions, noting that it looks at 100% buildout. And I know this is going to keep going for a at least a decade, maybe longer. But it also says that the buildout's likely to increase to 75% across much of the plan area. And if if I do my math right, that's getting us to 5,25 units. And is that really going to be the best thing for the city to have that kind of growth in in units in population in that part of the city? and I didn't see and it wasn't the point of the report to do this, but what's going on the rest of the city? There's a lot of building going on. So, I'd like to see that clarified. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Matthew B. >> Good evening, Madame Mayor, council members, and staff. My name is Matthew Bergland. director of design and construction at Prescidio Bay Ventures. Presidio Bay is a long-term owner and stakeholder in the CTI sub area. The staff report recognizes CTI as an area of change and its potential to involve evolve into a next generation mixeduse neighborhood. We commend planning director and staff and Remy Associates for running a very inclusive process. The community and tech technical advisory groups, workshops and open houses have created a spirited and transparent dialogue among diverse stakeholders of which we are one. PaloAlto is one of the most desirable places in the Bay Area and the country to live. Yet housing remains out of reach for many members of the workforce and essential service providers who make this community function. The area plans focus on increased housing production while improving mobility, transit access, open space, and pedestrian and bike bicycle safety is exactly the kind of targeted growth that aligns the city's arena obligations with its sustainability goals. The CTI sub area is open to residential development through the GM focus area currently. However, housing production will remain constrained by small parcel sizes, fragmented ownership, and 60-foot height limits. The plans framework for lot consolidation, increased heights, and integrated mobility is essential to delivering the housing, parks, and neighborhood retail that the community expects. We also want to underscore the importance of retaining a meaningful office and R&D component within CTI. The staff report recognizes that office use in CTI will improve project feasibility and help fund parks, infrastructure, and affordable housing while still reducing overall commercial square footage in the greater plan area. The flexible mixeduse approach will be the most practical way to achieve community benefits. As participants in the community advisor group, Prescidio Bay was pleased to offer walking tours of Springline in Menllo Park, our project that illustrates the integrated land use and mobility principles described in this plan. A mix where jobs, housing, and daily retail needs are colllocated to reduce miles traveled and traffic impacts. We encourage you to endorse the core scenario and authorize the next phase of uh transportation analysis. We believe this vision can deliver more housing, better mobility, and vibrant public amenities within the plan area. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to participate in this process. >> Our next speaker is Joan L. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Joan Larabby. I live at 777 San Antonio Road for many, many years, the greenhouse condominiums. I'm retired from the city of San Jose where about 20 years of that was spent um on transportation and traffic issues including preconstruction of the light rail. So um I'm very concerned about the construction that's planned. San Antonio Road is quite narrow. Uh no bike lanes, no um bus lane, no bus parking. They had the bus had to come off because buses are much wider than the uh parking lanes where the buses stop and it used to impede the traffic. So the bus had to leave. At the most recent uh planning and transportation commission, it was mentioned that San Antonio Road has a level of service F. Let's explain what that is. Level of service for roadways. Get a report card. A B C D E F G I don't think we go to G yet, but we're at F. Um A level of service A would be completely free flowing traffic, no problems. But San Antonio Road is only four lanes wide, no bike lanes, goes all the way down to F for fail. Level of service F is defined as the forced or breakdown flow represents heavily congested stopand go conditions where demand exceeds the capacity of the road. Vehicles experience high delays and long cues and traffic flow breaks down completely. Um, many of my neighbors are rather elderly and they're very terrified that someday they're going to need a firet truck, they're going to need an EMT, and they won't be able to get through. Um, one of these meetings it was suggested that um, the sidewalk be used as a bike lane. Well, it's not real safe and it doesn't feel real good to be walking along, especially if you've got a cane or a walker and a bicycle comes right up behind you. You know, the bikes don't make much noise anymore. I mean, when we were kids, we used to put playing cards in the bikes to make them go to make noises, but you know, the new bikes don't have any noises at all. It's not safe. And again, like I said, the bus had to leave because buses are a lot wider than cars. And when you park them in a parking lane, they intrude into the travel lanes. But it's only four lanes. The people who are putting buildings up here along San Antonio Road, >> I'm sorry. >> Mhm. >> I'm sorry. Okay. But again, suggesting that the people who move into these buildings use bicycles instead of cars, it's not safe, people. >> Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris B. >> All right. I have come tonight to pour some cold water of truth on the raging inferno of economic illiteracy that has pervaded this conversation and was so rife in all of the documents that I read on this issue. Densifying areas does not lower rents. It actually raises rents because what it does is it raises land values because you have more improvements on the land. As you've maybe noticed, New York City is really the only place in the country that I actually know of that's more expensive than the Bay Area. You can't out build prices. It doesn't work like that. Okay? But just let's just say it did. Let's let's just ignore that basic fact and let's just say you're right. If we build more houses, prices will go down. Okay. Well, in economics, what we have are demand curves. They hear a lot about supply, but let's talk about demand for a second here. So, if you actually manage to lower the price of housing, what happens is demand increases because the price is lower. And what happens? This goes up because demand increases. Pushes it back right to the equilibrium. It's exactly what's going to happen. The developers know this. That's why they pay PaloAlto Yimi millions of dollars to lobby people to spread propaganda because all they want to do is make money. and they've managed to convince a lot of people that this is actually going to lower housing prices, but it's not going to do that. So maybe I'll tell you about some things that you could do to lower housing prices. Now, the biggest reason housing prices keep going up is because our federal government spends too much money. By which I mean it spends money that it doesn't have. So every year it prints money. Now what this does is it forces re-evaluations of all asset. Okay? So housing prices have to go up every year because every year we print a trillion dollars of new money. So the assets have to re-evaluate. Okay? So number one thing you could do to actually stop this from going up. But the second thing that you absolutely need to do is you've got to ban investments in sing in housing. You've got Black Rockck. You've got all kinds of foreign companies, all kinds of companies investing in housing. And this is pushing the price way up. I mean, some guy who graduates from college has to compete with a trillion dollar company for prices. There's a lot more to say about this, but just please don't tell me this is going to lower housing price. It's not going to do that. Your time is up. Our next speaker is Mary G. I um Good evening, uh council members. Uh my name is Mary Gruber. I'm a resident of Palo Alto in the Green Meadow neighborhood. As I spoke at the uh study session in April, I support housing in the Serap area. But tonight, I want to raise a concern specifically about the transportation analysis being presented tonight. According to the staff report for this meeting, there are 82 residential units currently built and occupied in this corridor. However, in um instead of comparing the core scenario of 6,700 units against this number, which is the standard practice, the analysis is scoped to compare it against 5700 units, which is simply a theoretical zoning capacity for which no transportation analysis has ever been done. It is also my understanding that uh California environmental law requires that a traffic study be measured against existing conditions, not a theoretical buildout number. So this is not a meaningful baseline for the transportation analysis that's being presented to you. It systematically underestimates understates what 6,700 units of new development would actually mean for transportation in this corridor. I would ask council to direct staff to explain this baseline methodology before the transportation analysis scope is finalized or approved. Thank you very much and thank you for your service. >> Our next speaker is John P. >> Good evening. Uh can you hear me? >> Yes. Thank you. Um I would like to uh point out that there's there's a significant problem uh with the current core plan uh that if it's not solved is going to frustrate uh achieving the mobility objectives. That's basically uh as as I would put it the planning for the San Antonio road between Middlefield and Charleston. It's being uh it's being overs subscribed for the amount of solutions it can provide. We want to provide uh good bike bike bike lanes. We want to provide good traffic. We want to provide uh mass transportation a wide range of things. Uh currently as uh one of the speakers pointed out that road is rated F and and that includes the intersections at San Antonio Road and and Middle. So it it's a classic example of trying to squeeze too many solutions into into one uh area. And so what I would like the the planning committee to examine or to consider is to simplify the problem and by removing one of the solutions you're trying to provide on San Antonio Road and and I suggest take away the bike lanes. Um, one of the suggestions was to basically make room for the bike lanes by removing parking. But that doesn't clear the way for the bike lanes because we there is there are right turn only lanes uh from San Antonio to Middlefield or from San Antonio to Lake Horn that simplify that you know somewhat ease the flow of traffic today. You take those away and traffic is going to go from F to F minus I guess. Uh but you you're not solving the problem by uh taking away you know by uh by taking away those parking lanes. The the thing to do or to consider is to move the bike lanes to Month roads. It has a good intersection at at Charleston. Uh it has an intersection at Middlefield that goes into the parking lot at Coverly. Um so you can basically bypass that entire section of San Antonio Road um for for bicycles. you can provide u you a good conductivity or mobility uh in different places and >> your time is up a good solution for how to have isolated bike lanes. >> Your time is up four lane intersections uh at San Antonio uh at Mfield and and Charleston. So please consider just moving you know simplifying >> your time is up. you solution by >> your permission to speak with >> our next speaker is Scott O. >> Hi, thank you. This is Scott O'Neal speaking as a resident adjacent to the North Fabian area right across Adobe Creek. I'm so excited about the core scenario. The CTI area always felt like a fixer upper to many of us during the housing element process and I'm appreciative that the city is following through on the fixing and the upping. I've been to going to the community outreach sessions and I'm glad I'm not arguing with folks at my tables. That may surprise some. Okay, probably all of you, but it's true. Uh the core scenario reflects what I've been hearing at these events about what my neighbors want. Thinking about how this area interacts and communicates with adjacent areas. There is so much potential in the Adobe Creek rightofway to create an entirely off- streetet bike and pedestrian corridor that connects this whole area into South Pavoto's main civic areas. The aonomous magical bridge passes right over this creek and Mitchell Park with its wonderful library and three adjacent schools. This trail is already started connecting the 101 pedestrian overpass and the Bay Trail to East Meadow uh road bypassing Fabian. All of it. All it would take is unlocking gates and extend to extend the pedestrian access at least one and possibly two blocks. You need a direct access point to the trail to the creek trail on Fabian for CTI to get convenient access. The core plan seems to have the most most of the rest of what you need right baked in there with uh with CTI access to Fabian. dovetailing with uh our previous item. South of Mitchell Park, the creek turns and passes tantaliz sorry uh yeah, the creek turns and passes tantalizingly close to Cberly before turning back past Alma and onward. I see why it's out of scope for now. It's all outside the study area, even if only barely. But I'd love for this to be part of our future with CTI feeling more like an extension of Palo Alto than a Mountain View. It's hard but possible. and and I'm excited that the core plan lays groundwork for a future like this. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Penny E. >> Good evening. I'm Penny Ellson. Um, and I am here to ask you to not approve the staff recommendations as they stand right now regarding transportation analysis. The current zoning has not been implemented. So what is the legal argument for using it as a baseline? My understanding is a baseline should not include hypothetical conditions such as those that might be allowed but have never actually occurred under existing permits or plans. We need a baseline that represents today's existing conditions so that the public, staff, and council can understand what changes will occur from today's baseline, especially as it relates to changing traffic for mitigation planning purposes. Will traffic analysis also incorporate and evaluate projected traffic from all known projected background growth, including planned development in Mountain View and planned transportation facility changes to nearby City of Mountain View streets and VTA 101 interchanges and nearby streets that likely will impact Sarah project area streets, etc. Which Mountain View and VTA projects does staff plan to include in the traffic analysis? Please be explicit. Further, my read is staff is telling council you can change the analysis and the baseline later, but if you read the project budget information, you really cannot. There's no money in the budget to redo this work. So, let's please get it right the first time. Regarding office and retail, we know that new office and R&D space tends to be more intensively used than older spaces. Please direct staff to analyze the estimated planned occupancy density of the proposed 750,000 square foot office R&D space to help us understand its potential effects on the city's job housing imbalance. Regarding outdoor space in parks, is the city counting poos and other transportation facilities and outdoor restaurant seating space as park space? How does this conform with comprehensive plan requirements? How much of the three to three and a half acres park and 1.5 acres of consolidated outdoor space in the CTI sub area includes bike ped transportation facilities or dedicated or is dedicated to retail use. Regarding mobility, the report says there will be near-term removal of on street parking and built protected bike lanes throughout the San Antonio corridor area on both sides of the street. Will these be fully in place before the first buildings receive occupancy permits? This is critically important. And finally, I don't understand how the enhanced connections to Cal Train will be achieved. We've seen no concept plan. Pathways from Alma into and out of the station are narrow. Even today with relatively low usage, the path passages can be challenging to share on a bike, especially with trailers or paniers. Thank you for considering my comments and questions. >> Our next speaker is Megan W. >> Good evening, mayor and members of the city council. My name is Megan Watson with Grub Properties. We are the developers of the 788 San Antonio Road housing project located in the central sub area of the San Antonio Road area plan. We are strongly supportive of the improvements contemplated in the core scenario including protected bike lanes, enhanced Calrain access, and a safer, more inviting pedestrian experience. These are important goals and we believe the existing special setback along our stretch of San Antonio road presents a meaningful opportunity for Palo Alto to implement these goals thoughtfully and effectively. However, one critical issue must be addressed as part of any plan for increased residential density which is management of the essential support services that dense housing inevitably requires. These include, but are not limited to, fire truck staging and emergency vehicle access, waste management collection, postal package and delivery services, moveins and moveouts, increased bus and shuttle activity, and ride share pickup and drop off. To date, the city's preference has generally been to keep support functions within the private properties they serve. And while understandable, that approach conflicts with the plan's goals of creating protected, continuous, and safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Requiring all service activity to occur on site would increase curb cuts, driveway crossings, and other interruptions to those protected routes. We strongly support limiting curb cuts along San Antonio Road, and our design in fact includes zero. However, that goal requires a comprehensive curbside management strategy that accounts for the operational needs of dense housing, including fire access, waste management, deliveries, ride share, etc. These functions cannot be treated as afterthoughts or pushed entirely onto private property without creating unintended consequences, notably reduction in housing potential. By utilizing a portion of the existing special setback, the city appears to have sufficient width to preserve a dedicated curbside lane along San Antonio Road for these essential services while still advancing the plan's broader mobility and safety goals. This is especially important for car housing proposals like ours, which reduce private vehicle dependence but still rely on card on ride share deliveries, shuttles, and other shared mobility services. Even car owners increasingly use these options, underscoring the need for an areawide approach. Establishing this vision now is imperative. Several housing developments within the Sarah plan are currently seeking approval and these improvements should be planned and constructed concurrently with those projects. We're very appreciative of all the collaboration to date and all the great work that's been done to this and look forward to the continued progress on this area plan and being a stakeholder in that process. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> That concludes public comment on action item 15. >> All right. Well, thank you, Madame Clerk, and thank you to the public commenters for your close attention uh to this. Uh it's critical that we have a public participation in the uh preparation of this area plan. Um so just a reminder to council in this current phase, phase two, staff is really seeking council's endorsement, revision or redirection of the land use and mobility assumptions that they should use in moving toward phase three as Mr. Kaine said, which is the phase three is the analysis and policy recommendations. So, um I first want to ask staff uh if there are any factual issues in the public comments or questions that you'd like to address. >> Um certainly. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um I would say that in regards to the transportation analysis when we get to SQA, when we do the environmental review, we will be comparing whatever the plan is, whatever the administrative draft plan is to today's baseline. That is what our requirement is. But it's also very common to compare that to a no plan scenario which is if we don't adopt anything and we just allow existing standards to go into effect what is what are the impacts that would occur without our intervention additional intervention. Um and so when we talk about compare in what we're doing in this phase which is not the SQA analysis but is a transportation analysis to help guide land use decisions. We thought it was best to compare a core scenario versus what might happen if if the council does nothing and were to abandon the plan entirely and just allow um natural development forces, market forces to take effect. Um and so we are talking about existing zoning standards not theoretical potential future zoning standards when we talk about the the one scenario and then the core scenario would be if we were to adopt what staff is recommending. So I just wanted to clarify that one point. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right colleagues, questions, comments, motions. Council member Rectal. >> Yeah, I have Thank you for the work. A lot of work has gone into this and I appreciate both the work that you've done and also that the community's done. Uh can uh clerk, can you bring up the packet uh packet page 275? And this has this page has two tables on it comparing existing zoning at the top with the the core at the bottom. And what really stands out to me is that if you compare the very first line, the CTI neighborhood the ex and compare what exist existing zoning does versus the core scenario. We're adding 750,000 square feet in the core just in CTI. That's a huge amount of office space. That's like 4,300 jobs. and we're only adding 600 more housing units. So just that change is going to be a dramatic increase in our jobs housing imbalance. And I I can't fathom why we would consider doing that. Can you enlighten me? >> Certainly. So yes, it would be a lot of new class A office space in the CTI area, but that is to balance the loss of commercial space throughout the entire plan area. It is the only part of the plan area that we are designating for new class A office space. So we will also evaluate as part of this next phase what the whether that's the right amount or not in terms of how many jobs that might bring in. But we're looking at a loss of employment in North Fabian and in other parts of the plan area that that we're looking to relocate into CTI. So I would ask you not to look at just the CTI by itself, but to look at the overall plan area in terms of the changes to commercial space. >> It's but it's a little apples and oranges because North Fabian has a a lot of uh really low density engineering. You know, we have high bays down there that are very, very lightly populated and any type of new class A office space is going to be very dense. And so, if you just look at the square footage, it may look, oh, that we're just moving it around, but you're you're fundamentally changing the type of employment that's occurring and that's going to be have a huge impact on the number of jobs offered. I don't disagree and I think that that's something we need to study during this next phase so we can come back and if you would like to adjust that cap level down uh then that's something that staff will will do based on council direction but we needed a starting point to start our analysis from and that's what made sense to us but it looks like the director has some thoughts. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so you're absolutely right that we are I mean this is the the what we discussed in the April session and we acknowledge that we're taking uh existing R&D space which has a lower jobs per square foot than your class A office space will. So that's that's acknowledged. Um and then we were talking in April, do we want to go with greater uh do we want to have a net increase in office area commercial office uh keep it about the same or a reduction? And I think the council's comments then were well certainly don't go more than what we have now. And and that's what we've reflected and I think we actually went below I want to say uh 150 or 200 below maybe what we have now. But there is the uh that employment density is something that we need to study and and look at further. But the other tension right that we need to balance with this is that um office does generate uh an economic return to developers. And when we are asking for more um third spaces or open space or retail areas that might not otherwise you know perform as well in you know in this situation or mobility uh interest or even more affordable housing um office isn't going to solve all of that but it's going to help with our analysis to find out what levers do we need to adjust uh to help get us there. it it helps us achieve some of the public interest that we have while still keeping the square footage down. And the other piece that we have to just that we're looking at with this area that we've talked about as a part of the housing element as well was the location of this area relative to uh freeway access. I mean, yes, we are interested in transit and and having folks use uh utilize Calrain and uh VTA. We want to have VTA routes along here, but people will also be driving here. And there's the um uh improvements to the interchange uh from the freeway that will feed right into this development site as well. So, um all that is correct and we need to study that. >> Yeah, let me finish up. My time is running up, but let me retort. Uh yes, uh jobs is one way of getting developmental fees to pay for parks and stuff like this. I think it's a really inefficient way of doing it and the impacts to the community of is much higher than what we get back from the developers. So I think we'd be much better off as a community paying for the parks ourselves than letting someone have 4,000 jobs in a very small area and give us a little money to pay back. >> Yeah. >> The second thing is that this was envisioned as part of the housing element and this was supposed to we have this huge jobs housing imbalance. We thought this would be a huge opportunity and if we just tread water even if we just tread water we've given up this opportunity for making meaningful progress into our housing element or into our jobs housing imbalance. >> So I'm not a fan. So thank you. So uh understood and I and I think uh you know the council will have that opportunity to consider when we come back with the with the analysis the land use and the transportation analysis about um and when we do our economic analysis as as well to find out how far does this move us toward uh advancing some of our our interests and it and it may be that there isn't that interest and and if that's the case then that's one scenario but I'll say the housing that we're anticipating particularly in the CTI area uh I think does have this relationship with office development. I mean we're seeing it across the street in Mountain View in terms of how that development is is proceeding as well. So we do think there's some synergy there and we are trying to minimize that that um >> sorry it is a really great place for housing just because across the freeway you've got thousands of Google jobs and thousands of other tech jobs. So there's going to be a demand for housing. we could make this 100% housing and we would fill it very easily. >> You know, I I I understand that perspective. I I don't know that that is um how uh that I certainly know for the uh the folks who have an interest in developing this area, that's not the narrative that they would articulate. and and we do have a representative uh who spoke during public uh testimony. >> If I was a developer, I'd want to sell office here also. I mean, that they're going to make more money off that, but and that's part of our job is to say what's best for the community, not necessarily what's best for the landowner. >> Understood. And I'm not disputing that. But we're also wanting to see a development come forward that is going to create the the new neighborhoods that we have talked about. And it doesn't just happen with um with housing. It's difficult to assemble these lots because they are narrow uh and small. Uh and what we're trying to do is create a new vision for what this looks like. And we believe and you know, council can tell us if if you disagree with this and we will proceed with your your direction, but we believe that office is a component of that and we believe that class A office is is a key part of that uh area. We've not conceded on not trying to um uh uh improve the jobs housing imbalance. We we know about those ratios. We know that challenge. Um we're not looking to make an existing situation worse and we're trying to find out areas to improve it. And the other piece of this that we haven't talked about are all of the mobility interests that we want to implement that's going to help mitigate because one of the biggest issues we have with office is traffic and the traffic generation that it causes. And so how do we create better uh infrastructure improvements to make San Antonio something where people might bike uh more or use bikes? Now we heard members of the public expressing concern about that. And yes, today is not an area where I would enjoy biking on San Antonio, but tomorrow hopefully with these improvements it would be. So, um I understand those those points and and that's actually why we're here. So, if if your colleagues feel similarly that that's not the direction that you want to that we should proceed, then that's feedback that we should get tonight because it will inform the analysis going forward. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you. And thank you, Council Member Rectal, for just sort of acknowledging the the time. Uh, and I'm I was happy to let that conversation play out because I think the thread was there and we needed to hear that. But I do want to say to other council members that if your time's up, we'll do more. We've got time and we'll we'll do second rounds and things. Uh, with that, Council Member Lou. >> Thank you. I think the framework overall is thoughtful for me. I think the arrangement of heights and green space is good. Uh I appreciate the outreach uh having been to several of these sessions. Um uh just a quick reaction and then some thoughts. I think the allocation of office within this plan is reasonable. I think we'd want to see more details about the actual impact on the jobs housing imbalance. Of course, we'd want to see uh community benefits for office and hopefully tying those community benefits to or or uh hopefully getting uh some sort of negotiation or direct uh way to get a park in that CTI area. I think the impact on the jobs housing imbalance is not totally clear to me. Maybe I missed this. Uh but I will say that to the extent that we are shuffling some jobs in offices around, I think having class A office space is generally good. Um uh than having uh some potentially polluting potentially uh less desirable office space. I think moving it on CTI is better in terms of having it right by the freeway and having less neighborhood impact for the traffic and the office that we do have. So I think on balance it makes sense. Um uh just thinking about the public space that we'd want to create. I think having something like Springline, which is really anchored by office, but is a better asset, I think, to Menllo Park, for example, than just having uh only uh uh housing. Uh though I would also be happy with only housing. Um, I think as we get to this next stage and think uh about more implementation details and policies, I would love to get more clear about the timelines and mechanisms for actually discussing parks with property owners uh and thinking about what kind of payments andor uh dedications we could get. Uh I think on transportation I'm not sure if this will be considered in the plan but I think getting details about the sort of walking distance crosswalk to crosswalk for certain routes will be useful and interesting for me. I can realize or I can just see from the map that going from certain parts of Fabian to uh CTI for example that might only be 200 feet uh directly on a map could actually take seemingly a half mile or there could be other areas around Charleston where the way the crosswalks are laid out uh means that going a few hundred feet actually takes uh a thousand feet or more of walking. Um, I'm not sure if that would be included in the traffic analysis, but I think being able to think about that would be useful. Um, I really appreciated and found thoughtful the public commenters point about what we're actually going to use that special setback for and how we're going to think about that, how we can think about services, bike lanes, things like that, uh, sort of comprehensively. Um and a last point uh uh sort of going beyond this phase and thinking about other incentives. I think encouraging trees and green rooftops in whatever sort of incentives we can uh is good and almost goes without saying but I'll say it. I think thinking about retail requirements is tricky. I like the layout of retail nodes. I think tying retail to office in some cases where it can't just be waved by the state density bonus might be a good idea. I think allowing adaptive reuse of uh spaces to successfully transition to retail is potentially important in a policy direction we might want to look at. So, for example, if you have a small warehouse that just s stores lab equipment or office chairs, you're never going to convert that to retail because you would need parking. You would need uh maybe a substantial rebuild of your sprinkler system. And so that lot could potentially wait years to be consolidated and then included as part of a housing development or it could be a reasonable investment at some point in the future for someone to put several hundred,000 in it, fix it up and make it a retail space. The thing is we'd actually need a path for that to be possible. I it uh if it costs millions of dollars and parking requirements and things like that uh then that change of use will never happen. If it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and subtle adjustments to parking things might actually happen there. Uh so um a lot of thoughts uh I think a lot of exciting and positive next steps to build on uh and I appreciate all the work. Thank you. >> Thank you Council Member Lowing. Thanks very much. Uh again, I think we should be careful about getting not getting too deep into the details tonight. Um you're actually actually act asking for direction. Uh and I think that's what we should emphasize. I think your direction is correct. I think you did a very good summary of our last meeting. I thought it was extraordinarily good covering all the points that you did. Um I think there's a there's a number of comments that have been made. Um one of the huge things that we've talked about for years is the housing only working group is we want to build neighborhoods not not buildings. One of the big contributors to that of course is parks. And so you talk a lot about parks in here which I think is terrific in a couple of places. And you talk about things like you know we might be able to do a threeacre park and then some smaller parks. in the scheme of things with the number of people that are out there a threeacre park is not a very big park. So I raised this in the context of we're going to need help with that and it worked out fairly well in the end at Sra for example where with some horse trading we ended up getting a park and getting space for an affordable housing unit. That's the kind of negotiations we need to have with major developers that are major land owners out there so that we can help together, you know, build up a whole community. Uh and John and others including myself have talked with uh excuse me director late myself and others have talked with uh developers over the last number of years to see what what might be helpful out there maybe taking the lead from the superpower project. Excuse me. So, I think that we have to be open to that in in uh a number of areas at this point as we as we uh kind of go forward. I I do think the emphasis on parks is important for community and the community is not just excuse me meeting your your friends in the park. It's also taking your kids to play there and at some point it's taking your kids to play soccer on teams. So you start thinking about sports fields on top of parks if we're going to have it in any sort of vicinity. That's another whole dimension that at some point that I think we have to consider because with you know 1500 units out there that could end up being you know a thousand kids easily uh o over time. I appreciate you you me mentioned again uh to try to quote discourage too many town homes uh as a type. Not sure. Look forward to seeing how you're going to be able to do that without being too restrictive of in demand uh product types. Um understood your point about the transportation analysis which was uh very good. on that same page 225 which is where I was originally going to start you talk about um created a map which proceeds as most likely to develop because what you're presenting here on 275 is the maximums and you state in the in the report that those are just the maximums those are theoretical maximums but there is you already heard tonight there's some concern on the part of the public that that's you know now it's starting to look like that's reality. So we need to keep talking about that as theoretical maximum for planning purposes and then you correctly talk about um some sort of analysis to see which parcels are most likely to redevelop for the public. Could you just give a couple sentences of you know what that means when you're translating it? Certainly, I would say that we're we we've done some preliminary analysis already, but we'll continue looking at um sites. Uh for example, the Jewish Community Center is not likely to turn over and redevelop during during the lifetime of this plan. Um there are, you know, the girls middle school was just approved. They've just broken ground. That's not likely to to to turn over during the lifetime of this plan. um the greenhouse condominiums again like it because of the ownership model of a condo sit of condominiums that's not likely to turn over during the lifetime of this plan. So, we're going to look at where development is likely to occur and which parcels are have the right ownership or potential for um you know being combined to to re really redevelop and then apply some assumptions and you'll see that all in the analysis that we bring to you. Um but but we're going to look at it. We understand that not every parcel in the entire plan area is going to be demolished and built to the maximum capacity. As you mentioned, town homes are very popular. So, even the ones that do develop aren't going to necessarily be maxed out in terms of uh heights or or dwelling unit numbers. Um, so all of that will be things that we try to refine more. You know, we've been at this for about a year now, a little more than a year, and so far we've been very high level, and now we're starting to drill down a little bit more. >> Yeah. No, that's good. I just wanted the public to hear a few sentences about how this is just a starting place. It's a formula. It's a modeling system. That's not really the net numbers that, you know, we're ever going to get in all of our lifetimes, I think. So, I just wanted that to be covered. Um, I I do think that that the um we have to at this level of planning, we still have to give you a lot of space to work and figure out what's best. Um because when we talk about even like the jobs housing balance, that's not going to be in each of the subgroups, that has to be for that whole area. So if we were going to put the constraint on the CTI area that it had to, you know, have no net new jobs, I think that would be too big a constraint for reality as well as for what we still need in terms of the flexibility to uh to do this. I'm glad you repeated the note in there that um the 1559 new new housing units in the plan area represents 26% of citywide housing allocation in the current read numbers. From the get-go, after the housing element was out, the narrative was most of the housing is going to go in in this area, which has never been correct. But I'm glad you're specifying that, you know, about 25% of it is for an area where there's obviously the reason it's there is because we have, you know, a bunch of a bunch of land there that we can work with. So, um, I really appreciate that. Also, app propo of the end of last week's meeting. It's interesting to say there's a deliberate city-wide strategy to meet the city's current and fusing housing and future housing needs by directing growth to transit accessible locations throughout Palo Alto. Transit oriented development, which is what we're doing. And you mentioned the downtown housing plan, the Elamino focus area, GM and Rome focus areas. Uh all of that was done by the city and and council, not state laws. So we're following the TOD strategy and I'm just glad that was highlighted in in this report. So generally direction I think is is is right on for this phase. Thank you. >> Thank you council member Bert. >> Thank you. Um so on the discussion of uh how much office we have um I'm going to be very interested in making sure that we're calculating uh jobs to jobs uh as opposed to square footage to square footage. And um and I will note that um I and we well also to see what sort of square footage changes are being proposed. So if we're going for from um manufacturing and manufacturing services, not only the density there, but what roles do they play in our local economy and this region uh on both sides of of uh San Antonio toward Beayshore has historically been a key hardware manufacturing hub for PaloAlto uh from satellites to electronic devices and and uh the like. Um, I think that there's probably no stopping those changes over time. It's already been evolving. Um, but I I want to make sure people realize that this that's part of a transformation of our economy away from making things. Uh and then I also want to make sure that um when we're lumping commercial break breaking down how much retail before and how much envision retail we're looking at having um the uh the staff report mentioned that the pipeline projects were um I think consistent with the 90 ft in height and that there There's an update in the pipeline as of May. So, two questions. Are there new projects in the pipeline, the applications uh that have happened in the last couple months? And if so, where? That's the first question. >> I don't think there are new uh projects on San Antonio. I think there's been one project that has changed and maybe taller from when the planning or the city council had a pre-screening on it and 90, you know, I would say it's within that 75 80 to 90 range. Not quite. >> Well, and that's my other question. This alludes to as if we have adopted a 90 foot limit uh on the areas that we've already upzone, but I didn't think that was the case. I thought they were 75 to 85 and now we're talking about 90 default. >> Correct. On on the uh on the San Antonio housing focus areas, you're right. It doesn't go to 90 today. I believe it goes to 75. Is that correct? Am I wrong on that? >> I'm not sure. I think it might go to 60, but certain individual sites have been up so above 60. Yeah, the base is 60, but then we've approved some 75 to 85, but I'm pretty sure I read in the report that it was the report was suggesting that we've already established 90 as the baseline there. >> Yeah, I think with the report we were talking so understood and and if that is something that we need to clarify, that would be helpful guidance to get from the city council tonight. We are definitely had conversations in April about uh CTI 90 and uh similarly for north and south Fabian but transitioning to 65 near the uh lower density zoning. I I think by way of extension um we were looking at the change areas and we were assuming the change areas all might be at that 90. So uh council member if there are if there's direction on that that would be helpful to get. >> Okay. And then director late when you alluded to kind of the u benefits that could acrue from the greater amount of office in the CTI area uh those being park benefits etc. Were you referring to those benefits necessarily being located in the CTI area or that they would create impact fees for this greater area? Uh yeah. Well, they would increase they would have impact fees. Um and the benefits are intended to be localized to this uh area's plan. >> Well, the the reason I asked that is if we're having more office and less housing than we are envisioning, but we're saying the the good of that is that we're going to have more parks and things. That's not where we need the parks the most. Then >> uh we don't need the parks in this area. not as much as where we have housing the greater density of housing is what I'm saying that the parks need to be if possible uh uh closest to the housing so if we've if we're scaling back the housing in CTI scaling up the office then that becomes less need for park I'm not saying no need >> yeah um and so I think with and I'll I'll let Robert maybe speak to this more and I I see We're um at time, but we'll have another round to to dive into this, I guess. Um uh I don't know that we're scaling down so much the CTI housing area, but it is uh it is definitely more of a mixeduse and there's a lot of um office being contemplated, but that is also an area that generates um uh an opportunity for these third spaces. you saw spring line as as an example which is a draw I think for others in the area to come to but um Robert you want to add more >> yeah I think there's two different things one there's the potential for as part of the development that they have publicly accessible open spaces whether that's dedicated land to the city for parks or privately owned land that they maintain and keep open to the public that's one thing the second thing is the development fee the impact fees that could be used anywhere in the area. >> So, it's it's it will have a direct impact on the CTI, but it won't be limited to that through the impact fees. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Um, thank you, Madame Mayor. I will, um, I'll move the staff recommendation. >> We can keep talking as much as you want. just >> put it on the table if you accept emotions. >> Sure. >> Robert's rules actually likes us to start with them, but we that's not our practice. So, I'll take them whenever we want, but we can talk as much as you want. you know, one one modification I'll I'll make to it because I agree with the I agree with the discussion regarding the replacement of of of um commercial areas into the into the CTI. I I I appreciate staff's kind of interpretation of the council discussion. I know at least from my perspective at the time I was hoping for more of the replacement of jobs to jobs rather than square footage. I know that analysis needs to be done. So I don't not saying it I I think at at least to explore that and to be able to kind of bring back those two scenarios for us to be able to consider at the at the time that we make the final decision. I'll second the motion just to to shape our discussion, but I will not cut off discussion before everyone's had as much say as they need. >> Great. Thank you. And then uh I mean I'll given the the hour I'll just align my comments mostly with with Council Member Lowing. I think this is a I think this is a really good direction. I think staff took the the council feedback. I'm I'm appreciative of where we're going with with housing and the incentives to to make it happen and and and generally also think what we're what we're what you're proposing here with regards to office and retail with my little change and outdoor space and parks, mobility, transportation, etc. I think I think I think we're on the right path. I know tonight is not the the final decision. So that's my motion. Thank you. Um, I just want to, um, you know, it's interesting. When I first moved to Palo Alto, I lived on San Antonio Road. I lived at 670 San Antonio Road in a duplex with my husband. And what's interesting is it hasn't changed that much. That was 92 in in that area. And so it's really nice to look at um what it could be uh and what we need it to be as a city and you know how we uh with making this much change address the the the jobs housing imbalance. What do we want to do? Um but I'm really uh you know I I I the the public commenters who mentioned the current situation about um the problematic uh roads uh transportation situation on San Antonio um the the dangers for bikes in the region and all of that. I'm excited to see some of these separated bikeways and I'm um particularly intrigued by um the alternative bike route parallel to Alma that could be a little challenging. Can you tell me a little more about the I know it's premature to get into the details of that, but just sort of conirectionally uh what you're thinking of in terms of exploring that. Um certainly I I don't think we're looking at acquiring additional right ofway, but we've heard from a lot of residents that um traveling through the circles is challenging if you're not very familiar with that area. Um and so therefore they don't um they avoid it. Uh so perhaps through better signage or or improved facilities there that could be an alternative to having things on Elma. Um, our initial suggestion was to to put a two-way bikeway on the east side of Alma, um, connecting uh, San Antonio Avenue up to Charleston um or Meadow, sorry. Uh, I forget which one it hits first. Uh, that um, works for some people. Other people don't want to be on Alma at all. So, we want to explore if there is something else that could be done to allow for some kind of alternative for people who don't feel um comfortable riding along Alma, even if there is an improved bike way there. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate um I mean, you know, we'll be talking about the BPTP soon enough, but um I appreciate you looking at that because it is a challenging area. I mean, Elma is kind of a no-go at present. the circles are. I've I've gotten a little turned around in there myself from time to time, but I do think with adding more people and wanting to encourage multimodal transportation that it's really important to try to sort that out and that's a kind of a challenging area. Um, I actually uh also uh uh appreciated Council Member Lowing's comments and agree with with them as well. And at this point, I don't need to add more, but I will call on Council Member Lithcott Hayes and we can go back to anyone else who has more questions and or comments. >> Thank you. I thought I had rung in and I don't think I had. So, I did want to be a part of this conversation. Um, appreciate it. Um, I want to go really big picture here and just commend you for the work of really planning a new set of communities uh in a pre-existing city. Um, it's exciting and daunting. I imagine as a kid uh I lived in one of the nation's first planned communities outside of Washington DC called Restston Virginia which today still serves as a model for planned communities around the world. Um there were single family homes situated near town homes near row houses near apartments. So people of all income levels were where they were neighbors of one another. And there was this commitment that everybody would have no more than a 10-minute walk on a nice safe path to grocery, schools, recreation, parks, transit, retail, grocery. Um, so I just grew up with that as normal. And uh, uh, came to realize it isn't. Um, but for that reason, I find it very cool that here you are sitting here with all of this raw material. As challenging as it is, what an opportunity um, to contemplate a new set of Palton neighborhoods. um and in the 21st century with a very climate forward agenda. I really am excited that what we end up coming up with could be a blueprint for other municipalities which I always find very inspiring. Um I do appreciate the references in the materials and tonight to third place and sometimes people are saying third space and it's confusing. What is it? I encourage folks really trying to take this concept forward to look up the work of Ray Oldenberg, the sociologist who defined the concept and developed the term so that we can have con confidence that if we are in fact trying to ensure there are third places that we are not doing something derivative of what this guy came up with but that we really understand what the concept is so that we can um you know kind of aim our darts accordingly. Um, I am concerned about the size of the parks identified for um, Why are you laughing, director late? >> I was asking my colleague if I was the one who said third spaces. >> I'm glad you asked your colleague and not me. Um, okay. So, the size of the parks, um, you've said the biggest one is going to be 3 to three and a half acres in the I think Fabian area. And I am really concerned about something that small being planned because as I've looked into our parks and our acreage, it looks like the standard neighborhood park is between four and 5 acres. And I'm so concerned that we not create on this South Palto border with Mountain View next to 101 a set of neighborhoods that somehow feel less than. I think we have to always be on guard for what feels less than. And I think this juncture is way too soon to be making compromises around things that are going to speak to quality of life, a perception of amenities and um you know sort of allegiance to the true character of PaloAlto. I I encourage you to still be fighting for that and to be fighting fighting for that four to five acres as opposed to compromising right now at three or three and a half. Um I want to know why Cberly was not mentioned. It was on the maps, but it was not in the text. And if Cubberly becomes what we tonight articulated yet again is our community's hope and expectation, there are many homes on this San Antonio corridor that are in some walking distance to Cubberly and the green space there. If it happens, I mean, it could end up being a tremendous draw and destination with what is planned in terms of outdoor space. It's it's all hoped for right now. It is potential. It is nowhere near a done deal, but I think as we're planning for what you've got, here's a 20-year thing. Like, let's add some reference to the potential redeveloped Carverly Community Center. Let's by by the time you come back to council, I think you plan for the end of Q4. We'll know whether the ballot measure passed. And if it does, we need to see coverly um in the written documents here describing, you know, what is in the vicinity of this area. Um and the last thing I'll ask is um I've is is the potential for another safe parking lot anywhere on this team's radar? Well, I'm I'm involved in the conversations that uh our city manager's office is having on that and so that's always something that we're we're thinking about. Um in terms of the planning stages of where we are, we're still kind of at the high level and we haven't gotten to the place where we're thinking more tactically um for this plan area. >> Thank you. That's it for me. >> Okay. I know I want to go back to Council Member Bert, but if there's any of the others of you, please put your lights on. So, Council Member Burton, >> thank you. Um, so, Director Le, one of the um things that you have mentioned before, I think, is that we we'd look at certain zoning or how what we'd want to build out to, but then we have this dilemma of the state density bonus laws that could come in. So, can you reassure us that we're not going to zone for one thing and get another thing? Uh well, so I would say um that is direction that we we talked about that in April and um maybe I'll take a step back. I I can't with the way the state is so aggressive >> under at current law under current law. >> Um so here's what I would say about that. At at 90 ft for housing um we're probably not going to get more um there's not much more a developer would want from us in terms of state density bonus law. There might be some you know development standards in terms of like setbacks or >> elimination of retail, >> right? um in terms of height or or building mass, we're we're kind of at that limit because then you start getting to a different construction type which adds to cost and so forth. So now where we transition to the lower heights of 65 ft or have some of these other areas, um if it is our intent to not have that go taller, then we might need to think about some kind of an alternative to the state density bonus uh law. We've done this in other parts of of the city where we have like our housing incentive program for instance that says uh as an alternative to state density bonus law you can get these incentives here which generally tend to be better than what you can get under the state density bonus law for the existing zoning. I would just have to take a look at um the re the recent resoning that we've done as a part of this area to see how that fits into that um because as we've done it now at 65 ft those are not alternatives to the state density bonus law. just the base zoning that got increased. And so for those that would be eligible to go higher. >> Okay. Well, I'll just leave it as something we need to be very aware of um so that uh we actually zone for what we want. Um and then um I was concerned about preservation of uh some key retail and um you know we have a a corner on Middlefield that's a nursery. Uh we have a grocery store there. It's not a fullscale grocery store, but a ethnic grocery store, but it's the only one in that area. Um >> excuse me, >> excuse me. Um so, um so that's the only one in the San Antonio area there. Um and um uh so I'm concerned about upzoning uh on some really vital retail um uh uh lots and I would want to exclude some of those. On the other hand, uh what do we have uh four different gas stations and the future is going to be fewer gas stations in all likelihood. So that kind of that portion of retail we could give up. But I'm I am very concerned about that. And then at a high level, um we we've heard from members of the public and it's a a very legitimate concern. We've we've got a goal of over 1,500 housing units here in in this housing cycle. Um uh but uh we're we're doing zoning that we could see potentially the market responding and far greater than that in a period of time sooner than we've developed the the infrastructure or really what we maybe more than what we thought was the likely buildout. And so I'm I'm interested in whether we phase any of this zoning change. So we don't do it all in one bite. Uh we may have a master plan consideration that said phase one is this and anticipated phase two is this, but we monitor what happens in phase one before we go forward with phase two. I don't know what that would involve, but I want to conceptually think about that so that we don't end up getting something that is different um and and in a time frame different from what we had anticipated. Now, I just want to address um uh the vice mayor's concern on what would be in upcoming housing elements. And um one of the things that uh we've uh received a kind of a temper uh uh tentative uh concept on the the next reena housing plan is that the state is going to be looking at even though the the projections on population growth show that the state will be flat and this region relatively flat and although that could change with inducing uh housing to some degree. Um they are looking at less fewer residents per housing unit as a goal and as uh that would influence the housing allocations is to drive down the number of residents per housing unit. So we could have more housing but not so much as proportionately more people going forward. Um so I just wanted to make sure folks knew about that. Then lastly, um I did want to just commend how thoroughly we're looking at this area and all the different areas of impact. What's the impact on affordable housing and retail and uh our infrastructure of sewage and water, um parks, traffic and multi-mobility, and we have a big problem with traffic here. And contrast that really to our discussion last week where we were looking at a massive upzoning potentially ahead of considering those impacts. And I think this is really demonstrates what you need to do to design good communities and that just increasing zoning without doing this is would result in really undesirable outcomes in the long term. So, I think we're on the right track of how we're approaching this and thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Rectal. >> Yeah. Can you talk more about retail in the tables? For example, it lists commercial area and it doesn't distinguish between office and retail. Do you have estimates of how much retail we expect? >> So, we're currently looking at that. It's it's a little tricky getting um the data to for what's currently there because a lot of parcels have multiple tenants that have different commercial types. Um and the data that the county has versus the data that uh professional databases like CoStar have don't always align with each other. So we're doing our own analysis to see what the current level of different types of commercial are. So we don't just have that one commercial number for you when we come back. Um but we're also doing analysis on based on how many residents, what do we think the right amount of retail should be in the plan area in terms of square footage. So that's all things that we're analyzing. We did some preliminary things that um were in our uh existing conditions report that we came back came to you back in I think October of last year. Um but we're we're doing more analysis on that. It is an area that we understand is very important to get right. >> Okay. The staff report mentions retail nodes. Do you have any idea of where those nodes are going to be? >> So we would like to see them in the new neighbor neighborhoods, the North Fabian and CTI specifically. Um but also potentially at key intersections um either at Charleston or Middlefield along San Antonio. >> Okay. Yeah. I think retail is really important. If we're trying to get a vibrant uh neighborhood, it's far more important than office. And so if we do have commercial space, I'd like to see that skewed towards more retail and less office because I think the overall benefit is much bigger for retail. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you colleagues. I see no further lights. Going once, going twice. Going to a vote. >> Mayor Vinker, >> yes. >> Council member Lowing, >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Council member Rectal, >> no. >> Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Council member Bert, >> Council member Lith, >> yes. >> Motion carries 61. >> All right. Well, thank you very much, uh, Mr. Kane, Director Le, staff. Um, we appreciate it. We'll see you again on this. Um, and we'll close up that item. >> Can Can I speak to my no? >> Sure. >> Yeah. I mean, overall, I think we're on the right path. I just think that on CTI particularly, we just are so far off on the on the appropriated amount of office that I didn't want to vote for this because I think the adjustments that were in the motion I thought were too mild. I thought we need need to scale back CTI office far more. So that's why I voted no. >> All right. Well, thank you. It's because I like you. We don't usually speak on action item votes, but I wanted you to be able to get that usually consent, right? >> Oh, anyway, but I do like you and we can wrap it up. All righty. Uh so we have our closed session. It's 10:27. I would suggest that we give it a go unless staff says no and try to maybe we can wrap it in 30. How folks feel about that? All right. Otherwise, we might have an extra meeting, folks. So, all right. Excellent. Well, then may I have a motion to uh adjourn into close session? >> Some moved. Second. >> All right. Will you call the role? >> And for the record, there are no requests to speak. >> That was just >> Thank you. Sorry, I had skipped that. Council member Rectal, >> yes. >> Council member Liithk Hayes, >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Mayor Vinker, >> Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Council member Lowing, >> Council member Burton, yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Thanks very much. It's working. All right. So, we're reconvening from our close session. Uh we had no reportable action on item 16. And that leads us to our next item, which is adjournment. So, thank you all and good night.

June 4th architecture review board meeting. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Recording in progress. >> Good morning. Welcome to the June 4th architecture review board meeting. Can we have a roll call, please? Chair Adcock, >> present. Vice Chair Rosenberg, >> present. >> Board member Jojar, >> Board member Hirs, >> present. >> Board member Chen, he's absent. We have a quorum. >> Thank you. >> If I can just take 30 seconds, I'd love to welcome our new chair, and we're excited to uh having you lead us for the remaining year. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next is agenda changes and deletions. Stephen, anything changes today? >> No changes are planned for today. >> Thank you. Next is in-person comments. This time for anyone in the chamber uh who wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda. Um for um anyone joining us virtually, we'll you'll have time at the end of the meeting to speak on any non-aggendaized items. Um, do we have any uh requests to speak? >> No, we do not have any uh requests to speak at the moment. >> Thank you. All right, then we'll move on to city official reports. >> All right. Well, good morning and welcome to our first June meeting. Let me share my screen here. So, as for upcoming meetings, that June 18th meeting is cancelled due to a lack of quorum. Um, and we did not receive any new uh architectural review board uh projects since the last meeting. I did just want to note that uh last night we had uh two items that went before the uh economic development committee meeting. Um it's council committee. uh that one is the shrink wrap which was affecting the downtown properties as well as uh the economic vitality uh the retail ordinance as well. So some changes are forthcoming with that and if there are any other absences please direct that to staff's attention and we'll make note of that. Um and again that second meeting of this month is canled and with that I can entertain any questions. >> Do we have any questions for the staff? >> All right. Thank you. >> Um so next we will move on to our first agenda item. Did you have a comment? Go ahead. Um so be before we start considering the first agenda item, I need to disclose that I have a conflict of interest in the area of uh that property and therefore I will uh um not participate in the conversation and I will also leave the chambers and come back when we are ready for the following item. >> Thank you. All right. Um, our first item is a public hearing quasi judicial for 375 Hamilton Avenue. Request for recommendation on an architecture review application for construction of a new six-story parking garage with 266 parking spaces replacing existing parking lot D. SQA status is that an addendum to the previously certified downtown parking garage environment impact report has been prepared and this is zoning district PF. So um I forget do we do disclosures or u yes um any disclosures? >> Um I disclosed that I uh visited the site and uh just out of curiosity this is the second time we are seeing this project. Correct. >> Correct. >> Not the third just second. Thank you. No dis no disclosures. All >> right. I have visited the site. That's my only disclosure. So, um the recommendation from staff is to consider the addendum to the previously certified downtown parking garage environment impact report and recommend approval of the proposed project to the city council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the record of land use action. So, with that, um shall we start staff presentation? >> Sure. Good morning. My name is Christina Dub Cavichus. I'm the associate planner with the city. Um and I'm here today to present the um city's parking garage. This is the second time uh you're seeing the project. We had the study session. Um this year and um this time we're asking for a formal recommendation. Uh a little bit about the site. The project site is zoned as public facility. Uh and allowed uses within the zone district include public facilities that are used, owned, leased by the city of Palo Alto. And both the parking garage and any future affordable housing on the site are both are permitted uses so long as the site is continues to be um owned and leased by the city of Palto. uh downtown parking garage project uh was first introduced in the city's council infrastructure plan as a city's broader effort to improve downtown parking. Uh proposed design is based on the city council's chosen option 1A and that option was improved after the initial ARB hearing uh back in December 2025. um the option that ARB members um from three options that were presented um this design is based on the two that ARB preferred the most. The subject application is a request for major architectural review for a proposed six-story parking garage which with uh 266 parking spaces. Um, the surface lot is currently used as a surface parking lot with 86 parking spaces. In December 2023, council directed staff to resume work on the parking garage with the aim to integrate it with the future affordable housing. Uh, city council certified environmental impact report back in 2019. Um the proposed project today um exceeds allowable height, floor area, and setbacks, including a 7 foot special setback uh on Hamilton Avenue. However, in accordance with Paul Municipal Section 18.28060E on sites within the downtown district where the primary use is a parking garage, council can modify the development standards. Uh this slide shows proposed ground floor and street facing elevations. Uh vehicular access is proposed via the combined entrance and exit um on Hamilton Avenue. Uh there is existing one-way service lane lane 21 at the back of the site. Uh this will be maintained and retained enhanced with architectural paving, landscaping and lighting. uh proposed trash rooms uh electrical rooms are strategically located along that area as well. Uh and this project includes provisions for trash and recycling for both the subject site uh plaza as well as the neighboring property on um at lot 85. That's lot um that currently has a a restaurant um next door. Uh design incorporates um articulated facades with high quality materials, screening elements to break up the massing, enhance the visual interest. It's consistent with the downtown urban design guidelines, emphasizes human scale and um architectural quality. Um there's also public plaza proposed along the right side of the parking garage, part of the same property. Uh it incorporates brick paving, ornamental planting, and string lighting to enhance and activate the outdoor space. It will function as a small park until the affordable housing project is realized. Um, at its December 4, 2025 study session, ARB provided preliminary feedback on the proposed project, identifying key areas for further refinement. Since that time, the project has been revised in response to board's comments and staff found the project to be consistent with both the findings, downtown urban design guidelines, and public facility zoning requirements. Staff's recommendation for today's ARB um hearing is to consider the addendum for the environmental um report and also recommend this project to move to approval to the city council uh with anticipated date in September this year. Thank you. This concludes my presentation. We also have applicants presentation as well. Um and I'm here to help with any questions. Thank you. >> Do we have any questions for the staff? >> I have just a quick one in terms of timeline. So, looking on packet page 11, it says that they sort of, if I'm understanding this correctly, they under they they started this project in December 12th, 2020, 2016. >> Um, >> so it is now 2026. >> I'm just want to make sure that I'm following this timeline here properly. They started a parking garage 10 years ago. >> Yes. Uh good morning. Um my name is Holly Boyd. I'm the assistant public works director. Um yes to answer your question board member. Um this project was started awarded a contract with Wattry back in 2015 for design. We got all the way through um the approval or certification of the EIR and approval of planning entitlements and council February 2019 where this project was stopped and put on hold due to lack of um interest and funding. So in so there was a gap in the middle. >> There was a gap. So in 2025 we went to council um with a new contract. I actually think 20 this late 2024 we had a new contract with Wattry. Um went to council with various options including area to be set aside for future public uh future affordable housing. Um and they approved the option 1A which included a six-story um parking garage and the area set aside on the corner of Hamilton Waverly. So here we are. >> Okay. No, I just want to clarify. So, basically started in 2016, paused in 2019, and then sort of revived in 2025. Is that about right? >> That's correct. Okay. Thanks very much. >> I have a question. Go ahead. >> Um, on the garbage removal that you've mentioned there, it's for the restaurant, the other commercial facilities that are there will take care of their own garbage. It it would seem that somehow they have to how does that relate actually to to the building itself now because we have a a public building. Is it going to be the location for a private uh person a private commercial? >> Yes. So, the properties along Waverly, all of them have areas that um are used for their own refu um garbage and oil separators on their own property except for lot 85 which is currently using the parking lot. >> Parking lot. So the city plans to enter into agreement with the property owner and the building the property and business owner to the city >> accommodate their refu in our garage >> right do they pay for that or is that >> yes there will be some kind of payment um we haven't started discussions with them however in previous we've done this in previous parking garages I believe um lot R the Alma Street garage has this setup. So we did that like 20 years ago. So I imagine we're going to follow some sort of president. >> I see. Okay, that's fine. I guess follow-up question on that and I can't recall from the last presentation if that trash area in the garage is also intended for the future housing um or is this just for the garage cleanup and all that stuff? >> It's just for the garage and lot 85. The future affordable housing will have to have accommodate their own um refuge area. >> I have a sort of a follow-up question. Do you know the future use of the corner as affordable housing? Uh does anybody know whether that's been studied? uh you know because uh after all the construction might have some underground issues relative to the garage you know and uh just how how is that going to be handled and in fact how is the design of it going to be handled relative to what we're going to discuss today >> right so in 2025 we worked with our consultant Wattry and our architect the Hayes group um to come up with some preliminary um feasible sketches of what affordable housing could look like there. Um we also talked to one of our affordable housing partners, Alta, um and just kind of gut checked to see if what we were planning, what we anticipated going there was feasible. They said it was. um and any utilities, anything like that would need to come off the corner of Hamilton and Waverly. Um I'm sure Ken, um our architect could provide more response to that and either during his presentation or in an answer to the question. >> Yeah, sure. Yeah. >> Thank you. Then let's move on to um applicant presentation. You'll have 10 minutes. And please state and spell your name, please. >> Oh, someone else is sharing. >> I want to share. Yeah. Sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I want to control it. Do I need to try it again? We're good. >> Yeah. Okay. Good morning, Chair Adco. Congratulations on the promotion. Um, good to see you all again. Um, board members, uh, my name is Ken Hayes, Ke H A with Hayes Group Architects. Um, joined today, um, by Architect of Record, Wattry Design. Um, Mel Morris, the landscape architects, WSP, Environmental Consultants, and I believe BKF only Wattry is here. Um, everyone else is on Zoom, so if you have questions related to to any of those areas, we we have uh the ability to answer them. Uh, I'd like to thank uh uh public works, Miss Boyd, and and Miss Yu, as well as uh planner um Dupicious um for helping us get the application um to you. So, when we were here in December, the board expressed general support for the project along with some questions and design preferences. Um so since then um we've been developing the project. Um just a refresher um the site is a 2/3 uh acre corner parcel at Waverly and Hamilton. It's currently used as lot D with uh 86 cars. Um the uh property is zoned PF public facilities. Surrounding properties are CDC uh GF pedestrian and public facilities. Neighboring historic resources in the light green include across Hamilton, the post office, a category 1. Down Waverly, the former PaloAlto toy and Sport, which was recently re uh restored, a category 2, Decker House, a category 2. And then on the corner of University is the Decker Oaks building, which is a category 3. There's a one-way alley, alley 20, lane 21 at the rear from Bryant. I'm from Waverly to uh to Bryant. And some contextual views of the post office with the terracotta roof. Uh the black rod iron and the tan um the tan colored walls. Um we have the former Taipei restaurant there, which we're sharing the trash enclosure with. Um and the prolific oven. And then there's the Palo Alto uh toy and sport um uh building to the right of that. And then if you look at it from Hamilton on the left is the part of the AT&T building. Very tall building the side of the Taipei with the parking lot in front and then the con porting place concrete All Saints Church um on the right. The program for the garage is six levels um of uh of parking for 266 cars, a 4,000 approximately square foot space uh for future um lowincome housing. Um and we're treating it as a simple flexible plaza at this point. Uh bike parking um for 42 bikes at a trash enclosure that will be the shared with uh with Taipei. As we said, uh we're going to be collaborating. We have been collaborating with um uh the public art program and Amy Landisburg. And the area that's highlighted in red is where the public art will be. And I'll show you what that where that is on the elevation when we get there. And then there's a rooftop future rooftop solar array for um PV panels. Um and those are future the site and design constraints. We have a zero setback against AT&T. Um and then uh at the alley we have uh 16 ft to the building but 9 and 1/2 ft to the planter. There's plenty of room to get um in and out there. Um we have uh the uh 10ft setback at the po so that we can have unprotected um openings. And at the front we have we're removing the special 7ft setback and we're going to have a two-ft setback. Um and then we're moving the curb line. Um so we end up with a uh 12- foot sidewalk. Um the uh program for the parking uh double loaded parking is 60 feet on each um on each leg and uh we have uh uh 20% open area uh of wall area required for 40% um of the perimeter. And we've got uh landscape uh zones for planting and benches and pedestrians. auto access uh on the east or I'm sorry the west end on Hamilton um and then bike and pedestrian access um at these uh or bicycle access rather at these two locations. Doesn't mean you can't come in another entrance as well with a bike. Then these are the pedestrian entrances um along Hamilton two primary um and then we have at the end of the po um we have an entry there and then uh there's some uh minor entries off of Hamilton to get into some of the handicap um the the accessible spaces. Vertical circulation occurs at the end of the POA where we have an elevator in the main stair. And then on the east end at Hamilton next to the public the the open space we have um the feature stair located and then there's the open space um at the corner. So when we were here in uh December last year, we had three options. On the left are left column are the Waverly, I'm sorry, the uh Hamilton options. On the right um are the Waverly options. Um at the time, option ones on the top, three on the bottom. Um you preferred option two and three on the left uh column for the uh Hamilton and we preferred option three on the Waverly side. And so those are the we prefer option two as opposed to option three on the H the Hamilton side which is why we've circled that and we've developed that um for you today. Um basically um the Hamilton uh facade has a strong horizontal canopy that defines the pedestrian zone kind of anchors the building where we have integral planters. There's wooden benches along there. It just kind of defines this um this pedestrian area. Um and then the building is organized um into these solid and voids um with uh um the perforated metal, the metal screens and solid walls in order to create a syncupation kind of along the street um and a rhythm to create uh facade uh interest. And there's plenty of depth um in and out um on on the uh on the facade as you move down. The west end is the auto entry um the larger opening and then to the left of that is a pedestrian entry. On the right hand side um is the uh feature stair. And the idea is we use the perforated metal where we are trying to get people to kind of come into the building whether it's the auto entrance um or the um or the the feature stair. The building's terminated at the top u with a strong horizontal structure that is part of the current plan and only the photovatic arrays would be considered uh future um up there. And then the public art um that we're working with uh Miss Landisburg on would occur here. And it's a public art piece that's already gone to the public art commission. And it features um metal um sculpture of kind of laser cut or cut metal um featuring local uh plants um in the area and that will consume that entire um concrete uh block in the center. These are just elevations. The miscellaneous um on the upper left um would be the return wall of the western pedestrian entrance. So you see the perforated metal return there. Um the uh view to the right, top right would be the PO looking east um where we have uh grape vines that kind of crawl up the side of the building. The bike um access to the bike storage is there at the lower left. Um and then the building the two elevations at the bottom the one on the right would be at the end of the po and so that's the alley um that has uh the main elevator and again a stair that uh allows you to circulate above material pallet um board form concrete near the base of the building defines the planters. um smooth form concrete elsewhere, integrally uh colored. Um we have wood benches um on the ground floor. Uh black or bronze um painted metal flat bar um for railings and at the grills that occur um on on the facade. Um and the idea there is we're trying to pick up on some of the rod iron. Um and uh and then with the metal fins and the perf metal pick up on the colors that you might find in the the sienna or terracotta tile on the um on the post office and some views of the building from the corner. This is probably the most accurate in terms of color. I'm not sure why all they they tend to color changes from view to view. This is the uh the plaza with the Perf metal in the corner. And then on the the rear we have the um the horizontal flat bar to allow ventilation in the garage and just kind of break down that um concrete wall that has a pattern of uh horizontal and vertical reveals. Some close-up views on the left would be looking down the PO. The bike storage is the first opening on the left and at the end of the PO would be the Perf metal identifying the main um or an entrance to the um the vertical circulation which is then shown on the right. And so if you go in there, it's kind of the public lobby. On the left would be the west end uh on Hamilton where there's a planter, some wood benches, that's a pedestrian and bicycle entry to the garage. And then the feature corner stair on the right with the uh black metal flat bar um uh stair. So this is day one. Um I'll try my best here at landscape since how much time do I have? Oh, I don't have any more time. >> Oh, the landscape is always left out. >> We'll give you one more minute. >> Okay, great. So the concept for the uh for the plaza is to kind of keep it simple, flexible space. Um we have um concrete uh planks basically that form the planters on each side of the two planted areas there. Um and there's a combination of new ginko and oak trees along the street frontage. Um brick paving um identifies the po and the alley behind the the Waverly uh street buildings. There's a privacy fence that runs the whole length here that kind of hides the back of these buildings so that the alley has a nicer appearance. That was one of your one of your questions at the last um at the last hearing. And then we we have um string lights that help kind of define the space overhead that also continues down the um the po um where we have uh these festuned lights that are above you um to help kind of define and and light the space. The uh the plant materials um are shown here. Lots of lots of color. Um some sedges, some yarao, some primrose you can and the ferns. Um the fence example is uh there on the left and then the pavers on the the far left. Again picking up that kind of terracotta quality um of the building. Uh this shows you some of the site elements of the concrete uh plank benches um that define the planters there on either side um shown in the center. So I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I think next is um are uh questions or public comments. Um I think public comments >> right public comments. >> Yes. Do we have any uh request to speak? >> We have one request to speak um on this item. First person is uh Herb Borac. Please state and spell your name and you'll have three minutes. Uh Herb H E R Borac B is in boy O R O C K um Cherry Clex Chair Rosenberg and Commissioner Hirs. Uh the this project uh implements uh an item in the comprehensive plan that when uh you know parking spaces are removed some purpose from a lot um they need to be provided someplace else. And although that that general idea uh has received planning approval when a specific project comes up as in this case where uh lot T is in Tom uh on Linton Avenue uh would be project is proposed to lose 52 spaces. uh th this project uh is designed to provide spaces for those 52 and I believe under the environmental quality act that those two things together are one project that it's inappropriate to be uh discussing and writing uh approvals and recommendations on each of those two parking lots separately. Uh there is also the question of uh you know a challenge of whether you can even have h housing which would provide more land for the same number of net parking spaces which would be a a different structure. Uh there used to be a public uh bathroom self-cleaning toilet at the corner of of the lot of where the proposed housing would be and I believe that you know for pedestrian uses which is very heavy in the area that that needs to be replaced as part of the project. Initially you have a that corner available but in the future when if and when the affordable housing is built you'd have to find a specific location uh the pedestrian you know access uh from pedestrians and bicyclist one way would be from from the intersection of Gilman and Waverly and it seems to be uh whoever is changing signal cycle times whether they depend upon a demand response from traffic on Gilman or whether they cycle automatically uh after say a pedestrian signal is used across Gilman or traffic goes away from Waverly. I don't know, but it seems to change from time to time. And it could be related to the to the use of pedestrians uh and cyclists uh going to the garage or crossing the street and you you should make that part of your approval as to what it would be and also uh to come back uh if transportation wants to change those in any way uh in in the future. Uh so I I I I I think uh for th those reasons it would be difficult to make a recommendation on this project separately at this time. Thank you. >> Thank you. Do we have any questions for the public speaker? No. >> All right. Um does the applicant want to rebut any of um the public comment? I'm sorry. Yeah. Does the city have any uh responses? >> Sure, I can respond to that. Um, just want to note that it it's not legally required. Um, though we do desire and plan to replace the parking, it's not legally required. And both of these projects have independent utility and therefore are not required to be analyzed um, you know, in conjunction with each other under SQUA and are being analyzed separately. >> Thank you. All right, with that we will um no more public comments, right? Yeah. >> Okay, that's correct. We'll go to questions uh for the applicant. Do you have any questions? >> I have three. Okay. Um in response to the uh public comment, there's no bathroom facility associated with this project, correct? And there's not need to be required to be one either. Is that correct? >> Okay. Um number two, GKO trees. Which kind of GKO trees? I asked that because there's there's one version that's a little bit more smelly than the others. I got to make sure that uh we're doing the uh the >> the gentle kind, please. >> The street it's the street tree kind. U maybe John Pus, who's online, can tell us. >> Yeah, the the stinky kind is the female version. Uh the the fruit smells like vomit. >> Yeah, that >> and pretty rare that you get one. Uh but uh if that does happen, we would just simply replace the tree with a proper tree. >> Perfect. Thank you very >> Have to wait till it fruits sometimes if they >> making sure these are male goko trees. Great. >> And then um also for the landscape architect I believe uh there's the flat facade looking at Waverly that's mostly the um the smooth concrete. There's that triangular planting space below it. Is there any desire to put sort of a climbing vine in the meantime? like understanding that there will be a future potential project here, but in the meantime, that is sort of a large stretch of concrete. Um it might be nice to have just some greenery climbing the face. So, has that something that's been considered or analyzed in any way? >> Yeah. Yeah, that is what is proposed. Uh we propose to have climbing vines. >> Excellent. I didn't see it in the renderings, which is why I asked. That's all my questions. Thank you. >> Any questions, Stephen? >> Yeah. Um You know, I know there's numerous access to the to this property here, but the major one is on the corner. Would you would you say that that that will be the major entry for the building? >> Uh, yeah. I mean, I would think that uh we tried to make that the the major entry and the gesture to >> I'm sorry, I'm not getting your sound. >> Can you hear me? uh better when you're closer. >> Okay. Yep. No problem. Um so, uh board member Hirs, yes, I I consider that the main pedestrian entry for um those that don't need to take the elevator, right? It's probably going to be more um more fun to come down the stair because as you come down the stair, the the post office will be there kind of revealed in front of you, but um it's a it's a main entrance. Um uh >> the PO is more u yeah on the on the rear um passage the PO as you call it as it turns the corner and heads for CVS. >> Y >> uh things have changed a bit. The CVS back door is closed. There's no particular need for access to CVS anymore in that area. So I'm wondering is it is it you've kept a certain distance there probably for some of the garbage removal issues. >> Exactly. Um plus >> Yeah. And I also I mean the alley system in PaloAlto is uh is very cool I think. And so trying to enhance the alley um to allow for access for people that are cutting through and and you know, who knows what might happen at CVS um in the future. Um but it's also there to we have to be at least 10 ft to be able to get our um uh unprotected openings for the ventilation so we don't have to put a ventilation system in the garage. But um the 16 feet allows us to uh I think also create not only pedestrian access but also gets our storm water treatment area taken care of in that area. >> Mhm. >> And I would also like to note that there's private parking on behind AT&T's building that we need to maintain access for. I'm sorry. Is private parking where >> behind the existing AT&T building next to our property that we need to maintain exist access for >> a pedestrian access that would have been through the >> access vehicle access. >> Oh, but that's going to be at the rear of the building. There's none of that relative to this ped these pedestrian ways here at all. >> No. >> Um Okay. I was just really wondering if there's any flexibility in the width of that because so it's a drainage issue drainage or or is there >> so what 5 and a half 6 and 1/2 ft is uh drainage planters basically raised planters for storm water treatment. >> Okay. Uh >> and the trash is picked up also from that side of the alley or from that alley. >> I'm sorry. The garbage >> the trash enclosure. enclosure would be from the rear of the building, you know, >> at the at the rear. But I believe we because of transformers and switches that are above grade at the very rear of the building, the trash enclosure has doors that open to the >> to the towards the alley. Yeah. Right. >> Mhm. >> But we don't envision, you know, the the green waist trucks coming down the alley. I was wondering just in general thinking here between yourself and the future housing issue. Um you have uh made a significant effort to to have the end of the vehicular way. You didn't mention it as a design feature, but your ends are open and light filled from the perimeter uh perimeter surfacing. So uh is it is there some way in which you're going to as as the future considering the future housing maintain some kind of light consistency there? Well, so the um the portion of the wall, >> so the the the perforated metal stair at the front, the housing does not come proud of that. All right. So, wherever the wall of the housing is defined, um it's from the edge of that front PF metal between there and the solid wall of the building that you see here. However, the back portion of the building where we have the metal work along the PO there, the flat bar, um that will need to be filled in um when the housing is proposed or built next door because that becomes a firewall essentially. H but so if there were some kind of an easement at that point relationship to the housing if the housing were separated by a light well of some sort with an easement >> uh you might be able to keep keep that feature. >> There's all way all kinds of ways you could you could keep it. It's really a matter of how desirable the site remains for you know getting a reasonable yield on the housing on the housing. >> Yeah. I think we had five floors of three units on each floor. I think we had 15 um 15 units um in the mass massing diagram. Um so if you had that carved out at the back um in order to have an unprotected opening, the housing would have to have a solid wall facing this metal work. Yeah. >> Unless it were kept separated by a light well of some sort. If it was a light well, the housing wall that faces that would be to be solid solid and then this could be open and there'd be a 10 foot >> okay >> light well. >> So I was wondering in the thinking you know maybe there's a way in which when you provide some kind of I don't know how coordination with with the future housing that you could maintain that feature because it's a very nice feature. >> That would be great. You know, you know, I think you should not forget the fact that you have that at the very at the very end of the building facing the back of CVS, you also have that feature. >> Correct. Yeah. Right. So, you'd see it repeat, right? >> Yeah. >> I think that's all for the moment. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And I'll ask some a follow-up question on that. So, just to clarify that uh this metal screen on the right >> y >> um if the housing perimeter wall is 10 ft away, then the housing cannot have any windows facing that. Correct. >> That's right. Well, I mean, they'd have >> they couldn't have traditional windows, right? >> Yeah. Um they would have to go another 10 ft before it can get any windows. Um, so it'd be a choice in the future of whether the garage gets light or the housing gets windows. Um, >> right. But we had that um, in our initial studies that we showed council, it was all circulation along that side anyway. Elevator, two stairs, and there were some mechanical spaces and so on. So the housing was oriented towards Waverly, towards the PO and towards Hamilton for all that's light and air. >> You know, I can come back on that a little bit. It seems to me that, you know, for for our sake it uh uh to consider the fact that that really the corner should be of your garage should be seen. It's really an important visual. Um, it it would seem to me that there that we we should be seeing something about, you know, I feel like it's kind of lack lacking. Is my voice coming through? Okay. Yep. Yep. >> Um, that it's lacking that we should really have seen at least a sketch with some suggestions of how the housing could work relative to the garage so that we know what we're approving. That's a future piece of uh architecture in the city here for the city then >> it certainly the housing >> I mean it is something we would like to see. >> Yeah. So in your packet you've probably at the end stumbled across the there's a couple pages that show what the the future housing massing might be. >> Yeah. Sheet 3.13 in the larger packet. >> Yeah. And one two >> and 3.12. Yeah. And in in >> I think there were sort of ghostly images there, you know. >> Yeah. It wasn't it wasn't a very specific but you know in a way I I would almost be more interested to see setback lines and uh visual visual um description of how we will see the garage relative to to it to the massing you know and the thought of a a light well or some some means of separation if that's possible in the planning you know of the housing Um >> well I mean if we have a firewall at the edge of the garage um which is that solid which is the solid wall let's say um you could do anything you want on the housing side of it. I mean you could have a skylight up there that washes that wall with light and then the housing would be you know on the other side of that. So the the housing could have the circulation kind of a wash um in light, but it's um you don't find that a whole lot in low-income housing. >> No, you don't. But it certainly is a possibility. I mean, if it were if it worked out with a plan that there was just an area way >> without without a skylight, you know, so there's no connection between the buildings at that point. and and in some form of easement that allows that to remain for the sake of the garage. I think it's a feature that I would like to see continued. >> Right. I >> it's going to remain one property, >> correct? >> Will it remain one? It's one property, right? Or are we going to actually subdivide? >> I'm actually not sure on that. >> Okay. I mean, council's direction to us was to reserve an area for future housing and move forward with this garage. That is their >> verbatim wording. So, not a lot of detail there. >> And and for clarification, there's just that's there's no timeline for that housing project. There's no nothing on the agenda, nothing on the boards. They have not been paid or asked to design that yet. So, it's just everything that they've provided is purely correct >> as a benefit for us to imagine what could be there. Correct. Yes, that is correct. >> It's a blank slate. >> So, yeah. Follow-up question on that is uh so it would be so the garage would continue to be city- owned um and the property uh when it gets developed as housing would be a city-owned building that would be rental property. Is that how the council is thinking about it? >> I'm not even sure that's true. I think we would somehow provide a lease. We would own the land but not the building. Similar to what's happening >> with ground leases for city >> ground lease. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Uh 100year lease or something like that. Yeah. >> Exactly. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um so I have a few questions if you're Go ahead. >> Um so on the I think in that um ghost image it was kind of shown that the housing would Oh, sorry. Yeah, you can go to that. Perfect. Thank you. So, this notches back. So, in your pedestrian diagram, you had kind of because your stair angles out, your um pedestrian access is kind of angled into the um the housing property rectangle, the 4,000 square ft. Um, so I guess the question is if it's a small triangle, but if it's ground lease, then that walkway would be would require to be maintained by um the design and ownership of >> Yeah. >> the next um is that at all concern >> is that a concern? >> Yeah. Well, it's a concern that whatever housing project is developed there takes that into consideration as a site constraint. >> Yes. What you're looking at right here, we've kind of created that notch um in this option and you'd come down the stair. We'd have the notch between the two buildings. So, from a fire standpoint, we're good. Um, and then we're trying to kind of create an open space under this can levered portion of the housing. So, so it still responds to pedestrian access in and out there, but it would also be a way to also address the um the fire separation issue. The other option and and and you know, these are not they're not options that have been presented to anybody. Okay. Um, this would be completely set back. So, this would set back 10, 15 feet to allow the corner of the garage to be exposed. This one leaves the facade back on the left hand portion, but can levers the housing portion closer to the corner. >> Mhm. >> Um, and uh to get more floor area for the housing, but it doesn't do it at the ground level. keeps it open for pedestrians is what we were thinking. >> I think both could work. uh just because we're relying on the you know the unknown of the future housing uh and the kind of splitting out of the stair is nice but did you already consider whether like you leave a 5-ft or so walkway within this uh garages rectangle instead of your uh pedestrian walkway diagram going into the rectangle for that future housing. I think it was one of your early slides. >> Am I still sharing? >> Yes. >> Am I lost? Okay. >> Yes. So that that would the stair will either need to pull back if we if we strike a line in line with the solid vertical wall defining the plaza and the garage. Um but I I believe >> a couple that may already later you have a diagram that shows >> pedestrian. Yeah, there we go. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> So that space is open in both those housing options that I showed. And so, you know, along the lines of board member Hirs saying that there might need to be some kind of an easement um at at that location to allow um pedestrian access um or we pull the stair back. I actually think the stair has been pulled back. There's five feet, right? I was going to actually point out that on the again the large packet on sheet 4.1 that shows sort of the landscaping diagram and it might be in your presentation there. The stair looks much skinnier at the base and with ample space to walk past it without ever imposing on that plaza. So it might be worth taking a look at that and just understanding which there right that one. Correct. So in this area oop hang on don't have my pen on. >> Um yeah so in this area here you can clearly see that there's plenty of space to walk past. So the question would be which is it going to be? >> Um one of them clearly has an issue that um board member pointed out. >> Yeah. So one would one would need to be coordinated with whatever future housing goes there. Um or we ignore that and make this self-sufficient which is probably the preference of the city. Um and uh I can't answer the question why our plan doesn't match that but um I do remember the discussion. Yeah, Gordon. >> Sorry. My name's uh Gordon Nolles. I'm with Watery Design. We're the structure engineers and parking architects. Um what you're seeing here on the landscape design was a slightly earlier version of that stair where we did study the 5-ft um rotation uh opening for the stair. um the architectural plans in the rendering you're seeing shows a kind of wider flare and a kind of grander stair which I think was our takeaway when we were looking at that opening from the the previous ARB the informal review. Um we were talking about trying to keep that corner as open and as grand as possible. So that stair flexed and as Ken was saying would require some sort of easement to allow the pedestrian area to open up on that corner. I think what we heard last time was the concern that if we do close off and pull the residential right to the building line there, we create quite a tight pedestrian exit. And what we were seeing is we've got a grand gesture with the cladding and a grand gesture with the stair. So with the addition of that easement, you keep a kind of pedestrian plaza at the end. We can narrow the stair um so it's it's more of a typical width. We've got all the width we need for escape. The the extra flare is really kind of a design and urban impact. So what you're seeing here is kind of the early that answers your question of what we would do if we we needed that entrance and we needed to keep that property line. We're restricted on moving the stair too far back because we obviously have a drive aisle on the upper levels and as we move that back it moves the circulation into what's quite a tight um parking plan above. Thank you. Um I have um another question which has to do with the PV canopy. Uh either one of you wants to respond on it. Um on the renders it looks like the top is solid um at the PV canopy like the one on the right on the cover. >> Correct. >> Is that the future PV? >> That would be the PV. >> Okay. So without the PV is it um just the beams that we see in the renders? >> Correct. The structure is part of the scope. >> Okay. But it's pretty open. There's no like a trellis or anything in its place. >> No. >> And um a question related to that is are you said the PV is future. So it's kind of future ready. Is it I don't know the current code on parking garages. Is it not required to provide any PVs by 2025? CBC. it don't believe we are required to carry PV at the moment. Um, >> so I can take a stab at answering that. So, in the past we've tried to add PV uh because it's just the perfect installation on our parking garages. I imagine this PV installation would be bid as an ad alternate to this project when it goes to construction. um because we've done that in the future like in the recent Cal Avenue garage. Um we did end up building it. We bid it as a ad alternate and we did install the solar panels as part of that construction. >> Okay. But based on the current code, you are not required to provide any. >> I don't believe so. >> No, I don't believe so. Just because of the nature of the building type. >> Okay. We we often have PV on garages if they're associated with um a building say with an office building. You're providing demand for that. Um and often we are putting PV on the garage to kind of offset the requirements for the the other buildings. Uh but here because we're a standalone parking garage, we have um more exceptions and and less limitations. >> And um is the I assume the garage is going to be sprinklered. >> Yes. Yes. So this top level would also be sprinklered in preparation for >> yes we have connections for as soon as the PV went up and it became a coverage we would have um connections at the upper deck to provide sprinkler underneath the canopy. >> Okay, thank you. Um this so actually this might be a question for Ken. Um I'm going back to the ground floor actually this plan right here. Thank you. Um actually can we stay on that site plan? Oh, >> thank you. So over here you mentioned we have uh you've got a fencing um to which becomes the side of that po as you walk down that way, >> right? >> Um can you elaborate on that? And is there any eress from uh Taipan or the next door >> that comes out here that blocked? So, there will need to be a gate coming out of that fence to because there's a rear entrance um rear exit from Taipan. >> Um and then there'd also need to be either a gate or this is probably just an opening um no can't be an opening and that's a property line. So, there'll be a gate um from uh this building as well because they have their own trash back there. So this fence will hide the back of the buildings in a consistent way but will need to have gate perforations in it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So just to continue on that one just for a moment the they will they will be be maintaining their garbage in the open areas I guess behi behind their building and then bring it out during uh garbage collection. In this case, they probably would um bring it out on on collection day, although it's it's fairly close. Um green waste will open up. >> Garbage. Yeah. As long as it's within 25 ft of the property line. >> Other if you're further than that, they want you to bring it. >> They'll move it. They'll move it on the day. Yeah. >> That's true. So the fence goes to about right there and then this part of that property is open. >> Correct. So yeah. So if that's open there. >> Yes. Oh, you're right. Uh-huh. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It goes to the edge of the garage. >> Okay. >> So it would stay open. Yeah. >> Yeah. So no gate there. >> Mhm. >> Okay. And then uh for Taipan, they will have a gate somewhere here and they will take their trash to this. >> Right. No trash on site there. Right. Actually, you we'd have to take a look at where the doorway is from Taipei. >> The present existing doorway. >> Yeah, I believe it's down towards the bottom. >> Oh. >> Oh, there it is. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. >> And um uh thank you. I think that's last of my major questions. I do want to ask the city one more time though, the public restroom that is being provided now uh is being removed and it I understand it's not required per se, but it's an amenity that's being available. Has there been any discussion of being able to provide that public amenity again? >> The public restroom on that corner was already removed about three or four years ago. It hasn't been there for quite some time. Um >> hasn't been there quite a while. Yes. So, yeah, we the city does not want to install a restroom at any of our garages at this time. >> Um, I have a additional question. Uh, I pointed out that I don't exactly maybe both of you. Um, it's a it's a more intricate question. I think that the the access to the elevator is is really a pretty remote situation here from the front. The almost clearest way to get there without in being interrupted by traffic and making a difficult is to come in this rather narrow area and avoid the traffic by going around it. you know, you come in, you go to the end there and then you cross over when the traffic is coming in and turning and going up the ramp, etc. Have you um and the other is part of this issue is that the main the main entry to this building is really the architectural element of the corner of the building. So you almost would imagine that you want to invite more activity in through through that to make it a functional piece of work. You know u coming down the stair is one thing going up the stair I don't think people will use the stair if they had to go to the third or fourth levels you know at that point but the coming down is very reasonable. So, you know, to me it seemed that the it would be better if you included the elevator um closer to the front of the building and with access, a clear access that you made sure that the handicapped parking happened on that level so that there was a sort of a limitation of the parking and an easy access. Sorry. >> So, I was wondering why you wouldn't uh wouldn't consider >> N more central. >> Yeah. So, Gordon, you want to >> Yeah. >> Uh I don't have that in my >> Oh, yeah. >> So, you know, among other things, I wanted just to make a point. There's more parking in the front of the building than there is in the rear. It's pretty close, but it's there is more in the front. So, you're you're likely to see all of the areas in the front filling up pretty well. >> I I think the location of the elevator and the staircore to the kind of north west of our our plan is a result of the geometry of the parking ramp and the parking circulation. on the the plan we've got up on the screen at the moment, you'll see that we need a certain length in the ramp to to get us up floor to floor and and make those rotations and turn. The south area of the plan on the site is the only place we have enough depth for both parking and ramp to make an efficient parking plan. Um I think in the very the previous uh design back in 2018 we had an elevator but it was further east on this plan and that is the area that is now um kind of aotted for the future residential. So by placing that we we eat into the residential area by putting the elevator say to the the east of the stair you're seeing now. Um, if we put it actually more central in the building, we we put the elevator within the parking area. We we lose parking stalls. Oh, I don't think you could uh if you didn't have the elevator in the back, you could uh compress your stair and get this replacement parking in in that same location to the uh and and this way you would, you know, this this garage sort of in comparison to the other garages in probably your more standard garage anywhere is going to have like the three garages in our downtown right now. I'm probably sure you know about them. They all have the everything at a corner next to the public uh right ofway, the the traffic areas or the pedestrian ground level areas. And this one is a different kind of a garage that way because it splits splits the parking. So, it just seems to me that the it's more con it would be more convenient if you had had that on the other side. I'm not suggesting any change in your circulation plan, but that you had pedestrian entering that corner and the elevator sort of allowing with a direct access straight across the handicap maybe place to to the to the street and freed up the back for more parking and uh and kept the staircase as a direct access to the and then people don't so for example example, you know, going down in the future. Uh, in the future, you have uh um that long PO, which you describe as a it's a nice one once you get there, but you're going to be going past perhaps the garbage of the of the housing or who knows what, but it's it's a very long passageway once you put the housing on the corner. >> We have a question that we're still in questions actually. >> Is it a question? It's a it's a discussion. >> Yeah. I I suppose one of the other considerations >> and it really needs their input. >> One of the other considerations we we need to account for is the the requirement that the elevator is within 200 ft of any stair that doesn't have its own elevator. And so the location we have for the elevator at the moment is in that central location. And so that that 200 ft travel distance to the the two stairs is maintained. If we separate the elevator too far from the stair, we and we we'd have to again I think this was part of one of the early studies we did when we developed this layout. Um we would need uh possibly either a second elevator or we would have to um have one of the stairs operating only as an eress stair and not as a circulation stair. So there there's there's one of those aspects there. Um, and >> you're saying 200 ft from what? >> If if we have a if we have a stair uh any stair that is used as a circulation stair, it has to be >> egress stair. >> No, no, no. Just a circulation stair. >> Just a circulation stair. >> It has to be within 200 ft of an elevator. So if we move it further than 200 ft, it can only be used as an egress stair. So you can't use that as just movement around your building. It has to be a dedicated fiery grass stair. >> I think you I think you you would meet those standards if you kept even if you kept the stair where it is right now. You know >> that Yeah. I think there's there's certainly a a number of criteria affecting where it is. But I I understand your point. >> Can can I make an argument for where the elevator to stay where it is? >> So, >> well, you can just disagree with between us. I think that there's also a safety element here that needs to be considered. When you're standing here and you're walking towards this back end of the parking lot, it can get dark. It's not on the street faces. It's a lot more isolated. So, by providing a central um circulation space, you're really sort of invigorating that central portion and making this dead end here feel not quite so dead. So, from a safety aspect, when I'm thinking about walking through this parking lot by myself at nighttime, I'm thrilled that that's right in the middle there, and that it's easy for me to get to my car at a short distance with other people sort of coming and going from that location. I think if the elevator was over here and I had to walk to my car all the way down here by myself at night, I would be a lot more sketched out. Oh, >> and that would also be the account if if you were exiting from the top left of the garage and you were having to walk through that whole garage floor to get to the elevator at the >> right. Yeah, I really wasn't suggesting that location. I was suggesting um how can you how can I write on this? >> Hit the little uh drawing button >> and pick a different color so we know who's who. Help me somebody. Y >> come over. >> Oops. >> Why? Why' we get this plan? >> Sorry. >> Right there. >> Oh, okay. Stop moving. >> So, I was suggesting this this area right here >> on the ground floor that location. If you had a little plaza at that end of the of the ramp and you were visually able to see, you know, when you came out of the elevator to see cars coming around from every location, >> wouldn't that be better? On the ground floor, you could come straight out, but >> but we still have to have our stairs operating as an egress stair. Even if it's egress in circulation, >> you keep the stair you keep the stair where where it is. So we're having that would create three circulation cords. >> Yeah. And this this is Yeah. You need do you need to have a stair always next to immediately next to a stair? >> No. What I'm saying is you would have an elevator core and two stair calls. So you would have three pedestrian destinations on the floor plate. >> And and this is a drive aisle. This is a drive aisle. This is a drive aisle. So, you're putting that elevator, which is likely to be the most used thing, right in the island, completely surrounded by cars, which feels a little bit more dangerous than the potential of just walking right here without ever having crossing a car path. >> On any typical floor, you have to walk through a car path, right? If you're going to use the corner stair coming up to the upper floors in any ways, you'd be crossing the car path always. >> I I I agree. But at the the ground floor is where you have uh vehicles entering and exiting and they're typically paying less attention to their parking their movements and you have 100% of your vehicles going through that area exit on the ground floor. So >> on the ground floor the all of the vehicles going up the ramp uh could avoid that location that I just showed you. >> They could avoid it. It is much less a problem because you don't have a a seller in this area. So the cars will be coming there. As I pointed out before, if you had more handicapped access parking, >> this is the ramp going up. Also, the ramp that cars are coming down. crossing. >> If you're coming into the elevator, like if you're coming from like where they have it right now is kind of where all of the pedestrian walkways meet, >> right? >> This this is a pedestrian entrance coming in here. Well, I understand they have the the rear one, the po, and then the corner one would work, but the not the not the one which you have as your main entry to this building, which which directs people towards towards that uh >> staircase that's right there >> or across the floor to an elevator. But if you're using this staircase, David, you're likely. So, for example, there's the there's the parking structure, if you don't mind me uh jumping in here. There's the parking structure between High Street, Hamilton, Elma, and University, right? And we use that one all the time. That one again, you've got your staircase at the corner and your elevator at the front corner. If we're going up the first floor, four flights of stairs, that elevator is dark and gross and doesn't smell good, so we take the stairs. Right? If you're using this front staircase, you're likely going up one of the first one, two, three, maybe even four flights of stairs. You'd never need the elevator. Right here, you've got public access from pedestrian only like circulation to that elevator. Same thing here from this side. Same thing even here from this side. It's really all right here in a way that you never have to cross vehicular traffic with the exception of this little spot right here. >> I mean, I frequently have gone w seems to make sense on the edge like like where it is. It seems to be it's kind of this confluence of all these pedestrian paths coming together and it's still on the edge of the building which I think is important because it's important to identify the elevator and the stair I think where you're going. Um and uh you know and we don't have >> we can't do two elevators. Oh, no. I understood. I realized that's the case. >> But board member Hersh, I mean, this for all the kind of the reason I I I I I understand what you're saying. Our first studies had the elevator at the main feature stair. But as as we really got into it and had these other pathways coming together and working with water in terms of travel distance, this 200 foot thing, it seemed like this was a reasonable place. It's still on the edge. It's at this confluence and it central to the building. So that it made sense. Now, we showed it here at the preliminary back in December and there was no discussion about about that. Well, you know, sometimes it takes a little bit longer to think out real problems. Uh so this one happened after that meeting, of course. Uh but you know, personally, I think uh elevators ought to be a very convenient and in an area where you can uh get to them quickly from the outside. They are that way on all of our other garages in downtown. It's not fast about about this that that's not a whole lot different. >> What it what is what is what is going to get you to go there? Your entire entry is focused on the corner where you're opening up the the structure. >> So I guess >> you're inviting people to come to that corner. That ought to be the ought to be the place. And I agree with you that putting another elevator in is not a good idea. But if you put it in the front section of the building separate from the stair, you could make up the dis the the change the change in the number of unit of st of car locations in the back. >> Right. But if but if it's not coupled with that stair, it's not really achieving what you're after. Is it wouldn't you want it coupled with the stair? I don't see if you're going to take a people who want to take a stair and and coming down from their depositing their car easily can use any stair they'd like. You know, it's convenient. >> David, I think u we should wrap up this uh item, but we uh >> I'm kind of with the designers that it's I think it's two things. One is um what's a visual entry and identification of the the garage which that stair definitely helps but it is a city garage that is at an intersection of two streets and people are using it from four different directions. Um so where they have it kind of like what Kendra was saying it's central to all the um pedestrian pathways because that's what the elevator is for. Um, but let's wrap up our question section and um, uh, no, we don't do any public comments right now. All right. So then, um, we'll close this. >> One teeny tiny question. >> Sure. >> Do you guys have lights down the POS as well? It's in the renderings that you got the little the Fest tune string lights. Yeah, they go down the P. >> Thank you. >> No worries. Thank you. Um, all right. So, we will switch this to internal discussion. Um, who wants to start? >> Well, I I'm going to start by saying that uh uh I think that that aspect needs more study. I I really I feel strongly that uh I find it to be an an issue that that isn't re resolved in this particular garage because because this garage is not your typical garage and opening the elevator for people who want to get to the upper floors to a more visual area as you come into the garage from that corner from the new corner opening is uh will be a a significant benefit. You you really don't need the exit to be the same location. Uh the people who were in the back of the building will use the back of the building staircase and go down the PO but and the people in the front will have a alternative possibility of using the elevator or the side stair. >> All right. Um Kendra, any comments? Yeah, I'm gonna This is one of those times where David and I butt heads. I respectfully disagree. I think that by putting the elevator where you guys have designed it, it's sort of again um enlivening that back portion of the parking lot that may otherwise be somewhat neglected and or avoided. Um the front has the desire to be parked in because of the light, because of the air, because of the beautiful staircase. And I think by having that elevator back there, it's actually quite beneficial to people, as um board member Adcock said, coming from all directions, including the alleyway. So, I'm a big fan of this as designed. Um, of course, you guys do um impeccable work on many, many different types of projects and to see the care and attention that you guys put into something as simple as a parking lot is really nice to see. Um, my questions were minimal because I don't have a lot of comments. It's really a very well done project in my mind and um I'm I'm good good with it. Thank you. >> All right. Yeah. Thank you um both architects for your presentation and very thoughtful design. Um, I'm going to not discuss the elevator anymore. I, but I agree with um, Kendra that it is in the ideal location based on um, all the desire lines of getting to this um, parking garage um, from all of the businesses that are in this area. That parking lot as is now is very heavily used and I expect this extra um, parking will be of huge benefit. Um my uh other comment is about that uh what I was asking earlier about the stair that's laid out. I think it looks to be maybe over 14 ft wide at the bottom as it is now, but it is kind of pinching on to that next future uh property. Um we since we don't know anything about it, I don't think planning for an easement from an unknown project is the best course of action. So, I would urge you to reduce the width so you at least have a 5-ft walkway and all of your pedestrian walkways are within your design without counting on what happens in the future. Um, I uh the we didn't even talk about materials and all of that which uh we reviewed previously as well and um here we go. Um they are all very uh beautiful materials and uh very well designed and proportioned. So, hats off to the design team for making a parking garage um this appealing um for the city. I know it's not required, but I do hope you can get uh PVs on this. It's it's a good investment of um in day one instead of hoping some fine day PVs get added because really no projects get PVs added in the future if it's left for the future. It's very very rare. So I urge you to find the resources to do that and make it a public benefit. Um I think with that I think um the uh >> I'd like to make it >> sure I I I don't I don't want to leave this project >> microphone. We're okay. I just don't want to uh not say that the this is a a a very nice project. You know, the the materials are really nice. The concept of uh of the um corner treatment of course is really going to be quite amazing on the block. It takes away from the fact that the AT&T building is so ugly. Um uh so but but I think it it requires um you know being very careful about how the housing would work with it because I'd like to see it from down the street somewhere. You know identify it. So in a way the projecting of the housing is is unfortunate there. you know, I' much rather see the massing even, you know, go all the way up to the line of the top, I guess, of of the solid wall before the metal at the top. Uh, so there so and keep it keep the facade uh of the housing back. But I think uh you should you should consider recommending this strongly to council through through planning here. uh in order to maintain your the aesthetic of the garage itself and that specifically that corner, you know, so so we can see it from everywhere. Um, and uh, of course I would like to ask you to look into the the circulation because I don't think it changes the design of anything in particular, only the circulation to move an elevator to the front and consider that possibility despite my cohorts here up on the podium. Thank you. Thanks for a very nice project. >> Thank you, David. Do we have a motion? Yeah, I move to approve the project as presented today with maybe the one condition of re-evaluating the splay angle of that bottom stair to make sure that there's at least a 5ft passage next to it. I >> stuck with that one. >> I I can't recommend approval today, but I would >> I guess we should um uh >> have a motion second and then you can >> I can't I I vote I have to vote no just on the basis. >> We don't have the voting yet um David. So all right, I will second the motion and um >> and you got to vote your conscience. That's all we can do. >> Go with it. >> All right. Can we have a call to vote? >> Board member Hirs. >> No. >> Vice Chair Rosenberg. >> Yes. Chair ad hoc Sorry. >> Yes. >> And then typically typically anyone who desends gets a moment to speak to their life to speak on your descent. >> Well, I don't think I have to say anymore, do I? Motion passes. >> Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you um team for your presentation. We will take a 8 minute break and come back at 10:05 >> and congratulations. back up. All right, we will move on to the next part of our agenda, which is a public hearing. Another um public hearing quad quasi judicial for 762 San Antonio Road request for recommendation on a major architectural review application to demolish three existing commercial buildings and construct an 8-story multifamily residential building containing 228 residential apartments. 13% of these units, 30 of them would be deeed restricted to serve lower income households. The project is propo proposed in accordance with California government code uh for builder's remedy. Senate bill 330 pre-application was filed January 9th of 2024. SQA status is that an addendum to the previously certified environmental impact report for the housing incentive program expansion and 70 788 San Antonio mixeduse project has been prepared and the zoning district is uh commercial a service commercial and the recommendation is to consider the addendum to the previously certified EIR and recommend approval of this project. So with that, can we have the staff report? >> Good morning. Uh my name is Christina Dubavichas. I'm the associate planner with the city of Palo Alto and I'm here today to present um this project which is um builders builder remedy project at 762 San Antonio Road. Um a little bit about the background background about the project. The applicant submitted a compliant Senate bill SB330 pre-application back in 2024. Accordingly, the project has been evaluated based on the development standards in effect at that time. The project is also pro uh proposed uh pursuant to California governmental code section 55 65589.5D5 commonly referred us to a builder's remedy project which qualifies for additional protections under Assembly Bill 1893. uh a builder's remedy project. Uh proposal includes requested density bonus incentives and waiverss consistent with the state law f uh for formal major architectural review application. This one was submitted back in April 2024. In August uh 2025, ARB provided preliminary design feedback. Um and here we are today um um looking at the um revised drawings based on the architectural review board feedback. Uh the city acting as a lead agency prepared an addendum to the previously certified EIR for the housing incentive program expansion uh and 788 San Antonio mixeduse project uh which concluded that no new significant environmental impacts occur beyond these um those that were previously evaluated. and following second ARB hearing today and ARB's recommendation on the project. Uh council's decision is anticipated in August this year. Um about the project site, it comprises two parcels located at 762 San Antonio and also unadressed parcel on Lagghorn Street. And these two will be merged to form a 2acre site. Uh the project uh would replace the existing truck rental use by demolishing three existing commercial buildings and constructing an 8story 228 unit multifamily residential development. uh project includes 30 units which is 30% of the proposed units to be uh deed restricted at below market rate to lowincome tenants and we have 248 above ground parking spaces with entrances on um both San Antonio and Legghorn Street because the project is proposed under builder's remedy the city might only apply objective standards s that would allow the proposed density based on the project's proposed density which is 114 dwelling units dwelling units per acre. Uh the floor uh area ratio is 3 3.45 45 to1. The El Camino Rial focus area standards are the applicable zoning framework for this project. And under the state law density um density bonus law, uh applicant may also request waiverss uh for standards that would physically prevent development at the proposed density. uh project includes three levels of above grade parking. Uh the ground level is accessed from San Antonio Road. The upper two parking levels are internally connected and accessed from the Leg Street uh via separate entrance and exit. We also have bike parking provided in two ground floor bike rooms with access from both uh both frontages, lobby and the garage. Um, the project includes, as I have already mentioned, um, 228 long-term bicycle parking spaces as well. Uh back in August 2025 last year, uh ARB provided preliminary design feedback that focused on reducing the perceived massing, improving architectural articulation, enhancing ground floor activation, strengthening landscape and open space design, and improving circulation and rooftop usability. Since the preliminary hearing, um applicant revised the project to include um um to uh increase the unit count from uh 178 to 228 units uh and by also adding one additional story from seven to eight stories. Um the revised project has also been a redesigned to reflect refinements to massing uh facade articulation open space design. Um also in response to ARB's comments um staff finds that the revised design reflects meaningful refinements of the building form and architectural expression as well. Uh these are the proposed materials um which are slightly different from the board that you have um materials board you have in person. Uh these are the revised simplified color palette. Um overall staff finds that the project complies with architectural review findings for approval as detailed in the record of land use action attachment B. Although the project requests waiverss from certain objective development and design standards uh primarily within Palto municipal code chapter 18.24 24. The project deviates in a manner that is consistent and allowed pursuant to state law. Pursuant to state density bonus law and the project's builder's remedy status, the inconsistencies do not constitute a basis for denial where the requested waiverss and um are necessary to accommodate the proposed density and where no specific adverse impact to public health or safety has been identified. The project remains within the scope of the impacts analyzed in the certified uh EIR back in 2020 and all applicable mitigation measures continue to apply and accordingly an addendum prepared um based on the section 15164 SQUA is appropriate and no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. Accordingly, staff recommends that architectural review board today considers the addendum to previously certified um environmental impact report and um recommends approval uh of the proposed project to the city council uh based on the findings and subject to conditions in the record of land use action. Thank you. This concludes my presentation. Uh we also have applicant present and they also have a presentation. Thank you Christina. Do you have any questions for the staff? >> I have one minor question. If you can go back to your slide deck. >> Sure. I think it's like three or four slides back. The um it was a rendering. >> This one? Maybe that one? Yeah. Sorry, it's a little slow. This one. Um I think further back. No, actually. Yeah, that one. Number nine. Um that is from that view. I was trying to um figure out which view that is compared to >> this is interior um which is we'll give you this side plan. This side >> the long side. Okay. >> Cuz that was a little different from what we've seen on the packet. So, um on that elevation cuz, um that's where it's pretty close to the property line and and not much in the way of setbacks. Um so, uh maybe there's a question for the applicant, but those um eyebrows that are at the very top, is that within the property lines? >> That whole mirror facade looks like it has a 10ft setback. That's correct. It's a 10 foot setback. >> But yeah, it'd be nice to know what the dimension of those eyebrows is. >> Let me see if if I can find this on the plants. Sorry, I don't recall seeing that on any of the sections. So, I'm just trying to figure out where that that's the render on 331 is the same image. So it looks like it is and maybe applicant can respond to that after their presentation. It looks like it encroaches into that 10-ft setback and we just want to be mindful of that. Any other questions? All right. If not, we can um if the applicant can move forward with their presentation, you'll have 10 minutes and please state and spell your name. >> Sure. Matt H. >> Good morning, owner of Trucks at 762. At our first meeting, I shared a bit about our family's long history on the site, why we believe this property can continue serving the in a new way. Since then, our team has listened carefully to the board's feedback and made several refinements to the proposal. One of the bigger changes is the move from seven stories to eight. Goal is not simply to make the building taller. It is to use the site more thoughtfully by providing additional housing in a location that is well suited for it while improving the project's design and its relationship to the San Antonio Road Corridor. We appreciate the board's guidance and the time spent reviewing the project. >> Chris Mark Johnson, managing director of the Acclaim Companies were the developer. Um, yeah, since we were last here, um, you can see some fairly significant changes and we consider improvements to the project. Um, we took your feedback seriously and we've incorporated many of your suggestions. I I want to particularly acknowledge uh uh board member Hirsch. He he spent quite a bit of time actually sketching some things out for us. He came to my office. He met with me. We had a very constructive dialogue and we took his feedback to our team and we've incorporated a lot of of his ideas and I wanted to thank you for for that. You can see, David, the lobby is where you wanted it to be. We've relocated the elevator core. Uh the leasing area, the the all of those activated areas on the ground floor have been repositioned in addition to the bike room. So, we we appreciate I I see this as the functioning of a you know, of a committee and a you know, using your professional input. More eyes is better. And so, thank you all of you for your input. Um some of the other things that um that we've done is um we've actually and and Chris will talk more about this um vertical break along San Antonio Road. We wanted to make sure we preserved the what is I guess the Grand Boulevard San Antonio road plan. Um we've also elevated the garage entry that to allow oversized delivery and service vehicles. everything will be able to be contained and accessed within our our parking structure to a avoid any stacking along San Antonio Road. Um and and there's there's several other improvements that that Chris will articulate, but um but anyway, collectively these revisions reflect a lot of your previous comments regarding circulation access and functionality and the overall pedestrian experience. and we believe the project is substantially improved as a result of your feedback and so we appreciate it. >> My name is Chris Lee C H I S L E Studio Tsquare Architect. Um like Mik, we incorporate several um changes summarized in this page. um not just for the sake of answering question but really take serious look into the option and make the project better. So thanks again for the taking time to review and comment. um uh the summary page I didn't mention the number one is provide a vertical break to eliminate one of the waiver that we previously request and number two in the plan is relocate the course so in more centralized uh area and serve better not just the typical level but also the ground level we we made some improvement and third one is uh we have a double height uh space gl uh storefront all across the Centonio Row right now to activate a street batter. And number four, we provide also direct access from the east east wind uh stair all the way can direct dial to the San Antonio road sidewalk. Number five, we convert uh those leftover pod space into a private deck so they can better uh maintain and enjoy those uh space on the podium. And number six, there's some concern about the flat roof accumulate trash for uh for the corridor to look into uh in the future before we we incorporate some metal roof on that area. So still have a a lower medicine but use this metal roof to eliminate the trash issue. And number seven, we create a little bit more um step down on that area and uh add another uh roof deck for the amenity space. Those are the highlight of the changes. And we also simplify color color and material board to eliminate one of the color that is similar uh in the shade. Next, please. Next slide, please. Um so on the ground level we I can say right now it's all we moved the bike room to the back because bikes still need to screen uh for the uh privacy security reason. So we moved the bike room to the back so open up the whole uh storefront on the centonial road to activate the street which through our double height space with very uh grand stair and masoning space. I think it will be it will be more interesting to when you walk into this uh space. Um and and also we provide um delivery um directive from Centonio Road. We reorganize the garage. So we allocate two delivery and the Uber drop off pickup location inside the Centonio entrance. Next please. Um so right now you see the ground level plan um the s centonio entrance has you know delivery and pickup and all the moving and trash pickup would those heavy surface will come from the lake street on on the lake lake home side and the red line also shows uh the direct connection from the east wing the stair people can go down the stair directly go through that pathway into the Centonio sidewalk. Those are the uh the change we incorporate some of the great comment that you guys provide. Next, please. Uh the third level we added um to the project. It's really has um the garage was wrapped around by the unit. So there's no exposure. We carefully not to have garage exposed to the street. So it was wrapped around by the liner unit. So very efficiently um to to strike strike the balance between the parking and the residential unit. Uh so from the from the street is there there no more garage was exposed or uh activate from the from by by the unit windows. Next please. Uh the podium level remains similar. We have a a pool deck facing the south. Take advantage of the south sunlight and surround by the fitness clubhouse and the wellness center. Next, please. On the roof level, we have a twostory massing drop down on the south side or the centonial row and we also add another roof deck on the north side near the lake home. So the amenity program will be um add up from the previous version. Next please. Uh this is a view from the south side. You can see the massing was very compatible to the existing uh hotel the south and future development to the north in this grand um centonial area plan. Next please. U the elevation um this is the street side elevation. The upper is Antonio, the lower is Lakeome. Then we use more vertical smaller element to um activate the street also bringing more residential smaller module fabric to the to the street front for the project. Uh and upper level step back and lower level use more enhancement material. I think that's uh to in to pronounce the base, middle and top expression. Next, please. The perspective view you can see the on the south side the roof deck drop down two level really uh relieved the corner and also made the entrion more u pleasing to look at. Next, please. Um the rear side of elevation we also take very serious look into it. There will be future development look into this. So we feel like that's also very important elevation. But instead of use smaller module I think there will be um because a longer elevation we use larger element um more dynamic and playful massing to interlock with the base middle top expression. Um so provide more interesting uh elevation from from the rear side too. Next please. Uh so that's the corner looking from the mountain view side into the the project. So this is a combination of um transition from the centonial row into the oil change and then to the lakeome. I think we in keeping with the modulation uh throughout the the street view. Next, please. Material pretty much in keeping similar. >> You're out of time, but you can have another 30 seconds to wrap up. Thank you. >> The next please. Um the section you show lower level has some weather protection, upper level step back. Next, please. The detail showing the the step back and the recess of the corner. Next please. The last one is the landscape design. We strike a balance of usable paving space and the planter space. The planting um area we meet the ODS requirement including um the stone treatment area. Uh we also have some small group paving area. So for residents to can can use that uh in a and also break up into smaller groups so more people can enjoy the the roof deck and the the pool deck. Next I think that conclude the presentation. Thank you. I just want to high um just answer the question about the rear uh elevation the canopy. It is um within the property line enclosion to the setback but our setback is more than the coal require. We have 10 foot setback. I believe the coal require 5 foot. So I think we still within the co allowed setback. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I forgot to ask for disclosure. So um can uh David you want to start? >> Yeah sure. Um yes I as noted I met with the developers and we had a very useful conversation and I did not visit the site again but did the previous time? >> Nothing to disclose. I visited the site. >> I visited the site last time but have not recently. >> Thank you. Um so with that, do we have any um actually I any public speakers on this um item? >> We do not have any public speakers from this item. >> Thank you. Um then do we have any questions for the applicant or the staff? David, do you have any questions? >> Um, could could you describe the uh parking in the um San Antonio entry area there? Who who will be using the parking spaces there? >> Uh yes. Can we put out the plan? It's better to >> 101 >> the ground level plan. >> Yeah, it's uh I can I can share the plans if it's easier. Okay. Yeah. So San Antonio road entrance only serve this level and then the second level will enter from the lake home. So we don't have a ram connect to the upper level. So the the first I forgot the the count probably uh roughly 20 store will be gas parking. So for future tenant for the gas they can park at before the gate. There will not be a gate enter into the first area which can be Uber pickup can be Uber e delivery or in that area as well as the future tenant or the gas parking um at the first area before the gate and then we have a gate on the right hand side past the gate will be all assigned parking. So people if you don't not assign in this level you will not go through the you'll not be able to go through the gate to park. So after the gate will be all assigned parking for the residents. Yes. So this is outside and then there's a gate here and >> Right. Right. >> Okay. Does does that work for uh Whimo as well? That would they be I hate to do this to you, but uh it's a question because uh it's becoming obvious around town there's a lot of Whimo cars. >> That's very good question. I didn't have option. Um I think they I hope they map this into the into their system. I recall another it was either a pre-screening meeting for one of the projects on San Antonio Road. I don't know if it was a in front of the ARB or the city council and uh or it was parking transportation commission meeting. Uh there's a member there. It's a employee of Whimo and they said that Whimos do not go inside of buildings at this time. >> Yeah. Commissioner G is uh works for Whimo and expressed that it's difficult for it to back out and go into buildings. But yeah, >> I mentioned the option because Lakeome in my mind probably want to if Whimo want to go to this property better to map into the Lake home area to drop off. We have a secondary uh lobby there too. Currently, Whimo picks up in the oil changers parking lot right there on the corner. >> Any other questions, Stephen? >> Uh, well, I wait for future hearing. >> Pardon? >> Couple small questions. Uh, it looks like you have a pet washroom in the uh first floor inside the garage. Is there any intention to make that? And then the sort of a tied question is um you had shown a dog run area, but I couldn't locate it. Um so I'm wondering where that location of a fenced in dog run area is going to be. >> Yeah, it's around the the car wash the the oil change area. Yeah, that L shape the reverse L shape from Lakeome to the Yeah, >> that whole thing. >> Yeah, the whole >> Okay. And that pet wash is right next to that, but not directly accessible. Okay. So, you'd have to walk out of that into the garage and then to the dog run area. >> I think the intention is have a door to go out to that. Okay. We'll probably miss the door there. >> Yeah. No, there's a door, but it goes into the parking lot. And maybe this is super nitpicky. So, apologies for getting into the hyper weeds here, but I love my dog. So, um it's it would sort of be a question about whether that door is oriented properly and whether the specific location of that spot is as best as it could be um for considering what's going to happen in that room with wet animals being transported to and from apartments and um in and out towards that dog run area. Again, not anything that needs to hold up the meeting. Just wanted to ask about that and thank you for clarifying where the dog run area is. >> Right. The intention is to have another door just through that around that parking and then go out to that. >> Understood. Okay. Thank you. Um unit types and plans. Again, I like getting into the weeds and some of this stuff. Um residential plans. So you guys have shown on sort of the following pages from this one like the A20 uh let's see A106 105 104 all of those. Thank you. any of these will do. Um, these are not these are the only sort of indications we have as to what these units are going to look like. We have no but not been provided with any further details of the unit types. Is there a reason for that? >> Uh, we have 90% of the unit have a firm out layout but because um the time constraint and many uh changes we incorporate for the last round. just a few probably two or three of the special unit type we haven't >> like totally figured out. >> So we elect to not show them. >> Um >> that's my one hesitation is it's hard for me to you know approve a plan when we don't know what's going actually on its side. Um that being said it looks like you've got a nice mixture of um apartment types. Could you please refresh our memories with how many are single unit studios? Do you guys have an overall count for that that you could please state for the record? >> Here we go. >> All right. Those are the unit mix. We have um studio one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroomedroom all in the mix. >> So that's right up there. We also provide probably uh more than normal threebedrooms for the family so they can enjoy the community. >> Great. And if we can flip back to one of those, you know, floor plan levels, any of them, A103, four or five, doesn't really matter. Um there's one unit in particular that I sort of have um some questions about, which is part of the reason I wanted to see what the actual floor plan is. Um keep going. There we go. That's fine. So, it's this unit right here, right? That really inner elbow unit. Um, that's one of those that it's always sort of concerning when we see those in buildings because those get the least amount of light and air naturally. Now, it looks like you've sort of pulled the facade of this back in to allow for light and air, but because we don't have the flow plan, it's really difficult to assess how this unit is truly laid out and how it's truly going to function. Um, so I would just raise a concern about that being that we'd want to make sure that that's actually truly a functional unit and especially I believe it's being considered a Sorry, my eyes are old. Is it a onebedroom? >> Unit two. >> Oh my god, I can't see anything. Um, do we know how many bedrooms are in that one? >> Two bedroom. Okay. And then right next to it, it's a studio. So there's like a a little studio here and then a bedroom unit here. Is that correct? Sorry, my pen is suddenly no longer not working. >> Yeah, the skinny one is the studio and then the one next to it that's sort of um zigzag shaped is a two-bedroom, >> but those we usually plug in that into our in we call the inner corner um twobedroom. >> If you go to themes at Centonio Row um they have that unit work out actually very successfully. >> Yeah. As a designer, we we look at that as inferior unit, but from the leasing nature is some people like that because it's more uh it's not open to the outside noisy. >> Yeah. >> And the light is not that bright into their window. So there I didn't um something people might might like if they they they enjoy more privacy. Okay. >> Yeah. I guess the question would be was there any consideration to combine I don't have my pen working. Um to combine those two units to being maybe a three-bedroom unit there and then just giving that one unit at least a little bit more of a stretch of windows by combining it all into one larger unit. You'd get a bit more of that light and air exposure overall. Was there a consideration for that or was it really >> Yeah, we can we can consider that. Yeah. And again, I understand I'm getting to the weeds here, but it's it's those sort of units can become problematic pretty Oh, there we go. All the things. Um, it can become problematic pretty quickly. So, I just want to keep an eye on that one. Um, and then going to the landscape. And I think that's going to be my last question now. Let me try and find it. Going to the landscape. So, just to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly, the And this is I'm looking at L101 is a great visual for this. um that enlargement plan of the fourth floor where this pool deck and everything sits at the fourth floor. So, it's actually quite high up and then you only have four floors above that. Is that correct? So, it's not quite as much in a well as it might be. It's not down on the first floor and then you've got eight stories above it. It's really at fourth floor and then you've got four stories above it, >> right? Um it's at level on top of level three. So, we have five level above it. >> Five levels above it. So, one, two, three. Okay. And then um seventh floor plan has the sky lounge right next to it. >> And then the eighth floor plan, does that have a lounge next to it as well? >> Yes, >> as well. Perfect. Okay, so that's the sky lounge here. And then that's the lounge for this one, >> right? >> Great. Okay, that's it. Those are all my questions. Thanks very much. All right. I have a few questions that are kind of follow-ups on the same. Um on the uh I'll start with the garage. Um so you have the first level that's only access from San Antonio and then the upper two levels that are only from Legghorn. >> Um are they all assigned parking? So the residents would know which entrance to go from. >> Correct. Correct. >> From the lake home and the sec second and third level are all assigned parking. Okay. Um and I guess it's a question for um the city if because San Antonio I mean the the intent is that cars don't stop there. So if Whimos or other self-driving cars can't come in to the garage then if they're waiting they would potentially be outside on the street. Is that correct? >> Yes. There is no loading spaces on San Antonio or Legghhorn at the moment. >> And for um the applicant right now uh from your presentation the um the waiting area otherwise is on San Antonio entrance side. Correct >> for Uber Eats and pickups and all of that. >> I think uh with the drivers delivery and pickup we will be inside the garage. This is not necessarily your problem, but if um self-driving vehicles cannot come in, that's something for I think it's a larger question for the city for all of these developments. Um I have a another question regarding the pool as well cuz um level three garage has that pool um equipment room which is directly below the pool, but the pool is larger than that. And I was trying to find your floor to floor Oh, here it is. Uh, is about 10 ft from level three to level four, 10 foot two. So, does that account for the pool depth? And how deep is the pool? >> Yeah, I think we intend for a raised pool. It's about 4T of up the ground and then we will have a accessible ramp associated with that and the fans around it. >> Is that shown in the plants? Uh I so um I couldn't see that. >> I'm on A101 and I don't quite >> I think there's a ramp incorporated in there. >> Yeah, if I can direct the uh room's attention to L101. It does appear to show that it although I did miss it. I didn't realize that there was a significant grade change there. says plus two feet >> on the north side of the pole. >> I'm sharing the section drawing. >> You can see the pole >> in the section drawing >> on the plan it says plus 2 ft to that level on the So is that what it is? Two up and >> three down. L101 says plus two feet. >> We have half down half raise. >> Okay. That seems quite shallow for I don't know what's your intended depth for this pool. >> About 4 feet. >> Yeah. Okay. Um and I have another question about the unit types as well. the particular I had I was um looking at the same one Kendra was uh when I was reviewing this over the weekend and because that the units that are right in the knuckle are also other than one floor is designated as the bill of market rate and it does seem like the least desirable corner. Um, so without floor plans of, you know, where the bedrooms are, who has access to windows, and I think it was a project that we reviewed last week or maybe the last time or time before where um some of the bedrooms were interior and planning on doing borrowed light through the living room. Is that your plan as well? Um I think those unit I can say it's a proven work very well unit uh in the build project. We feel confident that can very liveable project a very livable unit but all three uh room has window even they look at maybe look at their own unit but the the benefit is more privacy that's why we learned from building those unit. Yeah. We can supply the the actual unit plan to you. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. We would I in the same boat if without seeing unit plans for at least a typical unit plan, it's really hard to tell what you're intending to do here. Um >> maybe I can describe. Basically the middle module is a living room >> and then on the left and on the right side the two bedroom separated by the living room. >> Okay. Um I want to go to that um the axon view elevation um axon view that or perspective view that shows the exteriors any one of them. Um Christina can you bring that back up? Sure. On the San Antonio side, it seems like the where you have the canopies over um that's on the cover of your drawing set over the balconies that seems organized with like the overall um composition. When you turn around to the other elevations, I'm curious what the logic is for those eyebrows. They cover some windows but not all. Or is what is the design intent? I'm on page say um A331. Yeah, you just passed it. >> Yeah, here please. Thank you. So, for instance, here this window up. Let me find my pen again. This is not and this is not extended on that uh overhang. that was. So the question is, is that intended as a sun shade for certain rooms? What's behind these windows that are not being covered? And at the same time, this is the same exposure as that. So what is the logic for where you have uh canopies versus not? I think that that was intent for accentuate the corner a little bit more and not to have too big an element that appear to be too large. So we try to break down the medicine, break down the elements with the smaller component. That's a design 10, but I get a point. Um, especially on the west side, we might want to incorporate even a smaller c canopy can help. Yeah, maybe not continue, but add on smaller canopy for each one. >> Yeah, this is western exposure. So until something else major gets built over here, all of these window this this side will have lots of natural light but also a lot of um heat gain. Um, so I'm just curious like if there's a logic to it like at least compositionally like some of these that are covering pairs of windows similar to San Antonio side seems to have a compositional logic which kind of falls apart here. So curious what the intent is. >> I intend not to make the canopy too large and appear to be um to add to the bulk of the the massing. But we can look into the the heat gam for the I think this is east side so a little bit better but we we can we can still look into it. >> Okay. And this side is north right. Um so am I correct about that? >> That's a north side. >> Yeah. >> That's a lake home. >> Yeah. So, if it was for sun shading, you actually wouldn't really use it on the north side quite as much or not equally. So, um any other questions for applicant or staff from anyone on the board? Yeah, I'm I'm I'm comparing the previous plan that we reviewed with this one and I just want to make sure I understand it correctly. So, the previous plan you submitted had 197 units and this one has 228. Is is that >> correct? >> Roughly right. And then um the total square footage was 36,000 square ft and now it's 42. So it's about 15% larger. >> Mhm. And then Yeah. And I is is it true that most of that comes from additional amenity space? No. >> Oh, the amenity space actually went down. It went up from 30 13,000 square ft to about 15,000. Okay. Like I I just wonder like where is the limit? Like I think last in the last meeting maybe this is a question for staff or I don't know but I think one of one of the previous comments was this is already too big um and then you come back work on it and then you return with something even bigger so like I don't I'm just like big you know in big game like we have another meeting and it's going to even bigger I understand it's a builder's remedy like you know kind of what is the limit here? >> Yeah, I mean um it's uh it is allowed under builder's remedy um but uh you have the right to provide your comments on that. Okay. >> Thank you. Okay. >> I um I'm trying to find the Oh, here we are. Um because the development standard that applies to this site is the El Camino Real F focus area, right? Which is um it's cut off on the top of package page 60. Uh but the allowable height on El Camino focus area is 85 ft and this project is 84 and change which the number is hidden on our U packet page. Um so I guess to answer Arton's question that is the limit right the previously submitted seventory you know seventory uh was below 85 and in this revision they've come back with just hair under 85 so still within focus area development standard is that correct Christina >> request a >> there are a lot of waivers right here. Um I guess the uh that's a good question though. Are they allowed to ask for I forget if it would be a waiver or concession to build the higher than 85 if that was to be the case? >> They could. Uh I believe it might push them into another um level of construction if they did that. Um so I don't know that there's an interest on their end to do that but um I believe that they would be allowed to um ask for a you know under builder's remedy um propose this and ask for a waiver um related to that. I'd I'd like to add something to this and this discussion because I noted that on the zoning it was the it was stated that it was in F4. Um and I think that in your des in planning's description it was less than four uh and the focus area F4 is is what is used. So I think it kind of conforms to the decisions made for the focus area. >> Right. So the project was analyzed in comparison to the El Camino Riale focus area which is what we are required to apply to this site under AB1893. Um so is the um because on in your revision your third level three has garage on the interior and then uh residential on the exterior um perimeter. So is this um concrete podium construction with five levels on top? >> Correct. >> So that the units on that third floor would be concrete construction. >> Correct. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Then um thank you. We will um um move on to inter internal discussion. Does anybody want to start? >> Are there any outside speakers on this? >> Uh we asked already. There weren't any. >> There weren't any? Yeah. Who wants to start on any uh comments? >> All right, I'll go. Stand off. Um uh to the applicant, thank you. Uh we desperately need housing in Palo Alto. We're looking to move things forward. Um I think this is a very wise use of the space. I'm actually very uh fond of the two unit access points. The one that's for sort of the main ground level and then the sort of side entry. I think that's actually a very clever way to get residential parking um off of San Antonio. Um we of course always have concerns about Whimo and Amazon and things like that. And I think just designating spots right at the entrance off of San Antonio nice, clearly marked to very visible, painted bright yellow or whatever it needs to be um I think helps a lot. Um, excuse me, not Whimo, but like Door Dash, Amazon deliveries, things like that. Because with a unit type that has over 200, remind me again the final number, 22 >> 28. I mean, that's a lot of Door Dash cars and a lot of Door Dash deliveries and a lot of Amazon deliveries. So, that's one of those that we always want to um make sure is considered. Um, also the trash is always an item and you guys have thought about that quite well. Very pleased to see that that's um moved forward. I think overall the design is nice. Um, you know, it's very much in alignment with everything that's going on on San Antonio. I think it'll be another beautiful addition to the row of San Antonio. Um, I think you guys got a little bit lucky here in regards that the the the shape of the lot really makes it so your front facade on San Antonio is not so imposing, right? But you get a lot of that structure on the back side um where it's just the visibility is not going to be that much of an issue. Um, so I think it actually creates a quite proportional and beautiful front facade along San Antonio. So well done with that. Um, I also would like to say that I appreciate your 10 foot setbacks. I mean, everybody's trying to max these things out, getting it edge to edge, and it's just very, very difficult when we talk about life, safety, air, sunshine, fire, all of that. And just giving that 10-ft buffer creates such a world of difference. So, I really really want to thank you for taking that sort of sacrifice and making sure that you've you've got those setbacks maintained around the entire perimeter and then utilizing one of them as a dog run is quite lovely. Um, I'm also pleased with your landscape plans. I think that those are nice and I like having them at different levels. I think that's a really nice feature so that when you're on the eighth floor and you're so far from that fourth floor deck, you can just sort of run out to your little skyard on the side if you just want a little sunshine and to work outside for the day. Um, and on that note, the work from home lobby I think is brilliant. Um, I think that we're going to see quite a few more of those um in the future and I think that that's just a really nice feature to have for your tenants. So, other than that, um, I don't have a lot of comments. I think it's a well done project and it'll fit in quite nicely along that new San Antonio stretch. So, thank you >> David or Martin. Any thoughts? >> Once again, >> I didn't do it. >> Okay. Can you hear us now? >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um yeah, it's a it's a I agree entirely with the positive statements made previous person um previous member. Um a few few thoughts here. U I think you should consider u locations or maybe you have and you can answer the question uh for maintenance trucks. do they do if you have spaces for them within the garage so they'll be able to pull in somewhere because it you know eventually you'll you'll need them. So I just leave that with you to consider that also again on that sort of similar issue. Uh it would be nice if you uh provided handicap parking very close to probably the rear elevator. Um, so so that they had access to the center of the building that way and could get into their units. I wonder if it's really necessary to have the fire control room right up in the front where the lobby is. Recognize that most of the people coming and going from this building will be by car and uh but but in a way it's sort of what is that doing in almost right there in the front? Could it move across the way to the other side further north? But consider that maybe it's okay to have a passageway through, but it makes makes a more exciting kind of entry to the elevator lobby to have a little more space there. Just consider that if it if it works for you. Um I mean you know I would just want to say that uh for me the amount of public use spaces in this building is just terrific. You know the proportion really works nicely for a big building like this. So, it's going to become a kind of a community building just because of the aspect of the public's amount of public spaces. And I would hope that uh in the future, you know, on on a projects like this that the amount and consideration that you've used for all of the public use spaces is really excellent. Um, see if I I just concerned about the ramp connections from the lower parking to the next level and whether they're really working. It's it's a you know you have people backing cars back potentially backing out into that direction and I'm just concerned that uh you make sure that that really works well for safety sake. Um, I think that dividing up the bike parking areas has been a is a really terrific solution and getting them out the sidey yard is a good way to treat all of the bike traffic or or on leg horn. Um, you know, I mean, yes, I double double agree with my uh board members that the board member that that the facade is really going to be a really wonderful facade and hopey sort of almost sets a standard for the articulation of the detail on San Antonio Road. Openness, the glassiness of it, and the scale of everything is is is really really terrific for San Antonio Road. And uh the choice of materials which you showed us today also uh is uh is well considered the fact that the pool area the largest of the public areas is facing in that direction and it's going to be open to you know you we've seen other projects in which uh the pool is is kind of in internal uh and it won't get as much sunshine. This one is is terrific for its lo its location. So your conceptual planning in the beginning was very very thoughtful. Um, I think that uh the open-ended questions are the questions of what to do on San Antonio and that really is it it's in stud it's in this I just this mic I don't know if you can hear once again it's okay um the um Whimo issue the front of the building issue really is a issue that they have to come back to you with. If there's absolutely no parking, it uh no possibility of a Whimo sort of being a pickup spot in front of this building, I think it's going to be unfortunate, you know, that it doesn't work. Somehow or other, you have already a access to the front of the building. And it seems to me that with the amount of length of of this site in the facing San Antonio, there ought to be some way in which you could make uh pickup parking work this but it's a coordination with the city and what's what's done in the front of the building. another project had a layby within the within the 25- ft setback and it seems like that might be a possibility or if there's no parking the create a well a layby lane of some sort where the parking would work. Now, I admit it kind of interferes with the bike paths and etc., but has to be worked out with San Antonio Road and the scheme for San Antonio Road. Hope planning can catch up on on this one so that this front of the building is worked out so that so that that's a solved solution. Otherwise, I just want to congratulate you on a really terrific project and looking forward to getting in the ground and getting it up. Yeah, I would like to echo with what the other board members had said. Um, uh, you know, my my my question, you know, before was was more like a surprise. It was not a critique in a you know in a sense but like you know I looked at this table and um you know ARB comment and applicant respond like I saw these are the main changes but for me the main change was an increase of the house by you know the the building by almost 20%. So, I think that would have been just kind of nice to communicate by either the applicant or staff. I think it's kind of an important uh information, but um but I think it's um uh you know, I think it's great to have this kind of a building on San Antonio. Like for me, San Antonio is like the new Palo Alto. There's old Palo Alto here and that's like the new Palo Alto where you know it's is it's close to the highway you know there's good access and I think you know to have these kinds of developments there is is is really good and you found a way to maximize it maximize the square footage and um yeah I think like the way you know you did the uh the seven uh the seventh seventh floor um kind open area. Uh yeah, I think sevens and then you have like another floor above. I think that's really nice. Like that that gives the building uh you like is is has like a stepped uh facade. I think that's very that's very nice. I think it would be much worse if that you know if that if that out outdoor area was on the eighth floor and then on San Antonio we would have such a high high facade. I think that's that's really positive. So, you try to step uh step it down. I think it's also nice to have multiple outdoor areas and it looks like from the plan is that all those areas are uh open to the public, you know, to the to all all of the residents. So, I think it's really nice to be able to distribute, you know, these many people across three, you know, kind of three main outdoor areas. Um and um uh I I I really appreciate uh that uh you know you you you met with the fellow board member and it seems like you had a terrific collaborative session. Um, so I mean I don't really want to say anything negative about this because because I mean you don't have to meet with the board member. You did and you know you you did you know you you you you did what he asked you. So like who am I to tell you no uh is not good. So I think I think you went out of your way um to uh you know to create a great you know great project and I really appreciate it and you know thank you thank you David for take you know for taking the effort and I think you made you know you made a big difference. Um yeah I think uh the you know you you created that that that drop off area on the first floor in the garage. Um, I mean it's it's just kind of like a personal, you know, feedback at this point, but I think I think it's going to be really hard to use because it's very hard to turn around as far, you know, it's not um, so I don't I don't think that's a good, you know, drop off for anybody. I think the drop off is like one of you said, it's going to be on Lghorn Street. Um so that that drop off area on the first floor it's going to be utilized only by people who don't know that lack horn is better but I think you just have to figure out some somehow with traffic management you know hopefully there will not be too many accidents or uh you know there will be a lot of people backing up so you know maybe you can put mirrors or you know I don't know what traffic management solutions to you know ensure it's safe and because the building is so big and is now even bigger, I think the it the drop off area on Lehorn, you know, might be, you know, might be a challenge. Um, I don't I'm I'm not sure you have enough space there. Um, but you know, you'll deal with the consequences somehow. You know, I hope the delivery drivers are not going to get too many traffic tickets. Um but yeah, I think overall I think this is a really nice project is is pretty you know your materials are are you know are beautiful. The facade is is uh you know is balanced. Um I think you uh I I think you are also not you know negatively affecting the neighboring properties. I'm al always thinking about that oil change business. they're like, you know, that's that's probably a different owner. I don't you probably don't, you know, so that person will come back to this, you know, to this board probably in a couple years trying to build something and it's kind of a small lot compared to yours. But I think because of the setback, you know, that you have um you know, there is an opportunity for him or her to to do something too. So I think that's that's that's important uh as well. So yeah, so overall uh this is a very good project. Congratul Congratulations. >> Thank you Martin. Um so yeah, thank you to the applicant um for this project. Yes, builder's remedies are hard, but I think you've done a really nice job with the composition, the design. Um I hope in your final, you know, as you go through construction documents and all, you're able to maintain this uh overall uh look. I'm slightly I like the screen that becomes a trellis at the roof, but uh hopefully the structure for it won't be so heavy that it kind of takes away from the lightness of that um what you have in the image. Um, as other board members have said, the amenities that you've provided in this building looks uh quite good and the my only um concern like we've already said is not having any unit plans to really understand. I assumeies are within the units since I don't see any like shared laundry areas. Um, and uh the the roof the pool deck level is quite lovely and I hope you can get a goodiz pool with the depth that you know families can really enjoy. Um, I also appreciate all of the the window proportions in on the all the elevations. They look quite large and these are pretty some of the units are quite small. So having that access to natural light and views are really important. Um, I think the sill heights are uh low enough that you can really experience the outdoors out of those windows. So, I definitely appreciate that. Um, I Yeah, overall a nice project and uh obviously very needed housing. So, thank you. So, with that um do we have a motion for this project? >> Can I move it? I'd like to move the acceptance of this project from our board. I'll second. Can we have a vote, please? Board member Joearth, >> yes. >> Board member Hirs, >> Vice Chair Rosenberg, >> yes. >> Chair Adcock, >> Motion carries 40. Thank you. All right. Um, next on our agenda is approval of minutes. Does anybody have any comments on this? The minutes from uh May 7th. I just would like to note for the record on May 7th, uh, board member Joearth was absent. >> I move to approve the minutes as written. Second >> board member Hirs. >> Yes. >> Board member Georg. >> I abstain. >> Vice Chair Chan. Oh, sorry. Vice Chair Rosenberg. Uh, yes. Chair Adcock. Yes. >> Motion carries. 301. >> All right. Next on our agenda is any board questions, comments, announcements. On that I would like to um confirm we are cancelled for next time. Correct. >> Yes. >> And I'm also going to be absent on July 2nd. So, uh Vice Chair Rosenberg will be leading that meeting. >> And I will be happily sitting in in yourstead. I will be jetlagged. Just fair warning. >> All right. All right. Um, next on our if we don't have any other comments, we'll go on to our next agenda item, which is any virtual comments. Do we have any uh requests to speak? >> We do not have any requests to speak at this time. All right. Thank you. I think with that we shall adjourn. Thank you.

Good evening everyone. Um, thank you for your patience and getting started. Uh, could you please call the role now? Commissioner Mets >> here. >> Commissioner Tuker >> Commissioner Gupta. Commissioner Gupta is absent. Vice Chair Phillips >> here. Commissioner Croft here. Chair M present. Commissioner Sharf. Commissioner Sharf is absent for the record. Five present. Um could Commissioner Phillips uh please read his statement on remote participation. >> I have just caused to attend this meeting remotely under the Brown Act. I have attended no meetings remotely this calendar year. I must attend this meeting remotely because I have a need related to a disability which could not be accommodated at this meeting. In this room, I I am accompanied by no one over the age of 18. >> Thank you, uh, Vice Chair Phillips. Um, I will proceed to the section on agenda changes, additions, and deletions. And I do wish to make a change to the agenda this evening. Um item two, special presentation and discussion on partnering norms between staff and commissioners for maximum effectiveness will not be heard tonight and will be deferred to a future meeting based on the absence of two commissioners. Um, I would also uh in this process like to call attention to a new section that we have begun to include in our uh packets which are a response of our utilities director to outstanding questions that were raised by the commission in previous meetings. Um, with no further ado, I would like to uh turn to in-person public comment. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on items not on the agenda today? >> We do have two requests to speak. Our first speaker is uh Sven T. >> Good afternoon, UAC members. And I just want to say first, thank you for doing what you do. God bless you. God, I'd hate to have to do your jobs and your volunteers. Thank you. Two, thank you for the support around our induction stove rebate program and more importantly in moving our emphasis in educating our citizens not just on climate change, but on the health impacts of natural gas stoves. As the science tells us, n having a natural gas stove in your house is essentially the same as having a smoker. secondhand smoke in your house in related to the concentrations of benzene, formaldahhide, NOx, and other toxic components. But that's not what I'm here about. Um, big picture, you as a utility advisory committee to meet our climate change goals, to make our climate inhabitable for our descendants. And that when I talk about that, I'm talking about our kids and our grandkids and just making keeping the climate nice so we can just please let us go skiing for the love of God. We've got to be an example city and end our natural gas use, particularly in the residential sector, as soon as possible. and I'm talking 2045. So, I'd like to refer you to an email of David Cole from May 13th, 2026. Roughly onethird of our new building homes have natural gas hookups, mainly for stoves. And this we we need to get those people that are doing that to sign a notorized document that acknowledges the health impacts of that natural gas stove. And they also need to put up a bond to take care of the decommissioning of that gas line because they know we all know the gas is going to be turned off. We all know the BA the air district is putting in rules that's going to ban gas appliances. So it does every citizen, every resident a disservice and puts a cost burden on them when we allow additional gas lines for new homes. And I'm not saying you we can't stop them from doing it, but we can make sure they pay they pay their fair share of the decommissioning. Second of all, the Buuna Vista U mobile home project now has gas lines back in it. And it again, these gas lines are only going to be in use 19 years to 2045, maybe to 23 years to 2050. And that's what our gas lines have already been in use for over 70 years here. So we only get onethird of the cost value of these gas lines out. So they really should be priced three times higher because that's their useful life now. And so it makes so much more sense to spend our money on electrification and education than it does for putting these gas lines in. Closing what I said at the beginning. Thank you guys for doing what you're doing. It is most appreciated. Thank you. And it is thankless. Although I'm saying thank you right now. >> Thanks for your comment. I'm sure it'll come into play when we talk about gas and transition later in the meeting. >> We're just going to wait for the next. >> Our next speaker is Aro S. >> Good evening, utility advisory commissioners. My name is Aro Shaw and I'm a student at Poto High School. Um I think following the non-circuit ruling in the restaurant association versus the city of Berkeley, we all are aware of the steps the city has taken um in scaling back our reach codes and finding a new way to try to regulate natural gas um in the residential sector. Um I think we have been impressed with our ability to circumvent that ruling in the sense that we see a majority of new homes being all electric. Uh but within the percentage of homes that isn't which is from my understanding between 25% and 33% the majority of those homes or a significant uh proportion of those homes that have a gas line have one simply just for natural gas stoves. Um, so I think we've been very pleased to see that uh following the March 2nd study session on the ESCAP, we've made a lot of progress and we have now health communication embedded into the SAP to help address that specific factor. But there are more steps that the UAC can take to recommend to the utilities uh to take action to address the other uh parts of this big big uh story that had not been focused on so as much. Uh so we've I think done a lot on health in the recent months um embedding that in the SAP and getting uh the communications team to devise a plan to reinvision the SAP's marketing. But I would like to you all to consider the the issues that we haven't focused on so much regarding natural gas uh in terms of how can we move towards in line with our climate goals decommissioning gas lines and abandoning hoping to abandon them in the future. Um I think Mr. The has lined out uh outlined several potential areas where we can go into that. And I would like to urge you all to consider that while Paula might be a small uh city in a vast world, uh we do play a part in holding ourselves accountable for the missions that our city is responsible for. And I know that you all as commissioners on this advisory board have a opportunity and a possibility to take action to help play a part in that. Um we can do things at the city level that can ripple out and they can also start here. Um and I think that the solutions that we can take to help step away from natural gas in the residential sector and the commercial sector and move away from gas lines through decommissionment um and helping make that easier are the steps that need to be taken. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any public comments online? >> Oh, just as a reminder, we'll take uh virtual general public comment at the end of the meeting. >> Oh, great. Thank you. I uh had forgotten that change. Um all right. Uh we'll proceed to approval of the minutes. Um and does anyone have any um comments or discussion points on the minutes or could I get a motion to pass them? >> I have uh one comment. Uh this was on my um uh discussion of the Stanford Sustainable Data Center meeting. Um, I wanted to uh have the minutes include my comment, which was many rainbows and unicorns. Um, I think it's important that the minutes communicate that I found the meeting uh unrealistically positive about uh data center impacts. >> Um, could we modify the minutes accordingly? Could um Commissioner Mets um state what you would like to change or add? I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Quote, "Many rainbows and unicorns unquote." I think we'd just like to maybe add another sentence that says that I'll let you put it in your own words, but >> I can if I can add then I found the meeting unrealistically positive about data center impacts with inadequate examination of the challenges. Are there any other requested u changes? >> I don't request a change. Uh and I'm not going to pose this question here, Alan, but um I'd like to understand maybe at the next meeting. We've asked this before. How do the minutes get written? Um I can't help but note and emphasize and opine and worry. Those are all verbs that are attributed to me and many more. Um, how how does is this is this a a manual process, I guess, is the the question I'd like to come back to at some appropriate time on how we do minutes, whether these are the best way we and the most efficient way to do minutes. Um, I'll leave it at that and >> yeah, >> take a comment maybe even another month if you want. >> I can answer your question, Commissioner Tuker. Um the city clerk's office currently uses a transcriptionist um an outside transcriptionist um but we're currently um looking into using AI and so we've been um taking all of the transcripts from our past meetings and using different AI options um to see what is the best option. >> Thank you. >> I move to accept the minutes. Do I have a second? This is to uh accept the minutes as amended. Yes. A second. >> Could you please call the vote? >> Commissioner Tuker, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Phillips, >> Chair M. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Croft, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mets, >> yes. Motion passes 5-0. >> Okay, we will now turn to the utilities director report. >> Uh, great. Thank you, uh, commission. So, I wanted to give an update on some of the recent council approvals. So, there was a contract amend with ver Veritex one software. It's, uh, it's for our water smart utilities customer portal. It's um, it's the main way that we communicate to our customers uh, to in in our building system. We had a professional services agreement contract with Concourse Tech uh and Prospect Silicon Valley which provide technical assistance and project analysis to help non-residential customers evaluate and implement building electrification projects. And then we had a purchase order with Jensen pre-cast old castle infrastructure and those are our electric utility underground boxes. And then we went to uh city council to updates to our utilities rules and rags I believe. Is that Hold on one second, please. Just confirm. Utilities rules and regs also went to the council for approval. Um, wanted to provide a update to our Foothills Utilities Underground project. As you know, we are undergrounding about 9 miles of overhead lines more or less on the the other side of 280. Um, we roughly have 1,200 uh feet left of this to to do, which is about 2% of the project. We're very pleased with that. Um the remaining conduit is expected to be completed in the end of June. Most of the work is in the m mid peninsula regional osen space district. Um so the next steps for that will be undergrounding some of the uh secondary services to the customers. So we expect to deenergize that line in November. So this will be you know hopefully the last year that we have this overhead line uh during during the quote unquote fire season. So, we're very excited to finish that project and to provide this update. Um, so it's kudos to our engineering team um and working with a contractor to get that done. Um, we were also recognized as part of that project in what we call the team DWorld uh magazine which is was talking about our foothills underground project. So, um, Palo Alaso was highlighted as one of those cities really really on the forefront of dealing with areas in the high fire district. Um, talking about induction cooktops, there's going to be a demo at the Chile Cookoff. Um, so utilities for the first time this year will have be hosting a booth. Um, at the Chili's cookoff, we have a tagline, but you'll have to be there to hear it uh on July 4th. So, we're going to promote uh the rebate program for induction cooktops, which includes $500 for installing a permanent induction cooktop or range. Uh and there's $50 for uh portable induction cooktops. These are the highest in class that we've seen from our neighboring agencies. So really uh pleased to roll that out. And then for incomequalified uh customers that actually raises up to $1,000 and then $100, which is almost the full cost of that portable induction cooktops. Um in addition, the Powata Library and working with the library, they're offering checkouts for portable induction cooktop as a loaner program. utilities is actually purchasing additional units. So, we're purchasing another dozen for them to use to loan out. So, we're very pleased with that. Um, so we'd love to see the community out there on uh the Chile Cookoff on July 4th from 11 to 3 p.m. We'll be doing some demos on that uh program. So, be happy to to talk about that once we have that event. And then another event uh for the community is the annual uh municipal service center openhouse. It's kind of the save the date. It's a look at uh the services provided to the community. It's our municipal service center. Um it's on the website. It's it's July 25th. Uh we highlight several of the services we provide. Um and then the community can take a look at, you know, how we repair uh water leaks. We There's um there's the aerial bucket. Uh I wouldn't say ride, but you can you can go on that. Um it's very it's very very popular. we added out last year, but there's food trucks, displays, and you'll hear a lot about our city services and programs. And that completes my report. >> Thank you. Um, we'll now turn to new business. Um, a reminder that we will not be hearing um item number two on the agenda, um, which is the special presentation and discussion on partnering norms between staff and commissioners for maximum effectiveness. We expect to postpone this to the next meeting um in the hopes that uh more commissioners are able to attend. Which brings us to our single um agendaized item today um which is the review and recommendation of the utilities advisory commission FY 2026 through FY2027 work plan for city council approval. Um we have talked through a process for this that um Alan is going to provide a couple of um introductory remarks around. Um and then I'm going to help lead us through a process where um we each have a couple of minutes to talk about um the high priority items that we sent in. Um relate them back to um the draft objectives. uh noting places where they simply don't overlap um and then we will go through the process of prioritizing um between these 13 plus added um items. So uh with that Alan I'll let you kick it off and then uh I'll take over again. >> Great. So uh just uh for the record, Alan Curatory, director of utilities. I'm joined by uh Terry Crowley, our chief operating officer and assistant city manager, Kylie Nose. the the process we went to develop this work plan objectives the draft was actually receiving input from all the uh UAC commissioners we put that in as of May 28th we tried to put that in the draft objectives uh we have updated our process to mirror city council and actually coming through these objectives we came up with the top 13 um as part of your deliberation process uh you will see that that Belle will bring up those objectives so we can work and modify those in real time you can change those priorities ities and make adjustments. Um the other part that I would like to kind of u to mention for the public is we provided that the whole list of those uh submitts from the uh commissioners uh in attachment B. We also put the purpose and duties of the UAC more for the public's information on what what type of uh items go to the commission. Um if if uh staff could also add, there's obviously a lot of interest by the commissioners to do high priority work. Um as you go through your deliberation process, we would appreciate if maybe the top five or top six priorities that you absolutely want to see as those priority deliverables, if those could be highlighted for staff, we would absolutely appreciate that. We understand these are your priority objectives and also recognize that uh some of these items may span longer. This is a a multi-year commission and um but wanted to make sure these prior objectives were were accomplished. So, we're here to help as staff to help facilitate those discussions um and able to answer any questions as you go through your process. >> Great. Um thank you. really appreciated um everybody's participation in sending in u work plan items that were important to them. I um thought that it might be useful, you know, there's not it's not possible to discuss process um offline with the a full group and so um I did just want to make sure that um the process that we've laid out makes sense for tonight's meeting. Um, in particular, I want to give everybody a couple of minutes, not 15 each, but a couple of minutes. I may rely on this clock here um to uh if they would like elaborate a little bit on um items that they submitted and and why they were particularly um you know, excited or or motivated to work on those items. um staff has done a very nice job of um trying to include each of those items in the draft objectives. Although I will say just for me personally, I think that there's definitely an opportunity to reward some of these um to ensure that they fully capture the intent of the items I submitted. So I want to provide people the opportunity to do that. Um and then I think that we should go through a process um of prioritization that um could take a couple of different forms. Um we could take a majority uh kind of rules approach here and and simply put forward uh a set of um numbers that we each prefer and then compare them and kind of use that to elevate um what matters uh for our commission. Um or we could uh pursue some alternative path um that I'm I'm open to discussing. Uh Vice Chair Phillips, uh do you have any thoughts on process before we get started? >> Yeah, I think maybe it's more a question of what what difference does the what difference does it make in the prioritization? you know, I didn't I think it's going to be very difficult to get this body to agree on priorities. Maybe I'm wrong. Um, but I would love to hear, you know, what does it mean to be prioritized first versus >> 13th? The 13th mean >> if assuming we end up with 13 that >> that one might just get left off if staff gets too busy or or or or what is the meaning of the prioritization process? >> Yeah, absolutely. That's a great question and I uh appreciate you're asking it. Um we have a 12 month rolling calendar and so realistically um if we get to one significant item each month uh we you know could feasibly um get through 12 actually more like you know 11 um items. But as we all know from experience um in practice it's not possible um in many cases to get through one item in each meeting. And so especially when it comes to rates you know we review preliminary rates. We come back and and have um you know final approval of rates. And so that's typically several meetings that we would um touch on that agenda item. We cannot really touch on every agenda item here realistically um if we're going to um stay sane and and leave before midnight. So I I don't think 13 means that we don't ever get to it, but it might mean that it's a very light touch item or it gets folded into another item um rather than having a dedicated um space on our work plan. Is that fair? >> Thank you. Um, and my other question is, is the list we got is that staff's recommended prioritization or is that elicits in no particular order? >> They're listed in no particular order. That's a very good point. Thank you. >> Y, >> any other thoughts on process? >> Just quick question. Um, I see it printed out here, but did I miss Was it sent in advance the list of all of our five priorities? >> It was sent in advance in email. >> Yes, >> I missed it. My bad. >> Um, okay. So, uh, we were provided, uh, the attachments, um, here, and I I'd like to give everybody an opportunity, if they so desire, um, to quickly review, um, the priorities that they sent in for their work plan. U, I'd like to take this in the order uh, presented in the packet, which is alphabetically. Uh, Commissioner Croft, are you open and amendable to starting? >> Sure. >> Wonderful. And and if you don't mind, um, let's keep these to five minutes each, um, for anything that you've submitted. Um, you don't have to take the whole time. I will not, but, uh, just to keep things moving tonight. Great. Okay. So, uh, I submitted three items. Um, my first item was regarding time of use rates. um my you know I would like us to review um the time of use rates pilot and see us roll out and promote time of use within the city within the year basically um and to extend it to NEM customers I did see the update um that was sent in the packet so that's the type of thing I want to see I want to see updates on where we are what's the plan and kind of push us to roll it out further. And I did suggest my KPIs here. Um I saw a public comment that was like why do we even care about time of use rates? I think we are we just have to be knowledgeable about where our energy comes from. Our city has a goal of escaping carbon footprint of our power. um we are going to have more and more people driving electric vehicles and coming home and they could plug in right in the peak hours. So we could have electrification actually cause all of our energy prices go up. So it just um to me this is a priority to roll them out and hopefully have as many people as possible take advantage of them and hopefully we can help them reduce their costs of electricity. My second item was, this could even be my first item, but regarding electric affordability. So, we have um kind of delved into this in our financial subcommittee. Um but I think it's extremely important for us to maintain our competitive pricing relative to our neighboring cities and to keep it as inexpensive as possible to encourage electrification. So, we're planning on this beautiful future where we're moving over to electricity. We want people to use electric cars and I think it's imperative on us to keep our prices down. They already are down but to keep them down. So I'd like to see that be a priority in our discussions how we are going to do that. Um let's see the last thing was about communication and this has kind of been you know a side topic um for many discussions is just does the community know what our priorities are? Do they know what are do we are doing? Are they is the uptake what we want it to be? And do we even have contact information, digital contact information for every customer? So, I'd love to see us adopt um a communication plan that involves, you know, having a direct line to every single customer, some digital way to get in touch with them if there is a leak or anything that we need to contact them about. um and to do some kind of annual reporting out to them on the goals of the city. Um I know it's more often than that through the bills, but I don't get a bill anymore. So, um having some kind of universal way that we can communicate with our customers. Ideally, it's digital and for those who refuse to give us a digital means, we could make it. So, those are my three topics. >> Thank you. Um Commissioner Agupta is not present. Um I have reviewed his um submissions and I hope that each of you have also had a chance to I'm going to read them briefly. Um the first is rate affordability and transparency. Um the second is um interactions with SFPU and MOSA. um specifically um around uh of independent um analysis of the um SFPU water projections. The third is uh energy transition coherence um largely around uh unifying plans uh for gas and electric utilities. Um the fourth is uh wastewater uh and the um capital improvement plan and associated increases in um projected rates associated with that capital improvement plan. Um and the final uh is fiber to the premises. I think we all know of uh Commissioner Gupta's interest in fiber to the premises. So I was personally surprised to see that as number five, but um glad to see that it was included. Uh I will now proceed uh to talk about um my two uh recommended um items. Uh the first is to review the performance of the recycled water utility um and advise on any modifications to city strategy um around recycled water. As a commission, we have not touched on recycled water um in my tenure um on the commission. And um I believe that it's both an important part of our water supply portfolio, but also um critical to affordably um maintaining our wastewater uh utility in the years ahead. I would like to see that specifically addressed in a more substantive way through um not just our rates um you know or any discussion of rates um but to have um some separate and and focused analysis on the recycled water utility um which is currently in the process of um some significant um transition and um upgrade. The second item uh is to review the capital improvement plans and operating expenses for the wastewater utility more broadly um in support of preparing for future rate increases and identifying potential cost-saving measures. Um as Commissioner Gupta noted in his submission um the wastewater utility accounts for um some of the fastest increases although it's not to say that uh those are the largest increases. So we should differentiate between those two things. But um the wastewater utility uh will need to raise rates and continue to raise rates. Um I believe that our support as a commission um could help to strengthen uh the capital improvement planning efforts uh for that utility and help us anticipate exactly when and to what degree those rate increases are in the are in fact necessary. Um, so I look forward to finding ways to incorporate those two items into um a stronger part of our uh rate discussion as well as um our capital improvement plan discussions. >> Uh Commissioner Menz, uh thank you, Chair. Um my priorities uh number one was gas utility long-term business strategy and I think this needs to be something like 10 to 20 years that addresses technical aspects capital economics legal I think there's some big legal problems so I think this is a pretty I can see reasons technical legal economic reasons why this is going to be quite hard to do um I really don't know how you deal with stranded assets in this instance But uh I think we need it's extremely important. This is one area that uh several commissioners raised. I think this is one of the most popular topics uh with a little bit different flavors but several people raised similar issue. Uh number two is electric utility business strategy and strategic planning process. Again topic raised by several commissioners. Um I think uh since we're dealing with an environment that's highly uncertain, it's uh as evidenced by the uh big envelope of uh future demand in the CPA forecast. Uh I think it's important that we have a planning process that's suited for that kind of uh business strategy and I think it needs to include again like the gas strategy uh all aspects uh from business, financial, economic uh and technical. Um, I did like uh Commissioner Gupta's idea of a unified transformation strategy that incorporates both gas and electric since presumably we're talking about uh uh eliminating gas, replacing it uh in pretty much all functions with electricity. So I think doing those together uh is a good idea. So I would uh definitely endorse that. But I think it's really important that these be complete business strategies. For example, the first item, the gas strategy is related to number one on the draft CPAU list. And the electric uh business strategy is related to number seven on the CPAU list. But as I read those uh uh prop proposals, they're much narrower dealing with capital and stuff like that, which of course is important, but capital is, you know, one quarter of a business strategy. So I think it's really important that these be comprehensive. Uh third area, improve UAC operational effectiveness. We talked about this at the last meeting. I think it's important as uh Commissioner Tuker emphasized a little while ago to improve how UAC operates so we can do a better job advising city council and particular I think one of the biggest areas is timing uh addressing some of these gargantuan issues like water water planning and and so on and what we just talked about electric and gas um requires much more time than uh reading uh you know a presentation a few days before a meeting and trying to come up with a uh recommendation. I think that's uh I mean if we're not rubber stamps of staff proposals, we just need a lot more time to uh consider and analyze to come up with good recommendations. Uh fourth area I want to recommend is emergency preparedness. Um this actually was teed up last year and we agreed to uh do it as part of reliability, resilience and adaption uh standing topic. So what I'm asking for now is simply that we do what we said what we committed to doing last year and the four bullets are down there. Uh increase FTTP cash flow. Again, this is another topic that several commissioners raised as priorities with a little each with a little bit different flavor. Uh my personal thought is that there might be ways to accelerate cash flow which would make this uh look a lot better. Um and uh whether you know whatever approach we take, it's obviously an important topic to uh at least four or five commissioners. So, uh, so it's also it's related to item six in the staff draft, but I think the staff draft is, uh, far too narrow in what it addresses. I think most of the, it's fair to say most of the commissioner comments relate to, uh, strategy and, uh, broader issues than simply uh, did the pilot do technically what it, you know, what we said it would do. So uh and I would also add one other area which was not in my submission which is reliability. Uh since we're emphasizing electrification uh I think it's important that we set specific goals for reliability. Uh I know we've talked about, you know, doing well in this space, but I think we need to uh uh really set quantitative metrics to uh be able to demonstrate to residents that we really are reliable and that we are paying attention to it and to be able to show them and communicate that because we're asking them to make a bet on only electricity. And I think for a lot of people that's going to be a stretch. So, we need to do our part to uh demonstrate that it makes sense. >> And I think that's it. >> Thank you, uh, Vice Chair Phillips. >> Thank you. First of all, I'd like to compliment the staff. I I like the list a lot that you came up with. One thing I do like about it is the way it is um the way it is drafted. It starts in most cases with a verb. So it's we can check at the end of the year, did we actually do this thing? So I'm I'm very much in favor of that as a list of objectives. So can we give it back at the end of the year and say did we do that rather than have things like talk about or think about or discuss. Um my I guess my priorities um are are can be stated pretty shortly, pretty succinctly I think and hopefully map in to some extent with what's there. I do think we should achieve a clear go no-go recommendation on fiber to the premises. Following up on Commissioner Mets, this is more than just a technical uh thing of YAD worked and we got some people hooked up and they like it to what is the business plan you know what do we really see going forward so we don't just keep going through the end of the year kind of well we're going to do more pilot see see if it works I'd love for us to have that recommendation which goes to the UAC presumably the finance committee and and the uh the council um maybe a surprise to no one. Number two on my list is review the reserve management policies and potentially change as needed. This has turned out to be one of the most effective levers we've had for influencing rates and keeping rate raises down. And yet, you know, we have not and particularly now that Baker Tilly has released the report, there's a lot of uncertainty about what they're saying. You know, I do think we need to do this. We mentioned the last meeting and I think I thought we agreed that this would be in the July meeting because in the minutes that's what it says, but I don't see it on the um scheduled for the July meeting. So that's a change. Uh I'm a little unhappy with that, but I do think that's something we need to discuss and again I'll come across at the the uh future agenda. Um the data center strategy I believe we need um the long-term strategy for natural gas consistent with the escap I think everybody is saying that's a pretty high priority given that we have 85% of households that have at least one gas appliance and that doesn't seem to be shifting very quickly. may not be as high priority as um some of the other items, but I do believe it's something that we need to do. And again, you know, my other two items were have a clear strategy for addressing the potential demand from data centers and uh clearly communicate our concerns regarding the SFPU water policies to Moscow and the SFPU as well. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Tukar. >> Thanks. Um, first I I want to be clear on the question I was answering because uh I was answering the five priorities that um were the clean pesa paper. In other words, I wasn't trying to add items. Yeah. >> I'm so sorry. Do you mind restarting the clock? I just don't want him to run out of time. >> Yes. That's okay. Um, I was answering the question, what are the five most important priorities to me as if I had a clean piece of paper. I wasn't looking at um last year's list or the list from staff and saying, "What's missing?" Um, and so I did that. I also looked back at last year's work plan and I, it won't surprise you have to be pretty critical of that document. um critical in the sense for example that it lists our accomplishments. We didn't have much to do with most of those accomplishments there. I don't know 15 20 accomplishments like you know rolling out AMI and replacing the gas mains sewer system and so forth. These were the accomplishments of CPAU. They weren't the accomplishments of UAC. Um when you actually look at what our work plan priorities were um there are a lot of things that we're talking about again this year because we as Bob said in a couple of instances didn't do them. One was for example um a gas transition plan for 5 to 20 years. You know we've talked about that but I don't think we have a very uh uh uh ready gas transition or abandonment plan. So my five items first and foremost is grid mod. Um and I sent a two or three page public memo on that topic with just a bunch of 10 questions I I would like us over time not now to dig into. Um grid mod for me is far and away the most important priority for CPAU and therefore for UAC and the council because it's so big. It's now, according to the current budget, between 375 and $450 million as a multi-year project. That makes it the biggest thing the city is doing along with the regional treat water, you know, treatment plant. Um, it's taking us onto the bond market this fiscal year. It's going to affect rates this year, next year, and for time foreseeable. So, um, in tying into affordability, which has been a theme from several commissioners, uh, you know, grid mod needs to be seen that way. I don't want any of I don't want this document or this priority to suggest I'm not a big advocate for grid mod. We need grid. Um, I just think it's very poorly understood. Um, and the case, the sales case for Grid Mod uh to the community for something so large, almost half a billion dollars, uh, isn't clear and compelling. Um, I won't go into the whole document now, but there are things like a substation level, localized, even feeder level heat map of where's the trouble, where are the upgrades. I'm sure you know this, you guys are great. Um, but it's not clear to to I I think it's not clear to us, the UAC, and it's not clear to the community. That's just one example. Um, Grid Mod was planned years ago. I'm sure you updated all the time, but you know, so much has changed in the 3, four, five years since we first floated grid mod. Back then it was a $200 million project. Now, it's more than twice that likely. Um but nevertheless the most important thing I highlight that has changed is the cost of battery storage. There will be storage battery storage everywhere in the grid across America including in our substations sooner or later. And I wish we'd get there sooner. I don't think grid mod is as visionary and big and bold and exemplary as Palo Alto could do it. Um I don't think it's a grid mod for the future. It may be a grid mod to keep up with the present like 2030 but not 2050. Um and I' I'd like us in many ways to put a lot of attention on grid mod. Uh we can get into how and why and so forth later. And of course this ties in with every commissioner has said some well most of us have said something about electric. This just ties into electric. So I'll be brief on the next things. Water you've heard it from others. Um I think there were two or three others who said our basic stance towards SFPUC and BOSA needs to be more active. Um we we have I've heard over the months that that's political. Well, of course it's political and we UAC and UCPA and the council needs a strategy to fix this problem that we don't have a good faith partnership with SFPU and we don't have BOSA representing us and the 20some others appropriately. And there are many ways that we can try to change that. We don't have a ton of leverage, but we do have some. And and we got to do something. So that's item number two. Um I've called it gas abandonment plan or transition plan, but it's time that I use the word I mean I use the word accelerate. We need to accelerate this so it becomes clear and more specific. How do we identify which neighborhoods win and based on what triggers where we go into a neighborhood and said for better or worse, you're first, you know, and in X years we're going to have to abandon gas. So, um it's time that we get a little bit more blunt on gas abandonment plan on fiber, which is my fourth item. Uh you've heard it from others, so I won't repeat it except to say it's very hard to talk about fiber if we're not going to find a way to be candid. uh because you're basically doing strategic consumer marketing planning on YouTube for the public and I know how hard that must be um but we've got to find ways around that or else I don't think we can do it. Um my fifth and final hovers over everything and that's process or what Bob uh Commissioner Phillips called or I'm sorry what Phil Mets called operational effectiveness. Same thing probably different words and you've heard me say these things too many times so I'll leave it there. >> Okay. Thank you. Um >> can I add just one thing >> please? >> Sure. >> Um just on your process issue where you started this. >> Yes. >> Uh first of all, as was already been said tonight, a lot of these projects are multi-year projects. Um but as Commissioner Mets has said many times already, including tonight, I think um a lot of these things are so huge that they're sort of the creation um or elimination of whole business models. So these are not trivial little things. uh again stating the obvious but in that sense I want to take off some of the pressure of you having to solve all these business models in the next uh year or two. Uh but the other thing that I'm sure will make me completely unpopular in this room um is just to point out that you're not limited to 12 meetings a year. So and particularly as you have I think effectively started to implement what we would call ad hoc committees. um those are really effective uh in having two people, three people really work it and get the multiple. Uh you know the downside is that not all seven people are involved in all the details even at the decision point. Uh but that's okay because you come up with the summary and the judgment and so on. Uh and I've just found on commissions and council it just works terrifically well. Uh so that either one of those, you know, more regular meetings or more ad hoc meetings sort of expands your your your capabilities. Um but I I salute you at this point already for just putting these big deal items on there that we we would love to have more visibility on sooner and I know staff agrees with that. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Council Member Lowing. Um I agree that I I would like to see significant expansion of our use of ad hoc committees. Um I think it's going to be really important as we proceed through um this work plan over the next year and also important in streamlining how um we approach staff and how we um reach if not consensus and at least um action items that come before council. and and some of the ad hocs is just say one more thing. Um can almost act as a liaison to work that's already going on on staff. It's not let's start spending more time that we wouldn't already on stuff. It's already going on and maybe one person sits in on some meetings over there just for a bit more detail or whatever. I mean there's just a lot of ways to to do this without exploding uh all the work that staff would have to do to to address these things. >> Absolutely. Um, chair, if I might just add something as another consideration. Appreciate where um, sorry, Kylen Jose, assistant city manager. Appreciate where everyone's dialogue is and and very much appreciate where council member Lowing has added the additional tools that we have. I will also just say yes, we can have more meetings. There is also staff bandwidth that is at play here. And so, more meetings, more priorities. And the question becomes what doesn't get done or what additional resources are necessary to accomplish this. So um I think you'll hear from staff as we move through this uh both a focus on what can be accomplished in 12 months which is the time period that's before you what resources are available to do so or um frankly some hesitation frankly or push back on what can be accomplished in that period of time. >> Thank you. Um okay so with that um background and and opportunity to share a little bit more of the details um I'd like to turn to the process of um first editing any of the draft objectives uh that staff um presented and as much as I hate real time editing um this is our only way to do it as a committee. So, we're going to do real time edits. Um, and uh, I think we will just take them in order. Um if if everyone wants to take just a minute or two if if they want to review consistency between the priorities, you know, staff assembled um and tried to represent your priorities in these draft objectives, but they may not have captured the intent um behind some of your words. Um so if there's any edits that we want to make, we'll do that first. Um, and then we will talk about uh prioritization. I have a suggestion, please. Um, there's several items on here that I think could be combined into one item regarding the electric utility. So, I have a suggestion. I'm just going to make it. Okay. So, my suggestion is to have one item, which is electric utility. I've written this up. So just if you want to listen that's fine. Electric utility review and advise on major priorities including prioritize affordability with goal to retain percentage discounts to PG& my my pet project. Um define goals for grid modernization project timing metrics residential amperage policies and pricing new technology assessment and integration. Expand toou offering to all residential customers. Report on uptake. analyze load shift, customer savings, conduct additional COA if required, and new data center policy and price tiers. And I had stopped writing at that point, but I think you've got one in here for large load customers that we could uh insert that language if required. So that would be to create one work plan item on the electric utility that incorporates those items, which I don't know if that makes sense, but could I encourage us to differentiate between what um we need staff to do on the electric utility side versus what we as a UAC will do. I think that the the draft objectives that staff kindly synthesized um are a lot of reviewing and advising reviewing and and recommending. Um we could for instance review a new KOSA for the electric utility. We cannot perform a new KOSA, right? Um so I I just want to make sure that um as Commissioner Vice Chair Phillips uh you know articulated the verb here is really important um to nailing this work plan and I I don't object to um documenting the kind of set of uh cohesive energy or you know electric utility goals that we'd like to review or advise on. Um but I think we just need to be very clean about what we say we are going to do personally or as a as a commission. Does that make sense? >> So taking the example of what I gave. >> Yep. >> Um there are four topics in there related to the electric utility. One is affordability, one's grid mod, one's and one is data centers large load large load. So they're different items on here. Yep. And is that how you would like them to stay? if staff could opine it. We actually like having them discreet deliverables because we have different teams working on them and then when we're clear bringing them back we can you know we can say this was complete. Um and if something has to move it's part of it being moved versus we we can we can have that. It also provides an opportunity to uh council member Lowing's point is you may want to look at maybe a smaller ad hoc looking at part of this under discrete activity and you want to make this hey let's talk about this now because we want it before the end of the year in the case of TOU rates. So, you know, there is a there is a sometimes a benefit to consolidate it. There's overarching themes of affordability which which we're hearing and that might be across the board and like a baseline objective that you want to see is is part of our bringing back items to you. But keeping those discreet, I think would be helpful. So, when you think about the potential for ad hocs, think about how that might be just an one item. >> Yeah. Um, I think the other thing just for us to all keep in mind is that these are really helpful documents in informing how staff approach these specific objectives, but they don't necessarily like there's not room in the work plan from council to represent all of that detail. Um, >> so it's, you know, we're not going to ignore that, but I think it's, it helps us to shape what then comes into the presentations. >> Yeah. And just to to underscore something I meant when I said the last thing is not that there have to be a lot of staff ads, this a lot of this stuff is already going on and it's happening in various departments within the city and in the climate action climate uh uh council meeting and so on. So it's not like this is all brand new stuff and that's why I suggested a touch point maybe of in some cases having it be a liaison to ongoing work or there's increased communication to that one person liaison as opposed to long report outs here uh because that's already happening. You you don't want to duplicate that work and you don't want them to duplicate the work. >> May I ask >> please? Are are we are we looking to make a work plan document that's much different than what we did last year? I leveled some critique on last year's one, but I mean like last year has one big chunk. It's number three for electric and it includes grid mod. Everything's kind of thrown in there. Um like I said at earlier, I mean the work plan hasn't really been a very effective tool for I don't know if it's effective for staff and it hasn't meant too much to UAC, I would claim. Um, and to to to Rachel's point, whether we combine all the electric related um items like she does or or not is um I'm I'm fine with it. But I guess let me ask the question again. Are we just going to try to update what we did last year or we going to do something significantly different? >> Uh yes. So, um, as as I probably didn't do a very good job of articulating when we we took the the comments from all the commissioners and consolidated on a list of 13 items that are I think are hopefully on the screen in front of you. And the intent was to take those discrete action items as part of your objectives and then, you know, if if possible kind of prioritize those and there was I think we're trying to, you know, potentially work off this list. You know, this this is your list. This is your objectives. Um, and this is really, as we mentioned before, kind of mapping and a similar process that city council goes through. So, they're really kind of distinct uh objectives that you would want us to to to have in your work plan to be completed this year. >> And and maybe more specifically, as we're building a 12-month calendar, >> these are discrete items that we can agendaize. Whereas in the past, I think we've had a work plan that's not necessarily facilitated um discreet action and uh simple agendaizing. Okay. Um Commissioner Phillips, >> I'm sorry, Phillips. >> Yeah, please get that right. Um the uh I guess part of my question is this is supposed to be the UAC's annual work plan but an immense amount of this in fact the vast majority of it is work that staff does you know so the number 12 the annual report I mean we read the annual report I think we approve it or don't approve it or you know make some edits to But and you know number nine procure new power purchase agreements. We're not going to do that. Staff's going to do that. >> Um >> so I'm you know I'm a little confus if I were to say what's ours you know it's not our job and not something we do is it to procure your new power purchase agreements although it's you know I think extremely important of course that that staff does that as needed. Um how do we how do we think about that? I mean >> thank you for that question. Um I had noted the same um verb uh there and was concerned by it. Um it is not our function as a UAC to procure anything. Um but we can recommend that the city procure new resources. Right. Um, so we can modify that. This is kind of where we're at right now is if we could go one by one to edit um, each of these line items so that we have clarity on what exactly the staff would bring before us. We can have discussion documented in the minutes of what that includes. Um, I think we've already had some as reflected in these submitted work plan items. um and our our you know verbal um discussion just now but if there's you know specific points we want to make sure are included in these lines we can do that then we need to prioritize them okay >> where is grade modeling here >> yeah exactly it's not the word isn't even there let alone you know >> so this is a fair question um if this is why staff is here um so if there are places where you are trying to map um from the recommendations you made to uh these draft objectives, please ask away. Um I am personally going to recommend that we edit a couple of these to better include the two priorities I added um which were not in uh >> I don't think fully represented, right? But we can do that in editing. >> May I please amplify Rachel's question? the biggest capex program in UCPA and the city is not mentioned. So, I don't know how we're going to edit and tweak a document that is from my point of view structurally wrong from the get-go. >> Perhaps we could um if you would like a an honest answer to that, we can also add a line, right? >> Add a line. It's okay. >> But we can also start by editing the lines that exist, right? Could I also suggest again with all due respect commissioners a couple things staff took their stab at analyzing and among pulling together everybody's seven different opinions they also are trying to do this in the context of the existing work that needs to be done so I can appreciate that you may not see your exact words in here and perhaps asking and seeking clarification may be a point to start versus um simply throwing all of it out assuming mal or ill intent um in terms of something being excluded. As an example, there is a 5-year CIP program um for the PACE and replacement of infrastructure financing mechanisms. That's an item that you could simply add specifically with a focus on grid modernization. And that might be a very simple fiveword edit that can get at the intention versus wiping the entire process. But you'll forgive me if I look at this document and say when one of those seven actually apparently there were five uh that you got. But when one of those uh top five priority lists, mine says grid mod's by far the most important thing and it doesn't seem to really appear except maybe through a back door on item, you know, item number five. I'm I'm perplexed. I don't really know how to start with this document. We seem to have totally disperate views on what this document even is. So, I don't know how you edit something that you know how I don't know how you edit when you don't even agree what the document's supposed to be. Okay. Um, we are going to proceed through edits. If we want to make additions at the end, that's fine. I would encourage you to try to do your best to see where there are points of connectivity. Um, and if you are envisioning a separate agendaized item, um, we can come to that at the end. Okay. Does that work for everybody? Great. um if you wouldn't mind making these bigger because I think that um I'm doing fine, but I don't want to bank on everyone else doing fine. Uh and uh uh I think three at a or one even one at a time would be great. Uh okay, so item number one or line one. Again, these are in no order. We do need to get through all three of them. So I would like or are 13 of them. Um so I'd like to be somewhat efficient about this process. If you could kindly set a fiveinut limit on these. I don't think each of them need to take five minutes but just to help us uh make sure we get through them. Okay. Um if we need to come back to one at the end, we can come back. Okay. Line one is um gas transition related. Take a minute to read it. Okay. Um, first, are there any concerns um with how the commissioner's priorities um particularly focused on the coordinated um analysis of a gas uh transition with uh an electric um growth scenario is captured in this um particular line item. Could I could I make a >> please? >> Um I think the goal should be to adopt a gas transition study. You know, again, this is on on us and I think if we obviously we're relying on staff to do what they're saying they're going to do, which is complete the gas transition study. But I think we should be able to look at the end of the year and say one of the things we did is we have a gas transition study. It's been approved by the UAC and you know moved forward and everybody can look at it and ask if this is if this is the issue. I'm personally less concerned about this um or not very concerned about the coordination of electric planning and gas planning. I think the gas planning is going to be over such a tremendously long time frame to be honest. Um, in that we have 85% or more of our households that have at least one gas utility. They're not changing out very quickly. We don't have a plan to get them to change out very much more quickly that I know of. And we don't have any way to force people out. So we need to we will need to keep and maintain the current gas infrastructure whether we like it or not for a fairly substantial >> period of time. >> Great. I think that that's a very helpful addition um that the the UAC would adopt a staff proposed gas transition study. I want to check in with staff about whether it's realistic to um have completed a gas transition study. We've had past conversations about that, but what is it that staff expects to do over the next year um relative to gas transition? So we would probably um instead of adopt is that you the UAC would review >> review the the transit you you don't necessarily have to adopt it and then um that allows you to look at the the baseline assumption maps and then potentially create or recommend policy implementation is something of a change or I'd add that's what I kind of heard um through that. So we we can word submit this a little bit more. We've had two, if I if my memory serves me, we've had two separate discussions this year on the gas transition. Um, what are the follow-up items that you are still working on before formal adoption of set study? >> Yes. So, the key one is actually modeling the system. So it was the the initial work and update that was provided from uh sustainab climate action was really looking at what it looks like on on a calculation basis but it wasn't looking at the actual system. So staff is with our updated models can do that analysis now. Um but that is that is a heavier lift than just just a an evaluation of you know what this potentially could look like on a generic on a generic level. And in terms of timing on that, is that realistic to accomplish in the next year or not? >> The intent um is that we could get a base model. So do some corrections to the existing model. Um fix some errors, fix some service connections that need to be done, get that base model studied so we can actually look at that load flow and then start to look at areas that if we um decommission this section of gas, what does that do to load flow and what sections of mainline does that prevent from replacement? Right? But that's base model needs to be built. And the thought process considering all the other work is that staff could probably finish that base model within the next 12 months. We couldn't finish I don't think that we could realistically finish a 10 to 20 year comprehensive plan for a gas transition. I think we can get to a start. I think as director corator suggests we could get to a point of some guiding principles on what that 10 to 20 year plan might look like but we need to really finish that base model um and identify areas that have high potential for decommissioning and what that looks like as far as the cost model. But that it all starts with this base model making sure that that foundation is accurate and informative. >> Is there any place where there's policy judgment um required to I guess I'd ask is this a technical problem which should be handled squarely by staff or is this a policy and judgment problem uh that would benefit from input from the citizens of felto? I my initial response would be that it's initially technical, largely technical um to get to this base model. There may be things that come into as far as acceleration of pace and areas to focus that may be more policy driven after we do this initial base model. >> Okay. But you've just stated that the base model will not be done for 12 months. So is it feasible to incorporate this into the work plan or should this be priority number one for next year's work plan? I mean we have 13 things we can only get five or six. Right. >> Exactly. And and making that division between what staff is doing and what the UAC is doing. So staff would be directed to finish the base model and provide some initial update maybe anformational item on that. And then we would incorporate into fiscal year uh 2028 work plan. Um those guiding principles of how do we progress to a 10 to 20 year model and what's what's that pace look like? And there is some policy decisions that the UAC could recommend for city city council to consider. And you know, we were looking at a gas transition plan. I do not believe city councils may taken a position of of of um stopping the the gas utility in in that regard. So really that study and evaluation that technical work first, what does that look like, I think is is really important. >> I don't know how to make a policy recommendation without talking like budget, right? Like what's the what's the cost? um and what's the implication of like you know what does that that look like and so if we're data poor over the next year I I don't even know what the policy discussion is that we can viably have could clarify that for us so that we can ascertain whether this is something to agendasize this year or next year >> so um I can just opine that perhaps because I think you're going to run into this as you move down this list which I really appreciate um kind of nailing down the outcomes, right? The smarty kind of goals is what council has moved towards and it's been helpful. Um, this might be what we would consider a Q4 goal kind of thing, meaning it likely will, we don't want to lose track of it. We don't want to lose sight of it, but the likelihood of us getting it to this year is, you know, it's not going to be until the latter portion of it and it may spill over. Um, so that's one way that we've signaled um in our council prioritizations. >> Okay. So we might say something along the lines of re uh the UAC would review the results of the costs cost estimates around or financial I don't want to say cost uh would review um expected uh economic impacts of a gas transition uh plan and advise on what advise on policy related to the pace of transitioning. >> Yeah. >> As soon as Q4. >> I mean ultimately I think you're looking for the language of enable you know review baseline infrastructure maps um and explore potential targeted electrification utilizing selection criteria aligned with these frameworks and cost effectiveness. Uh what was the other one you I whatever the minutes are going to help us but but I guess I'd say there like okay who cares whether we know our base the baseline infrastructure maps >> that's but you want to review them for the context of the policies to develop the 20-year plan. I don't >> Isn't it that we want staff we definitely want staff to prioritize this, right? We want them to work on it. So to the extent that we're not going to see the outcome of this >> model until it just has to be an item on here that's a priority is to do a gas transition study and bring it to us for review. Um and we can put more specifics around it. I really think this has gotten sidetracked around a technical and capital issue. Um, by my account, four commissioners recommended long-term uh business strategies for the gas utility. And the fact that we don't have one or the fact that it would be hard to generate one, I think is not evidence for not needing one. Um I think we we do need one and we need the framework for one in order to make good decisions about what capital and what economic things and what technical things to be looking at. You know so I think the framework for a strategy which uh needs needs to be in place and in parallel do the do the technical work. Uh, I sort of feel like we're teeing up work that we feel comfortable doing over work that we really need to get done if we're going to make this transition. >> Do you want to propose an edit? >> Excuse me. >> Well, I think I wrote it down. develop a comprehensive 10 to 20 year business plan for the gas utility that addresses strategic financial, operational, organizational, and resource concerns. >> But I think what we're hearing is we need this thing that's here first. So it's achieve progress towards >> No, this if you read this, it says includes capital investment criteria. It's it's not mostly certainly capital is important. It's obviously a capital intensive business, but it's not mostly a capital study. It's just it's a business study to get to alternative plans that the city council can consider if we were to do X, this is what it would cost. This is how it would impact our community. If we did Y, it would have these other set of set of impacts. I think that's what's really needed, you know, and it's more or less the same thing for the electric util. I shouldn't go there, but but I think it's more or less the same thing there as well in terms of what we need. So, this is, you know, we have good technical people, good capital equipment people, and we're good at installing gas manes and water manes and so on. And I think that's what this is built around, but unfortunately, it's not what we need. >> Could I second that, so to speak? um in that you know when we did when we voted on gas rates I voted no and my primary reason was there were gas rates based on a business plan that seemed to be like this was a growth sector for us and in fact it's quite the opposite. So, um, when I read Phil's writeup for, uh, this this priority point, I thought I agree with that. It can also include the need to rightsize as best we can the five-year business plan, capex plan, everything around, you know, gas. Because the thing I voted no on a couple months ago didn't feel like the sort of business we consider gas to be, which is one we want to get out of long term. place your pillars. >> Could I um suggest that I hear that we can make a lot of progress by Q4, but maybe not get all the way there. In some sense, that's okay. We can have a stretch goal, and if we make it, that's great. I would say something like the UA, we'll review a draft transition, gas transition study. uh maybe leave out some of the details because I would like to see within the next year some progress on this and you know that's a guess and if it's not complete I can't imagine going a year from now and saying well gee we need another three to six months before we can see anything I I think given the the interest you know and call it a draft call it a partial draft I don't care but something that we will see within the next year. That gives us some clarity as to, you know, what we might need to be doing differently in the relatively short run as well as the long run. And to me, you know, it doesn't need to be wrapped up with a bow and, you know, a formal study. But, you know, that's just me. I can't see waiting more than a year to to see some results or see some recommendations. A specific example of something that would be useful to do beyond you know the technical and gas mains and all that would be what have other uh cities done who tried to uh transition away from gas. What has been their experience? What have been some of the successes and failures? In other words, to to build the infrastructure from multiple points of view, both technical and capital and uh business and sustain sustainability standpoint to figure out how we might get there from here. And if we just limit ourselves to thinking about what we can do in one year, you know, it's it's like I remember folks I used to work with at HP, some group, you know, the difference between talking about 15% cost reduction a year or cutting our cost in half in five years, right? that they boil down to the same thing. But you can come up with qual if you set the goal of where we're going to be five years from now or something like that. You can uh expand your the options for getting there. And I think we need to include all all those aspects of the problem. >> Okay. Could I um I I want to keep us moving. Um I know this is a really important item. Could I propose an edit? Um, the UAC will review a gas a draft gas transition study, or maybe we'll say we'll review progress towards a gas transition study, which doesn't put you on the hook for a draft one, but at least keeps us accountable to this that addresses the political, economic, legal, environmental, regulatory, and financial I said economic, but >> or you're right. >> Uh political, economic, legal, regulatory. >> Yeah, regulatory is a good one. I left out. >> Um right, you that's okay. Um operational, >> regulatory and operational. Maybe we'll just end with operational uh elements of the gas transition. >> A potential gas transition. Let's just say that of a potential gas transition. >> Yeah, I would >> potential gas decommissioning. How about that? >> Sounds great to me. I would leave out the word draft, but that's otherwise I like >> progress toward a a gas transition study. That sounds great. Could we get rid of the rest of it? Because I don't need to see infrastructure maps, frankly. You guys are great. The utility is great at infrastructure maps. We should never really need to see this cuz we're not qualified. >> What's an infrastructure map? So I think the intention of this is to explore the it's the the action is not the infrastructure maps. The action is using the infrastructure maps to inform to inform a selection criteria. >> I agree. >> But so that's I get that that's missing. There's a lot of words between there. Yeah. >> Could we take out everything after decommissioning? >> Yes. That's my goal is to delete the rest of it if that's okay with staff. Great. But we still like maps. We don't have to have it in the notebook. >> Yeah, we don't we don't Yeah. In fact, I don't need to see that PowerPoint either. Um, okay. Are we We feel good about that one. >> Yeah. I would simply I I feel good about it. I would simply say anything you can do to make this bullet closer to the thing that Phil wrote, that would be good. >> Okay. Does economic encompass rates? Yes, but we also will do rates later. Um, so I think that this is it does, but I don't think it addresses like next it doesn't cover next year's rates. >> But it >> No, I'm talking about like what happens when only a few customers are left and we have to. >> Yeah. And and how how big do the reserves need to be so that we can fund the you know in 10 or 20 30 years we can fund the >> gas. Okay. Do you want to add the word reserve >> elements? Well, we have economic. Do you want to add economic and if it's if a reserve isn't operational and it's not economic? Do you want to add that in? Otherwise, can we can we move on? >> Do you have any edits that you'd like to make? >> No. >> Okay, great. Can we move on? >> I mean, we've spent 20 minutes on this first one, so I've got to get us through 13 of them plus any other ones. All right. Can we do number two? >> Could I make one comment? I think might expedite. >> Uh, as I looked at these, I thought seven of them were what I would call procedural. >> Yes. >> Which are things that we for sure need to do like rates and so on, >> but you know, didn't happen to be on any of the commissioners lists. Those items are 3, four, five, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. >> All those items I think have to be done. >> I totally agree. Those are not those are not UAC work plan that we do at I mean we need to talk about communications and hear about them but those aren't UAC priorities. I mean you I think it should be our goal to have fewer goals. You know just make five six. >> Eight was one of my priorities. >> It was and communications was my priorities but >> I didn't check eight but I did check things like you know setting rates and reviewing capex goes without saying >> we have a uh is there a motion associated with that? you making can propose to change. >> I would say we just accept those and I'm and >> but I would like to make edits to them. >> Okay, Commissioner Croft. I was not demeaning that one. I was simply saying that yeah, we have to set rates. We have to do you know the things we have to do every year. >> I I have a specific proposal and that is you have a list of three or four or five things. They do not include time include time of use, but things like rates, things like capex, things like looking at our commu our communications and our customer surveys, they don't go without saying, but just make a short list that of course UAC does these four, five, six things, but our priority items, our new things, the things we want to draw attention to is this other list. And that might be six, seven items. >> Yes, we can do five to six. And that that was part of our proposed process. We're going to get to that after we edit the ones that are on the list right now. So, could we please finish editing? Um, I realize that some of them are going to go I hope that some of them are going to go significantly more quickly than the last one. >> So, are we on number two? >> We are on number two. So, >> what is number two? Is it emergency? If you had if you had to give it a headline, a two-word headline, what is it? Is it water or is it emergency? What is it? Seriously, read it and try to tell me what that is. You are welcome to make edits or propose edits. Um would you like to make edit? >> I propose we call this thing emergency response plan if that's that seems to be what it is and water is part of it but so is everything else. Could someone explain what this is? I honestly I honestly didn't understand what it was. Was this the document that we reviewed a month or two ago that >> I don't know. Okay. >> Sorry. staff development. >> Maybe someone can help explain to us and this is why staff is three out of five. We don't understand. >> So could we clarify what number two um is supposed to cover. I mean, so again, some of these items that you were mentioning were kind of the baseline activities. Um, this one was looking at at basically our water system in terms of um how we keep the system up and running for emergency. Um, and then our preparedness as well. It was kind of taking time accounts from some what we heard from the commission. Again, it is compliance related. So, I can see how this, you know, would be confusing in terms of of how it's written up. Um, it doesn't necessarily have to rise to the occasion. Again, we did a first cut of trying to to figure out if this and distill it to see if this was meeting your needs. If it doesn't, you can take it off the list, >> Alan. It it rises to the occasion. Emergency preparedness is arguably a top priority for was on somebody's list >> and and Exactly. So, >> but it just needs to be written clear. staff provided a first cut and again it is up to the commission to make those changes and that's why we provided ahead of time. >> Okay. >> So um my assessment of this one is that it does not cover the emergency and reliability elements that uh Commissioner Mets um has encouraged us to think about. Um and it is quite limited to the water utility in particular. Um if there are uh you know Commissioner Mets's comments were actually mostly around the power utility um in terms of reliability not to say that the water utility is unimportant um but if this is supposed to encompass the 5-year drought um design drought discussion um it doesn't so like that could be more specifically called out. Um if it's not supposed to cover that and it's supposed to be general um emergency response and preparedness, then I uh would encourage us to change the language or strike the thing entirely. I think I would strike it and replace it with something more understandable and more general >> and and in the direction of emergency response and resiliency or in the direction of uh the water utilities and our interaction with SFPU >> the latter. We have another one which is our interaction with SFPU which is number 30. the form. Okay, so the former um this is general uh risk resiliency and reliability. So what are um maybe we could be a bit more specific with staff in terms of you know I know that we've done some there's been some one-on-one conversation between staff and commissioner Mets related to emergency preparedness plans. Um are there policy or um other elements even a public dissemination needs um where the UAC's input um or the opportunity for a public forum around emergency preparedness resiliency and reliability would be helpful >> if this is >> across the utilities. This is generally about reliability and resilience and I would say there are two objectives which are uh number one reliability set specific goals quantify them uh and communicate them to the community so that people can see how we're doing in terms of particular this is particularly to your point about electricity but communicate them and then the second would be uh the the one I proposed on uh emergency preparedness which uh agreed I wrote mostly thinking about electricity, but it would apply to anything to be uh as we agreed last year to uh determine what is a design emergency um you know in in establishing our risk framework with OES. There's nothing specific to electricity here. It's right emergency preparedness. Um, so would we like to uh replace this or is there it, you know, I don't want to direct staff to do things that they're not going to do and they don't have the resources to do. So >> since no one has explained what this was about, I would suggest >> removing it. >> Oh, I think we will remove this. But if we wanted to replace it with Okay. If if that was intended to cover your um item on emergency preparedness and resiliency, then we need to give staff an opportunity. >> Why don't we um I'm going to have uh Terry Crowley kind of kind of reword smith this a little bit because we also had some comments from council and try to have some reliability metrics. So maybe we can weave that into this and why change it up. >> That sounds great. >> So So my thought would be to to focus this into the risk and resiliency assessment. So reliability and resiliency. Um and that we focus in on potentially for the next 12 months water and electric utilities and bring back policies um that surrounding that um those two areas for those two utilities. >> That sounds great. >> And that that could include the reliability metrics, the goals for the electric system as as well as you know the long-term resiliency. Um and and the same for water. >> That's like sandy and outages and stuff. >> Sad city and safety. um you know avail system availability for electric and then for water looking at you know emergency preparedness reliability um and those those types of goals. >> Does it include all the RNR stuff that Jonathan talks about the same that's included in this? >> Yes. Yes. So that's kind of a potentially a deeper dive of what Jonathan's brought before the UAC and other ad hoc committees. >> Okay. Um and are there places where our input and our work is going to be particularly valuable in that? I mean staff needs to deal with reliability and resiliency on a daily basis. Um what is it that we can contribute to that discussion? >> So what would help be helpful for me is so when we come back with the electric reliability goals is that we have a conversation about like what is meaningful right? So from a technical perspective, something might be meaningful me but not relate well to the community. And so having those conversations of developing that that metric that's meaningful for the community, for the UAC, and potentially for the council, um that would be a good discussion to have here at the UAC. I think for the water system, it would be a good discussion to say how much money are we wanting to invest in uh reliability and resiliency of the water system and how do we get there through our capital improvement program. And I think that's that's a measure of, you know, what level of reliability do you want from your system? Um, and so how fast do you move through your CIP plan? So I think those are two discussions that are basically policy issues. >> Um, and that's good to have awareness at, >> but if for water, I mean, and Lisa, correct me if I'm wrong, like >> we have backup wells, but that's it. like there just is not more that we're going to do. So, I'm not sure that there's a lot of is there much like is there a decision there or is this primarily electric? I I would say that there's there's decisions in electric to be made um about setting the metrics and then how do you achieve the metrics or maintain those metrics right for water I think you would look beyond just the supply of water but you also look at what is your reliability through a natural disaster what's your resiliency what's your ability to recover from a large earthquake or a large natural disaster and what's how are you preparing for those things right so that's your investment in your system yeah >> which isn't that mostly SFPU like our reliability isn't local like our reliability problems. >> We maintain the distribution system. So that's I guess where I'm focusing the distribution system that the city maintains, the storage system that the city maintains, the pumping, >> right? >> All of that. So that redundancy. >> So that would be a a specific look at parallelto distribution system reliability on the water side. >> That is correct. >> Okay, great. Let's clarify that just so that we know that this is not us trying to set >> SFPU uh reliability across a fault zone, right? Not our frankly not our purview. Um but local distribution system reliability absolutely is um maybe we we focus on distribution system reliability for both water and electric. >> Exactly. >> Awesome. Okay. So um instead of goals for the water and electric utilities, might we say um goals related to distribu the distribution systems of the water and electric utilities. I think that's a little too narrow because we're really concerned about delivering water in an emergency for example. So it's it's not only about the distribution system. >> Well the distribution system comprises of the of the you know the connections SFP the storage the pumps back diesel generation >> the interconnections the you know so with other agencies. I I think it is it is more comprehensive when you say distribution. >> Right. But to to the chair's point, we have wells and also we have >> we could say distribution and backup supplies. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. How about distribution system and backup supplies >> of the water electric utilities? >> I think on electric utilities is there any element of like you know local generation that might come into this resiliency plan. for examp so >> it um do we want to make electric utilities kind of have a descriptor on it like >> yeah I I don't think it's it's different for the electric utility there's not a backup supply for the electric utility with >> how about local supplies the related to the local supplies and distribution >> systems it's the delivery it always comes down to actually delivering >> the water or the electricity And it we may set a target just for example might set a target for a liability or resilience in an emergency that would require us to have local generation or something like that. >> Great. So can we say the local supply and distribution of water and power that that would work. I mean that you may be able to simplify it and just say delivery of services, delivery of >> but I do not want to get into gas, >> water, >> fiber or um >> so delivery of water and electric services. >> If you do if you do delivery sometimes that can conflate it to SFP and other supplies. So I trying to narrow it. I think >> I'm trying to keep this very narrow. >> Okay, great. Could you get rid of that last piece and then could we move on? We saved three minutes relative I know we paved more than that eight minutes relative to the other one. Okay. Does anyone have any concerns with that or can we move to the number three? >> I just don't quite should there be a comment comma after resiliency. >> I'm asking. >> Yes. Maybe get rid of the and and add one more comma because reliability reliability, resiliency, comma. >> Oh, okay. >> Great. Okay. I'm a fan of the Oxford comma, but that's just me. Could you put a comma after response, please? because I edit for a living, you know. >> There you go. >> Okay. Um, number three, >> you go for being lead author. >> That's right. >> Vampire weekend. >> Review and recommend a city council rate changes for >> I would say this goes on the list of things we, you know, >> I would call that really like to change this to include recycled water. >> Do we have rates on that? I don't know. >> No, >> should be. Is that I mean, >> yes. >> This just Okay. This this item to me just is one of those of course we review all rate >> unless my recycle bottle was supposed to go somewhere else. >> Somewhere else. >> That's a good place. >> I think >> that's a strategic thing to >> it would be a rate change technically. So >> yes, I think so too. So let's include recycled water here because our specific purview as a UAC uh includes recycled water just to make it very clear on the purposes and duties of the UAC. Okay, thank you. >> Um when we put time of use here, it feels like we're kind of slipping it in. Um whereas time of use I I think it's somewhere else in the list. um it it should not just be slipped into this rate review thing. Rate review is just something that we do. >> I think the other one the other topic on time of use kind of got to my point which is more like reviewing the pilot. It's not just rates. So I think we'll get to that one. >> Okay. >> Then I then as an editor I'd suggest to take it out, keep this document simple. Of course we all rates including electric and E3 E7 time of use everything >> demand charges anything else that we >> so we'll uh strike um including time of use rates please um but I would >> I mean all co >> well but I I I'm going to respectfully disagree on that one right >> um I I would like to ask could you please could staff please remind the UAC about the timing on the most recent Kosas for these different utilities. >> Water is the only one >> the current one for this year would be the cost of service for water. I don't have the entire list because there are very we can bring that back. >> Can you remind me when we did the electric one? 24 >> 24 >> Okay, great. Um we'll look that up as you >> can you remind us whether um in that cost of service analysis um there was any discussion of um reliability or access um maintenance costs visav consumptive charges on the electric power utility like when we structured when when that KOA was performed. >> Are you talking about fixed charges? >> Yes, fixed charges. >> We we we have a a I believe that's when we added the fixed charge. >> Yeah. >> But we have a small size of that >> relative size of that fixed charge in comparison to utilities is small. >> Um but in the KOSA that was performed, was there a specific recommendation about the balance of a fixed charge versus a variable charge or was that a policy decision that was made? It >> it it was part of the KOSA. >> Well, I know, but is that a value judgment or is that a um >> it it is part of >> I I didn't see Lisa was there. I asked her to come up earlier. Um but it is a part I believe it's $5 for the fixed charge, >> but that's nothing. >> So, it is smaller than our surrounding entities and the rest of the IUs >> by by like what percentage? >> I think it I wanted to say percentage. which I believe palis is five and um the I use in P gen is around 25. >> Great. Do I need to add anything or are you good? >> Correct me please. >> Um so in the most recent cost of service study, uh Palo Alto went from zero in the fixed charge to this $5 level. And so that was a finding from that most recent KOSA study. >> And that $5 fell out of the KOSA or that $5 was voted on by UAC because it was a small incremental increase relative to uh zero. It resulted from the KOSA study. >> And do we believe that that holds given our uh current grid modernization efforts? Um I would just >> sorry no it's going deep but it's a good question but um working from previous experience at other agencies um there's an art and a science with your rate setting right so the the financial model that informs your rates is very strict and detailed and it allocates costs right the allocation of cost to the customer classes and the balancing between fixed charges and variable charges is is the art of the cost of service and the development of rates. And there is some policy discussions in there. And so you may understand or be familiar with water. Generally the fixed charge in water is about 30% of the total revenue requirement for electric. It tends to be much much less. But the electric industry is moving away from that smaller fixed charge and moving towards something that's more equable to water. But if we're embarking on a million dollar grid mod project, that's going to significantly change um the fixed cost. And unless we just peanut butter the whole thing over all PaloAlto, if instead we're putting it in certain substations more than others, again, my request for a heat map, then you know, um the bottom line is great mod's going to have an impact and a change on KOSA for electric. And the last one we did was 23 24 um for that fiscal year. And you know it doesn't mean we need to rush and do one this year but in the next 2 three years I'd imagine it's on the >> so five years is standard for for new causes. I guess what my my line of questioning here is that like as part of rate study this year. I would love to see an analysis or or further discussion around that art of rate setting and the balance of fixed charges versus variable charges now for power utility. I think that is incredibly important given the both uh you know growth of on-site generation um and the the reliability service that we provide through grid connectivity and the plan investments that we are making in grid mud. So to reflect that art, um I would love to see staff do some thinking about what the impacts of increasing our or the benefits of increasing our fixed charges and decreasing our variable charges might be. So it's going to help us electrify, right? Um, and if we could be specific about that in this rate setting piece, um, for electric, I think that would be, um, or we could incorporate that down below, I guess, is is maybe the broader point. But, um, to me, that's that's pretty important. >> But, Megan, we were super specific about it. Staff was very specific about it when we did rate setting. We talked all about fixed costs and variable. It's not the same as doing a COA, but we did discuss it a lot. we always do. >> I'm I guess I'm a little confused on what the value of doing this outside doing a KOSA would be. >> I don't think we need to redo a KOSA. Um I think it is time to redo the KOSA for water. Uh but I think that there are um as uh Terry pointed out um there's an art to that rate setting um because it all rates and in utilities which are monopoly peanut butter costs, right? Like by definition >> they don't well they they allocate customer class If you could turn your microphone please well but spatially they peanut butter. Um so I think the point is uh we >> it's an art commercial customers are spatially concentrated. They are not you know spread evenly. So they vary by substation and grid mod will affect the commercial burden. >> That's right. Um, anyway, we can come to this later, but Oh, I'm sorry. I >> I agree with everything you say, but I'm not quite sure. >> Could you turn your video? >> Oh, yes, I will. I'll try to. And having >> I thought I would and having sat through the gasa process, a I'm a great believer in un in the fact that there is art and there's no there's no objectively perfect way of doing this. It's just what are we getting out of doing it outside of the KOSA? We can't use it to change rates unless it's a KOSA. >> I believe that we can change rates. Go ahead. >> So, so um I think the first question is you know what is a cadence of new ones coming out? The water one is planned for this year. We have a we have a kind of I wouldn't say rotation but a plan to go through other ones as well including wastewater which is also one of your goals to make sure that looks correct in affordability for us to go forth and do another analysis on the electric is another engagement and another task that that we would we would have to push back in terms of staff availability. So um wanted just to put that in in for clarity. It may be something that you put in for a future year in terms of when we do that electric coaster that you want to have those requirements there and looking at the fixed cost as we develop that scope and we can certainly bring that back. >> Does adding like does increasing our fixed charges more than our variable charges require a new KOSA or can we just do it? >> We would have to have a KOSA to make those changes okay throughout. >> Okay. But but in terms of the art element of that co the existing kosa like there is an art there if we like it was did the kosa that we exist we have the does the current kosa provide us any leeway in rebalancing fixed versus variable charges in the electric power utility. What it would be >> commissioner would be similar to what you did with gas where we had an original KOSA we go back we reassess the data we revise the KOSA and we come back >> um based on the policies >> so there wasn't any leeway in that initial one >> again a COSA is an amalgamation of assumptions and so what in compliance with law and uh reasonable assumptions is deemed by um precedent So you would have to go through that same process uh to change that ratio, right? We will table it this year. Um I just want to put it on staff's radar uh and frankly the rest of the UAC's radar that I think that this is pretty important to come back to as we're talking about electric power utility in the future. Um okay on this topic of rates um you know we have seen on the topic of affordability. So I had in one of mine the affordability of electric. We have prior as a UAC highlighted the difficulties of the affordability of water and electric and I wonder if we could add that in here that we want particular focus on affordability of electric and water rates or prioritize >> I know >> you know uh yeah I mean really on all all rates but do we want to ask for any special work to do we want to add at the end. Um and fiber optic services um to ensure affordability or with a prior with a with a priority on affordability. >> Yeah, I like that. We we have something similar on item five >> an item number line I'll call line that is actually >> page you go to ensure affordable across the five year rate projections and financial plans. >> So I mean I love the word affordable >> that is a CIP item isn't it? >> If you if you do want to add it here that's that's certainly welcomed. >> Okay. I think putting it in rates is more appropriate because it is where we see the results of not only CIP but everything getting combined and charged to the user. >> Agree. >> Okay. Do we feel good about that one? Excellent. >> A tiny little question. Fiber optic service is is it wrong to say to call it fiber internet services that and people know what internet is or is dark? We also have dark fiber as well. So we try to keep it a little more generic. >> Just call it fiber services. >> This means dark fiber and fiber dissolve. >> Correct. Right. >> Sorry. Okay. Number four. Uh >> could we just say on implementation? >> Yeah, >> I s I I read that report with not despair but I mean going that direction, right? Um, do we want to force ourselves to prioritize this at this point? It's going to cause our rates to go up. Are we worried about I mean, we asked to review reserves hoping that we could consolidate a bunch of accounts and use that as a way to address affordability of rates. And instead what we heard from Baker Tilly is if you want to go down this road it could really have um an impact on the upward direction. So um my thought on this would be to you know um not prioritize it essentially. Um, we want to prioritize um our solidity or or what do I want to say that how solid our our reserves are um on a wholesale basis but I don't know how much we want to dig into this particular topic. Can I just um remind us that at the present moment we are just editing and we will work on prioritization um later. Uh so if there's any edits to this um I'm I will entertain those at this time and then we'll come back commissioner to whether we want to address this this year. Um >> I I don't have any edits that I like it. I would just there's a typo. Review and advise on reserve policy changes. So just in that very first line, reserve policy changes. >> Well, I think it's reserve policies because there's different policies for the different >> Oh, yeah. Good point. Good point. Good point. >> And I hope review goes without saying. If we're going to advise, >> you could. Well, first we we have not had anformational uh >> No, it should remain. >> We do need to review it. >> I'm just looking to get rid of words. >> Okay. >> It should remain policies. >> It should not be changed. >> But the comma splice before that uh is >> get rid of changes >> working. I mean, but we'll let that go. >> No, don't insist on commas. That >> was a splice. That's okay. Okay. I think generally we're it's good. It's fine. We we good on this one? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um number five, which is the 5-year capital improvement program. Be explicit about the word bond market. We're going into the bond market, not just financing mechanisms. I mean, it's bonds versus pay to go, pay as you go. Are there other mechanisms aside from bond finance and pay as you go that are being contemplated? >> We do have state revolving fund loans. So I think finding mechanism if you want to put a little more granularity to it maybe we can put um uh revenue bonds or >> just bonds why >> well you you really like those SRF loans let me tell you >> love them. >> Can we just live it leave it because we also have grants. mean >> whatever. We never know what we meant, but okay. Fiber. >> Um, can I just ask a question about the five-year capital improvement program? We tend in my experience to look at this on a utility by utility basis. Um and this is recommending um it's discussed as a single capital improvement program. Can you clarify? Could staff kindly clarify whether that is a change or whether you intend to address this utility by utility. Staff's intent with this was to not look at it as a holistic covering all the utilities at one single time. Staff's intent was to use one line item that would cover each of the single utilities and we would discuss those individual utilities capital improvement plants. So such as grid bond is not shown on here. Grid bond would definitely be included under the capital improvement program. And then you would also have a capital improvement program for water that would influence your rates and waste water that influences your rates. And so we would talk about those things individually, >> right? >> Um but not necessarily in in a one holistic conversation that would dilute any one of those individual utilities. >> Okay. Um are there I mean there's a clear request on behalf of the commissioners to prioritize um electric power and to prioritize personally wastewater. Realistically, I think we tend to do a very broad like when we've gotten into this task, we've tended to do like either not nearly enough detail or way too much detail. >> And you may want to add on there is it with you know with a priority focus on the electric utility and wastility because that that could be specific to that goal. So you receive the standard or normal type of information and with a higher focus on the wastewater utility and electric utility. That's that's we could we could make that >> be helpful. >> No. >> Okay. Well, it would be helpful for me. Does anyone else uh object to that? >> If if what you mean helpful I mean of course it's helpful and it goes without saying that grid mod is in our capex. Um, what I'm trying to convey is the need for cap for grid mod to be a all caps headline priority topic for UAC in the months and years ahead as it inevitably is going to be and so can't say it more strongly than that. >> Can you just propose an edit and we can comment on what you are wanting to add? I do think grid mom needs to be its own item >> personally. So that would be my edit. >> Okay. If you are welcome to propose language on number five, which is what we're currently working on. >> Number five, just like number three before it was we review rates. Number five says we review capex. Like I say it many times goes without saying. Um a separate item would be if you want me to edit it now. I don't think you do, but it would be um discuss grid mod. Um it would be a condensed version of my two or three page memo. Um discuss Gridmod in every way all the time. >> Okay. Um could we add a number five? Um you know uh with a special focus on five-year capital improvement um five-year capital improvement program. Um I we have five year again financial plans um with maybe at the very end financial plans um with a special focus on um the electric and wastewater utilities. >> I is that really needed? I mean I'm pretty interested in gas as well given the other discussions. >> I think we've had a lot of discussion about the gas transition study already and so not that it wouldn't be covered >> but we can also take it out. >> My suggestion about grid mod would be to discuss it in the context of number seven. >> Okay. So, Commissioner Phelps, you're uncomfortable with uh electric and gas and wastewater. I >> I just don't see the the the particular grid mod separately why there would be a special focus. I mean, I don't know what it means. >> I think it's just that's where our biggest capital improvement investments are going to be. So it like and in so far as we want to share with council what our priorities are and where we want staff to prioritize their time and effort. I think there are elements of calling out specific utilities um that could be especially helpful. >> Fine. I mean >> the only thing is the wastewater treatment plans capex is outside our purview >> and I think that that is a problem. It's not a problem. It's just it's actually it's an anti-pro. It's out of scope. >> Well, want to dig into that one? >> Um I think it is challenging to set rates when you have no control over the capital plan. >> Yeah, that's what happens in water. But there's actually some internal citywide accountability to that that we do have agency over and that I think we should do something about. That was my two cents. Um, as you can see in my I I tried to be very lean, guys. Uh I really think that the capital improvement plan and operating expenses for the wastewater utility are very important for us to dig into and are not currently um in our operational purview but absolutely should be. >> When you look at all we've accomplished in the utility space according to our work plan last year. Imagine what we could do for the wastewater treatment plant. >> If you put that in the minutes I hope you'll note it was a joke. >> I'm fine with it as edited. I'll just leave it out. Um, >> but I I >> we should have a colleagueu's memo or something on a topic. I mean, if if that's what we really believe, I don't think it necessarily belongs in this, but there should be some potential action. Maybe we can take it offline. >> I I there was not a strong reflection of that. Uh I mean you know uh lest you think I came up with those list. Um my own second priority didn't make it uh in a particularly uh large way. So I >> I didn't read that second item to mean that. So it's cool. >> Well yes it >> please use your microphone. It it there was a lot of discretion that there in the second item. Um but anyway, let's move on to number six. Can >> Can I actually make one just for clarity because it's going to it's going to hurt my brain. So we we say including including projects to be included. Can we just say which >> which projects to include? >> Sorry. >> Capital improvement plan >> program. Which projects to include? >> Yes, thank you. >> Sorry. >> It was hurting my brain. Which projects to include? >> Maybe we don't need that at all. >> Just capital improvement program timing of the projects etc. >> That was the other option. But I thought you wanted you wanted to pick the projects that >> No, I don't need to pick the projects. I want to see the plan and know that the plan is being correctly developed with a holistic viewpoint. Okay. Um number six, fiber to the premises. I'm sorry, chair. Uh the clerk still has the track changes in item number five with a special focus on electric and wastewater utilities. We've got that generally is great. Yeah. >> You want to keep that >> please? If only because it gives me cover. All righty. Um, fiber to the premises. I appreciated the inclusion of KPI discussions here. Does anyone have any edits? >> Yeah. I would be strong. I would say that since this is us, I think we should commit to make a recommendation to city council. So, it's not to me it's not just reviewing. I mean, we're doing a hell of a lot of reviewing. I guess that's, you know, that's the nature of the UAC. But this is one where I think we should commit ourselves to make a recommendation which could be you know continue expansion or not. >> Are we going to have uh could we get a refresh from staff on where we will be 12 months from now in a >> Okay, great. So we'll be done with not only phase zero but phase one or whatever. >> Uh I think we should I don't think we will be done with the totality of phase one with data to then report out on but I do think we will have data associated with the subset of phase one the initial pilot area. Um and then you know we can make some assumptions and have that policy discussion. Great. Uh, can I ask how council is going to feel about recommendations that come before the conclusion of phase one? >> Well, I think if you see some big red flags, >> yeah, you're going to want to hear about it. >> Yeah, we want to hear about this. This is I'm glad you asked the question because somewhere else I was looking to make the comment that at some point in time if there are things that are already approved by council but you think are a concern, then you obviously want to raise that with staff. uh and it's and use the right format to get that information to council which might be you know staff creates a discussion item on the pilot um I mean I mean a study session excuse me as opposed to an action item which would be a public hearing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think this item if you look at the the commissioner uh priorities two of them had to do with go no goes one had to do with cash and another one had to do with execution. So I think somehow this has to incorporate the idea of money right particularly with the city's physical situation. >> So do we want to uh >> metric the metrics here are engineeringish metrics and we need to have business metrics. >> Well there's a financial forecast projection but you you'd like to add how do you want to edit this one? Um where does it >> I have a suggestion on the financial for I was also going to point out I think we need to have instead of financial forecast projection a revised financial model like long-term long-term finan revised long-term financial model and capital >> if we're expenditure estimates >> I think the numbers I would like to see would be revenue and it could be a projection of revenue do you know the take rate times you know what we expect to get in other areas revenue cash flow and uh number of customers signed up I think >> you know and cap capex that basically would spin >> profitability in the business >> right >> that would be great Phil but and we've just every time we discuss fiber every time we discuss fiber this issue of like phase zero phase one what's pilot what's you know um we just heard that there won't be any We we've just heard that phase one won't be actionable or finished in this coming fiscal year if I heard right. And if that's the case, all we'll have to go on is the phase zero that I kind of think of as a technical work the kinks out. It's not going to give us take rate. It's not going to give us revenue projections. Uh we're not going to be able to make conclusions. I think even about pricing. I mean our time of use pilot has less than 10 users. you could never make any, you know, model on the back of that. And I fear that in the course of FY27, if it's, as we just heard from the desk, if that's the the way things are going to be for for fiber, we're not going to make any assumptions or recommendations next year. That's sobering, but I don't see how else can we see it. >> I think we need still need to see the KPIs that they do collect. And I think we should always have a working financial model like what we what we think it's going to cost us as we roll it out. And we can make different assumptions on the take rate. You could make different assumptions on the pricing. Those are really easy things to change in the model, but a lot of the stuff is going to be we're going to figure out how much it costs to uh put the cable in to attach each house and those things should be in a revised model. >> Um >> yeah, >> and I think that can be informative for whatever that's worth. It's remember this initial phase is almost a thousand passings. So it's not the whole city and it's not thousands uh that were initially in the larger geoenced phase one area but it can give you an initial snapshot and I think that's what staff's intent is is to bring that forward update the business model um to identify if there are any early red flags um you know this is a an evolving business line in general and so um having these checkpoints I think uh is the intention to keep an eye on those flags early so that we can continue to make informed decisions. >> Yeah, I think >> you can also do an assessment of the uh competitors at that point as well. That should be data that's available. >> That's a great point. I think staff shared early on with um with at least I don't know the finance subcommittee shared an economic model that went out 35 years in the future or something. just updating that with the new information. You know, as Commissioner Cross said, what are the take rates we're seeing? What are the costs that we're actually seeing? You know, how would we update given what we've seen? That may not mean it's not the final, but it'll give us a good indication when we went into this. Does it look like we were over optimistic or over pessimistic or about right? >> Okay. Um are we recommending changes to these KPIs or are we going to keep this as is or any further changes to the KPIs? >> Yeah, I had one suggestion which was not a change to the KPIs but whether the scope of this should be increased. You know, basically we're talking about looking at the pilot and then evaluating it a little more quantitatively. Um what I was suggesting was find ways to accelerate the cash flow to which through harder you know uh more um intense sales marketing or possibly through other connection methods beyond fiber to the home. Uh we might be able to accelerate that. >> Should we say review fiber to the premises utility uh financial standing and pilot results? So I guess >> I think >> question says we're going to inform a recommendation. I mean that says to me why don't we say review and make a recommendation. >> Yeah. >> Sure. The way to write that could be is to recommend next steps. Okay. Review and recommend next steps. >> Right. For example, >> following fiber the fiber to the premises policy results. Like one really important thing would be you we're talking about take rates but supposeding the take rates lower than what was forecast. Is that because people changed their minds? They don't really want it now or is it because we could do a better job at sales or some other factor? I think it's important to understand those factors and and as this says now uh to you know recommend actions What is going on with this screen thing? >> And just recommend next steps. >> Yeah. Great. Okay. Um, number seven. Can we reset our clock so that I can >> Can we please take out the comma after the word revised? It's a revised long-term financial model. Thanks. >> Great. Can we reset the clock, please? Just so I can try to keep us on time. Um, okay. Uh number seven appears to be our uh gridbod uh abre what what could be abbreviated as gridmod um does uh do we want to expand this one to include other elements >> is this grid mod or data centers not clear to me since it talks about large commercial roses and non-resident residential >> the these are large commercial loads that are for research and development. Uh you some folks can say data centers um that's not really what we're seeing here in PaloAlto. We're seeing those those larger loads associated with kind of research and development and tech companies. >> So this was not grid mod per se. >> This is data centers. I I just misspoke >> or misremembered >> what the the the term in in is electric uh large electric loads um because it's it's sometimes data centers is frankly too limiting or too expensive. >> Do we want um just to clarify um the including but not limited to a financial charge for the reservation of electric system capacity? Is that like long-term reservation of electric system capacity? Is that what we're intending to say there? like we don't want people to come in with big loads and then go out of business and not have any liabilities. I mean, we've talked about that before that our contracts have to have a >> Is that what that means? >> So, so one of the intents that staff would like to develop a policy around is uh one we have new business that come in and they want to understand what capacity is available, right? Right. And once they understand what capacity available to that particular site, they want to reserve that capacity for their project that they're developing. Um the concern is that do they make that reservation at no cost or is there a small uh fee that reserves that in place? That's step one, right? So they have a policy around that. Step two is that as they develop their site and their project, what's the cost recovery agreement for that development of that? They pay everything up front. Is there some other mechanism that's a portion up front and a portion paid out over time? Is there a risk that if they don't meet certain metrics with their load and usage that they have to pay additional fees? That's the second part of that policy. And then that kind of that tail end of that is the third part is what's the rate structure for these larger uh research or development type loads. Is it still appropriate for the large commercial rate existing rate for those customers or should there be something else that modifies that rate? um say a demand charge that's a little bit different or unique for that type of customer class. So that's kind of the three parts to this. Um it really is focused on those large commercial loads, but there's a three-step process that we go through. And some of the challenge we have right now is everybody is fighting for available capacity. And so how do you fairly allocate that available system capacity but not necessarily provide it to one person for free and they hold it hostage and prevent maybe somebody else from coming in and providing that um benefit broader benefit to the community. >> That sounds extremely important. Um the question I had about the long-term commitment to take the energy that they are contracting for is that incorporated in this somehow? it it could be incorporated in that cost recovery agreement. It could be incorporated into a rate agreement. Um and so there's a different structure in there. We can thought talk through that, but that's the intent is to try and put this as a you know a goal or priority to finish something with inside of the next 12 months so that we can actually be um consistent and effective in working with uh this type of customer. >> Okay. Um I'm going to move on after one more minute. Uh so uh Vice Chair Phillips, you get the last word on this one. >> Oh, good. Um is this a study like a comprehensive study that you're planning to do and come up at some point in the next 12 months with a policy to present that says for large commercial loads and people who want to reserve capacity, here's a new rate structure, a new policy. What what what are you thinking? This is something that would come to us and does it have to go to city council or because it's new rates. >> That's correct. is that to have those initial discussions with the UAC about the policy for reserving system capacity, a policy for cost recovery um through the development of the project and then potentially have that discussion about the existing rates and how those are appropriate or potentially discussions about how those would be adjusted for these large customers >> and potentially new product products. I don't know if you're talking about interruptible load or any of this stuff, but is that on the table? >> It could include standby charges or special facility charges. >> Okay, thank you. I support it. >> Great. >> And it doesn't require a new Kosa. >> I'm kidding. You don't have to respond to that. Okay. Uh I did not hear any proposed edit. So I'd like to move on. I had one question this is not edited which is one of my priorities is electric utility business strategy of which I would say this is an important proper subset. >> Great. >> So do we take that up here or as a separate item? >> I think that's a separate item. >> Okay. >> Uh let's proceed to number eight. Could you reset the clock please? Thank you. Um E1 uh rate design This res >> I think this is meant to be review and evaluate pre preliminary results of the E1 electric utility time of use rate pilot is that results of the pilot um it's not really correct on energy usage patterns to inform further implementation of the full POW community. I mean I'm uh financial impacts to customers and utility. I would expand that future. I think we should have Google Docs so we can all um Where are we? Okay. So, I don't see any edits going in. Review and evaluate preliminary results of the E1 electric utility time of use rate pilot, >> um, changes in strike design on. So it says changes in energy usage patterns to inform further implementation to the full POT community comet financial impacts to customers and utility and utility. Sorry customers and utility. Do you want to move the inform implementation to the end of that >> because it now doesn't quite make sense? Sure. So you would take out to inform further implementation to the Paulo Yeah. community and put that at the end. So cut cut it and then paste it at the end. >> Yes. Benjamin Franklin refused to take the declaration of independence because he would not write something to be subjected to a committee. >> Well, I pity staff for having had to take the first shot at this. We can thank staff for kindly taking the first shot at this. Jefferson will >> uh Okay. And then put an and after patterns. So it'll go energy usage patterns and financial impacts to customers and utility. That's fine. >> Okay, great. Wonderful. Let's reset the clock and move on to um >> PPAs. We have a lot of power utility um items here and I think it may be helpful just if staff wouldn't mind kind of clustering those uh as a series of numbers. I think it would aid in our discussion later on. Um if there's an offline thing that you guys could do while we're continuing to edit um >> this includes the integrated resource plan which we haven't looked at. >> No AB. Absolutely. I'm not I'm not This has nothing to do with number nine. I just am going to note that we have many different power things >> and I I'd like to get a sense of which numbers um are more power related, which numbers are we have to do these things no matter what. Um so if somebody could think about numerical ordering here to facilitate prioritization, that would be helpful. Okay. So we have number nine which is procuring these new power purchase agreements. Um, >> initially >> we don't procure. So I just like to make that heard was review and recommend approval. >> Okay. >> Of new power purchase agreements. >> Great. That sounds great. >> Okay. >> And what about a bigger? >> Um Rachel, you've often asked about status of IRP. Is is that something that be called out here? Just seeing the portfolio. Um I know you guys do an IRP periodically. I'm not sure when are you due to do one next. Uh, we'll look we'll look that one up and you can because that might be a separate item. >> I'm guessing it was 2023 just I'm I know we looked at it once and that's why I thought we looked at it every year but then I realized we don't do it every year. I my if we're due to do one, we should put them on here, but if not, it would just be to, you know, review the power portfolio into the future because it always tails off and see what we're going to do to fill in our requirements in the future, including the power purchase agreements. >> Maybe we what we add in there is also aligned with uh electro portfolio strategy and integrated resources plan. So, why don't we just just specifically put it in there? So we make sure we we have that there. >> Okay, that sounds great. >> The last one is 23. >> Y >> for this one I want to suggest adding an demand forecast. >> Could be could be 70% who knows. >> Okay. >> So can we just go to drafting? Alan, you made a suggestion. >> Yeah. So, I was going to add um sorry long-term portfolio strateg and and and consistency with the integrated resources plan. >> Isn't that our long-term electric portfolio strategy? Let me >> Isn't the portfolio strategy a subset of the integrated resource plan? >> It I was trying to be specific on the integrated resources plan. I mean at some folks could maybe maybe we change long-term electric portfolio strategy just, you know, with compliance to RPS. I'm I'm looking left and right here. >> Okay, guys. Uh it's fine. Just take out the and integration and consistency with and just say and aligned with the city's electric portfolio strategy and the integrated resources plan. So get rid of the ws. >> I just can't have integrated in there twice. Okay, that's fine. Moving on. 34 seconds. Um, >> sorry. I'm I'm >> Dan Sgap. >> Well, this is almost verbatim to what we have in last year's plan. And I would be hardressed to tell you what UAC did to um >> We have a meeting on the SAP. >> We have a meeting Friday. >> Yeah. So, that's good. >> What's our advice going to be? So that that agenda is being >> Yeah, I was going to say not on the uh not on the agenda for tonight. So we will not discuss it. >> Does this even need to be a priority for us? Number why not delete the whole thing? >> I feel like SAP for us like we care about it, right? It's important for the utility, but I'm not sure the funding and financing strategies are the thing that we need to highlight here. It almost feels like review SCAP goals in progress and and strategies for aligning the utility >> with those goals and it's because >> important thing the alignment of CPAU with ESCAP because it's it's kind of >> nutty to be having a plan for sustainability without the participation of the group only group that can make it happen. And are are we seeing the funding and financing because we're thinking of taking money from we're thinking of taking money from our cap cap and trade. >> Correct. So so the the conversations um and the commitment uh by the city um a lot of the funds being used available funds restricted reserves can be coming from the cap and invest fund the public benefits charge low carbon fuel standard credits. Um so those are those are restricted utility revenues um that benefit both the utility the customers and u the climate and sustainability goals. >> Okay. >> So there's levers you can pull in terms of where those fundings funds can be used and that impacts affordability. Um and then the priorities. >> Okay. I see why that's important and I'm actually okay with the language. Um, I would like us to align all of our discussions with with ESCAP, but I see that this is a spec very specific one. Okay. Um, number 11, report on and seek advisory positions. I'm not going to be doing any reporting. Um, >> I I I don't know if was this >> it was on last year. >> I think the point for us is to provide advice on positions on legis. So, I'd say take out the report on and seek advisory. say provide advice on know UAC positions on legislative mean the way I you know the way I see it would work is the reporting is done by staff we come back and say yeah we think definitely we should be you know we should be lobbying for that or no we shouldn't be >> great so provide UAC's advisory positions. >> Could we just say advise council >> or advise on? >> But we're not going to advise on those proposals. I mean, we >> Right. So, if you'd like the MUN code language, it's formulate and review, legislative proposals for recommendation to city council, blah blah blah blah blah. >> Formulate and review. >> I don't want formulating anything. >> I agree. So, I would say review and recommend. >> Review and recommend advisory positions. Let's do that. Okay, great. Uh number 12, annual report on customer survey results, communication methods, and new initiatives. For example, uh Commissioner Croft's request around leak notifications, including review of effectiveness of those engagements. I mean to me it's what we do is review and approve just in the spirit of having >> That's right. We need a verb here >> having um verbs. So, uh, okay. Any concerns there? >> I mean, I don't know how others feel about this. I don't want to belabor it terribly long. I do feel like many many times we wonder if the community knows what we're doing and um having some kind of more um formulaic way of getting in touch with them. That's what I'd like to see. Um but I don't want I don't think it's the most important thing in this list. So >> the couch that would be actually probably helpful or even commenting on next door which is not our policy. Um, do we uh Okay. Um, do we have anything? >> Nothing wrong with striking things. >> Well, yes, but we're not striking right now. >> Oh, sorry. >> Thank you. But, um, no, thank you. >> I still want to hear about them. I'm just not recommending a change to this particular item, but I still think communication is extremely important. I don't want to strike it at this point. >> Okay. Um provide advise advice. I think there's a typo there. Um >> 13 advice to the Bosco board director Vice Mayor Stone clearly communicating UAC's recommendation for Palo Alto's perspectives and priorities regarding SFPU water policies. Um, could we please replace that S with a >> C? Right. Are you either advising or >> Sorry, just to go back to item 12. I don't know if you're actually approving the customer survey results. We can just review. >> Just need to review. >> So get rid of you can strike proof. >> Thanks. >> I prefer to unclearly communicate. >> This does a good job. >> Be very happy. >> I don't appreciate my jokes. Is this number 13? I mean, I didn't put water. I know there have been several people that are extremely vocal about needing to get to SFPU with our comments. Is this the only way we're going to do it is through Vice Mayor Stone or do you guys want to collaborate with him on strategies to >> I don't know if this is >> I think this is a very important question and I would like to uh defer to our council member representative uh to the UAC to advise us on how to advise relative to action number 13. Yeah, I I do think that this is a cooperative effort uh that has to be driven um by staff and council and the vice mayor happens to be, you know, the sort of the the point person on this, but um and you've gone over this before in terms of how difficult this is and I think the action has to be probably driven by staff is my off the cuff. I mean, you're you're on record, so you know, being there to, you know, take action to uh create some changes in the current policies or something like that where you're uh working with staff to make that happen. But I think it has to be it has to be driven by council and council representatives. So, it's definitely has to be done through that person. But um that it's about all I can say. Maybe more um concretely I will just say that there was some discussion of like okay what do we actually I'm not sure that we are able um to provide strong recommendations in the current environment and that most of what I've heard has been a request for information rather than a request for changes because frankly we've had a bunch wet years. They're not putting any money in this year or next year. >> Maybe they are, but >> we'll we'll not go any further down that rabbit hole. Um, but like if there's going to be a capital improvement, like that's going to go back to Bosco for approval before any big capital improvement happens. So, we're with all due respect making a lot of noise around long-term hypothetical planning, but there isn't an action that we are objecting to other than that hypothetical planning which is only materialized and implemented through capital improvements. So if there's information that we want staff to pursue, we need to be much more clear about it here than this action item or we need to depprioritize this because we don't believe that we can get that information or we don't believe that it's important this year. So on a staff perspective um when we look at the deliverables going maybe that SFPU is looking at through BOSA maybe that information would be helpful to help you look at your priorities. I think one of the key ones that we're seeing is actually in the 2028 time frame when they're looking at um their the larger alternative water supplies and they'll be making decisions on on bringing other um cities who are are uh are not permanent customers and what and that process looks like. So >> yeah, >> I would um others may not agree, but those are probably the higher priorities in the 2028 time frame. I think that that's exactly right. So, what do we need to be doing as a utility to get ready for 2028? >> So, what I think what I'm hearing is to bring back some of the the items that will go before Bosa um so that UAC can make some of these recommendations on our positions or potential positions and maybe that bring up a timeline of what of those upcoming items are. And I'll look to >> Lisa who's here >> to Lisa if I am incorrect on that assumption >> staff representative. >> Yeah. So the alternative water supplies are the 2828 time frame. But what what I think >> 28 >> 2028. So what I think what we what staff can do is we can bring back kind of what those actionable items on the next phases that SFP is required to provide to Bosa and we get that in front of UAC so you can see what ones you think you want to have discussions in and around. >> Okay. But I mean somewhat to like what end right like I I appreciate that and I think it's good for education. um it's important for anticipating future rates, but I want to be a little bit more specific about the information that we're seeking so that we can do something with that information. >> So, so the the the structure of BOSA of the 26 agencies as um um council membering mentioned, it's Vice Mayor Greer who's our representative. That is the mechanism where all the 26 agencies have those conversations with SP SFPU staff attends those conversations. I was at the last BOSA meeting um to hear the you know the report out and and uh comments from from the general public. So we are actively engaged as as uh the council mentioned as staff. Um the Bosa does not or SFP does not report or have any obligation. >> I know >> like >> to your point to UAC that said UAC is a body of that provides >> a member of that >> and and then we're trying to be more clear in saying that you know Vice Mayor Stone is our BOSA board of directors. So >> okay. So, but hearing all the interest here, we're just trying to bring back like what what are the upcoming items we might >> I know and I'm trying to level set expectations on this committee about what we can do and what we can't do if we want to have 12 other things or fewer but like realistically we cannot spend five or six meetings talking about water every year, right? We just can't. So because it's at the expense of other things. So I want to be very specific about what we want and what we need. Like there are big decisions coming in 28, >> right? >> Big decisions. Guys, >> can I make a suggestion? Uh I don't think it's complicated. I don't think we'll resolve it here tonight. I think this would be one area to have as our leazison suggested an ad hoc committee of there's a few people who are really interested in this topic and let them work on the question you you just raised. >> Well, I I would say I do not want to uh decide on an ad hoc committee tonight for any of these things. I think that there are several things that might warrant one. Um but I don't want to commit to those right now. Um what I would say is that and and where I was going with this is that there are there are big decisions coming in 28 and there's a degree of education that needs to happen in advance of us approving those decisions. Right? So what are the educational pieces that are important for us to get in advance of 28 and to encourage good strong staff and and community engagement um with those educational pieces and I would say the concept of recycled water is a really important one to get moving on. Um, and I think that the uh the like need for and and um but people need to understand why we need new supply and why we want to pay for a different kind of supply that's resilient in a new way, right? how it fits into that portfolio and have some early indicator of what that's going to mean for rates. >> When you say recycled When you say recycled water, are you talking um u >> let's just say generally no I'm talking no alternative water supplies. >> Oh well, I mean we've we went down that road. We reached our conclusions. Um >> we reached our conclusions locally. SPUC can do whatever they want on re on uh alternative water supply development. >> Right. And what I'm hearing from you is that UAC not prioritize in other words take a a fairly passive hands-off approach to the entire SFPU politics. And um you know >> how about how about if we say this? I'm concerned about us preparing ourselves for good decision making in 28 and I'm cons which is when a decision on any of this would act that would affect rates would actually happen because right now frankly nothing's getting built that would affect rates. >> What sort of decision even stands before us in 28? I mean >> I will I will not >> I don't even understand what category you're talk of decision you're talking about. So what I would suggest again is let staff come back and talk and provide you u the the UAC of some of the upcoming deliverables and actions and activities that SFPU has to make in their decision-m process. >> Okay. I think that that is a reasonable action item >> if that's the action item that to bring back and this that's an action item we can bring back to that and then that will help to uh commissioner Tuker is like what what is coming up if that's the action one we can >> I guess my point is like this like I'm sorry but number 13 doesn't say anything so if we could be more specific about um you know we will review the upcoming uh action items on the BOSA agenda and and and materials that prepare us for uh you I don't know and and review educational materials or or I don't want to say educational just materials um that are material to deci forthcoming decisions. So, it's not just what is coming up this year, but it's what do we need as a community to know as we prepare to engage with much bigger decisions that are likely to come in the future. >> I don't want the first part of it. It doesn't say anything. Well, uh, two, uh, two of the top five lists, me and UTS, uh, do say something specific about water. Not me, not, you know, confusing. It's very direct what we think one ought to do with water. Um, or on this on this on this work plan item. Uh, Bob Phillips also comments on water. We ought to clearly concern uh, communicate city concerns. Uh but you know it >> yes but >> it sounds like you don't you don't want to make that a priority item that one do anything about SF not in 2028 but right now is we're looking at 10% rate increases this year and next year and as far as the eye can see and I know SFP >> that's a combination of our distribution system and our >> that's right but as a you started this by mention you're referring to altwater investments which SFPC will make or they won't. Um but it's also straight up standard capex maintenance and deferred maintenance that um where their their CIP program is ballooning and it just rolls downhill on us. And so we either are silent and take it or we come up with some kind of policy approach of course starting through our council representative on Bosa. But there are a number of other you know ways that we might find leverage. We might also work with other Bosa member uh with other neighbor cities and districts. Um you know it's I don't want to get into it here but it's not just alt water it's standard capex. It affects us now not just in 2028. Um enough said. >> Did you want to revise this in any way? >> Yeah you can just copy paste some of the things that are already in place. I I Okay. But in in uh service to to wrapping up this uh exercise, >> um >> I would like to see that final thing on there. Uh I suggested striking the earlier stuff because >> something to effective provide advice to council. Provide advice to council on a policy stance. Okay. strategy, tactics, approach, whatever towards or visav SFPC and BOSA there's something in all those words >> and there we can provide advice to Sure >> so that we can you know with an aim towards uh you know better drought planning statist statistics more collaborative collaboration and you know all the things we've talked about many times I doesn't help to rattle them off here but um so that we don't have 10% rate increases for the rest of time >> but we have we have seen IP and we have rates above but I I think that there's some valuable >> anticipation of what is coming down the pike so that we can and and education around that so that we can anticipate whether there's going to be large rate increases. I I I I like seeing both of them, but I would also say just provide advice to council on a policy stance toward OSA and SFPU without getting into the details of drought planning and all this other stuff. >> That's fine. I like I like that brevity. But Megan, could I ask one last time, what are these things coming down the pike that are different from what we're facing right now? I don't see what happens in two years. So there are decisions I again I don't want to belabor this but I think coming back with the specific items >> um that are in San Francisco's um um agreement with the with the cities and how they're going to be providing or not providing um waters to other cities in 2028 >> and they're and they're so again I would just like to bring those back those action items and activities for that for you to consider and and without going through the items here given that you were still going through your priorities. >> Yes. And it's not agendaized. So um given that is everyone feels generally comfortable with number 13. Okay. Are there any items that um were not on? >> No. I just like like Bob said the 13 should just say provide advice. Am I looking at the right thing? Yeah. 13 provide advice to council on policies. >> How do you how do you do that? What like what is it? >> That's a whole other question. How we provide advice to council but what do you mean we how do we >> everything else is much more specific right? I mean at least this tells us what what is the input that we are providing advice around. We are not all subject matter experts on this topic for this community. Staff is, Bosa is, SAP is. We need to be very careful about where our technical expertise stops and starts >> and stops at zero. Um >> I I think if we can we can review their materials for >> policy priorities or something, but we this is not our job to to design and operate their system. >> No, it's our job to advise council on important utility issues and the water rate increases that we are getting sale are one of those. So if these words capture that then I'm fine with these words. >> Okay. Are there any items that we would like to add? >> We need to add a grid mod one. I have mocked one up. Okay. Does anybody else have one they want to >> I have two I would like to add. >> Okay. >> On grid mod. >> Not on grid mod related electric utility business strategy. >> Okay. Let me let me just read the grid mod one and then you can do your two. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um I'll just speak it and then we can edit. So, grid mod colon review strategy for citywide grid upgrades, comma, design standards and technologies, comma, timing of investment and work, comma, and customer impacts. Get it away. >> There's got to be a comment here. >> Okay. Uh >> there's an Oxford com for you. >> Appreciate it. Uh any other additions? You >> mean separate items or to this? to this. >> Someone's having a party outside. >> Oh, I would say uh the demand impacts is an important >> the impact of demand on the all this other stuff. >> Yes. >> Okay. maybe review citywide load projections and strategy for these upgrades, right? Because the load projections drive grid mod. >> I don't know. I'm not sure that's true. >> Oh, yeah. We've just changed our we absolutely. Come on. I mean, one of the things I said in my memo is that um we hear this from council a lot, the reminder that much of the $450 million grid mod project has to be done anyway. I've never seen an analysis that gets anywhere close to delineating what has to be done anyway with what is presumably optional, better, premium, really modernized. So um it'd be a helpful exercise in my opinion to understand what has to be done anyway. >> I thought that was a pretty good review that we had earlier. We had presentation really reviewed like what's antiquated? What do we need to change? What are the still questions that are still outstanding? And and does it describe what what comes above and oh I know we went to when and where but >> um am I the only one who doesn't have a good understanding of what is baseline or we have to do anyway and what premium what comes above that. I I thought it was pretty good and I I actually would love to continue to have more discussions to understand how how the vision changed. But in the original presentation, I thought it was pretty well explained what we need to do. >> I'll go back and look for that and also be curious what the dollar amount is that we, you know, what falls in which bucket. Um how much of the 4 3 375 to 450 is uh baseline? >> Okay, this is not an agenda item. So I want to keep it to what we are actually planning to work on. Um while recognizing that we recently had a presentation on this. >> Um do you have any specific needs of does the UA or does the electric utility have any specific needs of us? V is a V reviewing load projections and strategy for the the language on this. >> So I think there's a continued need to provide staff advice on the impact and pace of the CIP the spending and how that affects rates, right? So I think that's an overall um project and the staff will design that to minimize the impact of rates. Um, but as we minimize that impact rate, we're going to have to look at prioritizing projects. And so we will come back with staff as staff will come back and actually provide that. So part of this creating this goal >> would actually kind of reinforce that need to continue to come back to the UBC and and talk through what the what this plan for Gridmont is and how it's evolving and how the costs are continuing to project and what they are as forecast as far as long term. Right. >> Okay. Um, and do you see this as sufficiently differentiated or do you have a clear understanding of how that presentation would be different than the presentations related to the capital improvement plan for the electric power utility? >> To me, I see this proposed addition as very very similar to what would be brought back under the CIP review. >> Okay. Um, hearing that as a UAC, is there value in placing this as a sub bullet in our CIP? >> I I actually do you want it separate? >> Can I one comment I have is that two important words to me in here are design standards. So kind of to Commissioner Tuker's point, what are we designing, what are going to be our standards? So we are kind of talking about upgrading everything from 4 to 12. Um, anything that's 4 kilovolts is underpowered. So we need to get those up to I don't remember. We taking them to 12. And then um you know like the transformers, how many houses will they serve? You know, we still have some critical questions we need to answer and I feel like those are design standards. You know, we're we need to decide like what are we building to and then where do we not have that? I I thought your presentation was great in terms of describing where we need upgrades anyway. We have equipment that's 70 years old. It's at the end of its useful life. we need to replace those, you know, or we are bringing up the voltage to be uniform across the city. Um, so you presented to us things that needed to be done, but we still had some open comments. And I do think design standards for grid mod is a specific thing I would like to understand. And it's not just um I mean you could describe it in the CIP process, but it's kind of a separate like it's driving the CIPs. And if we just see those CIP projects without understanding why they are, it's hard to advise on them. Yeah, and I would I would agree with that that the load profile design standards drive and justify which CIPs are recommended for funding. And so to me, that's integrated into that presentation of the CIP. Why is this project moving forward? Well, it's because of this low projection or because of this design standard that we're trying to meet. So, we could include those in that discussion to do that deeper dive on the CIPs. why this project not another one or what's driving the need for this project. um we could keep that as a standalone item if that's the intent >> and and part of the standalone items and having those is so you can highlight what you're going to be looking at, right? And so that the the lay person can see that though I would I love the using the word grid mod. It's still a jargon for us. So we probably should say electric grid modernization and put in parenthesis that that's grid mod. But >> I I agree with that. I was going to suggest that change grid modernization. Oh, isn't that what I think it should stand alone? It's it's so it's bigger than everything else and electricity put together. It's bigger than all the gas capex put together. So, it's just big enough to stand by itself. Another bullet under electric and grid mod is um a lot of our community speakers who've written letters and so forth for years and talked about the issue of things like panel sizing and and whether we're overbuilding in certain neighborhoods just because the panels get bigger and never mind what actual peak load at that particular residence. Again, I keep reminding myself that I'm talking residential when that's the minority. It's the small part of our usage. Commercial is is is another big topic. But just in residential, um now that we have AMI, um I'm very keen, I think several of us are, is to see, um are there learnings from um from AMI that show us whether this panel upsizing problem, I'll call it, um you know, whether it's there. In other words, are we finding interesting or or you know correlations and trends uh between panel upsizing and actual peak load? And then one has to wonder, did we plan grid mod buildout to serve all these 600 amp panels that actually aren't using the load that you might think they do? I mean, those are things I'm sure you know, but I I think we on UAC don't track that yet. >> Okay. Um, I think rather than I like we need to stay focused and I need to get out of here. Uh, so what I would like to do now is I I understand that there are maybe a couple of additional items that Commissioner Mets would like to add. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Could we do that quickly and and wrap this uh in the next 5 10 minutes um so that we can vote? >> Okay. and prioritize >> the f the first one which is written down um is electric utility business strategy. So I would just copy what was submitted which was develop a flexible scenario-based business strategy that incorporates impacts on CPAU of increased and highly uncertain demand from data centers and other loads both within CPAU territory and throughout Caliso. uh I think that's the second part is something very important that has not been discussed much because even if we were to do nothing with data centers the impact of AI is going to uh cascade throughout the grid and it's going to affect us whether we have any local loads or not uh energy demand is is just skyrocketing electricity in ways that hasn't happened in decades probably probably since the early history of electrification so it's a t tremendous uh transformation that we need to be able to deal with. Okay. So, I had some more details in there, but I think this would be fine for uh just uh a label. Um what kind of questions does staff have in terms of the business strategy pertaining to our electric utility? I um I think there is some if you look at our RP looking some changes. We look at a high low and medium forecast. Um and we are communing with meeting with our customers or setting up these policies and procedure try to keep them very narrow. I I think um this one while well while interesting I don't think it's like a priority for us right now as a utility to be to be more straightforward on that and then throughout the Kaiso the Kaiso is it's a it's a balancing authority throughout the state of Northern California um for us to take on that type of analysis is really um kind of far far reaching in terms of what that would would look like. So, um, as as a staff trying to prioritize on making sure that when we bring in load, we protecting our customers, we're making updates to our RP, we're doing these highly structured and close ones really are are our our key areas. I think on a a business strategy plan, you know, I'm I'm struggling with that a little bit in terms of how we would um we would put that together in the timeline or >> I think we we don't need to be uh mapping out what's going on in throughout Caliso in detail, but we do need to have a sense of what's going to happen to the demand for energy and capital equipment and so on as a result of decisions made, you know, throughout the world and especially in Kel ISO. I think they're going to affect availability of energy for us. They're going to affect what we talked about before, our PPAs that we try to establish, particularly it's going to affect uh gas as we're seeing throughout the country already. So, you know, I I I'm not saying this is easy, but I mean, the the utility teed up uh a demand forecast with a window of 100%. 10 years out. And so, we're talking about spending real money on capital and making big decisions about PPAs and so on. So, I'm suggesting a planning process that can get us closer to making good decisions on those big expenditures. >> I think um I think we I think you captured that in item 14 though in looking at the load projections and and how that ties to our grid modernization. Um you know, the Kaiso process working with the CEC with Kaiso. I mean, there's a lot of moving parts in there. Um so I'm you know looking at the grid modernization is really I think that area of focus for us. I and I I'll look to to Terry I don't see that as a as a the near-term priority. Um I think looking at the grid modernization and how that impact rates and affordability is really kind of that focus. I I think that is that near-term business strategy. I wouldn't even say it's our midterm business strategy that a lot of the agencies have not done an extensive grid modernization. They're very few throughout the state. >> Phil, it it sounds to me like what you're saying is like anybody who reads the newspaper knows that uh power energy around the world is you know it's exploding in demand. So it sounds like your fears or your concerns here are will that affect cost like what the cost of a transformer or the lead time or just our ability to get infrastructure stuff and your other concern probably is does this mean our power cost like the next trolley deal is going to be much more expensive and and and maybe what you're saying is um council expects the UAC to have a position on given these huge macro things that are going they're going to shake the world. Um, you know, our world in in in electric. Um, what's, you know, what's our position? Are we discussing this actively with staff? Is is that what you're saying? >> Yeah, this is all the above. And item 14 is a capital plan, which of course is extremely important in a business that's very hap heavily capital intensive. But we're throwing in uh a ringer which never existed before, which is that demand is changing dramatically in unpredictable ways. And that affects every ingredient of the business. It affects our revenue. It affects our cost both on the energy side and on the capital side. and we need to have at least a framework for thinking about that. So maybe instead of saying you know we want a business strategy for electric which makes it sound like we don't have one and we do um maybe it's more like given these given these major shifts and the question on everyone's mind like what's happening in the electric space both in buying the power and buying the stuff what's does UAC and is UAC and staff are we collaborating to have advice to to council maybe maybe item 16 or whatever says something like that separate from grid mod. I don't know. >> I mean, I have to get us down to six items. Okay. >> Well, then get rid of all the ones that are baseline, like reviewing the rates and the capex. >> But we don't need to get rid of six. We're just going to prioritize six, right? >> We need to prioritize six. And I I just want to be realistic. We're not going to get to >> 15. >> You asked for addition. I I want the additions, but I just want to be clear on where there's if there's any tweaks we can make to the existing ones that would capture elements of this because we have many on the electric utility already. And I and my point about affordability of electricity, I mean, you could build in something that acknowledges the current environment because I do think it is on everyone's mind is that electricity is going to become more more expensive. Market rates are probably going to come become more expensive if we become more exposed to market rates because we can't get power purchase agreements, etc. So I if we focus on long-term affordability, 5-year affordability, put those words in the affordability category, >> I would strongly support if there's if there's if the focus is on the impact on affordability, right? Um you know, if the business strategy is is it solveny or is it affordability? I mean those are the two things about a business strategy, right? >> I mean you can you can shoehorn any item into another item and then we have these omnibus priorities and then we have a work plan like last year's that really had no impact. So you know >> well I we did do some work last year. >> Yeah, look at those accomplishments. We replace the sewer main lines. If I um just going back to the chair's question like how many of these priorities are related to electric is it's 1 4 7 8 9 and 10 >> um and maybe I missed one but >> 14 and 15 >> uh 14 and no yes 14 and 15 so so there's there's gas >> I I think and and the new 15 so I I think 147 what >> yeah eight >> four is reserves one is gas I must have the wrong reserves 14 15 we have eight of our 15 so far. >> What I'm sorry there item one is about gas transition. So is that about electric? Yeah, indirectly. Uh eight is about time of use. Four is about reserves. I don't know what that has to do with electric other than >> so I I mean there's electric I mean I I can take out the one specifically but I mean we have we do have a fair amount of electric activities associated in this first year and and may I suggest that from these activities this year that might help inform maybe something of of a larger strategy later on. Again, it this is this is your this is your work plan. >> I want to finish our addition, but I am really going to cap this at 3 minutes for the any subsequent items. Okay. So, if we could start the clock, I would be very grateful cuz we got to get out of here before 11th. >> Are you asking for priority at this point? No, I'm if I I do need to I I don't want to shut anyone down and I think that there was Are there any other additions that we need to make? And apparently I need to have ask for seconds on these um if we're adding whole new ones, which I didn't realize. Um >> presumably we need seconds on all. >> We are we we I think that's true. We need a second on every one of the 14 15. >> No, I think we need on the new ones if they weren't. So, ultimately I'm sorry. Why do the old ones that staff wrote not need a vote? And >> might I interject please? >> Sure. >> Um, ultimately this should be a reflection of a majority of the UAC's recommendation. So typically if what you're doing is essentially making in a formal sense but rather an informal sense amendments to the motion you would technically have a second. So you're operating in a rather informal manner which is fine but if you're trying to figure out Robert's rules of order and how you can navigate whether or not a recommended change is supported or not you typically do it through >> a vote. >> A vote. Okay. And I make a suggestion, a second, and then if it gets a second, then you have the discussion. If it doesn't receive a second, you know, and those typical processes. So, okay. Just something for you >> on the whole thing once, the whole >> correct. But I also think the chair is also trying to figure out how to manage the meeting. And if you create a long list, then you're just creating another agenda to talk about, do we include it, yes or no? And so I think given the time trying to figure out how to be efficient. >> Do you need this wrapped tonight? >> Yes. >> Um okay. Uh so final I I'm going to skip the seconds on this. Uh you can add two more items, but let's do it uh efficiently. >> Oh, that's it. That's >> it. Perfect. Okay. Um so now we have 15 items. >> Sorry, Megan. Yeah, >> I did not add an item, but um at least two of us have put operational efficiencies or the way UAC operates on our top five list. I don't know if it that that doesn't feel like something that belongs on a work plan item. Um it's very important and the whole work plan in my opinion doesn't even work if we don't make some changes to how to our operational efficiency, someone called it. Um anyway, I don't want to talk about it now. I'm sure no one else does, but um >> I agree with you. That's why I didn't raise it now because I agree with you how important it is, but I felt it didn't fit in this list. >> Okay. It's not going away as an item that we talk about in months ahead. >> No. >> Okay. Um so we have 15 items. Um our goal now is to prioritize them. Um what we don't have to Okay. So this is a work plan. These are not your priorities. So the work plan is I mean it's only your priorities. Let me be clear. This is a work plan. It is everything from what you're required to do per the MUN code, what your job is, um what council has asked you to look at, okay? >> And what you as a UAC are recommending as priorities to be looked at. >> Okay. >> So I think in general >> we can the list. We can we can roll with this. You can roll out the list and then as as as soon as council comes back and makes some adjustments, changes, adopts it, then you can help with it with that priority. So you can move that to the later date >> and work with staff on calendaring it across the next 12 months. >> Wonderful. >> Do we want to put it in order to show what's important to I mean somewhat in order? >> Not I would move grid odd mod up, move some other stuff down. just kind of make it sound like these are the things we care about are at the top. >> We could ask staff to organize these. >> No, I could do A's. You could do like A's or B's so you don't have to prioritize the whole thing. This is an A level. This is B level. >> No, it's not not about priorities. I just meant in terms of organizing the electrical items. I was going to make that suggestion to cluster the electrical items I think would be helpful um so that it is clear. Um >> that's fine. I've said it. I think I'm not the only one. Um it I think if I were council looking at this list of 15 or 17 or whatever the number is, it would be too many. I'd say boy what a what a hodgepodge of items. uh it's good to cluster them. I would also create a cluster or call it baseline or whatever you want. But the things we just of do with it goes without saying and I've referred several times to rate review, capex review, customer survey review, things we do all the time. Of course, they're important. Put those in one list and then put >> So we have standing >> standing. Yeah, >> sure. I think what I'm hearing is is just a desire for some version of categorization which uh there's some that are ongoing. I would say some that are um perhaps we use the term key priority. So grid mod is one I think would be a key priority per this discussion um and some that are um maybe CIP or financially related. You can try and bucket We can try to bucket them and if they're hitting all utilities, we we put those and the electric ones maybe the high the grid mod. So we and then and then to Commissioner Tuker's point, the ones that are we defacto ones we we have to do. So I think we you've given enough information to staff and and there are 15. So it it's you know perfect is the enemy of the good. >> Um wonderful. And I would encourage uh for the record, I would encourage council to strike anything that they don't want our advice on because I think that that would actually be very helpful in it. It's a two-way street, right? We are going to be most useful if we advise on the things that you want our advice on. I don't know if we can ask that, but um >> No, they sometimes come back with edits. They don't get rubber stamped. >> Great. I would I would love for council level uh a a and b on these like >> I thought you were going to tell us to cut six of them. >> I would love you I would love for you to cut half of them. >> We'll do what we can. >> Okay. Wonderful. Um my other request and and I'm now I'm just being snarky. Um but I think we received our work plan approval like a couple months ago for last year. What is the I sorry like uh if we are going to use this as a template is there a sense of when this is agendaized for discussion? >> Our our intent is to bring it as soon uh as as August 10th I think is the first oh they're bundled >> correct. So commission work plans are typically bundled. So UAC's bundle will typically go in the September October time frame. >> Um and so I think we do need to work with the mayor on whether or not it's a consent item or an action item. Um but >> okay I don't have those details. That's fine. But I will just say um it's nice to know that it's coming sooner rather than later. Okay. So on this >> capture your statement starkly sneakily positive that >> um so in order to actually make this happen, we need to vote on this because this is a um this is an action item that was supposed to last an hour. Uh so we uh do I have >> Can we look at what's on the screen? I I think 10 is not a an electric item. 10 is the SAP. Um >> it's part of >> um commissioners, might we suggest item one be revised to um identify or group um >> yes uh work plan >> objectives >> um by utility as well as categories such as key priorities or ongoing. >> Sounds great. We'll do that independently. That sounds great. Okay. So, do I have a motion um to recommend that the city council approve our work plan? >> I'll move to do that once finish typing. >> Thank you. Okay. And do I have a um second? second. >> I don't know. >> I'll second. >> Wonderful. Um, >> just trying to be a neutral arbiter around here. >> Um, great. Could we please call the role on this? Call the votes. Call the votes. >> Just wanted to state for the record that we had no um public comment request for item three. >> Commissioner Coft. >> No. I can't believe it. >> Or would we like to open public comment now? >> Sure, we'll open public comment. Is there a comment? >> If any member of the public would like to speak on item three, please raise your hand or press star nine. Now, we have no request to speak. >> Submission. >> Okay. Now, could you please um call the votes? >> Yes. Commissioner Croft, >> yes. >> Commissioner Metsz, >> Vice Chair Phillips, >> yes. >> Commissioner Tuker, >> Chair M. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. 5-0. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. Um, do we have any commissioner comments or reports from meetings and events? >> Oh, I have one. Water smart. I woke up uh 10 days ago or so to a text message that said I was my house was leaking and it was to the tune of three or 400 gallons a day and I was able to jump on it and I looked at my meter five times to Sunday and saved a leak and I thought that was great. Um also I got a letter I'm sure maybe all of you EV owners did. Apparently, uh, our utility looks at DMV data and writes to me to say that they know I have an EV. Mine is basically a glorified golf course cart made by Fiat. Um, but I guess it still counts. And so, um, it's kind of interesting to get this letter. Did you all get one? Okay, everybody knows what I'm talking about. >> Electric bikes don't count apparently. >> What's that? >> They don't know I have an electric bicycle. >> Oh, yeah. They should. >> Okay. Um, we'll now turn to virtual public comment. If any member of the public would like to speak um on an item not on the agenda, please raise your hand or press star 9. Now we have no hands raised. >> Fabulous. Um, thank you everybody. I I feel positive about the year ahead and appreciate your uh stamina this evening. Um with that uh do I have a motion to >> one one moment >> please? >> Um on the 12-month rolling calendar I in July we had agreed at the last meeting to address the reserve policy. In fact we had a discussion about whether to do it in July or September and agreed to do it in July. I don't see it on the calendar. >> Um, Commissioner Phillips, I can we address the July issue at the moment or no? >> It's It's not supposed to be for discussion, but I I've heard the comment if that helps. >> Great. >> And and we'll take a look at the calendar. >> Okay. Um because the 12-month rolling calendar was not agendaized today, um we cannot have a discussion about it. Um but uh there are several issues with July and please do pay attention to your emails um because there will be some coordination emails going out um in the next uh couple of hours. And with that, do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Mhm. >> in progress. >> Okay. Welcome to the June 3rd, 2026 Economic Development Committee. We have two wonky but very important uh retail items tonight. Uh first call to order, it takes roll please. >> Chair Rector. >> Here. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Council member Liu. >> Here. >> For the record, three present. >> Okay, thank you. First we have public comment, anything under the purview of this committee that is not on the agenda. Any hands raised? >> There are currently no requests to speak. >> Okay, we'll move on to the actual items. Alex, are you running the show? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. >> Good chair and council members. For tonight's uh agenda, we have as you indicated two very important agenda items. Uh the first one will be on the retail vitality ordinance followed by the what's known as a shrink wrap rule and that's really a tax amendment being considered by you all today and hopefully it'll move forward to the city council. And then if we have time, we'll get in front of you and present on the economic activity report. Um if there was a theme for this evening, it's about flexibility. Business and um investors like flexibility and they look at risk when they go into uh different environments, business environments and so tonight's conversation hopefully will allow for some of that flexibility and our our development community, our business community, they're they're not just behind me, but they're listening. So, um we will we will start with that. So, if we can kick it off for that first item, if we can put that presentation up. So, this uh the first item is the retail vitality ordinance. This was originally on the May 18th city council agenda. The council didn't get to it, so it's moved here to move things along. Um this is uh uh city council priority and I think one thing that's really important is this item achieves an economic development strategy. It's implementation action 10, which allows for a broader range of retail and ground floor uses to meet the market's need. So, um online we have two consultants, consultant Genie Iceberg of Lexington Planning. She'll present along with Christine Furstenberg of Metrovation Retail. And of course, uh director Lake and and assistant director Armor are both here to respond to questions and I'm going to hand it off to Jennifer now. >> Thank you. Uh not much to add to that. I think I will hand it right off to Gene Aisberg, our consultant who prepared this draft ordinance for your consideration this evening. >> Okay, good evening committee members. So, I have a few slides to share. This is just a little bit of background. You may recall a few years ago Street Sense and Michael Baker International prepared reports where they really delved into the data to understand the context for retail, the market for retail. And during that time there were a number of meetings within the PTC and ad hoc committees, but the PTC didn't have an opportunity to get to an full ordinance. So, there was an interim ordinance that was adopted by the council in December 2024. Next slide, please. So, what that interim ordinance did was it really was about uses. It expanded potential uses, things like personal services, pet related uses, other types of retail like uses. There were some changes to thresholds for waivers and adjustments, allowed for use regulations, and some modifications to formula retail on Cal Ave. So, this ordinance sunsets at the end of the year, December 2026, and so we need to replace that ordinance with a permanent ordinance. And so you'll see when we look at attachment A, there are a number of red lines and some of those are new ideas that are put in that ordinance, but we also need to make sure that we account for continuing ideas that were in the interim ordinance, so continuing those regulations as part of attachment A and the permanent ordinance. Next slide, please. So, we have met with the Planning and Transportation um Commission in a study session and the hearing. Um you may recall that we met with this committee back in January. We took your feedback, the PTC's feedback, and um brought the ordinance to a PTC hearing in March. I got their recommendation um to move the ordinance forward. And so we uh got continued at the council meeting a couple weeks ago, which brings us here to this committee. Um we are looking for your feedback or recommendation on this ordinance. If we do have a positive recommendation, we will take the ordinance to the city council in a couple weeks on the consent calendar. Uh and again, that interim ordinance sunsets in December. Okay, next slide, please. So the purpose of this ordinance, the intent is to again, as I mentioned, codify the regulations in the interim ordinance to the extent that we want to extend those. Uh but the overall intent is to reduce ground floor vacancies, to encourage vibrancy throughout the city's commercial areas. So this ordinance is rather long. It does a number of things, but um in summary, it aims to allow a broader range of uses, both more classic retail uses, restaurant eating services uses, as well as retail-like uses, uh personal services, and other commercial uses including uh to some extent office. We did identify a number of confusing regulations. And so we've sought to streamline and remove redundancies and inconsistencies where we found them. Third, uh we've aimed to reduce subjectivity. So to add more objective standard conditions where we could, and to reinforce the purposes of zoning districts as opposed to more subjective uh findings. And then lastly, um we've sought to streamline permit approvals. That means changing the permit levels required, whether that's not requiring a conditional use permit, for example, but allowing certain uses by right. Next slide, please. So a few of the key changes. So first in terms of eating and drinking services, um the draft ordinance suggests breaking eating and drinking services into three classifications. So, having a full-service classification, that's a table service where you have wait staff, um where you may stay longer sitting at a table. Second, a new category called limited service, and this is really a very common use um that we see now, a quick service type restaurant or a cafe where you're ordering uh up front where there's no wait staff, and you tend not sit as long, or maybe there's limited or no seating in this type of use. And then the third uh that we did talk about with this committee and got your feedback on in January is um a new classification for bars. And so, this would be alcohol service either with food or or excuse me, without without any food service. And technically, this is not permitted uh under the code right now, and adding this use uh in the current ordinance would allow bars without food service. And so, you can see on the right-hand side, these do carry different parking regulations, and then they're also um standard conditions that are proposed in the draft ordinance, particularly for bars, to make sure uh that there are no issues in terms of noise or other disruptions or um trash, things like that, to make sure that um those uses are consistent with the with uses and hours around them. Next slide, please. So, another key change in terms of adding more flexibility is the idea about allowing neighborhood serving offices. This is a term of art already in the regulations. These are uh neighborhood serving serving is generally defined as um uses that are customer forward. It's not uses offices for businesses. Um so, it's really more local serving offices. And to allow those types of uses uh in downtown on California Avenue in the rear of of tenant spaces or fronting side streets. So, that means not fronting University Avenue or Cal Ave per se. Second, the idea of allowing medical offices. So, the draft ordinance states right now that medical offices would be allowed if they had a retail component in the front of the business on both University and Cal Ave. And a CUP would be required, a conditional use permit, which allows um staff to provide additional conditions to review a project and apply additional conditions if required. Third, there are already some design standards for for any use on California Avenue or office, excuse me, or University Avenue. But, the draft ordinance requires specific design standards for these types of medical office or office uses. And then lastly, there are a number of complicated use regulations for offices, particularly in Charleston and Midtown shopping centers, and so we've sought to simplify those regulations. Next slide, please. So, we I think we have an attachment in the staff report about these particular areas where there are a number of different zoning districts overlays and base districts that apply to these areas. And so, we've sought to streamline this, and we can talk a little bit more about what this means, but essentially that is within these shopping centers, the CN zoning district would apply, and then there are some footnotes with specific use regulations that would apply just in these areas and um to try to simplify and clarify what actually applies in these retail centers. Um also to be more flexible about potential for residential should these shopping centers redevelop in the future, uh to specify that residential uses are allowed in upper floors and behind retail. And then third, to limit office, to the extent that office is allowed, to limit it to neighborhood serving uses, uh which would be more appropriate in these uh neighborhood centers, which are within uh existing neighborhoods. And then lastly, allowing some additional uses, including retail-like uses, like pet-related uses. Next slide, please. So, I mentioned streamlining permitting, uh one key change is really a semantics change, it's not a process change, but uh the way it is now, um conditional use con- conditionally permitted uses generally only require staff review and are only elevated to the planning commission or council if they're referred there. And so, um there are a couple changes here. One is to actually change some permit levels from CUPs to to uses by right. And so, looking across the use tables and seeing which uses really don't have an an a significant impact, and where those uses can be uh permitted by right rather than conditional use per- conditional uses. Um but again, changing that terminology. So, whereas um right now, a conditional use permit can be seen as by a retailer as a uh issue that really a a time commitment that really needs to be surmounted, it can be seen um more from a perception that it's a a hard obstacle to get through, um calling it an administrative use permit, which is what it really is at the staff level, uh would allow for some streamlining in that perception that um the process is not that onerous. Next slide, please. In terms of parking, um we've made some changes to uh the Well, one, I mentioned the eating and drinking services, established a blended rate for Cal Ave, the way that there is a blended rate for downtown, and made some changes to the TDM thresholds, that's the transportation demand management thresholds, to make it a little bit easier for small retail additions in particular. Next slide, please. A couple changes to the retail preservation ordinance. Technically, the retail preservation ordinance applies to multi-family districts to the extent that there are retail or retail-like uses in multi-family districts, and also applies in the office manufacturing zones. Um what we see today is what you can see here, things like motels, daycare centers, um senior centers, uh senior daycare centers. Um so, the proposal is to exempt those districts except within the San Antonio Road Area Plan, uh since that process is currently still underway. Next slide, please. So, those are really the highlights. Um the Attachment A draft ordinance is is somewhat lengthy, but that summarizes many of the key points. Uh the staff recommendation is to uh recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend sections of Title 16 and 18, as well as the zoning map, to implement retail vitality measures. Um as indicated earlier, I am joined by a my associate, Christine Forstenberg. Um my skill set is in zoning, hers is really in retail. She's a retail broker and works with retailers and property owners all the time. So, if you have specific questions about retail and what's going on in the market, um I'm going to refer to her. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you. >> Okay. And George agreed, do you have any questions before we go to public comment? >> Hold off, though. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Our first speaker is Charlie W. >> Good. Well, good evening, chair, committee members. Charlie Wyden's, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber strongly supports the staff's recommendation and respectfully urges the committee to unanimously recommend the approval of the retail vitality ordinance to the City Council. This proposal represents years of analysis, stakeholder outreach, consultant recommendations, planning and transportation commission review, retail committee review, and collaboration between the city and the business community. Most importantly, it addresses a problem that everyone agrees needs attention, and that is reducing vacancies and improving improving the vitality of Palo Alto's commercial districts. Retail has changed dramatically over the last decade, and successful business districts require flexibility, clear regulations, and an environment that allows businesses and property owners to respond to the changing market conditions. This ordinance moves Palo Alto in that direction. It streamlines regulations, it reduces overlapping and conflicting requirements, expands opportunities for retail and retail-like businesses, simplifies permit permitting, and creates greater certainty for prospective tenants, property owners, and investors. Businesses consider Palo Alto Businesses considering Palo Alto compare us with other communities throughout the peninsula. The easier it is to understand our rules and navigate the approval process, the more competitive Palo Alto becomes as a place to invest, lease space, create jobs, and serve customers. These are practical, balanced reforms that support the city's goal of enhancing business vibrancy while maintaining the qualities that make Palo Alto unique. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Ken H. >> Good evening, chair, council members. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'm in support of the retail vitality measures proposed for adoption and inclusion in the municipal code as outlined in the staff report. Uh I believe these modifications will increase the flexibility and clarity needed to accommodate a wide range of potential businesses and tenants in our community. A healthy community has all storefronts and building floors occupied with tenants bringing life to the sidewalks and customers to the businesses. I'd like to see these passed at committee with unanimous support this evening. However, as good as these changes are, and they do need your support tonight, uh I don't want to derail what's the progress has been made. There's a category of buildings that have been left out, historic buildings. Historic properties are a treasure that need to be preserved. These properties are often building types that are unusual or present with architectural nuances associated with their historic use. Examples include historic churches, civic buildings, and old theaters. To keep these buildings viable, there needs to be flexibility in permitted uses. Having these buildings occupied with tenants is imperative for the financial health and maintenance of the building and its ongoing disposition. Having them occupied increases the vitality of the community and neighborhood. The Palo Alto Comp Plan has policies and programs that address this need for flexibility and historic preservation. Policy L79 is one of them. Allow compatible non-compliant non-conforming uses for the life of historic buildings. There are more Comp Plan policies and programs in the letter that's in the packet tonight. An example of one historic property, a category one, the highest historic integrity, is the Varsity Theater. Since Hana Haus moved out, this building has about 2/3 of the ground floor vacant, nearly 10,000 ft. The theater's a perfect example of an historic building with an architectural nuance and impediment to the permitted uses. Entering from University, there's a 90-ft long courtyard before there's any entry to the building. The frontage along University is 35 ft, but the building widens at the rear to three times this where there are no street-facing walls or windows facing the sidewalk. Retailers are not interested in this building because this lack of frontage, the size of the ground floor, and the courtyard in front. believe this is a perfect example where there needs to be flexibility in the permitted uses as envisioned in the comp plan. Although it'll be wonderful to return to the days of Windham Hill artists performing in the courtyard and a bar restaurant tenant, there are no prospects and for the Varsity there are no prospects and for the Varsity Theater allowing office as a permitted use in the non-street-facing rear portion of the building will open up options for tenants, allowing the owners to keep the building viable. The rear portion not occupied by Blue Blue Bottle is 10,000 ft, a huge space not easily subdividable because the glass ceiling in the center which allows one to see up to the historic ceiling 40 ft above. Neighborhood serving offices are usually not 10,000 sq ft. Demising the space would be necessary which is nearly impossible due to this glass ceiling. Allowing normal professional administrative office uses for the rear portion of the Varsity Theater will ensure that there's flexibility to keep the Varsity leased and the downtown occupied. It's taken very long time for the retail vitality amendments. So, moving forward with determination this evening is important. However, I ask that in the near future you consider the fate of historic properties and how to keep them vibrant. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Peter G. >> Good evening. First, a thank you to both staff and council for the effort to modernize the University Avenue GF zoning and for your outreach to the business community on ways to enhance downtown vitality. My family are a long-time Palo Alto residents and the owners of 451 University, a building that unfortunately has been vacant for years. This building has defied our every diligent effort to fill it. It's a large and very deep building at almost 8,000 square feet over two levels. It doesn't divide sensibly. And it's located at the far east end of University Avenue at Kipling Street. As all of us in this room can attest, as you travel east on University Avenue towards Middlefield, there is a point where foot traffic essentially ceases to exist. Well, that point is Kipling Street and that's where this building is located. Some people refer to that area as the dead zone. The great news is that with a modest update to the personal services definition, we now have a tenant that will fill the building. The tenant would be Neko Health and they provide AI-based health screening. Trevor from Neko is here tonight and will speak more about the company via Zoom, so I won't dwell on what they do. But with their modern spa-like approach, they use advanced scanning technology paired with computer modeling and AI to make preventative health screening easy, fast, and accessible. There are two key distinctions. One, there's no treatment on-site. And two, there's no fulfillment of medical orders. Their service is strictly an elective, direct to public personal service. Neko is currently located oh in downtown London and Stockholm. To welcome Neko to University Avenue, please consider the following. Um adding number 10 to the current list of non-allowed personal uses. Health screening including biometric body scanning, imaging, and other health testing services directly serving the public so long as no medical treatment and not primarily filling outside medical orders. Taking a step back, we're excited to be living in wondrous times with new personal services that AI unlocks. And we look forward to potentially seeing this change to the allowed personal services. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Steely. >> Is it on? In your very positive effort to bring flexibility to bring flexibility to support economic vitality. In this item you have brought forward some very positive uses of office. I meant to come earlier to do it in public comment, but let me elaborate. I'm supportive on my concerns. I'm hoping the committee can deal with the major contradictory statements about office that the council is dealing with. You have a policy and services committee that attempted to restrict office to support housing. You have the same council on the San Antonio area plan discussion suggesting that office like the Presidio Bay Venture proposal in the CTI area would be positive and supportive of housing. I've talked to Stanford. I know Alex has talked to Stanford. And it's clear that Stanford given incentives to combine office or hotel with housing in the shopping center in the research park would be positive. So, in support of this initiative, I can see some roadblocks ahead and the need for you all to take a leadership in really defining what office can do. You have an earlier committee report suggesting that the lack of office downtown played into the decline in retail activity cuz there are not enough customers. Building the customer base, which is what you're trying to do in this item and others is really important for vitality for the businesses and part of that will be office. So, I'll write you more later, but my message is help the rest of the council clarify a consistent position on office as relates to economic vitality. Um I'm going to go watch the basketball game. I have a memo in the third item um that Alex will present. If any of you want to talk about that offline um the job trends, I'd be happy to to do that, but I'm not feeling particularly well and please go forward with this agenda item. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Trevor C. >> Good evening. My name is Trevor and I'm speaking on behalf of Neko Health. My goal is to tell you about our vision for the future of health care and the support with which we hope Palo Alto could provide in that future. Specifically by supporting and expanding the proposed ordinance adoptions to the Palo Alto planning uses on University Ave. Neko was founded by Daniel Ek, the founder and ex-CEO of Spotify, as a means to bring prevention to the forefront of healthcare. Let me start with what Neko is not. Neko is not a traditional medical office. We do not diagnose, we do not prescribe, there are no physicians performing clinical procedures on site. What we do is use non-invasive visual and thermal scanning technology combined with AI to give clients meaningful health data points about their own bodies. The data behind our model speaks for itself. After first scans, nearly 80% of members received clean bill bill of health. 13% were found to need medical treatment or monitoring for conditions they had no idea they had. 6% had significant conditions, and 1% received potentially life-saving interventions for things like aortic aneurysms, severe cardiovascular disease, and malignant melanoma, which has affected the lives of so many around us, myself included. None of the serious cases knew anything was wrong before they walked in. That last number is why we exist. This brings me to why retail corridors, like University Avenue, are exactly where we belong. We deliberately chose to operate in walkable retail environments because we believe personal health services should feel accessible and welcoming. We have worked hard to create an experience that feels nothing like a trip to the doctor, and that approachability is reflected in the demand for our service and our unique custom interior designs often exceeding several times the national average for build-out costs. We currently have a waitlist of over 300,000 people. That is consistent, reliable foot traffic every hour for whatever block we call home. Our operating hours reflect our clients' lives, not traditional medical schedules. We are open on at weekends and into the evenings on weekdays because our waitlist demands it. What makes Neko truly unique is that we don't just operate health screenings. We design and manufacture the technology behind them, so locations are constantly at the forefront of the next wave of health prevention. Frankly, there's no better place in the world to plant this flag than Palo Alto. The The has quietly been the epicenter of nearly every technology that has reshaped modern life. The people who live and work here understand, better than any anyone, what it means to be early on something important. We are not just looking for a retail address. We are looking for a home that reflects our ambition for what preventive health can become. Thank you. >> Our last speaker is Elizabeth W. >> I'm sorry. So, my name is Elizabeth Wong and I have several buildings in in the city. I think that um the direction of this ordinance retail vitality ordinance is very positive. And um but I do, you know, every speaker is telling you that even with this broad change and and expanding the uses for downtown Palo Alto, there are many uses that still they ordinance or the the temporary ordinance does not include. Uh in particular, I have a the building at 102-116 University Avenue. It is a glass and concrete building. And it was built as an office building and it has been empty for the last 5 years since 2021. I tried a very you know, a strongly lead to have um an office in that in the ground on the ground floor and I was uh asked not to do that. So, the buildings the one or two is one building and 116 University is another building. So, the ground floor of both buildings are empty. And uh I think that uh it has to go through a hearing and I was discouraged from asking for a CUP because they felt that it would be totally denied. But, the fact is that the buildings are not built with a retail frontage. And uh so, one of the tenants who is on the upper floor wants to exercise this option to rent the lower floor and you know, excuse me and uh he's scared to death to raise a red flags. So, um basically it you know, as even though the ordinance is very broad and and extremely um positive, I still think that there are many uses that are not uh or situations that are not answered by this ordinance and I want to see what can be done about it. Um so, that's my comment. >> That concludes public comment for item one. >> Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to committee. George, you want to lead off? Comments or questions? >> Sure. Um overall, I think these are a broadly good set of of changes, uh, changes that we've seen before in PTC, changes that have gone through a lot of review. Uh, and I think largely are pretty no regrets. Um, I think I'm still sort of grappling with the, uh, AI health scanning service. Uh, I'm trying to make analogies between other medical offices, between, uh, uses like an auto showroom or something that might have a good amount of foot traffic but no sort of direct sales tax. Um, I'm trying to make analogies in my head with, uh, financial services or banks or things that you walk into. And what I'm netting out at is that it seems basically fine. I don't quite, uh, so on that sort of thread, um, I think the nuance between a medical office, uh, and versus including this in some definition personal services seems, uh, subtle to me in a way that I'm not sure I totally understand because it seems like an AI health scanning service at least would be treated as some sort of medical office type use. Um, so I'm probably missing a moving part there. Can staff sort of refresh me on, uh, yeah, why other personal, uh, service or medical office uses, um, don't match that don't match this, uh, the use case that was brought up in public comment. >> I'll start by saying that right now with the code, we use the presence of a medical professional who has a a license from the state as the the thing that says, "Okay, this is a medical office." >> Ah. >> And so, um, what we've heard from this public commenter is trying to find a way that if there is something that that has some medical professionals who do blood draws or or these scans, doesn't necessarily trigger it to be considered a medical office. And this was something the Planning and Transportation Commission talked through a lot and didn't come to a specific definition that they could recommend adoption of at this time. But recognize that Council may be interested in doing something. Um I I'll now pass it off to Miss Iceberg to talk a little bit about the conversations we've had and the definition that was specifically proposed to try and distinguish this use from other medical office. >> Yes, so I think as the public commenter mentioned, there may be a distinction between more personal service uses that don't have treatment. I believe that's what the public commenter said. So, um as Assistant Director Armor said, the medical office definition right now talks about licensing from the state of California. Now, of course, there's also licenses for nail salon and hair salon professionals. So, there's other licensing that might take place, but that is currently the the bright line for medical related uses. >> Okay. Um I don't see any particular downside for expanding this. I don't necessarily think that this is a use case that is uh sort of at risk of taking over uh uh every storefront on University, especially uh um uh if we define it somewhat narrowly, um Okay, uh the other question where I think maybe the only point that could be controversial if we take this on consent for the rest of the council is retail preservation. Um, I don't uh Sorry, give me a second. I think I'm generally comfortable with the idea that retail preservation still exists in all the commercial service and commercial neighborhood uh and uh San Antonio uh area uh retail uses. Um I'm trying to reconcile that map that was in the packet with the previous PTC uh and council discussion about the idea of there retaining retail nodes. Um In effect, it sounds like we are retaining retail nodes because we are retaining basically all the commercial service and commercial CN and CS uh retail along El Camino. Is that right? >> So, yes, the the proposed change to the retail preservation was just a recognition that it might not be appropriate for it to apply to these residential zones, these multi-family residential zones. And so, it's pulling back from that and then a recognition that um in some of the other zones listed, it's not necessarily the type of retail that this retail preservation was intended to preserve. Uh we we did include a cutout for San Antonio Road Area Plan just cuz that is ongoing. >> Yep. Overall, I think this is pretty reasonable. I think there were a lot of thoughts about larger reforms to retail preservation. I love maintaining a high supply of retail, but I also love flexibility. Um but I think at this stage uh um it's a pretty non-controversial uh retail preservation is always controversial, but I think the way we balanced it is good. So yeah, those are my comments. I think these are good no regret changes and open to a slightly more expansive definition of personal services. >> Okay, thank you. Greer. >> Sure, thank you. Generally align my comments with with George's. Overall, think this This makes a lot of sense. On Yeah, on retail preservation, I think my my thinking on it is definitely evolved over over time and seeing what has worked and seeing what hasn't and seeing us really trying to sometimes squeeze a round peg into a square hole. It has It has seemed I think especially when it comes to trying to promote more more housing, that retail piece often gets in the way. Then, we've seen a lot of businesses around the city where just retail doesn't make sense. And so, I think staff found a really nice way to um to to make modifications in probably the least controversial way to George's point on on retail preservation. So, I I support that. On Yeah, on this conversation about the ex- the body scanning. So, with that I guess didn't quite get At least I didn't quite hear kind of like what would that What's being asked for in the public comment? Would that be allowed under these proposed changes? If not, what modification would be necessary to allow it? And does staff see any uh you know, unintended consequences with kind of expanding the definition to allow it? >> I I believe and I'll I'll have uh Ms. Eisner confirm, but I believe we would need to add additional detail, another listing under personal service to help show what falls there as opposed to what's medical office. And there was some language that was proposed by the public commenter that um looks like it could work. Um we've had these ongoing discussions because there was concern about it no longer having the clear line and then expanding beyond what was intended. Um Ms. Eisner, do we have that language in a way that we Was that in one of our pocket slides? The contact >> packet page 64. If you bring up the packet. >> Maybe we could bring up that language. >> The bottom of page 64, packet page 64. >> So J there, the health screening, that would be that's in that's proposed in the draft ordinance? >> No. The No. >> No, that would be an addition. That would need to be part of your motion um cuz that's public comment, not part of the draft ordinance as we have it right now. >> We it's public comment. So I So So page 64 J there that is >> Yeah. >> So J would be new. >> Correct. Everything else on that page is the current. >> Yes. >> And the public commenter is suggesting that if we add that then they're suggesting that we add that. >> I guess my my question is this was here before the public comment. J >> No. The current zoning stops at I. >> Correct. J is not in the draft ordinance. >> No, right. But I guess my my point is it's not like the J just appeared after that public comment. So J, where did J come from? >> So it's language that was drafted by the public commenter. And they're they're recommending that you add that. >> added. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. >> This page is actually not part of the packet. It's part of the public comment. >> It's not in the >> was not authored by staff. It was authored by the public. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. I didn't see the I didn't see it as an attachment there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> This is part of attachment E, public comment, not part of the draft. >> Thank you. I thought this was part of the staff documents. >> And so what they've included is the language that they're proposing you consider is that health screening, including biometric body scanning, imaging, or other health testing services directly serving the public so long as no medical treatment and not primarily fulfilling outside medical orders. So it's not just a place where your doctor would send you there to go get your scan. There was some discussion of that at Planning and Transportation Commission. So they were trying to thread the needle of what they had heard as concerns from the Planning and Transportation Commission. >> And and why couldn't they reach a conclusion? >> So, this is language that was proposed by the public after the Planning and Transportation Commission discussion. >> Okay. >> In response to those the concerns that they heard there. >> And has staff had a chance to have internal discussions about potential impacts of of this? Cuz I I I think what I'm to me, this is sounding relatively benign, but I also don't like the idea of just of of um including this in here. Um just in the moment, especially if this is just going to go to get to Council on on consent, assuming it doesn't get it doesn't get pulled. >> Yeah. Um I would say from a staff perspective that this is language um that that should give enough direction and distinguish it from other things. Um but I do want to give uh Ms. Iceberg a a chance to respond as well. >> So, you know, this this particular business is a body scan type of business. We were looking more holistically at the types of new what I think of as kind of hybrid personal service uses, medical office uses that we're seeing. Um so, aesthetic treatments, Botox, um wellness kind of spas. So, I I do think that J is fairly narrow for this particular type of use. And if the city is and this committee is interested in expanding these types of uses that are sort of medical related, but have a frontage that looks a little bit more like retail, you can go in um and make an appointment or have a service on site. Um It's it's a little bit different than it's it's not like walking into a dentist's office or your your maybe more stayed doctor's office. So it is it has a different kind of feel. Um while we're looking at this screen, item A, beauty shops, nail salons, day spas, to some extent these types of uses read more like a day spa. Um so I I think J, there's components of it that may be fine, but it is rather narrow and I I don't think it encapsulates these types of hybrid uses that the city already has in other locations and that are rather prominent today. So I think it could be expanded to be more flexible. And I do have some ideas if you want to talk language. >> Yeah, I think that that would be helpful. >> Okay. Uh how I see these is that they are elective, non-emergency, wellness, aesthetic treatments. We could um either specifically say they're not classified as medical office or stay silent and allow that uh interpretation to be made at the staff level. >> Okay. No, that's that's helpful. Give it some more thought. Um okay, moving on. New definitions for animal care. So does that I guess I don't want to see us being another situation of with mini cat mini cat town and all that. So does those new definitions then allow something like mini cat town uh and and and in particular mini cat town to stay on on Cal Ave? >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. And then last question, Director Lai, this is probably going to be for you. This idea of allowing housing in in Midtown and Charleston Shopping Center on on upper floors and behind retail, I'm that that seems like a pretty significant change and kind of curious how that then kind of exposes those sites to just various state housing laws, variances that would that could cause pretty significant impact to to the neighborhoods around those shopping centers. >> I'll start and we'll see whether Director Leigh has something to add or if you have follow-up questions. Um in many of our commercial zones, we do allow housing. And so it's more about how it is placed to maintain those the feel of those commercial districts. And so being clear that that housing could be above or behind, but that we want to keep the retail fronting on the street to keep that environment. Um Ms. Eisenberg, that can you confirm that those zones would already have have allowed housing? >> So this is where these two shopping centers are confusing. There's this a table in the zoning code that very clearly says residential uses are not permitted in these two areas. But then if you look at the CN base district, residential is just not allowed on the ground floor. Um so it's it's kind of muddy. Now, these buildings right now are one-story, so you wouldn't with the way the buildings are today, you wouldn't have residential on that ground floor. This is just to some extent sending a signal that if there were a repositioning of the shopping center into a mixed-use configuration, residential could be on those upper floors. >> And in terms of state laws, because the commercial zones do allow housing as part of a mixed-use project um in our comprehensive plan, then that is something that you know, through the different state state laws, um would be an opportunity in those locations. >> Yeah, I yeah, I should just I think maybe to answer try to answer your question more directly. Um you know, as long as as residential is allowed, I mean, there is the possibility of of waving any requirement for uh you know, ground floor retail use. Um either either waving or or a more perhaps more likely uh taking an incentive or concession to eliminate um those uses. And so, that's just um uh a reality of operating in an environment where you know, state density bonus law is um going to apply to any you know, probably you know, projects you know, qualifying projects. >> But so, currently, part of the zoning code says you can't have it there, and then another part does that's conf- that I mean, I know it's confusing, and that's one of the reasons why we're trying to to clarify about what what is then what would be the same I mean, if if somebody were to put in an application right now for housing complex at at at the Midtown shopping center, does that move forward? >> I I think we would look at the application and look at the code and try to interpret it if an application came in um given the ambiguities. I'd say for purposes of of of what the what the committee's doing today, I mean, there's an opportunity to clar- cl- clarify that ambiguity today, and there's you know, so you should you know, decision should be made as to you know, whether to allow housing with, you know, the risk that we just discussed or or or not allow housing. Um and um you know, if there was a decision to remove housing designation, um you know, my understanding from that comment is that that, you know, that would require a general plan amendment if if housing is currently allowed under the general plan. >> Correct. >> And that that again, it could also raise other issues of compliance with state law. >> Right. Because housing, even if there are these zoning designations that that might prohibit housing um or be unclear about whether housing is allowed, the comprehensive plan does allow housing in these commercial zones. That's an existing state. >> Can I jump in? >> Yeah, I think George wants to as well. >> So, if we allow housing on the second floor, someone could come in and ask for a density bonus project and say one of their waivers is to get rid of ground floor retail. >> Po- possibly a waiver, but almost certainly, you know, if they're eligible for an incentive or a concession. Yeah. >> But if we do nothing, can they come in and still do that and say the underlying zoning is CN and therefore I want to do a density bonus. Are we in the same boat or does it increase our risk by allowing second story housing? >> Um well, I think I think I So, um you know, again, we would look at any application, you you know, individually, but um under state density bonus law, the you know, the allowable density will be determined by whatever's you know, greatest between, you know, what's allowed in the you know, will be determined by the comprehensive plan in this case, even if there's you know, conflicting standards in the zoning ordinance. So, um I I think someone would come in and rely on that, um you know, to if they were interested in building housing on these sites. So, I think you know, the question for the committee today is really whether you want to clarify that ambiguity. Um you have there's an opportunity to correct what's, you know, potentially an inconsistency between the comprehensive plan and the zoning. Um but, you know, one one I I I mean I I I just do think that once you open the door to to housing, I mean there there is that that list risk of losing retail, and that's really a a common problem with, you know, you know, you know, you know, issue. I mean, it's problem, I guess, depends on your your viewpoint, but it's a common issue with redevelopment of some of these older, um shopping centers in the region. >> One area where uh this is actually a potentially active problem, and so uh I don't think this is a discussion for tonight, but just uh flagging while we're on this conversation is that the Bills Fills site is about 1 acre. It's on the market for around $9 million or $10 million or something. It's marketed, I believe, uh as a use a state density bonus, wave all retail, and build housing in here. And to some extent, that location is a pretty tough location for new retail, cuz it is isolated from the rest of the Mill Field shopping areas, but that is a uh you know, not a theoretical possibility. It's something that's actively being marketed to people who might want to buy in that site and develop housing. Um And so, uh that is what I've found out recently. Um There's maybe some room for rezoning sites or you know, asking our city attorney what kind of options we have to rezone sites and allow housing but also somehow still protect some retail element. There might be some creative ways of dialing the amount of housing we allow in CN and CS zones or dialing other things. Uh These are conversations that I think are tricky to have in public because they're also signaling to developers might be interested in developing housing on Lakeville site. Um I mean I love to support mixed use there. I'd love to support housing there but um Yeah, these are conversations that I think maybe we should try to uh refer to ourselves basically as a follow-up in an upcoming meeting. So we can have a clear recommendation to the rest of council about how to tighten this up. >> Do you have more questions? Greer, are you still pondering? >> Still pondering. I need you to come back to me. >> Okay, I'll let you ponder while I move on. Yeah, I think second story, third story housing at these places would be wonderful. I just don't want to put the retail at risk for that. So I um I would propose that we perhaps table that aspect of this. Uh overall I think this is a good moves forward. I I support almost all the stuff in it. Uh one question are we getting rid of CUPs altogether or we getting rid of just certain types of CUPs and so we're going then down the road have a CUP or AUP? >> I can answer that quickly. The um we are renaming the CUP to AUP. >> Okay. >> And there are some places where there are modifications as to whether the use would require that use permit or whether it is just permitted. >> Okay. And there's no case where you look at all the different cases where we require a CUP where you say, "No, I really want a more stringent hoop to jump through." You're satisfied that AUP is sufficient. >> Yes, because anytime we have an AUP, the director has the authority to elevate it for review. >> Okay. >> At a public hearing. >> Very good. I do think from a marketing standpoint, AUP makes more sense cuz that's really what it is. So, I support that. Um Let's Well, let's go back to the um personal services. I support that. Um This you know, right now we whether a doctor is there or not is a limiting factor. And that seems kind of an artificial constraint because we're kind of encouraging lack of expertise. And I would think that if we if the if they're performing certain tasks, we should encourage them if they think a doctor would be useful to have a doctor on there. But the fact that we're saying, "You can't have a doctor if you want to do this on University Avenue," they'll say, "Then we'll take a risk and not have a doctor." That that seems to me not the good way to go. And so, I think what's proposed here is a reasonable way of of getting around that of saying, "Well, it's not directed by a doctor. We're doing We have a doctor on site for consultation, but he's not doing procedures. He's just providing his expertise." So, I think that what's proposed on packet page 64 is a good idea. I think it's a good starting spot. Um I could see down the road wanting to expand that and make it more general, but I think as a first cut, I think that's a pretty narrow change and I think a pretty safe change. Uh right now, if someone goes in a spa, they can have a scrub put on their face. What happens if they do like laser uh resurfacing of a face? Is that considered medical or is that considered a spa? >> I'm going to invite uh Ms. Einsberg, too, address that question. >> I think it's a great question. I think it's probably tricky. I I can't answer what might be happening, but, you know, that's where interpretation comes in. So, if a day spa is proposed in the city, um are we looking at what all the different treatments are and who is doing them and how they are licensed? I I don't know uh what is happening there, but I think that's kind of the right question to be asking. Is something more like a day spa or is it more like a medical office? >> How about Botox? Is that medical? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay, so I think it down the road we may want to expand J, but I think that's the language they have there I think is pretty good. I think it's clean. Um slide 11, we have the RPO. And so, I looked over on packet page 61 and they have a the map there on packet page 61 and all the sites are not traditional retail. So, if you have packet page 61, it it's going to be a an eye chart on this. Uh they're scattered around. They're not in the traditional areas and I think this is the type of maybe perhaps overreach, unintentional overreach, that we had when we did the RPO. So, I feel pretty confident. My only concern is that some of these um might have some sales tax associated with it. Have we done an estimate of how much sales tax we would do if all these places how much we lose if we shut down these retail >> Okay, I can answer a little bit. I mean, we have not done a sales tax analysis. I would say what this is doing is saying that if the if the use goes away, no fault of the retail preservation ordinance or any other regulation, if the use goes away, does it need to be replaced by retail or retail-like or not? And so that's what that's what this is doing. It wouldn't control whether the business actually goes out of business, just what needs to happen in the case of um what can come in next. >> Yeah, but if you look in right now on the screen on the upper right there that I think that's Carmel Stone Imports. And they're profitable and they pay sales tax. It may be more profitable for them to build housing there, which probably be a good thing, but that also means that we would be losing some sales tax. And so what's that trade-off? And I don't know. Uh we may have the unintended consequences of hurting the budget by allowing these to convert over to another use. Um I think overall I'm supportive, but I when this comes to council, can we give a an estimate of how much sales tax these collectively provide? >> That may be difficult since that report would likely go out tomorrow. >> Okay. >> For your meeting on the 15th. And I will add we did exempt out the San Antonio area road um sites. And so when we looked at what the GMR LM sites that were actually affected by the retail preservation, there were a lot of building materials, tile, um wholesale or or you know, building materials that would have tax implications, but um we generally most of those businesses if we move right on the screen you can see are in that San Antonio Road area and so wouldn't be affected um under this proposal. >> Okay. Yes, so overall I I am supportive of this the change to the just because it's not traditionally areas, they're scattered about and if we lose them, I don't think we've lost all this what we're really trying to protect is the the core businesses core business areas. So Okay, then uh slide seven. Can you go down to slide seven? And we're talking about medical office on University. Right now medical office is not allowed on University even with a retail component, correct? Or is it certain parts of University? >> That is correct. Uh not on the ground floor and what this would do is it would require a now called an AUP um process to consider it and it would require that there be a retail component in the front. >> Yeah, and so when we talked about this last year at retail the direction was is that we were happy on the side streets on Hamilton, Lytton. We wanted University to not have medical offices, you know, dental offices, that type of thing. We didn't think that was appropriate right on University, but the side streets we were fine with. So I would want to see this carved up so it we're expanding. What are all the side streets right now? Is it halfway to University or what's the regulation? >> Medical office is currently allowed in the CDC zone, for example. So it's just where the GF ground floor overlay is that it's not not listed as a permitted use. >> And how far does that ground floor overlay go? Does it Is it half block off University? Or is it full block off University? >> It actually includes Hamilton Avenue, some of the parallel streets as well. It's not just University. And so, this proposal to allow neighborhood serving office, which includes medical office, um would allow it as long as it's not fronting on University Avenue. And then if it was fronting on University Avenue, it would have to have the retail component and go through the use permit process. So, that component, the fronting on University, is something that could be pulled out of this proposed ordinance if that is a concern to the committee. >> Okay, yes. So, I would want to see that pulled out. I don't have any problem with the side streets or Hamilton or Lytton, but I want University to stay status quo. Okay, and then Yeah, and that's all I have. Rear, did you have Did you finish your pondering? >> Um Yeah. I like I mean I like I like George's thought on pulling out the this this greater discussion on the on the shopping centers. And and then having a having that as a larger discussion later with our other neighborhood serving um kind of shopping districts within the city. And Cuz yeah, I agree I I agree with you, Keith. I mean be great to see two three stories of of housing but with I mean this is one of my frustrations with these with these state housing laws is here's a situation where yeah, it'd be great for us to be able to expand housing opportunities and and yet we're concerned about that unintended consequence of actually then losing the retail that makes these neighborhoods really really vibrant and special and I I personally go to both midtown and Charleston all the time so that would be really devastating for those neighborhoods to lose that retail. I think that's probably a bit of a of a long shot but still and we have seen it happen around the Bay Area quite a bit. And then and then just yeah, then on the on that issue of health screening What was the Sorry Ms. Iceberg to the the the definition that that you gave that might expand this proposed definition of health screening? >> Selective non-emergency wellness or aesthetic treatments. >> But so then I guess that could that could allow right like a a well yeah, Botox but more more invasive like like a plastic surgery center. >> Yeah. >> And I don't I don't think we want to see that so >> Yeah, I wouldn't mind referring that to PTC if they want to discuss do we expand this at all but I think I feel I'm a little nervous that we haven't scrubbed it well enough. >> Mhm. That's my concern, too. I like the idea but it I'm also uncomfortable making that decision just right here. >> Yeah. So, are you What what about the bottom of page back page 64, that that definition? Are you happy with that? >> Was it this wasn't vetted by PTC either? That proposed language. They came in afterwards. >> Yeah, this particular language was not vetted but this was part of their discussion about it. And they were somewhat supportive but they were worried about is this one step above having um like Quest Diagnostics or something like that where they're now doctors are sending orders and you're going to get a blood draw at Quest Diagnostics and they they felt a little uncomfortable there. And so because of their concerns about allowing Quest Diagnostics and other types of medical the fact that it says uh not primarily fulfilling outside medical orders, that was in response to PTC's concerns. >> Well, maybe if we remove primarily and did so long as no medical treatment and not fulfilling outside medical orders. Cuz then if we get into that, then it almost kind of reminds me of this issue we get with with bars and food and what point is it 50%? Um >> Chris, do you want to talk about the term primarily? Is that problematic? Would you Would be cleaner if we just struck primarily? >> Um I mean >> You know, it would it would potentially eliminate some ambiguity, but it would give um less flexibility for I mean, you know, lots of businesses have uh you know, ancillary um uses to the main use. And so, it's pretty and it's pretty common to allow those uses in zoning codes either generally or specifically with this kind of language. So, uh I I think the that the word primarily would give staff of uh you know, a little bit of flexibility to interpret the the provision consistent with the purposes of the zone. >> Okay. So, you're happy with the Is there anything else in that wording that you would find problematic at all? >> No, I I I I don't I don't find any any any legal concerns with it. And I I I think, you know, as long as planning is is comfortable with sort of being the implementability, I don't have any concerns with it. >> And planning, are you happy with that the word wording as is on J? >> Yes, I think we're comfortable with that. We would be asking for a business description um to ensure that it is consistent with this. If it, you know, shifts over time and we get a code complaint, then we would have to deal with it at that point. >> Yeah. And George, what are your thoughts about the wording on J? >> I think narrow is good for now uh because we really are uh sort of uh we're really reacting to one specific uh case. Um I don't I'm not actually strongly opinionated about the wording on J. I think it's basically fine. I have some more thoughts about medical uses in general because I'm trying to square up like allowing J, but then also how we're thinking about other medical offices, but we could wrap up this or okay. I'm guessing when it comes to neighborhood serving offices or medical offices with on-site retail that could be small doctor's offices, but what sort of jumps out at me is that those be those would be like med spas where there's a doctor and there's Botox or other sort of like voluntary medical procedures. Is that like really what we expect and what we're getting at behind that wording? >> The the image here of site for sore eyes is actually a classic example where you've got an eye doctor and they're selling glasses. >> Okay. Okay. Yes. That is what I was about to say which was I think it's basically fine to have medical office use on University and Cal Ave. We already have a bunch of optometrists on Cal Ave. Multiple, two or three. I think it's fine. Doesn't really bother me. It's better than a vacancy. And you know, when I think about what do we generally care about in terms of having a good retail space, it's foot traffic. It's services that residents and visitors, but mainly residents actually use. It's just keeping investment in the street. Sales tax revenue as well. And I think if we have medical office with on-site retail whether it's a dentist or optometrist or med spa, we basically take all those boxes. I don't necessarily have a big concern. I guess if we want University to be this like highly curated, high-end destination, maybe we might want to pull those off. Um a university but Cal Ave like it's just a neighborhood. >> But the second bullet, both retail last year heard this and PTC also heard it. And both of them came back and said they didn't want medical right on University. And so now after you know going through this vetting process, now we're flipping it. And I would say if if you know we really do want this and there are arguments both pros and cons, especially when you have vacancies. But I would think you'd want to have PTC scrub this and and be okay with it before you >> Wait, but this was the point that PTC said they couldn't reach a decision for some reason and wanted us to decide? Were they just deadlocked or were they they're still unsure about the long-term viability? >> For the second bullet, they had no issues. They They They said leave the status quo for the second bullet. >> Oh, they did not approve the second the PTC did not recommend having medical offices with on-site retail on University in Cal Ave? >> Correct. >> I I believe they did they were supportive of that. The The component they they did not make a specific recommendation on was this med spa medical scanning issue. Um but Miss Eisberg, please go ahead. >> Yes, I think they you know were open to the idea of medical offices on University and California Avenue, but parsing out which types of uses were appropriate, um that's where they were really referring to the council. And they were talking about things like blood draws, um laboratories, um those are elements that are specifically in this this proposal to add J, specifically excluded things that you would need to generally be following a medical order for like a follow-up CT scan or a blood draw. >> And and I think that part of that was that those didn't have retail. Um when we talked about a medical office that had retail fronting it, that they were more comfortable with that. It was when it was something more of a personal service that you had a kind of a lobby entry. >> The when I talked to the PTC uh commissioners, they did not come to a conclusion about J. They thought that they weren't opposed to J. They had some concerns and they thought that they should delegate that to council. >> Agreed. >> Okay. And then if you look back at the slide here, the first bullet the one of the concerns is that with these large units retail may not want to take the whole portion. So the back side, they had no problem with that being medical, but having therapists or dentists or whatever in the back half. And so you could have a unrelated business where the front half is selling sweaters and the back half is a dentist office or therapist. They didn't have any problem with that. >> Correct. >> What they did not want is they did not want a dentist office with retail or a eye glass store with with retail on University. They thought that that was appropriate for the side streets, but not uh and also Hamilton and Lytton, but not on University. And that was the same direction that we came up with retail last year is that there was concern about throwing medical offices, even with retail, right on University. >> I think you're hearing something different from staff in terms of the staff interpretation of the discussion of at the PTC that they were comfortable with the second bullet. Um Jared, it sounds like perhaps you're referring to conversations you've had with individual PTC commissioners. Correct. >> And I I'll add one additional thing that I think there was some question about what the correct depths requirement or floor area requirement for that retail was that that they weren't sure um what the appropriate size was, which is um why we did you know have our consultants kind of look into what was appropriate for that. >> So, my preference would be to allow the first bullet, but the second bullet not allow that. Just keep the status quo on University and Calav. And then if we want to revisit this, we always can change it again, but I don't think we've had a consensus that we want to add medical office on on University and Calav. >> I would >> One meta question, is there a process is there a retail ordinance round two or I guess maybe round three or whatever we would however we would number it to come after this where we could do consideration of some more tweaks. Like is this something that we plan to do every couple of years for example cuz then this would naturally slot in, but if this is just something that we're going to decide and then never come back to that doesn't seem ideal. >> It It's not currently part of our work plan. Um though we do hope uh in the coming years to be able to do a more comprehensive zoning code update and would look at that sort of thing. Though in realistically that's likely to not happen until after we do the comprehensive plan update. >> Okay, so it sounds like at least for a few years we Well, we can always prioritize this in our yearly priority setting, but it's possible that we don't come back to this for a few years. I mean, I think there are cases like um the far end of University in downtown or even uh the 102 University Avenue building that was referenced where the street frontages aren't really, you know, 102 University. It's like kind of on University, but it's actually sort of angled and not really facing where it anyone actually walks or has retail and like, yeah, maybe we don't maybe the first floor of that could be a nice psychiatrist, dentist, optometrist, whatever office um where it's like on technically the address is University, but it's so tucked and angled away. It's like not even. So, it's like maybe we do the PTC recommendation except for the stretch from uh I'm going to be imprecise from like the Starbucks to the Blue Bottle or something, you know. Uh um or just some way to uh keep some flexibility without like getting the prime part of University uh potentially at risk for these kind of less walkable uses. Um just >> I do think that both both ends seem like they might might be an improvement to change the zoning on both ends, but my preference would be to send that to EDC and say, "Hey, this is our concern. Can you study this and give us a recommendation?" >> Right. I just really want to get to a unanimous vote today because you know, it's >> Yeah. >> I mean, I think it's all basically good. Um Yeah. >> So, what do you think, Greer? >> What is the the question then for for staff if we What does this look like going forward if we all a couple of pieces of it but are then unanimous on on the motion of whatever moves forward. Does that then can that be implemented? >> Right. I think we could split it up based on what you're comfortable advancing to the council for immediate action versus what may require additional review. >> Then I'm I'm fine with that if we pull the discussion on kind of the neighborhood shopping centers and and the medical offices with on-site retail and advance the other things but including the modification of what the hell of the adding the health screening. >> Okay. What's the concern about the medical offices only on University or also on Cal Ave where we have some optometrists right now and to be like if they closed, it'd be weird not to let another optometrist move in. But we would not be allowing them to move in I suppose if we didn't make this language change. Cuz I'm presuming those optometrists are grandfathered in for example. >> So >> What is the current zoning on Cal Ave? It they don't allow so they do they come in before the zoning was changed? >> I think that's a question for staff. Like so why are there how can there be optometrists on Cal Ave right now? >> So we have a couple different situations for optometrists. In several of the cases that you're thinking of, it really is predominantly a retail space. >> Right. >> That maybe there's an exam room in the back that supports that retail but because it is predominantly retail, it has been allowed as a retail use. >> Oh, okay. So, the thumbs for so like the Cypher Sora's example would still be allowed on University before and after? >> I would have to look at the floor plan. We have another example that's proposed on Hamilton right now, for example, that has more of the floor plan that is being used up for exam rooms, and therefore it's seen as more medical office than retail. And so, under the current rules would not be allowed. Under the proposed ordinance, where it allows this neighborhood serving office on streets other than University and California Avenue, we would be able to allow that. >> Okay. And I'm sure that's work no one loves doing like using a ruler and trying to make a judgment call on where you cross the line. Um But yeah, I mean, I'm fine with uh uh You know, I'm really not that strongly opinionated either way, but I think if University is what we care about in terms of having this flagship image of a bustling area, maybe we just hold it on University. Um and let the rest of the I guess staff and PTC recommend PTC recommendation uh continue um outside of that. >> Okay, that seem >> Should I Should I try to make a motion or >> Uh yeah, go ahead. >> Uh I also just want to read the room, so I've Okay, uh I move the staff recommendation um with uh a additional language to allow uh health screening uses uh and um a modification not to allow medical offices on university. Notably, I'm excluding Cal out from that. Uh and to refer to this committee uh further hearings on uh Yeah, let's just go this committee uh further hearings on uh uh neighborhood retail uh and housing and neighborhood shopping centers. >> Okay. And then also add from packet page 64 the definition of J for personal services. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We can just use that language. Still feels weird to use the language directly, uh but I'm not going to be able to think of better language on the spot. >> You guys can just take a look and let me know. >> Wow. >> Uh s- screening uses Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> Screening is already allowed. >> Okay. >> Modification not allowed. University and refer to that economic >> Yes. >> And Yes. >> Right. And then the referral would be both B both that beyond neighborhood shopping centers and medical personal services. Um I guess also Also we might want to refer the medical personal services to the PTC, but that just really depends on how clear we think the recommendation was. If we think there were If there's dispute on whether they had a recommendation on that, maybe we should just bring it back to PTC and then bring it here or >> Yeah. >> If it's If we think we know what they said, we can just keep it here. >> was is they were opposed to pure medical. The question is is how much retail was needed to to make it retail. Balance. You know, mixture of retail >> Okay. >> and health. And I didn't flush that out. >> Uh yeah, I think we can keep that here cuz yeah, that is what they couldn't decide before. So we don't need to bring it back to PTC for them to say that maybe they couldn't decide again. Um we can just keep it here. >> Okay. >> Okay. So I think that's >> So >> everything in the motion. >> The top. Thank you. Please confirm that it's correct on the screen, please. >> To allow health screening uses. >> Can you put three bullets to say what we're changing? >> Yeah, just put the Put them bullet points instead of the ands. >> Maybe a colon following allow. >> And then did you guys want me to put it in bullet points? >> Yeah. The The three things that are being changed would just for class clarity. >> And for that for the health screening uses, I believe you specified that it would be the language on packet page 64 item J that was proposed by the commenter. >> Yes. Uh I don't know if we need to specify that in the motion exactly. If you can think of a better word tweak or whatever. >> I think we would want we would want something similar just because we want it to be narrow. >> Yeah. Yeah. We definitely want something narrow. Uh I just worry that if we put the exact words in the motion and then staff tomorrow's like, oh actually it would be a little bit tighter or more aligned with the code if we changed one word, then uh you know, staff wouldn't do that, but I think staff understands that we would just want something narrow. >> Yeah, maybe say similar to what was on package 64. >> Yes, good call. >> So can you break >> I believe I might be missing one. >> And can you break the first bullet up into two bullets and say health screening uses uh similar to the language on packet page 64. >> Mhm. >> And then a modification to not allow medical office on university. >> Mr. Chair, if I may for the third bullet that was going to be about allowing housing in the neighborhood shopping centers. >> Yes. >> Not the medical personal service or >> I guess there were two >> Was it There were there two items? >> was is do we want to make this J more broad down the road? >> Okay. So, instead of the word beyond >> Hearings on >> housing in neighborhood shopping centers. >> That's good. >> And locations for medical personal service, maybe? >> Yeah, medical office and service. >> And definition of >> Yeah. >> Yep. Yep. >> That last part >> Uh right after locations and definition of >> medical office and personal services. >> After the word housing, between housing and neighborhood. Housing in neighborhood shop. There we go. >> Sorry, we're working you. You got 17 people yelling at you, so okay. Greg, are you happy with that motion? Anything you want to modify? >> I just a question then for for staff. So, we would be allowing medical offices with on-site retail on Cal Ave. And that's to that So, we will see continued uses of things like the optometrist with uh eyeglasses sales, but we're not going to see den- dental offices or other things. >> I I believe that medical office is actually currently allowed with a CUP on California Avenue, so that's not as big a change as it would have been for University. >> Yeah. So, actually it's no change. Or actually it's a change that if medical office is already allowed with CUP now we're allowing medical offices with onsite retail with the CUP, so we're actually just adding a retail requirement to the CUP that we already allow. >> I believe so. Uh Ms. >> that's fine. >> Okay. >> For the record, I think that's fine. >> I don't think medical office is allowed it in the um our overlay, so not on California Avenue, but on the in the CC-2, but I need to double-check. Okay. But but our understanding of this motion is that medical office, like the optometrist with retail of a certain depth um in front would be allowed, but with a conditional use permit, so that there would be some control of process. >> Okay. >> And public notice. >> But I you're not going to be able to open a dentist office on Cal Ave by just selling a few toothbrushes. >> No, there's a Correct. There's a depth of that retail that is required that generally would be more than that. >> Okay. I'm fine with this. I'll then I'll second it. >> Okay. I'm going to take the vote. >> Vice Mayor Stone? >> Yes. >> Councilmember Lu? >> Chair Rector? >> Yes. >> Motion passes 3-0. >> Okay. Okay. That The longer than expected, but good results. We can go into consent. Okay, so next up we are going to be doing the shrink wrap. >> Yes, and just that time check and just as you noticed, yeah, I think it's about 7:00 now. And I think we're going for 2 hours. >> Okay. >> So, this next item is known as the shrink wrap rule and on February 25th, PTC unanimously recommended the text amendment to go before City Council. So, what this would do is allow existing non-complying floor area to be replaced through renovation or the construction of new buildings without restriction to the existing building envelope. So, for this presentation, our senior historic planner, Stephen Switzer, will present and of course Director Leite and Assistant Director Armor are here to respond to any questions thereafter. >> And we'll send it to Steven. >> Good evening. Uh let's take a trip downtown. So, in the following slides, um I'll provide some background, um and it's three slides of the legislative history for uh this district. So, if we go back to the 1980s, uh the commercial downtown district was formed in 1986 with that ordinance. Uh there's a snippet of that on the screen. Following that, um a report in 1988 was prepared uh concluding that some of those buildings that were affected by the new zoning standards applied could be remodeled or replaced if there's no increase in say non-compliance of that floor area. And for about 27 years, there was consistent staff interpretation of that uh said report and that leads us to our next slide where in 2013 there was a proposal to relocate approximately 6,000 square feet across the street at 261 Hamilton for a rear addition and there is a snippet of that article from that time on the screen. Following that in 2014 Council had clarified that that section of code prohibits shifting non-complying floor area from say below grade to above grade and that project was no longer pursued. If we go the next year in 2015 Council further directed staff to prepare a code amendment to reinforce said provision and interpretation and that leads us to the last slide of the legislative history. In 2017 an ordinance was added and that clarified those definitions if you will of the building envelope and prohibited replacing non-complying floor area in a way that would alter the building's three-dimensional shape and we've called that the shrink wrap if you will of kind of keeping those buildings as they are and in more recent years in 2022 there was a pre-screening to allow the replacement of some non-complying floor area also across the street at 616 Ramona Street and following that pre-screening as detailed on the screen and in the staff report Council had provided some direction to staff and the applicant on some items to investigate should a text amendment be pursued. So, that leads us to our next slide with the actual text amendment and with that it is to simply remove one section in two portions of that code. So, that would be A2C as well as B2C as well as some references to grandfather that are in the zoning code. So, removing those two sections would effectively allow non-complying floor area to be demolished and replaced, say renovations or new construction on those properties with differing heights, footprints, and building envelopes, but all would need to be compliant with the zoning code. It's for those affected properties that are detailed in that attachment C that we'll get into a little bit further, but that proposed text amendment is included in attachment A and a draft ordinance to implement said text amendment is in attachment D. So, moving on, some considerations for the discussion tonight. Uh we have the feedback from our two planning and transportation commission meetings that occurred last year as well as early this year in February. Overall, there was support for reducing development barriers and a recommendation of the applicant's proposed text amendment at that last meeting. Also, keeping in mind some of these city-led initiatives that are affecting our downtown area, our downtown housing plan, and more recently the Senate bill SB 79 that went to council this week, as well as the housing element program 3.9. Um and as mentioned, that attachment C with the properties potentially affected and trying to balance some of council's priorities for housing and economic vitality, which I think we had a great discussion right before this one about that. Um so, just to briefly highlight some of those properties. Affected, there's 302 parcels in the downtown area. Some of those are air parcels. The staff report gets into a little bit more context on on those parcels, but what we're really looking at are those 66 parcels that have the red striping on them, uh which have a floor area of above 1 FAR, um floor area ratio, which would bump them into a non-complying property. Um out of those 66 parcels that would be directly affected by the text amendment, there's been some that have been developed in the more recent years. So, it's unlikely to rebuild soon. Um so, it's likely that 47 properties would be directly affected, um but it still would apply to those 66 parcels at large. And with that, um we're on to the recommendation that staff has prepared. It's to recommend that city council adopt an ordinance to modify the municipal code section consistent with that applicant's request. And we do have the applicant's uh representative here with us tonight. I believe that they have a few slides to uh present, and I'm available for any questions. Okay. >> This will pick me up from here. But, slide it closer, Jan. Nice. Good evening again, Chair Rectall, council members. Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. Um I'd like to thank planner Switzer for that history on the text amendment. Um and what I'm going to present tonight, I've really reduced my kind of edited my presentation back cuz I only thought I had 3 minutes, but I don't. But I'm not going to do the long version, okay? Um it's pretty simple. So it's no coincidence that this is on the agenda tonight um for you to consider. Um it's about economic vitality. It's about renewal in our downtown and it's about fairness to property owners. Um next slide. Uh according to public records and affirmed by staff at the PTC meeting, uh not one new building subject to the shrink wrap rule has been built in the downtown since the shrink wrap rule was adopted 10 years ago. Not one building. Next slide. Up until the shrink wrap rule adoption in 2016, January of 2016, an owner could tear down an old building and replace the existing floor area in a new, better building. And this continued from 1986 until 2016. This is just a few of our projects. 30 years. Next slide. A city manager's report that Mr. Switzer just pointed out in 1988 emphasized this point. Non-complying buildings would be permitted to be remodeled and replaced provided there would be no increase in the building's non-compliance in floor area or in height. However, in remodeling or in replacing, such buildings would be permitted to be reconfigured in terms of length, width, and height so long as the existing floor area was not increased. The report provided examples. Oh, here uh this is good. You're on the right slide. Um, stating a 10,000 square foot building, two-story building, could become a 10,000 square foot three-story building, so long as other site development restrictions were not exceeded. This would lead to improve building design enhancing the downtown, is what the the city manager's report said. Next, also you can see here, a 10,000 square foot two-story building, same square footage in the three-story building, lots of area left over for site amenities, just better building design um in the downtown. Next slide. The shrink wrap rule says that, quote, building envelope shall mean the three-dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building. So, picture a building covered in shrink wrap. What this means is if a building owner tears down their non-complying building, they can rebuild to match the existing building, but if they want to increase the floor-to-floor height, make better retail space, whatever, um or change the footprint, reconfigure the footprint to make a build a better building, they must remove all of the non-complying floor area and uh that's above the one-to-one, so they forfeit it. So, you had a two-story building, to replace it with a higher floor height, you're going to forfeit, and that's the next slide. Please. So, existing eliminating existing floor area that exceeds a one-to-one FAR to build a new better building is a non-starter. No owner is going to tear down their building to build back the same building. So, essentially buildings are paralyzed in the downtown. In a class B building, existing floor area is minimally worth 1,200 bucks a foot. So, a two-story building on a 5,000 square foot lot, which we have many, loses $6 million in value because they are required to remove non-complying floor area. And it gets worse for larger buildings, obviously. So, no owner is going to tear down their building to lose value. And the facts prove this point. No new building subject to the shrink wrap rule has been built in the downtown in 10 years. Next slide. Since adoption of the shrink wrap rule in 2016, development's been dead. The next slide. Oh. That's the next slide. >> Oh, uh no, there's got to be two more before that. Okay. Well, yeah, interesting. Um okay, so next slide. Next slide. So, these are examples of Really? They're all Oh. Okay. I had a half a dozen shots in of what a non-complying building looks like um in the downtown. And I'm not picking on buildings, okay? So, if you happen to be the owner of this building or the tenant, I'm not commenting on that. I'm just saying this is a non-complying building. If you wanted to make that better retail space, better office space, just a better building, you'd have to get rid of the second floor um in order to do that and start with a one-to-one FAR. Next slide. This building, maybe it it's it's This also exceeds a one-to-one FAR, so it either has a basement or it has a mezzanine inside. So, in order to renovate or um you know, improve this building, tear it down, build a new a new better building, um you would not be able you'd have to get rid of that basement floor area. Now, we all know you can't get rid of basement floor area because of the retail preservation ordinance, so you're kind of stuck. That area has to stay. So, the future of this building is essentially what you see today. You could change awnings, but you couldn't increase the height of the building. You couldn't increase the height of the roof behind that parapet because that is covered in shrink wrap. Next slide. Same thing for these buildings. Just coincidentally a for lease sign on it. So, next slide. And again, for this building here, to make to do anything there, they'd have to eliminate their whole second floor and start over. Next slide. So, the benefits to the downtown and building owners by eliminating the shrink wrap rule are many. Better, accessible, code-compliant, healthier buildings responding to contemporary needs. Greener, daylight, energy-efficient, all-electric buildings with solar arrays offsetting embodied carbon. More desirable retail spaces with higher ceilings and glass storefronts to attract more retailers to Palo Alto. We're competing against Stanford Shopping Center. Burlingame, San Mateo. They have beautiful retail buildings and it encourages owners to think about building mixed-use housing projects because they can replace the commercial floor area. So, you might have a two-story building that has commercial floor area and a floor or maybe two floors above that of potential housing. Um and I I actually forgot to mention this. I should have mentioned this during the previous item one conversation, but it's probably too late. You really should start to think about allowing two-family residential units in the downtown because right now it says the definition of the residential use in the downtown is multi-family and your definition of multi-family is three or more units. These sites are small and being able to get some housing to work is better than forcing someone to try to put three units on a 5,000 square foot site. Um I just wanted to mention that. Like I'm sorry I didn't say it earlier. Um obviously another benefit is an increased tax base, no increase in commercial floor area, it just replaces the floor area at better floor area, and it restores the natural process of renewal that was interrupted by the shrink wrap rule in 2016. It is fair to building owners who have paid property taxes and parking assessment fees for years on the existing floor area and who might soon be asked to pay a set assessment fees for the downtown improvement plan. Removing the shrink wrap rule will allow existing floor area above grade to be replaced in new buildings that respond better to the natural and built environments. These new buildings will have different footprints, heights, and envelopes, and they will be able to maintain their existing floor area without increasing the degree of non-compliance while complying with all other site development regulations. Next slide. Remove the shrink wrap rule, these two sections um and uh joint staff and unanimous vote of the PTC to adopt this text amendment. It makes sense. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions before we go to public comment? Okay. Any hands raised? >> We have one request to speak. Our first speaker is Charlie W. >> Uh good evening again, Charlie Wyden, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber supports the staff recommendation regarding the proposed amendment to section 18.18.120. This proposal removes the barrier to reinvestment in downtown Palo Alto by allowing existing floor area to be reconfigured within replacement buildings without increasing the degree of non-compliance. This agreement does not create additional development rights nor increase allowable floor area, rather it restores flexibility that existed for decades prior to 2016 as clearly stated in the staff report and allows existing floor area to be reconfigured in a way that encourages reinvestment, modernization of aging buildings, improves retail spaces, and better positions the properties for future mixed-use and housing opportunities. Downtown Palo Alto benefits when investment in properties are robust. We need buildings and spaces that meet the market demand. Functional, attractive, and updated buildings support tenants, attract customers, improve public realm, and strengthen the long-term viability of our commercial districts. The chamber appreciates the thoughtful analysis of staff and the unanimous recommendation from the planning transportation committee, and respectfully urges your unanimous support. Thank you. >> That concludes public comment for item two. >> Yeah, thank you. Come back to Greer, do you have any questions, comments? >> Nope, I support the staff and PTC recommendation. >> I think this is a no-brainer. I think we should uh move this forward um as quickly as we can. >> Okay. Uh staff, uh what's your opinion on the impact on housing? Cuz on one hand, if you can rebuild the housing rebuild the office, you may add extra stories on top of it. But I suspect part of the reason that they passed this in the first place was the hope that these would convert from office into a mixed-use. Uh you want to talk about the impact on housing, pro con? >> Sure. I mean, it's hard to really I guess get a say a finger on the what a developer might do with their given property, but um I we kind of flushed out a little bit of that in the policy considerations in the staff report. Um, just looking at kind of a of those properties that were affected, the 66, and assuming as we've kind of discussed here, like maybe two, three, four units, it would be around 100 potential residential units that would be affected perhaps. Um, so trying to balance, you know, what or the the development potential of a property um, to either retain say retail or have maybe a mixed-use component with those units. It would be around 100 units or so. Say in anticipation of or should I say following the council's discussion on Monday, I was looking at some of the the parcels that were within those those tiers or rings, if you will, for the SP 79. So, in that most immediate ring, we're looking at about four of the four of the properties listed that would be impacted. And then if we go in that quarter-mile ring, it would be around 20 or so of those that would be affected by SP 79 as well. So, I think there's implications for housing, but removing this, I mean, in theory wouldn't necessarily preclude a developer from developing housing on their property. It's just really that question of what would be I guess more economically viable for them for a tenant, whether it's a resident or say an office or retail space. >> Um, maybe I'm confused, but I I doesn't section 18.120 require a continuation of the same use? >> So, there's non-complying uses that also are impacted by this um, in in this code section, but if there's a redevelopment, it in say any of the uses specified in that CD district, they they could propose a project and have a tenant improvement of the property or, um, any say use and occupancy permit for for that new use in in a space. But if there's a non-complying use, to continue that, that would need to comply with the code sections. >> And that's the difference between the non-complying use or conforming complying, um, and uh, building, right? That that these buildings that the shrink wrap rule really has to do with the size of the building, the floor area, and so it's the building that's that's non-conforming, um, whereas, uh, the use might or might not be non-conforming and that has is handled as well through the code, but that's not dictated by the shrink wrap. >> Yeah, don't I Okay, now I see the non-complying facilities section now. Yeah, thank you. >> Is there a difference between non-compliant and non-conforming? >> I believe we use one for the use and the other one for the structure, the building. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. And so, to me, when when they change this rule, if they really were trying to get rid of the office space, they would have started amortization on it, and they didn't. They said you can have this office space indefinitely. And but yet we don't allow them to change it. Seems like the worst of both worlds. So, I do support this and so, I Can we have a motion? >> I move the staff recommendation. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Councilmember Lu? >> Yes. >> Chair Rector? >> Vice Mayor Stone? >> Yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Hey. So, Alex, do you want >> Should we take 2 minutes >> We do have a third item, but given that we're 2 hours in, uh you can take that as a informational item, and obviously we can come back at the next meeting and maybe move this item up a bit since it has been now then two meetings where we haven't been able to talk about the economic activity report, but we're happy to to come back next time and >> Is there any takeaway that you want us >> The only difference that you would see under this report is that um economist Steve Levy has obtained data from the state's EDD, so we've added that information in the report, and I think it's important in that there's employment data in there. And just some quick takeaways then. Since the pandemic from the pandemic through quarter two of 2024, the city overall employers uh our workforce rather decreased by 15,000. At today's junction juncture though, we're at about 100,000. We were at 105,000 uh before the pandemic. Our workforce is over uh just just about 100,000 now, and I think it's an important conversation as it relates to the jobs-housing ratio and imbalance, so perhaps we can get into that a little bit, and it would have it would be um good to have uh economist Levy here with us as well uh for additional background. >> Do we think this is a long item though? I mean, if it's like a brief 15 minutes discussion, should we just have it now or >> It it can >> I don't I don't I don't know how brief or not brief we're intending you know, we're thinking. >> Whatever Alex prefers it. >> Yeah, whatever >> You know what? We can make it a quick presentation. Let's do that. >> Okay, sound good? You okay with that? Okay. So our economic development specialist Ruth Cariaga is here. She's going to start the presentation and I'll take on the last two slides. Thanks. >> Thank you Alex, chair rectal committee members excited to be presenting today the activity report for June. Um Next slide, please. We'll be first slide, please. Awesome. So we'll be talking briefly through the retail property metrics for quarter one of 2026. Downtown University Avenue. Um kind of in in betweens trends of going increasing um average annual rent asking rent for downtown. Uh current retail vacancy rent um with a minor decrease. Um and so through the span of the year, uh we've just seen up and down not too drastically. Um but there is a a change there. For California Avenue, um that one's been pretty constant pretty stable in the way that the trends are moving. Not again drastically increasing or decreasing with the average annual asking rent um as well as the current retail vacancy rate. Next slide, please. Some notable openings and departures. Um we have Rakoya that opened last weekend. Um got a lot of community engagement on that. Yutori as well, they were able to open right on time uh before BTS came into town, so they got a lot of momentum there. Uh Zingsters a new on University Avenue, a lot of momentum there as well. La Corneta is opening this weekend. A lot of excitement from the business owner, um looking forward to that. Bistro Du Maya currently passed their final building inspection, so looking forward to their opening soon. And we have a new business who just came in um on our radar through a report that is currently going through the process, which is Fire Clay Tile across the street from City Hall. Um one departure that we were made aware of near California Avenue is Provident Credit Union. Um they did not advise of relocating, they just decided that they would close this location. Next slide. Some business district updates. Uh we've been meeting with our downtown University Avenue stakeholder group. Been doing discussions regarding the University Avenue streetscape project with an updated cost for that. Um and getting the the stakeholders in that whether or not they would like to proceed um or not, so still currently under discussion. Um and we're also continuing our discussions for the fiscal 2028 bid. Um seeing if interest is there um and seeing how we can continue that. For California Avenue, as you um already aware, we had our ribbon cutting last week. A lot of excitement from the community and stakeholders, sponsorships. Um and so we're looking forward to the next five events coming on next week. Or not next week, next uh next couple weeks, June 25th from 5 to 8:00 p.m. we'll be having our next um event. And for this event, it's super special as our entertainment zone will be activated. So, we have been in coordination with our businesses to have them feel equipped for this and what does it mean with their ABC license? Next slide, please. I'll pass it on to Alex. >> So, as I was just mentioning, this is the new component to our report, the employment data. It's really important for us from an economic development perspective because it is a key economic indicator in terms of how the economy is doing. What isn't listed there at this point is unemployment rate. We're a little above 4% um which is somewhere near the pre-pandemic area and we're pretty much uh trending similarly to other cities in Silicon Valley. I've already touched on the 15,000 jobs that were lost from the pandemic through quarter two of 2024. I think this couple of two bullet point the first two bullet points were already discussed. I think another note that's really important to see or to discuss is the work from home environment. Before the pandemic, back in like 2019 or so, there were roughly about 3,000 people that were working um remotely. Course the pandemic changed that. That number increased to about 15,000. We're seeing a steady decline in terms of fewer people working from home at about 8,000 jobs, which is really good for our local economy, especially for our our small employers. And speaking of employers, you note there that first bullet point over 25,000 jobs are within the sector of health care and social assistance. Over 21,000 jobs would fall under professional, scientific, and technical services, and information uh at approximately 14,000 jobs. I think it's really important um here in Silicon Valley in Palo Alto, we often think about our large employers and tech, but over 90% of our businesses have fewer than 20 businesses. So, we're we're still very much a small business environment. Um some changes related to employers that uh employed over a thousand people in 2020 or before the pandemic, there were roughly 13 businesses that uh had over a thousand employees, we're down to about nine or nine at this point as of quarter two of 2025. Next slide, please. And this is the the last slide and this is kind of what I was alluding to earlier about the jobs housing imbalance. And I'll just quickly go through this, but what you'll see on that top um data set there in terms of households from 2020 to 2025, our households have increased slightly. Uh population has also increased slight slightly. And however, the household persons per household has decreased just a bit. And then we've already touched on the jobs component of about 115,000 jobs in 2020 to where we are now closer to 100,000. The data set there at the bottom, that is looking at jobs, population, and housing. That first uh data set there at jobs pop- population, you notice the decrease from 2020 through where we are today at 2025 at 1.47. The jobs household ratio also has decreased from 2020 to 2025 at 4.28 to 3.67. And then that last data set on jobs and housing units. Of course, with the housing element and I think close to 6,000 housing units that are slated to hopefully be built by the end of the housing element year, which I think is 2031. Um we'll have a better balance. Uh and again, because the overall job count is fewer than it was before the pandemic. Um that's one of the reasons why you're seeing um a closer balance. Uh well, maybe that's not correct to say a closer balance. We're a jobs rich community and that's not going to change anytime soon. I will stop there. The uh uh the report there's a memo that's attached to the staff report which comes from economist Levy. I don't think he's on virtually, but he was going to share his thoughts uh but as you noticed earlier, he's not feeling well. So, that's the end of our staff report. >> Any comments, questions? >> Uh maybe with just one comment I'll briefly make is that uh or comment {slash} question is that um I think it is important to the vitality of downtown in Cal Ave for example to have jobs in addition to housing. And so of course the jobs-housing balance is a moving target in terms of like how exactly we define that. Um I was curious uh one about the VM Ware site which I know has been vacant for a few years, but potentially I hear rumors is going to get leased again and I'm curious what that might mean for the jobs-housing balance and also you know, all the good things it might mean for Cal Ave businesses and other businesses around the area. Do we know what's happening there? >> Yes. Thank you for the question, Councilmember Lu. There is activity around that site and uh there's a new property owner that has taken over roughly 1.1 million square feet and uh approximately 350,000 square feet is being um discussed. A lease has not been signed. Um but it would be um a significant tenant that uh that would really add value to to uh our overall tech industry. >> Okay. One more comment uh and I'll just notice this as a trend that I've observed, but um uh maybe it's an idea to percolate long-term is that Cooley, so iconic Palo Alto law firm is moving out of Palo Alto into Redwood City. I think Paul Hastings, another big law firm that had a big office in the research park is also moving to downtown Redwood City. Um Orrick from Menlo Park is moving down to Redwood City as well. And so these big law firms which presumably drive a lot of hotel and downtown and Cal Ave revenue uh seem to have a tendency of gravitating away from Palo Alto where they still are quite heavily concentrated. And I think that's just something to think about as we think about com- office competitiveness in the shrink-wrap rule um uh how to maintain an appropriate balance of these kinds of jobs that uh you know, regularly book out restaurants and regularly cater for hundreds of people every day for lunch and really augment our small businesses. So that's just a comment. >> Okay. Can you bring up slide six? I have just a I have three questions here. The you in the bottom of slide six you have households and housing units. What's the difference between those two? Is it vacancies or what's the >> No, housing units is just a residential unit. Um >> And a household is it I thought maybe they're like a per family if you had two families sharing a unit, but then that the fact that this is smaller the third row smaller means you must must have a larger denominator which means you have more housing units than households. So it's not people sharing units. It's I guess it's is it vacancies? Do we have enough vacancies to cause that difference? Okay. If it If it's not obvious to you, then I thought maybe this is a stupid question, but >> I think it is, but let me um Let me get back to you. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. This is not urgent, obviously. Uh next question is uh back on five, slide five. The very last bullet, we had 13 businesses more than one 1,000 and now we're down to nine. Those four businesses that we've lost, do they move out or do they just shed people so now they're below the 1,000 threshold? Do you know? >> I would I would venture to say probably both. We've seen in terms of layoffs in the last few years has been quite a bit in the tech industry. Um at the same time, while there's layoffs happening, there's a surge in hiring because of AI and interest in occupancy of office as well. Uh but I do think that just recognize the the economic shock that happened after the pandemic that some firms were either acquired or moved out of Palo Alto. >> Okay. And then the last question is go to slide two, please. And on the right-hand side, you have the Cal Ave before and after, but on the university side, we just have the the after. Do you know the numbers? How much did it change? Like I'm looking at the first bullet. If you compare on the right-hand side, it says decreases and it has both before and after, but on the left-hand side, the first bullet only has uh current rents. >> Oh, yes. Uh Are you saying for the second bullet for Cal Ave for the current retail vacancy rate? >> No, I'm looking at at the first bullet. For example, on the right-hand side, first bullet says the rent is 5628 compared to 60 a year ago. >> Yes. Oh, so you're wondering what the increase was for downtown University Avenue for the first bullet. >> Yeah, how much did the how much did it increase? You said it's an increase from a year ago, but it doesn't give us numbers. >> Yes. Um so that will be in the packet. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So it's going to be 70 um an increase from 7488. Um >> Okay. >> From a year ago. >> That is a big increase. Okay. But I think that's good news. Uh not good news if you're trying to rent, but that shows that we're vibrant. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's all I have. >> We will get back to you on the inquiry between housing units and households. So the housing units referencing the structure and the households referencing people. But you pointed out something that's interesting in terms of the numbers between those two. >> My guess it has to do with vacancies, but that's just a guess. Okay. >> That maybe. >> Oh, is there any public comment? >> No, there are no requests to speak for item three. Thank you. >> Okay. If there's nothing else, then we are adjourned. Oh. >> Future meetings at the >> Oh, sorry. Okay. And so the next meeting So Alex, do you have the the next meeting date? Do you know? >> Do you want Yeah, so it's going to be the third Wednesday in August when you come back from your recess. >> Okay. >> At 4:30. >> So maybe a request for future agenda item, not necessarily in in August, but I know in the in the past there's been some discussion about potential like the the city supporting a kind of pop-up retail type of program that San Francisco and San Luis Obispo and other cities do. Had a conversation with a resident the other day about the about the idea and kind of re-engaged my my excitement for it. So, I think it'd be a a great thing to kind of discuss as a as a committee to see what can we do to maybe see if we can do a a similar program. >> I think on that topic, I've always been it's always been hard for me to perceive the value of those programs because they are splashy and they like feel sometimes like two spots with like four pop-ups and then it's like was that really was that it? Um but now that it's post-pandemic, we can actually validate this discuss of these programs uh and I think if we evaluate this program, it'd be good to have some data of like did it actually work after all the hype in other cities. >> The hope is that these pop-ups might show a need and then they would roll into permanent businesses or it's just going to draw people to the area and >> I Well, yeah, I think a a combination. Like what I've seen in in San Luis Obispo is it's often been used as an opportunity to be able to kind of build a customer base and then move into a more permanent brick-and-mortar type of uh location. >> Okay. Okay, then we are adjourned. >> Thank you, Susan.

going to call to order the Oh, we're not ready. One moment. [laughter] I caught you by surprise. >> Recording in progress. >> Thank you, Madame Clerk. Good evening. I'm going to call to order the June 1st, 2026 meeting of the PaloAlto City Council. Madame Clerk, would you please call the role? >> Of course. Vice Mayor Stone >> here. >> Council member Bert >> Mayor Vinker >> here. >> Council member Lithods >> Council member Lou >> here. >> Council member Rectal >> Council member Lowing >> here. >> For the record, all present. >> Thank you. It's hard to believe we're already in June, but that means that tonight is the first of our last three meetings before our council summer break. So, our options for adding a meeting are very limited. So, hopefully we can get through all the city's work uh in these three meetings. Assuming we do, our last meeting will be two weeks from tonight and we will recess um formally although the work continues uh just not on the deis and we will reconvene on August 10th um because of the unusual 2026 calendar where there are five Mondays in August which is somewhat rare. Combined with the first Monday in September being Labor Day, we are moving our three August meetings to the 10th, 17th, and 24th so that we avoid having a 3-week gap between the August 17th and September 14th meetings. So, speaking of it being June already, I am delighted that June 1st fell on a Monday so that we can start the month with a very special proclamation. So with that we will move to our first item special order of the day and I just want to briefly say that >> all right [laughter] we are being joined by some people. So the city has done proclamations in the past celebrating the LGBTQ plus community and declaring June as pride month. But this year is very special because PaloAlto is holding its very first Pride celebration this Sunday here on King Plaza at City Hall. And we hope you all can join us from 3 to 6:00 p.m. because it's about time that we celebrated this community and committed to keeping them safe and creating a sense of belonging. [snorts] So, I would like to first thank the youth who spearheaded this event and the adults who supported them from YCS and other organizations. It has been an absolute joy and a privilege working with all of you and with council member Lithcott HS in the planning meetings that I could manage to get to. So, would any of you on the planning committee who are present please stand so that we can thank you? I see a few. All right. Thank you. so much. [applause] And to celebrate, we have ordered a new updated inclusive interex flag that has been placed on the day today for the first time to celebrate Pride Month. And we will be raising the new flag at the celebration on Sunday. So, I'll have more to say then, but for now, I would like to ask my colleague, Council Member Julie Lithcott Hayes, to please read the proclamation. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. And if I may make one slight edit to your comments. The Sunday event is actually 2 to 5, not three. You're welcome. >> All right. Proclamation honoring June 2026 as LGBTQIA plus Pride Month. Whereas the first Pride parade took place in New York City on June 28th, 1970 on the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, inspiring similar parades and events across the country during the month of June. And whereas in 1999, June was declared as gay and lesbian pride month by President Clinton, formalizing a decadesl long tradition of honoring and celebrating the LGBTQ plus community. And whereas the city council of the city of Palo Alto recognizes and proclaims the month of June 2026 as Pride Month to affirm that people who identify as LGBTQ plus are welcome in PaloAlto to live, work, and play and to commit to supporting visibility, dignity, and equality for LGBTQ plus people in our diverse community. And [snorts] whereas PaloAlto will observe Pride Month with its first Pride event on June 7th, 2026 to honor the history of the LGBTQ plus movement and to support the rights of LGBTQ plus citizens to experience equality and freedom from discrimination. And whereas the interex inclusive progress pride flag builds on previous designs to maximize intersectional representation and is currently the most accepted standard as a symbol of pride, inclusion, and support for LGBTQ plus people. And whereas all people are born equal in dignity, rights, and worth. And the city of Palo Alto calls upon the people of this community to embrace this principle and work to eliminate prejudice toward LGBTQ plus people everywhere it exists. And whereas LGBTQ plus individuals have had immeasurable impact on the cultural, civic, and economic success of our great city and celebrating Pride Month enhances awareness, support, and advocacy for both Palo Altos and the broader LGBTQ plus community and is an opportunity to take action, engage in dialogue, and strengthen alliances to build acceptance and advance equal rights. Now therefore, Vicky Vinker, mayor of the city of Palo Alto, on behalf of the entire city council, does hereby proclaim the month of June 2026 as Pride Month in support of the LGBTQ plus community. Be it further resolved that the Interex Inclusive Progress Pride flag will be raised in the council chambers on this day, June 1, 2026, and in King Plaza on June 7th, 2026 to celebrate PaloAlto's LGBTQ plus community and to affirm PaloAlto's commitment to ensuring that all LGBTQ plus persons feel safe and welcome here, whether they live in, work in, or are visiting Palo Alto. Thank you, council member. [applause] Is there anyone who is on the planning committee would like to say a couple words? If so, you are welcome to. If not, oh, please. That's Iris. Yeah, if you can come up to the podium and thank you. >> I was expecting to speak during public comment, but I I'll keep this short. I would just like to say as a member of the queer community and as one of the youth that was in charge of planning this event, I'm just so grateful that we were able to get this event going before I left for college. I think that this has been really inspiring to a lot of youth that I know they really do appreciate how much the city has listened to them and they really just appreciate feeling heard. I think especially with like the federal government treating us like marginal marginalizing us as a community, I think it's great to know that decency and empathy is still alive and well in Palo Alto. So, thank you very much. [applause] Thank you. Anyone else? If not, uh we'll take a photo and invite anyone who uh participated in the event and wants to join us to come on up to the DAS. Iris, if you and others Michelle [clears throat] technology. [laughter] So they wanted to make a sign. and style two. >> Thank you. And with that, we'll move on to agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Mr. City Manager, are there any? >> There are no changes this evening, mayor. >> Okay. Excellent. So, we'll move on to public comment on matters not on the agenda. Madame clerk, uh, do we how many speakers do we have? >> We have two requests for speak for to speak for items not on the agenda. >> Okay. And our first speaker is Iris B. [snorts] >> I was actually just about I was actually just about to ask if I can be taken off the guest speaker because I already just spoke. So, if you could do me a favor and just take me off, that'd be great. >> Our next speaker is David C. >> Hello, mayor and city council. My name is David Cole. I'm with Carbon-Free Powalto. I'm following up on a letter I recently sent to the council and the UAC regarding the Bueno Vista utility upgrade. Um, in the initial project for Bueno Vista, it was to be all new and all electric. And now with that project fading away for they didn't really say um they're going to at least do a utility upgrade. Um this utility upgrade will include the gas utility. This is misguided and needs to be redesigned to be better for better protection of the residents health safety while reducing ongoing future cost and the re and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Uh the project should be fully electric as originally planned. While the current dual fuel approach may seem practical on the surface, it will ultimately increase long-term cost for both residents and the city. Furthermore, it places undue financial burden on the community members who can least afford it, perpetuating historical inequities of lowerincome folks, even if they're on rate assistance. That means the rest of us rateayers will pay for this which is a stranded asset that's being installed as a temporary measure. Uh the grant should be enough to cover for all electric appliances and then we would reduce the cost replacing those appliances later with the air district rules that are coming shortly. and um to get gas out of a mobile home is a really big safety issue for health and fire and carbon monoxide and everything else. I'm not sure how the city overlooked this with all the attention we pay to health and safety and greenhouse gas emissions. Um this needs to be revisited. Thank you so much. >> And that concludes public comment for items not on the agenda. All right. Well, thank you very much, Madame Clerk. Uh, we will move on to council member questions, comments, and announcements. >> Who came on first? Council member Lowi. I just want to say one more time, congratulations to Chief Rashnider, our new chief, where he was uh sworn in on Thursday afternoon with a huge crowd of uniformed uh police folks from from all over the place. Uh it went very well and um now he can make all the decisions he wants because he's official. So uh it's a great event. Thanks. Congratulations, >> Council Member Bert. >> Um so thank you. I'd just like to um recognize a really outstanding event that the Palo Alto Community Foundation put on last week uh which was really focused uh on youth mental health and well-being. Uh there was an outstanding uh uh panel of members of primarily youth members of our community chaired by Dr. Shashant Johi. uh and it really had just wonderful insights and the community foundation announced a matching grant uh toward uh funding of the Al Cove Center uh $25,000 matching grant on top of the $100,000 contribution that they're making as an organization. So community members um uh hopefully will step forward and and um exceed that goal. And then lastly, um I want to uh recognize and ask that we can uh adjourn the meeting in the memory of Clarence B. Jones, who was one of uh we were fortunate to have him as a member of our community for a long while, but he really uh was the last living uh member of Dr. Martin Luther King's uh strategic adviserss. He was his personal attorney for uh many many years and his principal speech writer. Um I I there was um a recent documentary calling him the baddest speech writer in the world. Um and um it was really a blessing to have him in our community to inspire our youth um over a a good number of years and and um it's a great loss. Council member Liths. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. just to continue our uh conversation about uh it being Pride Month. Uh wonderful proclamation uh issued today. I just want to thank everybody who's played a role uh from city staff who've worked tirelessly to our youth who have really led the way to a number of volunteers from community organizations or representing themselves in the effort. It has truly been an all hands-on deck approach. Um the event will be on Sunday from 2:00 to 5:00 right here at King Plaza. Hamilton will be closed between Bryant and Ramona so the crowd can gather safely and in big numbers. Be a lot of organizations tableling there. There's going to be live performances uh both uh music and dance and drag and um uh I think it's going to be a very special for our first event. I do want to acknowledge our sponsors. Couldn't have done this without the folks that came through to support it financially. Uh starting with the city uh Palto Recreation Foundation, Palto Weekly, Stanford Medicine, Koopa Cafe, Jennifer Drienza and Jesse Dor Doragusker, Grocery Outlet, PaloAlto, Kaiser Permanente, Palo Alto Community Fund, Rivian Society of Hearts Delight, Stanford University, and Sutter Health. And the other thing I was going to mention, unless the vice mayor was going to mention his ribbon cutting, Try it. >> Good. No, you do it. >> Good. I'm glad it happened and now let's hear about it. [laughter] >> All right. Well, thank you, Council Member Liths, for uh all you've done on the Pride event and for giving uh the thanks to and gratitude to all the people uh and sponsors. With that, Vice Mayor Stone, what were you up to while I was away? >> Well, [laughter] thank you, Madam Mayor. You kept me busy, so it was fun being able to fulfill my my limited vice mayoral duties. uh and appreciate council lifts for the assist there. So, I'll start then with that. We had a wonderful ribbon cutting ceremony for Thursday live that just kicked off this past Thursday on Calab, our new event series down on California Avenue. It was really good turnout. We got very lucky with the weather. the rain cleared and it was just gorgeous skies and a lot of I think just a lot of energy and excitement for the reactivation of the space and anticipation of the summer summer months coming up and I believe the next one will be on June 25th. So come on out and celebrate then and another well there was no ribbon to be cut. at uh at the two weeks ago at the we kind of said goodbye to the new road bridge uh as we embark on a about a a year-long process of replacing that about 115year-old bridge and that really is the kind of the first step in the reach 2 project and so I was happy to speak there and represent both the city of PaloAlto and the San Francisco Creek joint powers authority that I chair. Uh, one kind of also announcement from the JAPA last Thursday. We just approved the safer bay project that has been uh, many years in the making. So, appreciate the city staff that has worked on that in addition to the the JPA. And just finally, big congratulations to all the graduates that we're going to see in the city both from Pali Gun, our middle schools, and everyone else who's graduating mostly at the end of this week. So, uh, exciting week ahead and yeah, back to you, Madame Mayor. >> Well, thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, as I announced at our last council meeting, I left directly from that meeting to travel to our sister city of Lynchaping, Sweden. Uh, I was a couple days behind our delegation since I wanted to be present for as much of our meeting on that Monday as possible, but it was still an absolutely magnificent visit. Uh, as some of you know, the city is about twice as big as ours, but has more than 10 times as many council members. 79. Can you imagine? Their chambers kind of look like ours, except that the 79 council members sit out there and the public sits up in a balcony. And unlike our nonpartisan council, they use their party identities and they have seven. So if they can get the job done with seven parties and 79 council members, I am fully confident that we can too. Um no, it was it was truly uh wonderful to share best practices and learn about some of the innovative interesting things they do. Uh the the univers they do they have a a a civic corporation that does a lot of things including housing and they support the local university with uh housing efforts. actually got a tour of that university that does a lot of innovative sustainability things. Uh and the city of course has some very cutting edge practices. Um I won't go into them now, but uh it was lovely because Christine Long, our uh sustainability director here at the city was there on her own uh uh I don't know what what we call it, maybe the city manager will speak about it, but uh her own um set of meetings uh to share best practices and learn. and I know she was as excited as I uh about the things that they're doing in lingaping that uh inform and can uh help us here. Uh so anyway, so that was quite a quite a a wonderful trip. Um and that's all I have. So, seeing no more lights, we will move on to our study session on ALPR and I will turn to staff for a presentation. Uh, chief, will that be you? I'll start with the city manager. Looks like >> yes, I was just going to say we have our police chief join us. Okay. >> Welcome, Chief. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening, Madame Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, Council, uh, James Rifder, Police Chief, and I'm here to present the study session on Flock automated license plate recognition technology. Next slide, Madam Clerk, when you're ready. So, just an agenda of what we'll cover in the study session presentation. First, an ALPR overview. uh some information about PAPD's use of ALPR, legal considerations, a flock timeline, some updates about Flock, some updates about PAPD's own policies, regional use of Flock, uh some information about our the status of our current contract with Flock, as well as the uh forthcoming report from the independent police auditor. Next slide, please. So, first with regard to ALPR, it's uh important that we all have a a same kind of baseline understanding of what it is. Uh ALPR technology uses a combination of cameras and software to scan license plates pass of passing vehicles. And then these computer readable images allow law enforcement to compare plate numbers against plates of wanted vehicles, vehicles associated with wanted persons or vehicles associated with missing and endangered persons. Next slide, please. So what information is captured by ALPR? So a sample ALPR image from Flock is depicted on the right side of the presentation there. A fixed ALPR system is designed to capture license plates and basic vehicle characteristics. Uh the picture to the right is a typical image we would receive in response to a flock uh photograph. Uh it is also date, time, and location stamped. They're placed in high volume traffic areas with an emphasis on city ingress and egress. Next slide, please. So what information is not captured by flock? So PAPD has located and oriented our ALPR cameras specifically so that they're capturing images of rear license plates on public roadways, not vehicle occupants or pedestrians. The Flock Falcon ALPR system does not capture the name, address, or personal information of the owner or occupants of the vehicle. According to Flock, as well as my own extensive experience with the system, the Flock Falcon ALPR system does not use facial recognition software, it does not log human characteristics, for example, age, race, or gender of people. And as you can see from a screenshot of the Flock ALPR search uh fields on the right hand side, you'll note that all of those fields concern dates, locations, and vehicle characteristics. You'll note that there are no options there to search for human related characteristics. Next slide, please. So, what are the uses and benefits of ALPR for law enforcement? So, really the bene the uses fall into two categories. Proactive, which I'll refer to as our real time alerts. So, that's when a vehicle passes by one of our cameras. It's a known wanted vehicle. It's a vehicle associated with a missing person. and our dispatch center as well as our officers in the field receive a real time audible and visual alert that a vehicle's been seen at a particular location and they can direct their attention to that location. There's also a reactive use investigative in other words uh and that's where our officers or detectives are using the searchable database of ALPR data often overlaying data that's been captured by PaloAlto's cameras with data that's been captured by cameras in our neighboring jurisdictions and using that overlaid data to put together the puzzle so to speak and connect cases and identify suspects. Real-time alerts uh allow us to act with a force multiplying effect in that with our diminished current staffing. It allows us to direct attention to places where we know wanted vehicles are uh it also allows us to increase efficiency in that regard in that we're pointing resources at known issues. It also has a deterrent effect in that even if our officers are directed to a location and the vehicle they see either takes off and we're not able to stop it or sometimes we don't even see the vehicle, it may see us or even if it flees from us, we've deterred a crime that day. So, it puts our officers in a position to be impactful. It also helps us solve crimes already committed using the network effect of regional coordination. Uh it is a key piece of the of the ALPR puzzle to be able to collaborate with our investigative partners at other agencies in the region because what we know is that folks who are committing burglaries in PaloAlto are also committing burglaries elsewhere. Folks that are committing violent crimes elsewhere are also committing them in PaloAlto. And so the fact that we can easily share data between investigators is an important piece. Next slide, please. Here's a uh few examples uh illustrative I think of the types of cases where the police department has had success in the use of flock. Uh we recently used flock data to quickly locate and arrest two suspects in a Palo Alto armed robbery that we later learned had just committed an similar armed robbery in East Palo Alto only minutes earlier. Uh, we also used Flock, a Flock real-time alert to locate and arrest a suspect that was wanted in a shooting homicide in another Bay Area agency. We identified and located suspects responsible for literally dozens of home burglaries in multiple Bay Area cities and multiple Bay Area counties, including multiple overnight occupied residential burglaries right here in PaloAlto. Similarly, we used Flock data in collaboration with other agencies to identify commercial burglars that were responsible for a series of downtown restaurant burglaries. We've also used Flock real-time alerts to intercept a number of numerous uh excuse me, a number of known organized retail theft suspects in route to our shopping centers and downtown business districts and make arrests and thwart thefts on those dates. Uh, one thing I want to point out that I think many don't necessarily associate with flock is the use of flock in noncriminal cases. So, we have multiple instances where we've been able to use flock data to track the movements and ultimately safely locate uh an elder who was a uh an endangered missing person, had cognitive impairment, had taken a vehicle without their family's permission, and was a danger to themselves and others on the road and were in fact lost. Um, we that's happened more than once and just recently we used flock data to locate a teenager who'd been reported missing by their parents after making threats of suicide. Um, a few stats for you uh with a caveat I'll add at the end. Uh, since 2024, we've identified at least 130 cases where flock data has played an important evidentiary role in identifying and arresting suspects. Um, there are more cases where flock has certainly been used, but those are cases where I can point to flock being a key piece of evidence that got us off on the right foot or in fact in some cases was really the only evidence we had to start with an absent flock, we would not have been able to solve some of those cases. Um, year-to date in 2026 versus the same period in 2025, residential burglaries are down 13%. Autobergs are down 24%. Uh, we we've seen a 27% reduction in total thefts uh measured in dollars since 2024. Now, I recognize that some of these reductions have multiple factors that are contributing to these. Um but I can tell you with confidence that I do believe flock is a contributing factor and a significant one. Next slide please. So there are obviously legal considerations and legal concerns about flock. Uh here in PaloAlto we have a municipal code that governs the use of surveillance technology of which ALPR is one. As a result we have a council approved surveillance use policy that's specific to the department's use of flock ALPR. Then at the state level, there are state laws that in part uh prohibit outofstate sharing of ALPR data and prescribe criminal penalties for staff or officers who improperly authorize or excuse me in uh excuse me in an unauthorized manner access or use ALPR data. Next slide please. So what are the components of that ALPR uh surveillance use policy approved by council? A few high points. Uh just like any other criminal database, an officer or dispatcher needs to have a need to know and a right to know in order to query any of those databases. Every person who is an authorized and trained user has an individual login which is captured uh associated with any specific query and we control with whom our data is shared. Our local law enforcement contacts or who we share our data with and we do that via individual with agencies from nearby counties. Uh we retain our data for 30 days unless the data has been flagged as specifically related to a criminal case. Uh you may recall that when we adopted our surveillance use policy, that 30-day retention policy was by far one of the shortest of any agency in the state. Uh what we've seen over the last couple of years is that best practices have actually moved to meet much closer to what we chose to do back then. So I think that's an indication that we were trying to do the right thing. Um, as far as auditing, we are all queries are logged and auditable and we have a compliance officer responsible for doing those audits. We'll talk more about that. Next slide, please. Here's a brief timeline of Flock in PaloAlto. Between April and November of 2023 is when our first PAPD flock cameras were installed. In mid 2023 is when Flock activated a nationwide lookup feature for all of its law enforcement customers. That feature allowed users to search a combined data set of all agency users nationwide, which uh accounted for more than 6,000 cameras. That particular type of search was only permissible with a full sevendigit license plate. So in other words, you could not search that database with partial plates, vehicle descriptions, etc. You also could not perform a targeted search of any specific agency. In October of 24, Flock disabled that feature for PaloAlto PD, and by early 2025, it had been disabled for all California users. Between January and March of 25, 10 additional flock cameras were installed here in town for a total of 30. In December of 2025, PaloAlto PD first learned of the activation of Nationwide Lookup. Next slide, please. So, what did we learn about Nationwide Lookup since then? So, we did learn that Palo Alto PD had been included along with those other 6,000 uh 6,000 others in the overall nationwide data set. But what we also found was that no PaloAlto PD was actually received by any outofstate or federal agencies. So to put a fine point on that, at any given time, an agency that performed a search of that overall data set in theory could have received data if PaloAlto had during the 30-day retention period any data that was responsive to that query. But we did not. And I think that our success in that regard or some might say luck in that regard is partially attributable to the foresight we had to have that short retention period and also to have a limited number of cameras that were placed in strategic areas. Nonetheless, uh we did do a review of our network audit logs which showed no searches performed by ICE or Customs Border Patrol or Homeland Security for any per purpose. No searches by any agency appear to be associated with immigration or reproductive care enforcement. No targeted searches of PaloAlto data by outofstate or federal agencies. And no searches by out of state or federal agencies after the feature was disabled in October of 2024. Next slide, please. So what did Flock do since then? uh they have increased staffing and resources in compliance with specific emphasis on state specific legal compliance. They've improved the functionality of their of their search auditing to make it easier for agencies to do audits and also to customize the type of audits we want to run. They've improved the information they're providing to customers as the product is updated. user settings and changes to user settings are now logged and communicated to the customer. They've also added some restrictions disabling as I said the nationwide lookup for California agencies prohibiting any sharing between California and non-C California agencies even byou filtering and blocking prohibited searches and also requiring a standardized FBI neighbor case type for all searches by any agency. Next slide please. What have we done at the PaloAlto PD level? So, we've augmented our organization audits which cover our own users with network audits which cover the activities of outside agency users. We've increased the frequency of those audits. We're now performing them monthly rather than quarterly. I'm not aware of any agencies doing auditing at that cadence. Uh, we are also the only agency of which I'm aware that is choosing to proactively publish monthly organization and network audits to our website for the public to see as well as having published all historical organization and network audits dating back to our uh launch in 2023. Next slide, please. Regional use of Flock. More than 300 law enforcement agencies in California are currently using Flock and there are really no there is really no other fixed ALPR vendor with any significant market share in the state of California. Since 2025, there have been nine California agencies, 3% of California agency users that have discontinued their use of Flock. Nearly every Santa Clara County and Bay Area law enforcement agency currently uses Flock ALPR cameras. Numerous Bay Area cities have recently re-examined their use of flock for the same reason we're conducting this study session tonight. With that, councils in San Jose, Sunnyale, Los Altos, East Palo Alto, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, and Berkeley have voted to continue their use of flock ALPR recognizing its value. Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Monoserino, Campbell, Militus, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Menllo Park, Athetherton, and Redwood City have also continued their use without disruption. Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, and Santa Cruz have discontinued their use of flock, and the Santa Clair County Sheriff's Office halted a planned flock roll out. Next slide, please. So, here's a visual depiction of use here within Santa Clara County just to illustrate the ubiquity of Flock ALPR among our neighbors. Uh, you'll see here that the only two law enforcement agencies in the county not presently using Flock are Mountain View Police Department and the Santa Clair County Sheriff's Office. Uh, as I mentioned, the Santa Clair County Sheriff's Office actually never had flock cameras. They'd been approved for the installation of flock cameras. And in the interim concerns were raised and so they opted to halt that deployment and entertain other vendors. Next slide please. So questions about the current status of our contract. Uh when we added 10 cameras in late 2024, we consolidated all 30 cameras into one 5-year contract which has a term through December of 2029. on [snorts] an annual basis for the next three fiscal years. It cost $93,500 with onethird of that cost in the next two fiscal years covered by grant funding from state DOJ. Uh our contract as currently constructed includes both a clause for termination for convenience and a clause for termination for cause. Next slide. And lastly, I want to address and provide a slight update on uh the work of the IPA. So, Flock has uh repeatedly engaged with staff and has assured us they will fully cooperate with any information sharing needed for any audit and has consistently inquired about the status of this audit since we first discussed it in January and February of this year. As you may recall, the city auditor is unable to perform the audit due to a perception of conflict. So as a result, we've turned to the independent police auditor OIR group who has agreed to take this on and produce a report which will contain an operational assessment of flocks policies and procedures around a variety of topics as well as an assessment of PAPD's own internal policies and procedures. We anticipate being able to return to council with that report uh shortly after this summer break. With that, I will uh move on to the next slide, which I think is the conclusion. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much, Chief. We appreciate it. Um, I think I'm going to go first to public comment so that we can hear that and have that inform our discussion tonight. Uh, Madame Clerk, how many speakers do we have? I'm guessing along. We have four groups and uh that's a total of 49 with a total of 49 speakers including the groups. >> How many speakers not in a group? Um uh 24 sorry actually 25. Now there's another hand that was raised in Zoom to raise their hand so they know that >> Excuse me. You're out of order sir. Thank you. All right. Well, given that uh the four groups uh we will give six minutes to each group and one minute to each individual. And so, Madam Clerk, if you could organize that for us, I would appreciate it. Our first speaker is Austin M. welcome. >> Thank you to city staff for preparing the report and to council for this study session. These kinds of sessions are a vitally important component to our democracy. My name is Austin. I'm with Indivisible Palo Alto Plus and the broader safety over surveillance coalition comprised of 11 regional organizations, community members, and allies united in response to the revelation that our data was made available to out of state and federal agencies by flock. First, I want to extend an invitation to council, staff, and uh everyone to an indivisible Palo Alto Plus democracy forum event on Sunday, June 28th. It's called Who's Watching: Safeguarding Our Privacy. It will feature speakers with deep expertise on digital privacy and democracy, including Cindy Conn, recently the executive director of Electronic Frontier Foundation. We would love to have you come learn with us. Now for Flock. I've talked with many city council members and members of the public over the last year about the company. One question I hear often is about what our expectations can be about privacy in public places. The answer is complex and nuanced because when we drive, there's a difference between being visible to people passing by and being systematically tracked everywhere you go. Anyone on the street who sees me in one instance probably didn't see and record where I was a few minutes prior. But that's what Flock does. It observes, aggregates, and indexes my time in public. Flock knows where I live, work, shop, receive health care, worship, and with whom I associate. All of which would be considered sensitive, personally identifiable information in any other setting. I'm not suspected of a crime. Why does my trip to the supermarket earned me a spot in a government database controlled by a company that so recklessly disregards state law and indeed your own robust policies? My phone is different from ALPR cameras, too. I can choose to leave my phone at home or turn it off. I can run a VPN, maintain fine grained privacy settings, and delete data. I have no such controls with Flock. I can't consent to being tracked or opt to stay home. Social media and credit cards are both also my under my own control. In all these cases, my phone, social media, credit cards, any information that is collected about me is not available to the government or law enforcement without a signed warrant from a judge. Finally, I want to address Flock's business model. Despite assurances by the company that it does not sell aggregated data, Flock is fundamentally an AI mass surveillance company whose long-term value depends on monetizing our data. One way it does this is by curating a nationwide proprietary data set to train machine learning models which serve as a competitive moat. Investors like Peter Teal have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this company, which will never be able to justify its absurd $ 8.4 billion valuation at the rate PaloAlto and every other customer pays for the cameras. You may have heard the recent news that the FBI is seeking a single vendor for a nationwide AOPR network of its own. The data, our data which the city owns will have been used to position Flock as the front runner at which point the city's policies and safeguards will be powerless to protect Palo Alto and indeed the broader region from federal overreach. Flock will finally have a customer with pockets deep enough to sustain it and Peter Teal will get his payday. For these reasons and more, we call upon the city of PaloAlto to put its values above corporate profits, choose safety over surveillance, and reconsider its relationship with Flock. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, [applause] >> yeah, I I I should have announced at the beginning of Thank you. Um no we uh we we during um uh sub substantive matters we don't allow allow audible responses so that all the different people people of all different viewpoints feel safe. So you can do this if you like it we'll see it but we don't clap or boo or comment. So thank you. >> Our next speaker is Cara S. >> Thank you madame mayor and council members. I am a 20-year resident of PaloAlto, an attorney specializing in municipal law, a co-leader of PaloAlto Plus's immigration rights action team, and a member of a newly formed coalition called Safety Over Surveillance PaloAlto. This consists of over 10 regional groups fighting for democracy, equity, and privacy. First, I want to thank the city council for conducting this study session and for engaging the police auditor. I would also like to express my appreciation for the PaloAlto Police Department and its leadership. My husband and I have raised two children here and have felt safe and protected. IPA plus has conducted several no kings day events and numerous public rallies and protests in PaloAlto and the to police department has constantly supported consistently supported our first amendment rights. I believe all of us here sincerely appreciate the work and dedication of our police department. Where we diverge is on the use of flock cameras. We are here to ring the alarm bell that proceeding down this path is filled with unintended consequences. Most of these concerns do not relate to the department's internal use of the cameras. Instead, they relate to the city's participation in the national mass surveillance network that Flock and similar companies are creating. Our concern [snorts] is that as the city dips its foot into this network, it becomes more and more difficult to extract itself. We are opposed to the continued use of flock cameras for the following reasons. Number one, guard rails are not effective. Despite a detailed surveillance use policy, staff training, and a carefully negotiated contract with Flock, federal and outofstate agencies were able to access PaloAlto's data for over a year without the department's knowledge. Clearly, the guard rails were not effective here. The municipal code contains a comprehensive surveillance use procedure that does not appear to have been followed. Section 230.680 680 requires an annual surveillance report be submitted to council containing, among other things, a description of how each council approved surveillance technology was used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct, and whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with outside entities. Um further when you have a national network valued on its ability to quickly share data among all users there is an increased risk of data breach share data sharing with unauthorized agencies and released by flock of the city's data. The ineffectiveness of guard rails was emphasized in the Berkeley city attorney memo referenced in my earlier letter to the city council. Number two, impact on immigrants. There is abundant evidence that the Flock network data is used by ICE and Border Patrol. Customs and Border Patrol had a pilot contract with Flock which permitted them to access data directly. Further public records requests show that ICE gained side door access by requesting friendly police departments to search on their behalf. This is what happened in Los Altos and Mountain View where public record responses showed search item terms such as quote ICE, quote immigration. It is likely this also happened in PaloAlto, but since the search term on the network logs was redacted, we can't confirm this. PaloAlto has a large number of immigrant contractors, restaurant workers, and other employees who must travel past flocks cameras to report to work. We hear over and over again how immigrants fear driving because of the threat of flock following them. Number three, FLAC Flock is quickly expanding its functionality. Flock was originally rolled out to small suburban communities such as PaloAlto as a way to find stolen vehicles and lost seniors, lost teenagers. It claims it claimed that their cameras only took photos of license plates without identifying a license plate or now searches can be made without identifying a license plate less incre thus increasing chances of false arrest. Flock's patent describes its ability to identify attributes of a fi of a vehicle without a license plate. The patent also touts the ability to differentiate characteristics of people such as race, gender, clothing worn, and estimates of height and weight. Other AI models developed by Flock are especially trained to identify bicycles and animals. We don't have to speculate about Flock's future application. The patent speaks for itself. Number four, Flock's program violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. We are actively uh monitoring lawsuits that have been filed both on in the peninsula and in other states uh particularly on this uh basis. Number five, Flock has not demonstrated that it reduces crime or increases closure rates. [snorts] Flock points to crime reduction trend lines in cities that have deployed flock. It also councils police departments to highlight anecdotal cases where they have used flock to solve crimes. Significantly, there is no published study showing that flock actually reduces crime or increases closure rates. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tim M. >> Greetings, council. Uh my name is Tim McKenzie. I am a member of the Silicon Valley Democratic Socialist of America and we are part of the safety over surveillance coalition. Uh I'm here to urge you to cancel the flock contract through a decision of non-renewal when the budget comes up and barring that ask for specific uh policy things to be considered in an audit moving forward. Um I would like to start with talking about the efficacy of flock. Uh, we just heard some examples of how Flock has been used. I actually have a little bit more faith in local police than it seems that the proponents of Flock do that good old-fashioned investigative work could solve the problems and the crimes that were talked about in a way that does not put all of us at risk. If you look at uh May 5th is the specific date I know for the flock transparency data. If you look at all the ALPR hits that came up, less than 0.5% were involved with cars previously designated on a hot list. Meaning the overwhelming super majority of data is innocent passers by, you and me, going about our daily lives with data stored for up to a month. Meaning that without a warrant, police can search where you live, where you go to school, where you have been at various times throughout the day. We are told that we have to give up our privacy, our personal information in the name of public safety. But the reality is that the empirical evidence does not match that claim. Uh there it's trivial to fool the license plate license plate readers. swap the license plate from a vehicle in which you committed a crime and then someone else will come up. Just in March, a woman was pulled over in Oakland because her license plate got swapped with a vehicle. Uh she had a silver Honda car, the crime involved vehicle was a black Honda car. So despite claims of a vehicle fingerprint that can track things going on, uh there it's not able to match that. it like you and I could tell by inspection with our eyes that there is a different color. People are still pulled over. In December, there was a mass shooting at Brown University. The murderer swapped his license plates and was able to go kill a professor in Massachusetts just days later. And closer to home and more recently, there was just a shooting at a mosque in San Diego. The police were specifically told the vehicle and the license plate. It wasn't a swapped license plate. It was the specific license plate and vehicle. There was an ALPR system in place and the police went to the wrong location. Were not there in time to stop the last loss of life. We are told that this is a crimerevention tool that will allow us to avoid these mass casualty events. And the empirical evidence does not match that. It is not effective at preventing crime. at best it can be used after the fact. And in light of this dubious effic efficacy, we also have to deal with real tangible harm to specific human beings, individuals, members of our community or communities where ALPRs are brought in. Uh, for example, there was a black woman in San Francisco. There was an erroneous notification from ALPRs. She got pulled over and held at gunpoint. A 12-year-old in New Mexico was pulled over and put in handcuffs from an erroneous notification. A black man in Toledo, Ohio was mauled by a police dog after an erroneous notification. A man in Colorado is unable to use his own vehicle because police entered both O the letter and zero the number when they said this is the crime involved car. and he keeps getting pulled over despite the fact that his license plate isn't actually involved with a crime. There these are specific real tangible harms in light of a lack of efficacy that really occurs. We heard that Powo Alto's data there were no specific images that went out to anyone that made a request. But that does not mean that there was not an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If a police officer broke into your house without a warrant, search through all of your possessions, all of your everything you have, and then said, "Well, it's okay. We didn't violate the Fourth Amendment because we didn't take anything for evidence." Would you accept that? Would you think that is a reasonable statement? Or would you say the fact that the search occurred even though there was no responsive data is itself the violation? Everyone here, everyone here, whether we are on the same side of ALPRs or not, we all care about public safety. We are for public safety. Flock is for profit. Their business model is to sell fear to the police department so that they will convince you as city council to set up these cameras to collect our data. Our data is the product. Flock patent claims the ability to track people by personable personal or immutable characteristics like height, clothing, walking style, gender, age. They do not. They claim a worldwide license for the data. Despite saying you own everything, they say we can retain a worldwide license because they need to exploit workers in the global south to train their AI models. I ask you, please cancel the contract and really support public safety by giving what we need, shelter, health care, food, things that meet the basic needs of community members. Thank you. Our next speaker is Josh W. Good evening. My name is Josh Waldorf and I'm speaking on behalf of the Pala Police Officers Association as vice president. We are here to support the continued use of Flock ALPR technology in PaloAlto. Our officers have a responsibility to protect this community as effectively and responsibly as possible. Flock helps us do that. It helps us locate stolen vehicles. It helps us identify suspects in thefts, burglaries, robberies, and other crimes. It helps in locating missing persons, especially those at risk. Vehicles connected to violent crimes and outstanding suspects. That matters because many suspects do not live in Palo Alto. They come into our city, commit crimes, and leave before officers arrive. As crime becomes more sophisticated, police departments must adapt. Without tools like Flock, we are left trying to solve modern crimes with outdated resources. Flock helps close that gap. From January 2024 to February 2026, we documented 139 patrol level cases where flock provided meaningful public safety benefits. These included stolen vehicle recoveries, suspect identifications, arrests, and investigative leads generated by officers in the field. Those cases are not just numbers. They represent victims. They represent stolen property recovered, suspects identified, and investigations that continued because officers had timely information. Another benefit attributed to Flock is officers working at the Stanford Shopping Center in conjunction with Flock have seen a 72% decrease in reported retail loss from 2022 to 2025. Flocks help Flock helps us work smarter. Palto does not have unlimited police staffing. This technology does not replace officers, good police work, or constitutional standards. It helps officers focus their efforts, respond faster, and follow evidence-based leads instead of relying on mere chance. Use of ALPR technology is so woven into current police practices that taking this tool away would be equivalent to taking away the ability to dust for fingerprints or swap for DNA. We understand the concerns about privacy. Those concerns are legitimate and taken seriously. The department's ALPR website explains the system, the safeguards in place, including limits on what the cameras capture, restrictions on access, audit trails, and data retention. Those safeguards do matter. The community has a right to expect public safety technology to be governed by policy, training, transparency, and accountability, and we support that. The community also has a right to expect that effective tools remain available to help solve crimes, protect victims, locate missing persons, and identify suspects. This is about balance, protecting privacy while also protecting our neighborhoods, businesses, families, and visitors. We believe Pow Alto can do both. For those reasons, the Pala Police Officers Association respectfully supports the continued use of flock pre technology. Thank you. Our next speaker is Charlie W. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council, and staff. Charlie Widand's Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. In April of 2023, the chamber spoke in favor of the automated license plate reader initiative, and today we are back to support the continuation because the data shows it works exactly as intended. The safety and enforcement impact is clear. At the Stanford Shopping Center, shortly after implementation, a flock alert flagged a stolen vehicle tied to armed carjacking. Police Paloto police safely intercepted the suspects, preventing a potentially violent crime on site. For the organized retail theft, flock data paired with the organized retail theft grant funded patrols helped dismantle crews executing high-profile smash and grab robberies at major retailers. and those takeover style incidents have since ceased. Downtown restaurant burglaries following a string of nighttime commercial break-ins. Investigators use Flock data to track suspect vehicles, halting this burglary series. In 2025 alone, Flock contributed to 64 incidents resulting in 24 arrests. >> Your time is up. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Charles S. As a longtime Pelo Alto resident, I'm quite distressed that our city has chosen to build a camera surveillance system that can track me as I go around town and share the data with the whole state and in principle through sharing anywhere in the country or beyond. And what this means for me personally is that for example, if I go to an anti-ICE protest, I have to worry that my presence there is is being shared with ICE and I could be added to a list, harassed as a result of that and potentially with the direction our national politics is headed, maybe imprisoned for political disscent down the road. Um, so I respectfully ask that you consider ending the flaw contract and immediately covering or removing the cameras. Thank you. Our next speaker is Fritz K. >> Dear mayor, city council members, um my name is Fritz Coler. I've been a resident in Palo Alto for over 30 years. Um I'm also a lawyer who reviews lots of SAS contracts similar to the one uh with Lock. Um I have limited time so I'll keep it simple. >> [snorts] >> Um it doesn't matter how good a policy, a contract, um any other um activities are on the PaloAlto side. Um when we're dealing with companies like Flock that are prioritizing uh profit uh largecale data matters, etc. What matters is what happens on their side. And to date, we really can't trust what they've done. Um, it'll be interesting to see what the audit comes up with, but I am I'm not sure that they'll actually really understand what's happening on the the flock side. All the incentives on their side are going in the wrong direction and none of >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Emily B. >> Hi. Um, I'm a four-year resident of Palo Alto. Uh, love it here with my husband and soon to be resident, baby Isabella. Um, who I have it with me today. Um, so I think the best form of the argument for why flock would exist, as many have articulated, would be it keeps our community safer. Um, I think antidotes are great. We're scientific minds here in the Bay Area. Evidence is better. There's only a handful of studies on ALPR readers, but if you re review them, they almost all show um little to no net effect. When you take out the multiple, you know, all the correlation is not causation stuff. Um I think those independent studies show not a lot and where there is some impact is not really problems. Palo Alto has um it doesn't it's not particularly effective for uh uh uh property crimes and the type that we have like petty thefts, smash and grabs. Um yeah, that's just not what the studies show outside of ones that Flock has funded themselves. So I'm not sure that premise is true. Thanks. >> Our next speaker is Jim Greetings. My name is Jim Kazulk. I've lived here in Palo Alto for over 40 years. I'm here tonight to oppose the use of ALPR surveillance in PaloAlto because at its core, it's a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. Some argue that ALPR's violation of these constitutional rights is moot because by just owning and using a cell phone, one essentially forfeits those rights. This is a specious argument at best. We choose to have a cell phone. Uh we can use apps that don't track us. Select we can select privacy settings, deny cookies, etc. Also, as California residents, we have a right to know which data a company has on us and request that it be deleted. If law enforcement wants data from our cell phone carrier, they need a signed warrant from a judge. We have none of the above control or protections with ALPR technology. It's supposed imposed on us without our consent. Please choose our safety over their surveillance. >> Our next speaker is Maria. >> Hello. Um, although I live here now, I was born in the Soviet Union. I know that mass surveillance is dangerous because it turns everyone into a subject of suspicion. Black supporters often say there is no expectation of privacy on a public street. The police officers can always watch a car drive by. But Flock creates a vast database that exposes where people have been and what communities they belong to. Yes, people. Because cars are people most of the time. Traditional policing starts with suspect and gathers evidence. But flock gathers information on everyone first and search comes later. This is a fundamentally different relationship between citizenship and government. Democracy depends on freedom of association. People should not have to worry what they're driving to a protest, a religious service, or an immigration rights event may place them in a government database. We're told the data guards will protect us, but once data exists, it's a target. Palo Alto cannot fully control what future federal administrations will want, but it can control whether it creates a database of residents and visitors movements. We've already seen sensitive data collected for one purpose later demanded for another. >> Strongest protection is not collecting data in the first. >> Our next speaker is Matt S. Hi, my name is Matt Schlegel. Um, please cancel the contract with Flock. They can't be trusted. Um, the successes reported here today um are anecdotal. Flock trains law [clears throat] enforcement to share anecdotal evidence and we're not hearing statistic-based evidence. Um, in Palo Alto, thousands of outside searches were run on our data and you reasonably thought that that was impossible, but it wasn't and it happened and that should be cause for cancelling the contract. We were told it's okay because the results weren't returned. Um, but that's not accountab account accountability. If someone searches your house with no warrant and doesn't find anything, that's still a violation of your rights. And even worse, a federal DHS policy allows ICE to search our data with no trace left in the logs. So, we don't know whether or not they actually saw it, so please cancel the contract. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Melissa D. I'm Melissa Denwy, founder of Indivisible PaloAlto Plus. Because of my organizing work, the federal government would like to label me a domestic terrorist. These cameras do not make me feel safe. It only tracks your car is a legal fiction. Your plate is registered to you. It's attached to your name, your address, your movements. No warrant required. Flock cameras have been used to track abortion seekers, to assist ICE, and the search terms no kings and protesters have appeared in search logs. I trust our officers. I do not trust the infrastructure we're leaving in place for whoever comes next. Please cancel this contract. We need safety, not surveillance. Thank you. Our next speaker is Trisha D. Hello, council members. Um, I'm a longtime PaloAlto resident and I'm against flock due to the risk of aggregated flock data being used by combining with other databases. This federal government does not follow the law. I think we can agree about that. There's so many examples. and it wants aggregated national nationwide license plate data reported by Wired. Flock is only one of the two companies that can do that. Another example of where you just think about the things that they could do by combining databases. The post office is proposing only mailing ballots to voters reg quote registered with the federal government. This is reported by Democracy Docket. Will future voters driving to a voting center be intimidated? Think about it. Use your creativity. That doesn't take a lot to think about how you could combine flock data with a whole lot of other things and be able to really destroy the community of this country. I rely on you guys. You're my last a line of defense. >> Your time is >> our next speaker is David P. >> Hello everyone. I uh first want to say a big thank you to this chief and his very best buddies over here in uniform. I appreciate all the diligent work you do uh every day. And um I want to say I worked in San Francisco in the mission district uh in a mental health clinic for 30 years. um since uh Donald Trump has taken office, the um number of people that have come to the clinic uh predominantly Latino uh has dropped off dramatically. And so even if uh all the rules and regulations that would prevent uh the local uh police department from sharing information with I with ICE were accurate, which I'm not sure they are. But let's say uh even if that was accurate, there's still a reputation in within the community that is uh that the federal government is not trustworthy. Um and because of that uh our community suffers. Thank you. Our next speaker speaker is Leno Lenor D. Many of us here this evening are very concerned and even more than concerned, we're alarmed about the presence of flock cameras in our communities. We are aware that flock has no compunctions about sharing information with entities that will cause us harm. In other words, quote flocking unquote to the highest bidder. And thanks to the person who mentioned the intervention of Peter Theel, Flock has been known to pass on data to federal departments such as Homeland Security, Homeland to ICE in this climate of federally induced fear. We who are commenting tonight fear for the safety of our neighbors and we also fear for ourselves. So many of us have joined in peaceful demonstrations and other gatherings, often informative in nature, supporting our constitutional rights and the need to respect and follow the rule of law. Sharing our information without our consents violates these rights as well as negates the rule of law. We recognize that city council members and other city officials have time and again supported us at these demonstrations. And you who have spoken out are also in danger because of flock. It's a common danger for all of us. Please disassociate from flock. Thank you. Our next speaker is Hillary S. [snorts] I grew up in PaloAlto and I'm also a resident. Um sorry. Um, I think we need to rebuild our civic space and I'm leading small groups of people onto the sidewalk to protest some of the obvious things that are wrong right now. And it's really scary to look up and see I am surrounded by cameras. We were at the train station and I looked up from a sentence that said surveillance is bad and I saw three cameras and I went, "Oh boy, you didn't look up before you started writing." But you do have your right to do that and we don't need to be scared. And I'm scared even more scared for the people that I've driven a really old car in PaloAlto and been harassed for it. So it I already have kind of an iffy relationship sometimes with officers because they pull you over just cuz you're driving an old car. And I get it, you know, maybe I look like some dangerous guy. But the thing was it made me a little more iffy when I see that car and then when I see the cameras and I say >> your time is up. >> Okay, thank you. >> Our next speaker is Pierre L. >> Hi, I'm here on um in support of a lot of the things that have been said and I just want to help you follow the money. Uh so Flock is a company that's valued at about 8 uh billion dollars out of the last round of financing which was last month April 16th. The revenue are estimated they're not public but the revenue are estimated at 300 million. Uh they have 90,000 cameras. So that gives you a revenue per camera of about 3,000K per year. $3,000 per year and the valuation per camera of about 83K uh based on the on estimated three-year contract um what they have to grow into the valuation right and what can they do they can have new users and that's for instance a contract with the FBI would be a new user and that would give them 10 an additional 10% on the revenues they can have new usage and new usage is basically using all the patents that you've heard about um and all the other thing they can do with a camera because essentially they are they invented massance as a service. Um and the last thing they can do is to go into monopoly pricing >> and next speaker is Emma B. >> Thank you for your time today. My name is Emma Brenill. Block has repeatedly shared data in a way that is inconsistent with many communities policies. While I appreciate that Flock has tried to respond to some of these concerns, independent records keep showing that those safeguards fail, as in Cleveland earlier this year. Intentionally or unintentionally, Flock has built a software architecture that makes misuse easy and oversight hard. Ultimately, Flock has repeatedly shown itself not to be a trustworthy holder of its incredibly sensitive and powerful data. Thank you. Our next speaker is KBT. I do not accept the argument that these ALPR cameras with Flock or actually any company by the way because there's others on the market. Um they are not like the old ALPR cameras that we've had for a hundred years. There is AI, okay? And the AI gets it wrong. So, we have lots of problems with that because they are then relying on something that is coded and there are tons of examples where AI has screwed things up. It can't even spell strawberry, okay? And they have mistaken numbers. There was a case in Denver where a man was pulled over and he was attacked by their police dog because they screwed up in the ALPR AI alert a two and a seven. Okay? And they didn't even bother waiting to check his registration in his car to make sure that that was actually his car that he owned because the number they had, they thought it was stolen. Okay, so these things are dangerous and they're trusting AI instead of trained human detectives who are much better than a stupid amount of code. Thank you. Cancel the contract. >> Our next speaker is Ariel. So, a common argument I hear is that Flock is really no different than a cop standing on a street corner with a notepad taking notes. But how many cops would you need to equal all of the ALPRs? Probably like 20 of them per street corner at all times and buildings full of analysts to even get close to what Flock does. And I don't think anybody would feel safe under that level of surveillance. Um, and this is at a time when the federal government, you know, the president has tried to designate journalists and protesters as terrorists. Um I am a protester with a journalism degree. So I don't like that very much. Um and you know once this infrastructure the physical cameras exists it is there. It can be misused at the click of a button. So it doesn't really matter if you guys are doing a good job now of using it ethically or if anyone is. It can be misused at any time as long as the physical cameras are up. Um and you know I used to think oh you know thank god we would never be like China or North Korea. You know thank god that wouldn't happen in America. I am disappointed to say the very least. Thank you. [snorts] >> Our next speaker is Hansel A. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Hansel Aguilar. I am a Santa Clara resident. I am a sociologist, a migrant from Honduras, a former law enforcement officer and I am uh spent over 10 years in civilian oversight of law enforcement. The letter I submitted to you full provides a full analytical case. Uh tonight I want to leave you with one point. The independent research uh literature including the most courier review um published in the campus journal of evidence-based policing finds that the ARP's effect on crime is equivocal. Uh in the better evidence alternatives problem oriented policing hotspots policing and crime and prevention through environmental design did not require mass data collection. Uh last week the Associated Press reported that at least 10 people in ICE detention have died by suicide since January 2025. I'm not claiming any specific tool um has caused [clears throat] uh any specific death. I'm asking whether the infrastructure the council is being asked to govern is one that earns a community's continued participation knowing what the system it feeds is now producing. This is a question of conscience as much as policy. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Hamilton H. The biggest privacy risk is not the real- time hot list alert which only stores wanted vehicles. It is the historical database of where ordinary residents drive and who can search it. Here are some policy options. You could disable sharing of flock data with outside agencies except through written requests. This will likely reduce searches of paled data by roughly 100x. Two, you could disable storing flock historical data by purging data within minutes of uploading as New Hampshire requires by law. Three, you could request an evaluation of potential law flock replacements to find a preferred reputable vendor in collaboration with Mountain View and Santa Clara County and other agencies displeased with flock privacy. Uh, including switching to a secure architecture. In conclusion, the real policy question to debate tonight is how important is PAPD collaboration with other police departments in crime fighting versus significant improvements to citizen privacy? Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Herb B. Uh we've been told that uh Flock uh does not log personal uh information, but the Palo Alto Police Department has access uh to all that uh Flock has recorded in PaloAlto and I'm not aware of anything in any of our policies of what what the council believes or the the police department should be logging personal information uh on all those uh license plate uh owners and that even though you don't keep the license plates pictures, you can still keep all that data over time. Uh and in the distant past, uh yes, it's uh not violating first amendment rights to take a picture of somebody uh in a public place. Uh but if you are monitoring that and keeping a a dossier of who's there for a period of time, I think you are violating it. So >> your time is up. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is UD. >> Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members, and staff. Um par resident. Thank you chief uh Rev Snder for the thoughtful analysis and ongoing work on this issue. I support a balanced approach to new technologies as uh like Flock. One of the fundamental responsibilities of local government is to help keep our community safe. Based on the data presented tonight, Flock has helped recover stolen vehicles, missing persons, and assist in solving crimes. We have also seen positive results in South San Jose and other jurisdictions. At the same time, I understand and respect concerns regarding privacy of a site and accountability. These concerns deserve to be taken seriously. I believe the right path forward is thoughtful deployment with strong safeguards, transparency and regular reviews. As technology evolves, our policies should also evolve. We should continue evaluating outcomes, making adjustments when needed, and ensuring these tools are using are used responsibly while protecting civil liberties, leaving no gaps in between. Thank you. Our next speaker is Winter D. Uh yes. Uh surveillance by its very nature is wide open to abuse as seen over the last 65 years in our country as whistleblower after whistleblower reveals it. I was illegally surveiled for on a grand scale for years for exercising my uh nonviolent protected constitutional rights and have a fat FBI filed to prove it. Just as our former city manager Jim's Jim Keane announced that he too was subject to illegal surveillance and he had his file. Surveillance is dangerous. Not just crime, but surveillance is dangerous. It took more than 5 months for Flock to inform all other law enforcement agencies in California of the problem after they informed us, which was months after they had supposedly fixed the problems. Flock can't be trusted and surveillance is a time that >> dangerous uh path to embrace. Our next speaker is Rody. Hi. Uh, my name is Rody and I am a citizen of Bay Area and also frequent to Palo Alto. I urge the leaders of this community to please listen to your constituents. Please cancel the flock contract. Um there is one thing that we can be sure of is that at any point in time flock systems or any ALPR systems can be subpoenenaed for their data without having to inform anyone. This was confirmed to us uh by a Flock representative in the El Certo hearing. I urge you to not believe what Flock says at face value. They are a sales company. they're going to do and say whatever that sells the technology. Please do your due diligence. If you're looking at statistics in a scientific way and you're not looking at caus uh correlation rather than causation, you'll see that flock is not doing anything meaningful for um communities. Please do not prioritize prior uh property. >> Time is up. >> Thank you. Our next speaker is Batman. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Good. Because I have a very firm warning for you. Block is not to be trusted. They give backdoor access to ICE. By law, do not show up in your audits. You will not know if ICE is there because they do not want you to know that they are there. And I have to say with not one but two potential ICE detention centers potentially coming online within the next year in both FCI Dublin and Gilroy. Flock is a dangerous choice to go with. They are not trustworthy. They are not going to collaborate with you. they will send your data to whoever pays the most. So, please, I'm imploring you, make the right decision and shut them down. We can have a discussion about ALPRs another day, but in this day and age, we need to play this smart. We need to play this carefully because otherwise your people, my people will be hurt. >> And that concludes public comment on study session item two. All right. Well, thank you, Madame Clerk, and thank you to all of the speakers tonight. We certainly appreciate your input and uh appreciate you taking the time to come and share it with us. Um, so with that, I'll bring it back to the deis. Uh, this is a study session where we uh can ask questions and share direction. Uh, there won't be uh motion practice tonight, but we can certainly uh provide feedback. And I believe this is likely to come back to council again in a couple of months. I can't remember the exact date. All right. So, with that, uh, colleagues, uh, who would like to kick us off? [snorts] >> All right. Council member Rectal. >> So, Chief Okay. When the council originally approved flock, we went through and did a lot of work and and and got thisou designed and all these restrictions on it and then nationwide search came and they kind of bypass that. And so how do we know that down the road they're not going to bypass our constraints again? So I think the best way I can answer that question is I think that we took for granted that we understood the universe of features that were available and so we took for granted Palatoto Peddi that is that we could focus our our auditing in a certain way. We now realized that there was more to the universe and uh so we've expanded the nature and frequency of our audits and so were a similar feature or the same feature to be reactivated tomorrow even if Flock didn't tell us about it the auditing we have in place now would detect it within 30 days when we would do our next audit. So I think that uh I would answer that question in two ways. one, I think we're better situated to see if there are any issues going forward than we were before because we've improved upon our auditing. I think in addition to that, based on the conversations I've had with Flock uh to in up into including uh multiple conversations with their CEO and chief legal officer. Um, I do think that they understand the gravity of the issue and at least my take at this point is that the uh admittedly very frustrating situation that we encountered here was the result of I'll sell I'll say poor oversight as opposed to malice or any nefarious intent. >> Okay. So, we share our camera data with other communities and for that that they fill out a form and send it in. Can they give physical descriptions? Do you have to need a full sevendigit license plate? What what other communities need to get our information? >> Uh if those other local law enforcement agencies have signed the sharing with us, then they have the same search access that our officers do. So, in other words, if they're looking for if they have a if a crime happens in Menllo Park and a victim describes a green panel van with a partial license plate, Menllo Park is able to search PaloAlto data amongst any other uh data they have access to for a green panel van with a partial plate. >> Okay. There's concern concerns about uh false detections. How accurate are the license plate readers? I believe that the number that's reported is better than 99% accurate. But I think actually, if I may, there's a really important uh piece that goes along with that that I think is actually more important than the statistical accuracy of the cameras, which is to say that um the instances that were described by some of the speakers were all induced not by camera error alone, but by camera error compounded by human error. And what I mean by that is our policy expressly says that if you are going to contact or stop a vehicle as a result of an ALPR notification, the officer must make a hand verification that the plate that is displayed on the vehicle is in fact the plate associated with the hit. [snorts] So even if the camera does misread an O for a zero or a seven for an L, um then the officer should detect that before making that stop. So in those instances described, the officers did not make that hand verification. >> So California's had this law in the books SP34 for quite a while, but yet the nationwide search was rolled out even though that violated California law. And how did that happen? How how did Flock institute something that was against California law? So I can only relay what uh what's been relayed to me and what my understanding is since I wasn't part of Flock then nor now. Um what I can say is I think Flock uh at the time you have to understand Flock was still a relatively new company and frankly still is a relatively new company in the whole scheme of things and was growing dramatically and candidly I think was growing too fast. I think that they were dedicating uh their resources as many startups do to product development and sales and not enough resources to legal compliance and the other stuff that doesn't generate revenue. So I think that they probably were not dedicating and in fact will admit that they weren't dedicating enough time and resources to individual statebystate legal compliance and I think that's one of the changes they've since made. >> Okay. We've heard news reports of police officers using flock to track their girlfriend and things like that. Does this ple to prevent that? And if so, how do we do that? >> Well, I can say we have an audit system in place to track uh and to look at the searches that are being done by our officers on a monthly basis. I'll also point out that there are substantial both administrative and criminal penalties for exactly the behavior you're describing. So were an officer to do that, it would be no different than using an existing DMV database or county criminal justice database to to search up an exgirlfriend or the like. And in that case, it would not only be likely grounds for termination from an administrative perspective, but it would also subject them to criminal prosecution under state law. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Liths. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, Chief, look, this isn't about you guys. We are proud of the police department we have. We're talking about a much broader set of concerns. Uh, so please don't take any of this personally. Um, no one questions that the flock cameras assist you in apprehending criminals and locating those who may be in harm's way. You've given us great examples. The question is does the rate of such incidents outweigh the risks to privacy that are guaranteed to us under the fourth amend amendment to the constitution? Also, is there a potential for misuse of these data on the part of flock or by law enforcement officials at any level of our government from the federal all the way down to the most local? We know from the news that the answer elsewhere has been yes. I would have had a concern about the balance of privacy versus the ability to aid law enforcement at any time in my adult existence. But the current federal administration, unabashedly authoritarian, makes me deeply concerned about the safety of all humans who live in our country in the present moment, including those whose plates may be searchable by the federal government. It concerns me that we only learned about their problematic practice uh in December of 2025, only after it had long been discontinued. makes me fear that there's insufficient communication between us and this vendor. You're making it out like we didn't know the right search. We didn't know the full universe of possibilities in their database, but I think as we read the news, it's clear that they have had other intentions. Um, and they've now gotten caught. So, um, this is a vendor that has, uh, violated California law, violated their agreement with the city of Palo Alto and other cities, and it makes me very wary about going, uh, forward with them as a result. So, I've been interested in who are these flock people? What do we know about them? There have been some conversations tonight about associations with the founder of Palanteer, Peter Teal. Um, I've been reading up on Flock. I've been watching interviews between um their co-founder and CEO Garrett Langley uh to try to get where he's coming from because a startup making some mistakes being underststaffed sort of recklessly growing without making sure that everything was buckled up is one thing, but it's also possible that they've put this company in place for the very purpose of offering mass surveillance to an authoritarian federal government. And so that is my concern. Um, the leadership, according to the ACLU, the leadership at Flock has gone on the offense with their rhetoric, adopting the attitude that in essence, if you're concerned at all about mass surveillance and limiting the power of law enforcement, you're essentially supporting criminals. And it's just nowhere near that simple. We're we're actually trying to protect the vast majority of us from uh an overreaching authoritarian government u which seems to about to be aided by flock with this FBI contract coming online. In fact um the CEO and founder Garrett Langley has bragged about brute forcing local governments to buy their technology. So, um, I really feel that we're on a precipice. Um, and PaloAlto is just a tiny little tip of the iceberg on this. Again, I'm not worried about any of y'all. I'm worried about us being complicit in a nationwide system to systemically dismantle Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. [sighs] That's it for me. Thank you, >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, Chief, several follow-up questions for for you. You laid out both in the in the report and your presentation a lot of individual success stories that are very meaningful, touching, and and and overall, I think, good evidence in us evaluating this system, but how does the department evaluate the overall effectiveness of the flock system? We heard kind of many public speakers tonight talk about lack of of data. you you provided us some some compelling numbers as far as just downward trends in property theft, but as you said yourself in your presentation, flock is likely a a factor in that. Um, and I know overall trends in that space have have been uh downward sloping over the last year across the country, which is great. Are are there measurable outcomes such as like clearance rates, recovery rates, suspect identification rates, response times that have improved since deployment that the department has been able to track to really assess this? >> I don't have those stats for you, unfortunately. I will say that precisely because of the shortcomings you point out in that there are so many factors that impact overall crime rates, that's precisely why we've chosen to provide the council with a variety of detailed case studies. Because where we can't say that over an extended period of time there's been a decline in crime that we can directly attribute by causation and not correlation to flock. We can point to some very specific cases, some of which involve very violent crime and very violent people that were solved using flock technology and in some cases I'm confident would not have been solved were it not for flock technology? Thank you. From the department's perspective, what operational capabilities would be lost if the city chose not to renew or continue the the flock program? Are there specific categories of crimes or investigations where officers would be significantly less effective without this technology? They were deactivated. Can you talk about like alternative tools, resources, etc. that would have to be maybe redirected then to to be able to continue to maintain the the level of service that the community expects. So I'll use uh first the residential burglary trend and in particular the group of cases I described earlier in that particular because I think it's a good illustration of exactly the type of complex multi-jurisdictional case that might have gone unsolved were it not for the use of flock and the overlay of data from multiple agencies. So in that particular case, um we had a very small residential neighborhood that was experiencing an an uncharacteristic spike in residential burglaries, a number of which happened during the overnight hours when houses could reasonably be expected to be occupied and were occupied. And we had a neighborhood that was very frightened because they'd never seen anything like this before. They in fact asked to have a community meeting to discuss it. Um, ultimately using flock technology, we were able to compare data of vehicles leaving and entering that area with vehicles leaving and entering an area in another county across the bay that was experiencing a similar spike in residential burglaries. And it was only with that lead where we were able to link together cars in two different spots that we were then able to go get a search warrant for additional cell phone data, etc., and build out a case that ultimately connected these suspects to dozens of residential burglaries in multiple counties and multiple cities. So, I think that's the type of case where, you know, any type of information that we can compare and connect with information from similar cases in other jurisdictions would be negatively impacted. I think the easy one obviously is stolen vehicles and stolen plates. And those are important for a couple of reasons. Not only because yes, it's important to regain someone's stolen vehicle uh and return it to them, but also because we know that stolen vehicles are frequently stolen for the specific purpose of committing more serious offenses. And so to the extent that we can be notified in real time to the presence of a stolen vehicle on our roadway and have officers there, we can hopefully deter more serious offenses. Thank you. One of the speakers addressed recent patents from Flock with just emerging technologies and ALPR. Some really concerning forward direction on the on surveillance that goes far beyond what we are allowing currently with with Flock. Would I guess we have control over any additional functions that would be added to our system here in PaloAlto? Correct. beyond what you described earlier tonight. >> Yes. And in fact, if we became aware that a new feature was available and we wanted to pursue the use of that new feature, like facial recognition, for example, by ordinance, we'd be required to come back to this council with a new surveillance ordinance to ask for permission to use that technology. I'm not saying we would ask for that permission, but we'd be required by ordinance to do so. One thing I also want to point out to or actually two points is one um Flock has two separate products and I think it's worth noting uh in keeping with their bird theme um our cameras are Flock Falcon cameras that are specifically and only ALPR functioning cameras. Flock also sells or leases a Flock Condor camera, which is a more traditional surveillance camera with AI capabilities to include the possible future addition of facial recognition. So that's not the product that we have deployed on our streets. >> Thank you. And to deploy those would require direction from the council. >> Absolutely. Thank you on that time. >> Council member Louu. >> Thank you. Uh just a few questions. I'm curious if there are preliminary reactions or if there's any scope for the independent police auditor to think about uh some of the concepts that were mentioned by public commenter on uh restricting the agencies that could search our uh uh that can be part of the network that search our uh logs and or reducing retention significantly further to anywhere from minutes to a week or something instead of 30 days. I think the answer is certainly yes. There's room to uh augment that scope or form that scope before that report's finalized. I also would firmly expect that the auditor's report would include an analysis of best practices around retention periods and some of the concepts you're talking about. Yeah, I think trying to do the math of whether that is feasible, whether we will still get useful data from uh our neighboring cities if we do such a move uh or whether you know there would be downstream network effects would be useful. uh getting a sense of whether making any of those changes would change any of the positive stories or positive outcomes that we've talked about would be useful. And so I think this is uh really discreet and analyzable work that I think would be useful to do. Um I think it'd also be useful to get a clear read on some of the metrics. I realize that there aren't uh clean, neatly buttoned up academic studies that uh can show x% crime reduction or x% clearance rate change. Uh that nothing like that will be available for several years just because of how studies work. Um but I think there are reasonable metrics that we can gauge from ourselves. We can look at the cases that Flock was involved in and to your point, we can sort of confidently judge uh whether or we can judge with a confidence level of whether Flock definitely uh aided this positive outcome or was sort of useful in a tertiary sense. We can get a metric. I think it will be useful to have a story of here are the ex crimes that were cleared uh in part due to flock. Uh and uh that helps us and also gauge like what percent of those were serious crimes, minor crimes, whe what percent of those were potentially stolen vehicles sort of driving around the city and not actually causing any sort of direct crime or impact to the community. getting that and getting uh something that we can actually weigh so we can understand what the trade-off of public safety and privacy actually looks like I think is useful. Uh overall I'm really grateful that we have uh advanced good policies and good retention uh and are publishing our audits but obviously I'm still concerned and want to see how much further we can go. Uh there's a larger conversation to be had regionally about what buying power and a Santa Clara County or San Mato County style network could actually get us. Uh I uh hope that is something that we can talk about in the next conversation or that our colleagues in the city association uh or representative on the city association can take up. Uh, but overall I really appreciate the report. I appreciate the public comment and I think there's a lot of actionable clarification we can do going into the next time we hear this. >> Council member Lowing. >> Yeah, thanks. Uh, first I want to just comment on two items. One in the report and one that you brought up. The latter of which is when you were commenting on the apprehension of a of a suspect that was identified through this license plate reader. Uh a couple of the case studies as you just pointed out sort of confused the identification of a possible suspect and the apprehension interrogation. Uh there are rules of engagement in each force and I know that the what was described does not describe the rules of engagement in Palo Alto PD. So I'm glad that you clarified that. um notwithstanding that it happens. U so uh and the second thing is that a couple of these I guess you would say softer uh cases were were very uh uh informative. Uh the the gentleman who was had had cognition problems and had to be retrieved and maybe worse or better in the case because the person was found uh the person with mental health. So in these cases we you you might have saved two lives there. So I think there is value here that is identifiable uh benefit of this system notwithstanding everything that I've heard tonight. So I just want to let me first get that on the table. Um in the gap between mid 23 and October 24 when when the [clears throat] pol data was exposed for backup were sort of a series of question here. What was the person getting? Were they finding if they they didn't, but if they got it, would they get a license plate number or how could it then move along to a person's home address or ice breaking in there relative to how we're using this information? I don't I don't quite understand the flow of that to some of the things that that we heard about. >> So, uh the particular feature we're talking about nationwide lookup required that the searcher already have a complete license plate. So with that complete license plate, they could have queried without using Flock at all an existing law enforcement database to get the registered owner information for that vehicle and then potentially used that registered owner name to find a driver's license or other information. So if an officer begins an investigation by you already having a full license plate number that license plate number can already be used to derive the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle. In this particular case, what would have happened is uh querying a full license plate number and flock you uh any query will result in you getting essentially a grouping of photos if any exist of that particular license plate if it's been captured by anyone with whom you're sharing information or that is sharing with you. Um, and then you would click on individual images and it would provide you with that thumbnail photo as well as a date and timestamp and a location for where where that vehicle was when the photo was taken. Um, the flock database itself does not include any additional personal or p uh person information beyond that. The officer would then have to pivot to already existing law enforcement databases to go any further. >> Okay, good. that that's very helpful. Um I I still don't know how that could possibly get to ICE, but I understand the problems that we're seeing in America today. So, I'm not uh disrespecting those comments. Um I I guess what it comes down to in sort of in in sort of in in empathy to what my colleagues are saying is that my my question this one is what's changed because you have a company that apparently has broken the law. um they fell asleep at the switch of the software, they didn't notify their client. Um and because it's been a long and they didn't do anything with the CEO or the management team. You know, usually when something like this happens, the first one to go is the CEO. Um and that might have been the thing to do here. I don't know. But it doesn't seem like there's a lot of changes. So, how can we have a comfort level going forward with this from the same CEO and under the circumstances of, you know, bad ethics and breaking the law? That seems like what it's going to come down to with this organization. So, as best I can relay what was shared with me by Fox leadership is that they essentially acknowledged that when they founded the company, they viewed themselves as providing law enforcement with a tool, but that it was up to the using agency to be responsible for knowing what the applicable laws were when they went to use the tool. Uh the clumsy analogy that they presented was if they were making a battering ram instead of an ALPR system that they would not go with you every time you took the battering ram out and make sure you were only using it when you could lawfully do so. Um I call that a lum a clumsy analogy because I don't think it really fits. And I think they now acknowledge that that doesn't fit either and that they have a lot more responsibility to make sure that their customers are in the best position possible to use their product only in a way that's lawful. So, I think what has changed, at least from my um experience as a customer, is that they appear to have become more knowledgeable and more cognizant of the individualized laws that are applicable to the use of their product on a state-by-state basis. >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor. >> Council member Bert, >> thank you. Um so first thanks for um a very informative report and and really thanks to members of the public for um a lot of the the issues that they have raised even if some of them are contradictory whether on the one hand it might require us to have 20 more officers and another speaker saying they're really not effective. I I think that we it boils down to a number of issues that hopefully we're going to be able to um really receive important insights on from our independent police auditor. So it's how secure is the system. I don't know if the auditor is going to be really able to look at how effective the system is, the value of it. And then we have a system that is basically a tool, but in the hands of whom and what sorts of intentions might they have and I was somewhat assured by um uh the acknowledgment by Flock's management that they had not invested in some of the safeguards that are important to us adequately invested they were growing as a company. But when I read about some of the comments by the CEO when these criticisms occurred of u accusing the critics of u uh normalizing lawlessness and uh desire to see murderers go free. That's a real alarm to me uh about whether this tool whether it's a good tool or a bad tool in the right hands is it in the right hands and I don't have good answers for that yet. Uh but my concerns as much as I really think it has value as a law enforcement tool when it is controlled properly as our department aims to do. Um I I'm just not sure about being able to trust this company going forward. uh I if with the right approach and mindset um I might be more willing to accept that they screwed up um and that they're trying to correct it. But I'm not sure that's the case. So, if we're looking for the IPA to really fill some of these gaps and uh for those who don't know our independent police auditor who's been with us for uh 18 19 years now and has real credibility in the community um for their true independence and their expertise. What's the scope of work? The the staff report gives a brief summary. Um and it is um um that it would review uh this at the bottom of page six. The staff report uh conduct an operational assess assessment of their policies and procedures around security, transparency, sharing compliance and reporting of system features and changes. Those are strong elements. Uh, and they're also going to assess our own internal policies and procedures to see if there's any way that we can do even better. But I the the more we dive into this, I really want to know the details of the scope of work of the IPA. And that's not an attachment, is it? >> It is not, Council Member Bert. So, uh, there's one complexity here, which is that there's a, uh, I believe there's a staff report coming to council, uh, before the summer recess that involves an extension of the IPA's contract, which is necessary for them to do the work because the work will fall after the expiration of their current agreement. Um, nonetheless, we've been in conversation with them. They've committed to doing the work and we're working through what that scope will look like. So in our role, [clears throat] our critical role uh in oversight, um I really want to see the specifics of what the IPA study is going to be, not the summary. Um, so how can we have that information and basically approve of that scope of work before it goes forward so that when we get it back, we're going to feel like we had as good answers as we could obtain. I think there are two pieces to it. One is the extension of the contract, which is a fairly routine matter, and then there's the specifics on this analysis. Uh I think we'll need to look at the timing of when the IPA will next be before you as part of their semianual u uh study session with the council and whether that would occur in time for them to give you more specificity before they finalize this the flock work flock specific work. >> And I'm I'm not looking for them to give those specifics before they finalize it. I'm looking for them to give them before they begin on the scope working on the project so that we are buying in to exactly what's going to be evaluated by the IPA. Not that it comes back and we go, "Oh, gee, I wish it had done X and Y instead of what was assigned to it. We've got this responsibility. Uh this set of elected officials ultimately has that oversight responsibility. And I don't want to be hoping and guessing that the scope is is the one that we would like to see. >> Understood. We're going to need to work with OIR in order to see how best to accomplish that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you, Chief. I really do appreciate you digging deep into this and uh continuing to do so so that we can sort out this troubling issue. Honestly, um it's troubling to live with flock. It's troubling to live without it. It's uh something we really need to to sort out further to get it right. Um you know, there is, as my colleagues have mentioned, sort of this coalescence of growing distrust with some of our federal government behavior. There's also a growing distrust of the tech industry and AI. And this is kind of this messy intersection of both. Um, and then of course this particular company there's been some trouble with. And you put all of that together and things like side door access start to sound less improbable. And I think those are the kinds of things that we really want to dig deeply into. Um, that said, I have to admit that um, uh, one of the examples you gave could well have been my block. I don't know that it was. I don't know that it wasn't. Um, but we had a rash of burglaries like I'd never seen in the 35 years I'd lived there. Um, there was one down the block and there was one right next door, one a few houses on up, all within a period of days. The scary thing was that the um when the parents were out, the son was home when the breakin happened, like an 11-year-old kid, but he was playing video games, so he had the the headphones on. had no idea that this person had come in and out and the parents came home and saw the broken stuff and were terrified and I can tell you the terror amongst my neighbors was profound. Um the emails that were flying around and so I did ask you know some of the officers to come to our block and meet with us and talk about the different tools and techniques they would use to try to quell this rash where people are breaking into our homes. Um and they used various tools. I don't know if it was this one. Um I have reasons to believe it might have been and uh stopped. So you know I don't know but that's these are the things we have to balance. These are real world implications in PaloAlto good and bad from this technology. Um so I have a couple of questions that would at least help me understand things a little bit better. Um if we can go back to just some of the basic use of this technology. Um, so we had on one of the slides, slide five, uh, a picture of the form that gets filled out and, um, you know, it it talks about, um, it it it at the top, it's a little hard to read on the paper, so let me go to my uh, computer here. So, it has offense type, case number, and reason up at the top. And you know, it shows that the case number and the reason are required, but the offense type is not a required entry. And I'm trying to square that. I'm just not knowledgeable enough. Later on, it talks about requiring a documented FBI, NIBRS, or NIBRES, I don't know how you say that, case type for all searches. I I don't know which of those that is, and I don't know why the offense type is not requisite. Could you just explain a little bit more about those fields? it is. Uh so if you look I don't know why the parenthetical required is not in that box but if you look in the upper right hand corner the key it shows that the asterisk refers to required fields and you'll see that all three of those fields have the red asterisk next to it. >> I can also tell you as a practical matter as a user if you don't complete all three of those boxes it will not affect a search. >> Okay. So, I want to try to link up those three boxes then to the legitimate law enforcement purpose that was talked about in the staff report. Um, because when when we do an audit and we audit the legitimate law enforcement purpose, what do we look at? Do we look at those three boxes or do we look at, for example, the uh supporting documents in a case file? Um, do we and and I'm thinking particularly of, you know, outside of PAPD because I think that that's where a lot of the concern is that we don't want some rogue officer elsewhere to, you know, put in some offense and and uh uh maybe it doesn't quite match the underlying police report or whatever the other stuff is. So, could you just describe that process a little bit of the of auditing the legitimate law enforcement purpose? >> Sure. So, um, just so we can follow what would appear in each of those three boxes. So, each of those you'll note, or excuse me, the offense type and reason you'll notice are both drop- down fields. So, those are pre-selected options that the officer must choose as opposed to a free form entry. The offense type refers to what you referred to earlier. There's a standardized set of FBI offense types that are used for statkeeping nationwide um that we routinely use for all kinds of reporting. Um that is what's now required in that box uh by all users regardless of PaloAlto or otherwise. Um and there's a finite list of those. There's probably about 100 different offense types that are FBI uh compliant. Uh [snorts] the case number box is an is whatever your agency case number format would be. The reason box is required by us but is not inherently required by flock. So in other words if anyone our own users or another user is doing a search that hits p that would hit powto data we require that they make that entry. But other agencies can have different rules reciprocally if that makes sense. Um that reason box is more of a free is more of a lay person's uh articulation of the search. So burglary investigation, homicide investigation, something like that with less code uh specificity as the offense type box. Um, on our end, what we're doing as part of our monthly audit is we're taking a random sampling of officer queries and we're matching up the case number to what's being queried to make sure that there's a legitimate relationship between what's being queried and the case upon which it's to which it's being attributed. Um, so and we do that with other types of databases our officers use as well. Um, so in other words, if we see that plate number 1 2 3 4 has been queried, we're going to pull up case number 1 2 3 4 and make sure that there's some relationship between that ca that plate number that's being queried and that report or that witness statement, etc. >> Yeah. Just to be clear, you you said you'd check the case number. You actually check the case file, it sounds like, and look to see. >> Correct. Yes. Yes. So, as you point out, we do have uh we don't have the ability to do that with the same level of detail when it relates to other law enforcement agencies. Um, so in other words, for other law enforcement agencies, really the only ability we have to do by way of an audit is a couple of things. When we run our outside agency or uh network audit, we're looking to make sure a that only agencies with with whom we have anou are doing queries. So that's sort of item number one. Item number two is to make sure that the offense type was in fact entered and it's a neighbor compliant one which now is should be a given given that it's a drop- down requirement. Um that a reason's been entered that's compliant and then that a case number has been entered as opposed to just you know spacebaring over or putting in some sort of gibberish. um we don't have the ability to uh look at other agencies cases. So we do rely upon those that are signed by the uh uh executives at the other agency where they commit to the fact that they are uh that they will only be using our data in compliance with applicable California law and that they have their own auditing standards. I'll tell you that it's uh best practice in the law enforcement industry with regard to a variety of law enforcement databases to do the kind of auditing that I described for our internal searches. So I expect that's happening elsewhere. >> Yeah. And that and that's as you were speaking what I was thinking is could we you know there could be other reasons but uh that it might be hard but could we in theou require reciprocal auditing practices as well so that they so that even if we can't go look in their case file they're doing that would be something I'd be interested in having explored when we come back and uh it'd be interesting if our I don't know if our auditor somehow sort out how many of the people with whom we haveus also do those audits where they actually look into the case file but that would make me somewhat more comfortable. Um so I think we could update the the uh content of ourus. I'll point out that when we started doing business with Flock and indicated we wanted to uh predicate our sharing on individualized, they only had one other customer in their in their entire customer client base that was doing that. And so we've largely been kind of trailblazing on that and evolving theou as we go along. So we can certainly continue to do that. >> Okay, that's interesting. Ju just a a a quick technical question. You mentioned that some of these there's some uses that are not criminal such as finding somebody with memory loss who might be wandering etc. What do you do then when you don't have a criminal offense type for these boxes? >> So [snorts] um offense types can include missing and endangered people or a suicidal subject. >> Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Um then in terms of the data from these cameras, where does it live? Are these flock servers somewhere in a server farm outside? Where where does that data live? >> Yes. So, part of what we pay flock for is cloud uh is encrypted cloud storage um of the data. So, we don't have on-site servers for the data. >> So, that 30-day deletion practice, do we audit that that it's actually deleted? So, I'd have to defer to our IT professionals on the particulars of that. I know that issue was raised at the time we we initiated the contract. So, I I don't have a ready answer to what process exists for that. >> Sure. Well, that could be something else the IPA could look into because that would also be helpful. Um, so now I I want to just talk a little bit about the the the past and what I'll I'm going to call flux breach because as far as I can tell that was a contractual term that they they breached. So, you know, we've been looking at the damages to us, but I'm interested in a penalty for them. um you know, if it was a criminal, uh I don't know if that state law was in effect at the time that they didn't tell us about uh and that they had this nationwide sharing, but I don't know what the statute of limitations is, but boy, if I was an executive at that company, I'd be a little nervous. So, I'm not necessarily asking you for your opinion on that, but I think that's something else that I'd be curious to understand more about because we do have some concerns about the particular executives. So that is that is an interesting thing. But something we could do something about um is um to talk about uh both the the the damages to us in terms of all the time we're putting into even this hearing tonight, you know, based on some of their practices, the money we've expended on auditors and will expend on auditors. They should pay for all of that. I I think or at least we should explore that in a contact renegotiation. Uh, in addition, something that I would like to discuss when this comes back is some sort of penalty or liquidated damages or whatever one wants to call it for any future breach that could be, you know, at a high enough amount that it could serve as a deterrent because these folks were hearing a lot about how this is a profit- driven company. Well, you pull out the profits and, you know, that that could be as much of a deterrent as anything. Uh so I think that those kinds of things uh would help us in our evaluation were we to continue. I think if we felt better about um audits uh uh the um um you know the all well basically all the things I've talked about the deletion of data um the uh any penalty for past acts so that they know we're serious that this is not okay and any um agreed upon penalties in that are enforceable for future bad acts would at least help the conversation. So, those are my thoughts about what I'd like to to discuss more when we come back. >> And Mr. Rectal, one more time. [laughter] >> One last question. You mentioned how valuable it was to overlay data from other jurisdictions. Uh, so if we went the Campbell route and just did it ourselves, we wouldn't be able to do that. But if we went, let's say, Santa Clara County, how valuable would be Santa Clara County, would that give you enough jurisdictions? Or do you need East Bay? Do you need San Monteo County to join in to make it useful? So I would say any sharing would be better than operating in a vacuum. Um with that I would say to flesh out the example I used earlier with the um with the dozens of residential burglaries. The majority of those happened over in Newark, Fremont, and Union City. So in a whole other county. Um, so we know that frequently our offenders are coming from even outside the county and are offending in a variety of cities throughout multiple Bay Area counties. So, um, I certainly would think there would be a loss of value if we were to only be in a network that was joined with the sheriff's office. Um, I will say to your question though, um, I'm not personally nor is the department wedded to Flock as a vendor. Um, I do see the value in the tool that they are providing us. Now, if another vendor presented itself either through our proactive collaboration and driving that or simply by market forces and there were another vendor in this space with good market penetration, I would certainly be open to entertaining another vendor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Well, I see no further lights, so I think we're ready to close up this item uh with certainly our thanks for uh answering all our questions and being here, and we look forward to taking up again next time. Thank you. Okay, so we [clears throat] will now move on to the consent calendar items three through >> 14. Madame clerk, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar? Yes, it looks like we have one request to speak. Okay, our first speaker is Emily R. ready. Thank you. I didn't think I was going to get five minutes. That would have been cool. Um but uh good evening, council. Um I won't take too long. Um I'm actually here to speak on item four. Um the recommendations um regarding the rent registry expansion and the further consideration of a possible rent stabilization ordinance. Um on behalf of SB at home, we actually sent in a joint letter with SP at home and um PaloAlto forward. Um we urged the council to limit the delay of the expansion of the rent registry program and establish a threshold to trigger council consideration of a local rent stabilization ordinance. Um we as we we appreciate the work that staff has done uh toward this item and toward a lot of the work on tenant protections which we have worked in partnership with the city. We're very happy that we've used a lot of that uh work to bring to other cities um that uh that are still building their tenant protection programs and it's a constant build. Um there's no there's no finish line really until we solve this housing crisis, which um we're working on that. Um but we ask that council take a look at now that you have uh great data starting to look at those trend lines um to establish some kind of threshold that would lead you to study rent stabilization and and move forward on an ordinance for your city. Um, we understand what staff has mentioned before, but uh, in your own data that approximately 11% of households experience a rent increase above 5%. That's that's still significant. And when you think about a rent stabilization ordinance, it's not to clamp down on a majority of renters. It's so to make sure that those renters who are most vulnerable, that are most um, have issues with their landlords, no one falls through the cracks. it doesn't affect landlords who don't raise their rents higher than a certain amount if you establish a kind of rent stabilization. So, we ask that PaloAlto uh continue taking the lead that they are have been taking with their rent rent renter protections. We appreciate the work that came out of the rent registry. Um and we look forward to hopefully um pulling this item from consent calendar and not delaying these things indefinitely, but having a threshold so that comes back to council. Thank you. Our next speaker is Anil B. >> Good evening, council and mayor. Anel Bar with the California Apartment Association. I wanted to first of all thank staff for the work they've done on the report that was submitted to you. Um and also for the recognition that um that there isn't a need to continue working on ordinance when there isn't a problem. Um I uh want to just issue our concern for generally for um rent stabilization, rent control ordinances. Um you know, as you deal with properties that are older and uh as you have in in in not only in political but the the surrounding areas, you have properties that are more difficult to maintain. And the more restrictions you put on the ability for property owners to uh fund that maintenance, the the more uh degraded those properties become over time. Um and secondly, you know, AB1482 as the ordinance as the staff report said is working. Um it has placed caps on rents. It does allow for just cause. It does do it in a more responsible way. uh and I urge you to continue uh following AB142 um because it has shown to work. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Tim M. >> Greetings council Tim McKenzie. Uh I would just like to echo everything that we heard from the first speaker. Uh Emily is great. She is very knowledgeable. Um and I'd like to remind you PaloAlto is made up of people who live here. It's not corporations. It's not money for the landlords. That's not the purpose of the city. It's the actual human beings who live, work, and enjoy their life here. Uh make it easier for us to exist as human beings. Meeting our basic needs like shelter that does not outpace the cost of living does not outpace wages. Um, a a rent registry is literally just knowing, having data, having the information. Like you you can't make an informed decision if you don't have it. Um, so please stand on the side of the people who live here instead of the people who want to and corporations who want to extract every possible penny from the human beings that make up our shared community. Thank you. And that concludes public comment on consent calendar items 3 through 14. >> All right. Um Okay. So colleagues, are there any no votes or requests to pull or recusals and I will start out and say that I would like to pull item four. Vice Mayor Stone. >> I'd also like to pull item four. >> Council member Lou. I'll also pull item four. >> Council member Bert. >> The same. >> Okay. Council member Liths. >> I know you don't need it, but I'll [laughter] put myself on the record for that as well. [gasps] >> Okay. All right. Seeing no other lights, um absent uh with Yeah. So, item four is pulled. So with respect to the others, are there any motions to approve? >> So move. >> A second. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you. [sighs] [clears throat] All right. So, Madame Clerk, when you're ready, you can uh call the role on the nonp items unless Council member Rectal, >> yes. >> Council member Lethod Hayes, >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Mayor Vinker, >> Council member Bert, >> yes. >> Council member Lowing, >> Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Thank you. And uh Mr. Mr. City Manager, if it's all right with you, I'd like to see if uh 10 minutes of uh addressing item four now could uh dispense with it. If not, we can find it at a later date. >> Sure. Uh perhaps just for public's awareness, this would be your opportunity to test your new procedure to allow a quick discussion of an item to see if you could dispense with it quickly. >> All right. Thank you for that. Um, and uh, you know, I'll just start and say that uh, I really do appreciate the work that staff and the policy and services committee did on this and I understand um, why you aren't moving forward this year, but I'm just uncomfortable with the indefinite deferral. So, you know, I'd like a chance to consider um, rent increase triggers that would bring back consideration that consideration of a rent stabilization policy. But for tonight, for tonight, I'd just like to see us change the indefinite deferral to a 12-month deferral, at which time or sooner if council directs, uh, we can consider those triggers. That that that is my thought on this. Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. And you actually teed up my motion pretty well there. So, I did send a draft motion and hope that this would be pulled to the clerk if she could put that on the on the screen. And it's it's essentially to remove the word indefinitely and replace it with a one-year deferral, have it return to policy and services for review and consideration at the at that time. I as a member of the policy and services committee, uh we did not actually discuss any type of language that might that could be included that would trigger a re-examination of this. I that was an oversight on on my part. I'm curious. My other committee members feel the feel the same way. So, I wish we had thought of it at the at the time. Apologies that we did not, but hopefully we can remedy that now and and add that language so it does come back to us next year. >> Council member Lith agree with the vice mayor that this was an oversight on the part of PNS, not something we discussed. Uh we overlooked it. We apologize and I support the motion. So hand yeah officially to I'll move the motion on the screen. I >> think that was allowing. >> Okay, council member Lou. >> Thank you. Uh I think uh you know at this current stage I'm not strongly opinionated about one to two units but I think having a trigger or a framework to understand that data is useful. Uh uh I am not a fan of rent stabilization as at large. So I think anti- rent gouging ordinances like AB1482 could be considered for smaller unit sizes uh unit counts which I think aren't uh currently in scope of that law. I had a couple other thoughts as well and this was more in the sort of uh policy and services referral or general discussion where I think rent registry data should be available on a delayed basis uh about uh or potentially on delayed basis around the actual costs uh that tenants are paying for different units. I think that's an important and useful piece of market transparency that uh when I was a renter in Santa Monica really enjoyed how there was actually real-time listings of uh rents for everyone in my building and the building next door and things like that. Um it uh just gives consumer transparency at really no cost um uh because it's data we already have. I also thought that the report was a little bit tricky in the sense that it said uh 10% of units had rent increases of 5% and above. 5% is, you know, plausibly pretty reasonable depending on the situations, upgrades, whatever history. Uh but I think part of the rent registry is also uh being able to think about enforcement and understanding when there are also more extreme rent increases in the like 10% range that are actually illegal but landlords and or tenants may not know that. Um so those were a the two main topics uh rent registry data transparency and uh uh as we think about thresholds just thinking about clearer uh breakdowns of the data. I don't know if any of this needs to go in the motion. Um uh but uh curious uh if the maker would be open to including both of those points. Well, I think both would could could definitely be considered by policy and services when it comes when it comes back to the committee in in a year. Are you asking that be expedited that work? Oh, so that will come. Oh, so right. So the entire brand industry will come back to the policy and services on a yearly basis. But then the consideration of including one to two units will Oh, okay. Sorry, I misread the motion and misread the motion. Okay. Yeah, I I think uh those can just be points uh referred to policy and services. Um anything? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. I'd also point out that if we feel strongly about it in January, uh when we set council priorities, we could do something then. But I think this this allows what you're uh looking for in a year. Um all right. Seeing no further lights or council member Bert, >> I I'm just a little confused by the wording of the motion now that I read it more carefully because under a we're saying we're approving the recommendation to indefinitely defer um two policy areas and is that the intention that we would >> No, I think it's got modified in ways what's not intended. >> [laughter] >> Apologies. Um, this was the my [clears throat] doing. I was just adding in the staff recommendation, but if we could be clear. >> Yeah, I think maybe. >> Well, I know Greer, you sent me um or sorry, C Vice Mayor Stone approved the staff recommendation. So, I copied and pasted the staff recommendation. >> Well, well, yeah, but then it says then it said with the following amendment to remove indefinite. So, >> I just wanted to be clear for the record. So, if we're approving the staff recommendation, is there certain parts of the staff recommendation that should be removed or should I just say how to clean this up now? >> Yeah, it's the ex uh it's the >> it's not indefin >> indefinitely is what we're trying to remove that [clears throat] it instead of indefinitely there it would be the language that it would be re reviewed in the next year. Correct. >> Yeah. And now that indefinitely has been removed. That looks like it works. >> You want by PNS, right? >> Yeah. Which is in the which is in part B. >> And and under A, shouldn't it say staff recommendation to to defer for up to one year or something to that effect? Isn't that the intent? >> Yeah, that'd be good. So approve the sac staff recommendation to defer up to one year following two rental policy efforts and return to policy and services committee for review and consideration at the appropriate time. Then you can remove part B because it's redundant at that point. >> That's no longer the staff recommendation. So, do you >> Exactly. I was going to say you might want to say approve the staff recommendation. A amended to defer. >> Okay, that works. Approve the staff recommendation. Amended to defer. It's >> kind of not perfect, but [sighs] it's close enough. We got to get that amended in there. >> I'm sorry. Which part are we adding up to? A. So it would be approve the staff recommendation uh as amended and then two it would just keep going or you could just say amended I guess >> that's I think good enough if we get out rid of that little a in front of amended >> and then uh to the city clerk I think you want to take the part about the policy and coming back to the policy and services uh committee at an appropriate time or no later than one year added to that section A and then delete B altogether. So you're going to delete the first part of B, right? It's probably close enough. It could just say approve the staff recommendation um with an amendment. Yeah. You you want to just change the as to with the with an amendment >> that way it's >> I can work on the language um if this captures it. I can work on it for the final minutes, but um if this captures the intent. >> Yes, >> clearly. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Council member Bert, did you have more? I I think we didn't get your light turned off. And I think council member Lou, you're set. >> Uh well, I have one more thing. Uh I realize actually that for better segmentation of the data, that's easy. that could just be included in the staff report. But I realized the third request or the the second request I had which was to investigate data transparency in public uh basically uh publicly disclosing rents in Palo Alto. Um uh and augmenting the data that we currently share on our rental registry would potentially require an hour more staff work and might actually be better if written into this motion. So, for example, if there were privacy concerns around disclosing uh market rate, rents uh data that we've already collected, uh that might need a 1-hour legal review or something. So, would the maker be open to uh considering data transparency and uh uh improvements to our public uh rental registry dashboard as a third bullet point under a um I mean I'm I'm in favor of those. My I I'd like to hear from kind of the city manager thoughts on time and and resources because kind of the the whole point of the policy and services discussion in the first place was lack of resources and [snorts] the and the expense. And so I'm I'm just hesitant now all of a sudden adding a bunch of work into this that kind of gets us back to the original problem we were trying to solve. But if staff thinks that's a pretty easy thing to add in to bring back, >> yeah, I support it. Yeah. So, so, um, so a couple things. One is, uh, we're still in the beginning stages of this and we're actually, um, working with our vendor to build out a dashboard that will have, uh, information so we don't have to produce the reports. I think you're asking for something um, that goes another level down, which is real time rental information. And um I can make a note of that and we can have that conversation with the policy and services committee when this comes back uh within sometime within the next year to talk about the two policy initiatives and um you know our dashboard and we can note this interest in and uh if the council supports us uh for some real-time data I we're not going to be able to produce that >> really soon. Uh it's Yeah. Okay. So, but we can have that as something that we're uh talking about and reaching forward and >> I can report back on >> yes >> how that can be achieved and the timeline. >> Yeah, if we can have that going into discussion that would be useful. I think it's tricky when you go into discussion year later and uh there's no groundwork or no context or no investigation made so you can't uh discuss that topic. if we're going to be able to discuss that topic in a year. Uh and that's explicitly noted in the scope uh of just overall consideration rental industry. I think I'm happy with that. Thank you. Okay, we were close to staying in the 10 minutes. I don't think we quite did it, but we got this thing done fast. I see no other lights. So, Madame Clerk, please call the role. >> Yes. >> Baker. >> Council member Lowing. Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Yes. >> Council member Rectal. >> Council member Lou. >> Yes. >> Council member Bert. >> Council member Lot. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you very much. Okay. City Manager, you're on. >> All right. Very good. We'll make this quick. I think we've covered a few things. And if the director planning would leave our city clerk alone, we can move on to the next item. All right, next slide, please. All right, a few things just upcoming over the next week. I don't think this was mentioned under under council member comments. I do want to note that Wednesday, this Wednesday, we will have the official uh ribbon cutting on our uh new downtown teen center and home of Lacita, 400 p.m. This Wednesday, June 3rd. Then this coming weekend on Saturday, we have the annual citywide yard sale. And so for residents who might want to uh list their property on uh this yard sale, information is available here, palaltto.gov/ /yardsale. This is Saturday 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. And then on Sunday, as was noted earlier, we have our first Palo Alto Pride event here at King Plaza, 2 to 5:00 p.m. Next slide, please. Then uh specific to the neighborhood uh along Embaradero Road, specifically Emerson and High Streets and primarily on the north side of the street. We will have construction beginning this week. uh June 8th uh through mid August. This is pursuant to the council's action to accelerate that work. Uh this will include uh some street reconfigurations at that intersection to improve traffic and particularly pedestrian and cyclist safety. Next slide, please. And then finally, just looking forward, as the mayor noted, we have two scheduled I uh city council meetings prior to the July recess next week, June 8th, with urban water management plan, coverly follow-up actions, and the San Antonio quarter plan. uh next steps following meeting on June 15th, your budget rates adoption along with the bicycle pedestrian transportation plan and then a number of items uh listed on August 10th. Again noting as the mayor pointed out we will be shifting your August meetings from the 3rd, 10th and 17th to instead the 10th, 17th, 24th in August. And not to be forgotten, the Crescent Park traffic calming item is listed here will be on your first meeting in August and a number of other items that we know community members are tracking. With that, mayor, that completes my comments. >> All right. Thank you, city manager. All right. So, we will now take our break so we can get a little dinner and hit the action items. Um, I will talk to the vice mayor and city manager about scheduling for the rest of these, but let's come back at 8:30 and get going again. Thank you. All right, welcome back. We're going to reconvene and move on to our action items this evening, starting with action item 15, which relates to uh CDBG grants. And so I will turn to our staff and city manager. Okay, great. Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh, and good evening, city council. Jonathan Le, director for planning and development services. Uh, I'm joined, uh, by Leaf Christensen, our senior housing specialist. Um, but given where we are on the agenda, um, uh, the information is included in the packet. Staff is available to answer any questions that the council may have. Um, but this is a, uh, an action item. So, if there are public speakers, um if you're okay with not having a presentation tonight, we um you might want to uh proceed with that. >> Well, thank you and uh I want to thank you for being here and apologize the effort that went into the presentation, but I I'm happy to take up director late on the offer unless any there's any disscent amongst my colleagues. Um, seeing no disscent on waving the presentation, uh, madame clerk, do we have any public comment on item 15? >> Looks like one request. Um, Hannah has been raised on Zoom. One moment. [snorts] Our first speaker is Melanie F. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Melanie for from upwards. I just wanted to thank you for your investment in Palo Alto's inhome child care providers and the boost program which I'm excited to share. We've recently expanded into boost and learn which is an enhanced model that's designed to deepen the impact and strengthen the long-term sustainability of the program. Um, as you may recall, Boost supports low to moderate income family childcare providers in strengthening and growing their businesses. We do this through personalized coaching. So, providers are um paired with an experienced bilingual care specialist to build a customized business action plan which covers everything from marketing and enrollment and finances to staffing. They also receive free access to our childcare management system. So, that's even beyond the program year. And then the new development is the the learning management system which is essentially an ondemand resource library that codifies seven years of um the boost curriculum we've been de developing um and that again they retain free access to beyond the program year. Uh so our our participation with Palo Alto has been a big success um with the city's support and CDBG funding. We've partnered with 11 local providers created three new teaching assistant positions. Um, past participants have increased their revenue by an impressive 40% which was double what we projected and we are grateful for the commission's recommendation which would allow us to support nine family childcare providers create three new teaching assistant jobs and continue to help hundreds of Palo Alto families find care. Um, there's still more work to do. Non-Boost providers in the city earn on average $18.35 an hour. 2025 has been the hardest year yet. A recent rapid poll uh found more than half of family childcare providers struggle to afford food and over 40% struggle to afford housing. Um meanwhile 22% of the children under six in the city lack access to licensed care with the gap for infants being far greater. Um this is conservative as the daycarees also help with before and after school care. Uh so as I know council knows uh TK expansion, high turnover, rising costs, administrative burdens, it all makes it difficult to sustain a child care business. Uh but these are the pain points that boost and learn was designed to address. So we help providers maximize enrollment, increase their revenue, and create teaching jobs while also helping all PaloAlto families have access to dedicated care specialists, including emergency backup care. Uh, so sustainability really is at the core of the program, which means if approved this year, we likely won't even need to apply for a boost next year. Um, so with that, I'll close with a word from Maria Hernandez of Tiki Land Daycare. She says, "I can't say enough great things about Upwards. The support, guidance, and personalized help I receive truly sets them apart. I'm always happy to answer any questions, both as a representative and a parent who's forever grateful for the providers who care for my little ones. Thank you so much." And that concludes public comment on action item 15. >> All right. Well, thank you to the public commenter and thank you, Madame Clerk. I'm going to bring it back to the DEA starting with Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll move the staff and human relations commission recommendation. And I'll just say that, you know, CDBG is different than his RAP. It's really formulaic. there's not much discretion to it. So that this is a very I think a very dis a different type of discussion. Um with it being CDBG compared to his rap rather discretionary type of funds HRC and staff have the the expertise. They've done the deep dive. I think we should trust them and thanks to all the work that staff and our HRC has done in making these recommendations. And um yeah that's it. Thank you. Uh, Council Member Lisk Hayes. And I guess the question is, do we have a second for the >> Is there a second for the motion? Then we can have discussion on the motion. >> Oh, go ahead. >> There's a real tie. Who Who got it? >> I have no comments on the second. >> Okay. I guess we'll go with Sure. We'll go with Council Member Bert. And he has no comments. So now discussion on the motion. We'll start with Council Member Liths. Thank you, mayor. Um, thank you, Mr. Christensen and Mr. Le for this and appreciate the expediency um, with which we're trying to address this item. My one question was just looking at the annual action plan under homelessness as one of the five things we can address. It speaks to stabilizing people at risk of and experiencing homelessness through housing solutions and [snorts] facilitation of supportive services, including mental health and addiction recovery services. And just given how much work staff and council in the community is involved in right now about addressing the fact that the vast majority of Pow Alto's unhoused population live in vehicles. I'm wondering why we're not speaking to that fact. And my larger question is what would it take for safe parking to be included in funds related to safe parking projects to be included in CDBG? Or is that definition not something that the federal government would accept and therefore it's not appropriate for us to designate such expenditures toward these funds? >> Yes, thank you for the question. Um, we could fund safe parking programs under the public services cap, which is 15% of the entitlement uh grant we get each year plus prior year program income. Uh, this year that was around 90 to $100,000. And we had public services are usually very competitive. Uh, so we would have a limited pool of funding that we could put into helping build capacity for a safe parking program, but it would be uh minimal. That would be part of the cap funding. Um some other ways we try to support um the the unhoused population is with our contract with life moves which is also a public services contract for the work that they do at the opportunity center. Um so I have had the opportunity to talk to um households living in RVs and and refer them to the opportunity center uh to receive services. So in some ways the CDB CDBG program is supporting those live living in RVs. Um, and if uh say a Move Mountain View program wanted to apply for CDBG funds, it would really be capped under that public services because the majority of the CDBG funds would go more toward housing rehab infrastructure projects. Um, HUD wants to see most of that money go toward that instead of the public services and that's that's why it's capped. So, there would be a limited pool of funds. Um, it would depend on us getting an application, too. so we could work on doing outreach and um letting our safe parking programs know that CDBG funds would be available in a limited capacity. >> Thank you. I guess as I looked at the categories um uh under which the funds fall, public facilities and improvements which I think does not have a cap was a category that looked attractive to me for um safe parking. We could always um assess an application, but typically the safe parking program model wouldn't fall under the public facility and infrastructure improvements. Um but depending on how these programs evolve and the application that we receive, we would assess the eligibility of any application that would come in. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Rectal. >> Yeah, I was comparing what we gave last year to this year. And this year we have a few new um charities, Locomita, Roticare, and YW.CA services for domestic violence. So, how does that work? Did we recruit them? Did they just apply and they didn't apply last year and that's why they got money this year or what's the backstory? >> Yeah, outreach was enhanced in some ways. Lamita directly engaged with I talked to Deborah at Lamita a few times. We encourage every nonprofit that reached out to submit an application um la ywca and and roicare I uh I think partners with life moves at the opportunity center as well. So I think word is spreading about our CDBG program. We have three new partners under the public services category and we we hope to to grow those partnerships um and also expand outreach in the other categories that we were talking about like public facility housing rehabilitation our capital projects as as well. >> Okay. And I also noticed that last year we had some money that was given down at the uh the new uh San Antonio development home key and this year instead we're doing a development at uh the curb ADA curb improvements. So do we have these big projects kind of aligned up and we say what are we going to do next year or how much planning goes behind picking these big projects? Yeah, particularly for um the projects that would fall under the home key recreation project or the ADA curb ramps. We're we're trying to do more outreach. Um this year we were unders subscribed in in capital applications. So we diverted some of the available funding to ADA curb ramps for safety and accessibility uh improvements, but we've been reaching out to partners like Midpen Housing and other um property management entities, you know, to see if they'll be willing and interested in submitting an application. Uh moving forward, the home key wreck project we're hoping to get done this year was delayed because of some environmental review reasons, but we did set aside $185,000 for that um 2526. Uh we're going to be moving forward with that July 1. And Life Moves is one of our partners. So they we let them know that if you wanted to do something like this recreation, this playground project, the new home key site, you could apply for CDBG funds that would be eligible. So we we consistently have our partners whether they're returning or new coming to us with ideas and we can assess the eligibility and and if it's eligible ask them to move forward and submit an application. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um yeah I I just want to uh understand uh those same uh actual grants just a little better. Um, so I understand that Lakama and YWCA are new partners, but their grant amounts from what they sought and what they got were significantly smaller um than many of the others. And I don't know if they didn't know what to ask for yet or how we went from, in the case of La Camea, a request of 28,000 to an oddly specific $6,321. just tell me a little bit about that process. >> That's the challenge with the public service cap is we always get a lot of applications um a lot more money requested than we have available. So this year we took the approach with the human relations commission on giving everybody a little bit of something. So life moves project Sentinel saw a little bit of a reduced um grant amount than they did the year before and then we gave new partners an opportunity to come in. The odd number that came with La Kama was during uh the motion with the HRC um was we had a little bit more money in the entitlement grant than we estimated. So they said give them as much as you can within the cap and that happened to be the amount that it came to. Um it is an odd number. Um but those are the decisions we have to make each year. Do we give a few organizations a lot or do we try to give everybody um something? And you know, we're going to have those discussions each year and are always open to uh new ideas and and directions to go. But that was why. Yes. >> Oh, thank you. That's helpful. And it's it's always hard to answer that question that you just just posed. Uh although sometimes people need a certain amount before they can do anything. And so I assume that you looked into that as well as you know. >> Yeah. part of the application process will be if you don't get this award amount, can you still operate this program? And a lot of our CDBG partners are are taking small amounts of money from all of these different pots and they make it work, but it's getting a little bit harder um each year. >> Got it. Understood. Uh, and the the public works ADA curb improvements are for I I I thought I heard are they for a specific site or we're working with the public works team right now. So, they're doing like their capital improvement plan is my understanding. Um, we told them the amount of money that we have available for the ADA curb ramps. So, they're going to be working on their bid process and and they can do these projects citywide. Um, so they're going to give us a roster of where they're going to do the uh curb curb ramp uh or retrofits uh or make the curbs ADA compliant and then we'll kind of move forward. They're they're in the planning process at this point. We let them know how much is available and then they'll soon let us know how many curb ramps they can um add to their roster because of this this funding and give us the locations of those sites as well. >> Okay. Um, I mean, I certainly support the, you know, creation of ADA curb improvements. Um, kind of seems like something we ought to do anyway. I mean, is it mandatory? I assume. Um, I was just surprised that wouldn't come out of our normal capital budget and that it would be grant supported, something like that. Yeah, we're usually supplementing with the CDBG funds and I will um say that next cycle we want to do outreach to see if we can get more of our partners applying for multif family rehab funds and other projects that um we would maybe prioritize a little bit more. If we don't spend the HUD funds, they take them back. We can get into compliance issues. So when we're under subscribed in certain categories, we have to figure out how to spend that money in ADA curb ramps in PaloAlto and other jurisdiction I've been in that's usually the default project if you have available funds. It does meet a need. I agree that you know there may be other projects we could prioritize. we just have to do better um and do the outreach to get the applications in and there's some barriers the CDBG program puts up with the federal requirements that um make it hard for some grantees to apply. So we're we're actively trying to get more applications in for next cycle. Um so you see maybe a different projects in the next action plan. >> Okay, got it. just want to it just feels a little funny to be cutting food for seniors and and and doing it with these curb improvements, but I understand they're different categories and so you have to make put the money toward the right thing. So, okay. All right. Well, thank you. I have no further questions and I see no further lights. So, unless there's any more discussion, I think uh Madame Clerk, you can uh call the role. >> Council member Lowing? >> Yes. >> Council member Rectal? >> Yes. Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Mayor Vinker, >> Council member Burton, >> yes. >> Council member Lith Haynes, >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right. Thank you very much and thank you for being here and explaining all that tonight. >> You're very welcome. Thank you. >> All right. And with that, we will move on to action item 16, which is the outdoor activation standards related to California Avenue. I'll wait for staff to switch over here. >> All right. Welcome whenever you're ready. >> All right. Well, while the PowerPoint is being brought up, Alex Andrade, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and city council members. Tonight, we are here to discuss the outdoor activation pre-approved parklet plans for Calav. And just as a little bit of background, in June of 2025, you directed staff to develop standards for parklet structures and to utilize the architecture review board for design recommendations. In January at your retreat for values, priorities and objectives, you reaffirmed the importance of the Calav and the outdoor activation guidelines as an objective to complete this quarter two. And most recently, just a couple of months ago in April, we were in front of the architecture review board and they voted unanimously to proceed to um have you consider uh moving forward with implementation. And so before uh two more quick things here. Uh tonight's city council consideration would achieve implementation action 1.3 of the economic development strategy in supporting outdoor dining to encourage activation of commercial business districts of course just like Calab. And then one last item before I hand it over to Bruce. If the project is to move forward tonight, public works will add funding to a contract that would will be before you on June 15th that would be for street repaving. And so with that, I'm going to hand it over to our project lead, Bruce Fukuji. He's been leading this project for some time now on behalf of economic development and the city manager's office. >> Great. Thanks, Alex. Um, good evening, madame mayor and council members. It's a pleasure to be here this evening and to uh share what our progress is on this. I wanted to say uh this is really an opportunity for council to take a next step to realize council direction for California Avenue to really improve its economic and community vitality as being a vibrant neighborhood serving commercial district. Can we go to the next slide? Oh, wait. No, that's fine. Great. Yeah, this one's not working. So I just didn't I don't know what you're Yeah. But that's fine. Yeah. So I'm just going to you know briefly go over outreach outdoor activation our pre-approved parklet plans in the public space concept next steps and and um our recommendations. Next slide. [sighs] Yeah. [gasps] I I think you know we we took to heart your request to work with the ARB and I think that what's been um important to recognize just how much progress has been made on Cal Avenue. uh you know from the permanent closure of the street to amending the COB plan to creating a new legislative framework for community street doing EIR creating two different street design concepts replacing all the temporary barriers that are out there with permanent ballards planters paving and bike lanes uh creating a signage and wayfinding plan coming up with a branding strategy uh coming up with a two-way slow bike lane concept uh and then looking at now what you're going to have before you about the outdoor activation standards pre-approved parklet plans and now new public space concepts. There's actually been a tremendous amount of work that's been done. I just wanted to highlight that and over the last several months we had worked very closely with our architectural review board and it's been a pleasure to work with them and they met I mean as Alex had mentioned you had a unanimous approval to for the outdoor activation and the pre-approved parkland plans from their actions in April. Next slide. [clears throat] Yeah. So um you know we've done a lot of stakeholder engagement. Um this sort of highlights kind of the the main points but what I think is really really important to to recognize is that while this act these um this engagements taking place is that you know there's been a lot of evidence of really increased economic activity and vibrancy on on Cal Avenue. You know the vacancy rates have been reduced from 16% down to 7 and a half in the 2023 to 2025 period. And as you've seen in your sales tax reports, you see that there's been increase in sales tax revenues from Cal Avenue 2.9% but also really increased food sales, right? 13%. So during this whole process, we've been seeing really the um improvements of the economic activity that's playing taking place on the street. Now with all that said, you know, 74% of um Cal Avenue sales tax revenues for food and beverage. And when you really think about that, why is that the case? And that's really dependent, you know, these restaurants and the food and beverage stuff is really dependent on place. It's really dependent on outdoor dining. It's on gathering, you know, it's on the experience of the street. Um, it's on how to attract people who want to spend time time there. And it's about being a real place. And I think what's important is that you look at that and you compare that to other parts of Palo Alto that are retail shopping centers. And you're seeing that real place is actually performing better. And I think that you're going to see the actions you could take tonight will help advance that considerably. Next slide. So for outdoor activation, just really briefly, you know, we looked at precedents. We came up with really great design solutions. The ARB was fabulous with our discussions around that. You need to know that we met with that ad hoc committee uh twice a month for almost 6 months. I mean was a very detailed process and working with them. But I just want to highlight that this outdoor activation program is going to meet some very important economic vitality objectives. It's going to be able to expand options for commercial use of the public rightway of sidewalks and roadway. It's streamlining permitting. It's creating a very efficient process for businesses to be able to do their permitting. It's looking at how to do it in a way that creates a diversity of options that can be for the lowest amount of investment and the highest level of investment. They're very flexible in terms of what businesses are interested in wanting to spend and accommodating all of those choices and it makes sure it focuses on improving the customer experience for all year round dining and maintain storefront visibility. So I think we've you know um accomplished a lot with these activation standards. Next next slide. Yeah. And I just one of the issues that came up when we met previously was just about making sure that the amount of outdoor dining area out out on Cal Avenue is not going to decrease as a result of creating standards. And what we've been looking at is uh the trends that have taken place in outdoor seating in 2024 was 16,200 6 12,620 ft and the blue is sidewalks and the red is is roadway. And then it decreased in 2025 and that's just you you had 20 restaurants and then went to 19. But it's mainly because of kind of post-pandemic shrinking of the amount of space that actually is needed for for dining. So they can actually balance out what they can do with their inside and outside dining based on their kitchen capacity and their server capacity and reduce it slightly. So this activation program is going to you know basically enable equivalent or greater amount of current seating that there is now. And I think that's just a very important finding from the work that we've done. um 19 to 20 restaurants can have pre-approved parklets in front of their storefront if they choose to do that of varying varying sizes. I just wanted to highlight those really important parts of of this program. Next slide. Yeah. You know, the pre-approved parklets. Um you know, I I think that this is probably the the part of this whole effort that I'm most pleased about in terms of this in the public space design. You know, um we came up with this idea that look, why don't we have three different options for pre-approved parklets. Uh you can do a roofless one, any square footage you want, no square foot limits, or you can do a cabana or pergola. You know, the cabana is a little bit like knockoff because of the mid-century modern sort of theme. That's part of what was, you know, when we looked at the branding exercise of what community members really liked with that modern optimism concept. So we helped to extend that here that has sort of basically slope roof with you know uh overhangs and then we looked at a more modern concept of pergolo which really has a flat roof no overhangs you know steel brackets we looked at the lessons learned from the existing pre-approved parklet program and applied it applied it to this what I think is important is it creates an option to have a parklet where it's already designed and engineered and it meets all the objectives that we talked about for Cal Avenue it's open it's transparent and then you can have roll down shades to be able to address weather, whether it's wind or sun or things like that. And and and [snorts] by using taking advantage of being carf free, you don't have to have railings and barriers for cars. We actually have open railings, you can have cable railings, a whole variety of things. And so, it's creating options for transparency and there options if you don't want to be transparent. It's it does the whole range. So, I feel very good about what we've created here and I think it'll look great and I think they'll be fabulous on the street and it's going to make Calab a really beautiful place. Next slide. Um, so I want to just go over this public space concept. You know, we had the the pre economic development committee meeting back in March. Basically, they looked at the two-way slow bike lane concept and felt like that's too much bikes on Cal Avenue. And I I agreed with that assessment. I thought that was a really astute observation. So, we looked at a different a different approach. Now, what what this approach is is it says no traffic markings, no standard traffic markings for bikes. Okay? It says, "Okay, how can we take the roadway now? [clears throat] There's no more vehicle movement that's happening there and create a flexible commercial space. It's an active space that allows for, you know, businesses for outdoor dining, allows for community activity, allows for events, has safe access for everybody, and allows bikes to be able to go through there. And so what what we came up with as a strategy is what we found is that when you do these thermoplastic stripes, that's what you're seeing right here. And they're all colored differently. They're basically horizontal, extend from sidewalk to sidewalk. The thickness of it is just enough. So when you're riding your bike and the faster you ride your bike, you're going to really notice this this this textural thing. So what we're trying to do is create behavioral cues for people to change their behavior. Now, obviously, it's more fun to ride your bike or easier to ride it on smooth pavement and not on bumpy pavement. Okay, so that's the main idea is to use texture as a way to kind of control bike speeds. Natural separation. We're sort of assuming that people will learn how to behave on the street. Okay. And we're saying bikes here is a destination and then looking at like Cambridge when that can get improved for more through bike movements that would go from like park all the way to to El Camino. So this is sort of for destinations, but it's open for kids to be able to do safe routes to schools. Designed so that if you're like 10 years old, you can really easily understand how it works. It's got a dotted center line which divides the way the the smooth surface areas for bikes. Now, we met with the people at Vista Center for the visually impaired and blind and we talked about this and came up with some strategies to make sure that this is universally designed. So, if you're disabled, if you have visually impaired, that this this environment works for you. And they love this concept. And one of the things we added is a tactile directional indicator that goes from crosswalks to crosswalks. So, it allows you, you're blind, to be able to walk in the street in the same pedestrian space as everybody else on the side where all most of the restaurants are and have access to all that. They love that idea. They have a few other great ideas that we haven't implemented yet, but I think it's a it's a strong direction. So, you know, that's basically the idea here. Um, in this drawing, just to help visualize things, shows if you did pre-approved parkletits and you did outdoor dining and everyone did their thing, uh, that how much would that, you know, occupy of the public space, including the encroachments that are done. So, it's help you sort of visualize like what does the thing look like when it's when it's built out. So, it's an inexpensive, easy to implement, artistic, attractive, and functional thing that actually is trying to say that we believe that people can have the right behavior and then be able to do that. So I just wanted to highlight that that's this concept. You can see the next slide. It's the same thing for for the other half from Ash Street to Birch Street. And then we we clustered bike parking at the entrances at El Camino at Birch Street on Ash Street and over in front of Country Market. So if you're coming off Amosa Lane, you can park your bike and then be able to walk walk through there. And any business that continues to want to have their bike parking in front, we said great, we'll just keep it. So that's what that's what this layout is next. So, um, next slide, please. So, just just to kind of wrap up real quick, um, you know, today's council consideration on outdoor activation pre-approved parklets and the sign ordinance, I didn't get into details of it, but basically the sign ordinance amendment allows businesses to put a sign six square feet on their parklet or have a sandwich board sign without having to go to the ARB and go through a sign permit process. We're trying to expedite this. Next thing is Alex mentioned, you know, quarter three, four, looking at what to do to if you take your action on June 15th, which is the issue that's going to be before them around uh making an amendment to a greaty paving contract so we can help expedite what to do to repave the street. You know, public works says, "Look, if you're going to do it, just repave it. Don't resurface it. Do the right thing and make it look great." So, we're looking at 300,000 being moved on June 15th if you prove that. So, that work can get expedited. We're trying to look at what to do to finalize that construction schedule, coordinate with merchants around the impact about do that so that when that work's done, then anyone who wants to do a pre-approved parklet or a custom parklet can go ahead and do it before the end of the year. So that's what we're trying to do. Uh and then we're looking at what to do next year, which is really refine that public design of that space. It's a concept, but it needs design work specifications and it's got to be bid and installed. And in doing that, we're also looking at what to do to remove some of the sidewalk barriers that are per making it harder for people to really take advantage of the sidewalk for outdoor dining. So that's that's it. That's my presentation. I'm think I kept it to 10 minutes, which was the request. I'm getting better at that. Um anyway, so thank you. It's just a recommendations. It's in the staff report. I didn't think I needed to go through that. All right. Thank you. >> Well, thank you. That was quite a report. A amazing to put it in the 10 minutes. So we really appreciate that. Um, council u members, I'm going to ask and see if there's any uh initial uh clarifying comments or questions and I'll start with council member Bert. >> Thank you. Um so first thanks for all the progress on this and I want to thank the uh economic development committee for their review on and particularly this one issue of um the biking and 3 to four years ago when we were looking at this and um on whether we should have biking um down Calab we one of the things we recognized it's been in our bicycle and pedestrian plan as a a bike route but that's when it was uh a street in Cherros. Um and what has just increasingly occurred is that the proliferation of especially throttle ebikes and um [clears throat] hearing from merchants, hearing from residents, witnessing it, uh I've come to the conclusion that our circumstances have just changed in what biking means and the constraints that we have uh by state law on not being able to regulate uh those vehicles which are many of them essentially electric motorcycles, low powered electric motorcycles. And we can't regulate um uh just allowing uh pedal powered conventional bikes which could have historically been I think modulated and have a slow bike route. Um, so, um, I I continue to, uh, really want to make sure that Calab is a biking destination, but I've come around to that there's there's not a good way for us to be able to um, have the slow biking and the safety of uh, bikes and pedestrians there together. Uh, in a circumstance where we have this just growing proliferation of fast electric bikes. Um, and so I'm I'm going to be real interested in diving deeper into if we if colleagues are interested in that. How do we make it so that uh we still have Calav as a bike destination but not a through route? How do we get Cambridge to be safer than it is today because it's not good enough at some areas and the alleyways and all those things. Um, so that's going to be something I'm I'm very interested in. Um, I did have a question on the repaving because I haven't really noticed the pavement being in bad condition there. So, there's the issue of removing the plastic uh surface uh markings. Uh but are there is the pavement con uh in bad shape and and is there that need for repavement versus using those dollars for other purposes on our plan here? >> Yeah. Just um briefly, you know, the initial proposal was just to uh scrape off all those traffic markings and just sort of slurry seal the road. We went through and talked with public works staff and they felt like that would not be a good long-term solution and that the pavement was actually going to be in need of being to be replaced. So, it's a better was a better decision to actually do that. It's a better permanent condition for investment to attract attract investment. >> Well, I heard that, but I I'm still not hearing >> is the pavement in a condition that really needs to be replaced versus the markings removed. >> Right. you want to take? >> I was just going to add not necessarily. It's really more aesthetic. Um, and also would allow the existing parkletits or outdoor dining to be uh disassembled and kind of start fresh. But, uh, >> allow it or require it. I mean, >> require it. >> Yeah. Um, okay. So, I'm I'm mean just we we were I mean Holly's not here on this, but um you know, it would be scheduled to be repaved in a in a very short period of time. So, would it >> Yeah, that was part of the thing. She said, "Look, it's it's going to be ready to be repaved in the period where you're going to be doing this this work." >> So, based on that, >> I >> Yeah. >> Um >> I know it was done in 2016 and I think it's not been that that's not it's 10 years ago, right? So >> yeah, I I I still question whether it's in a condition that needs repaving um and whether we should use those dollars for better purposes. It may be that it does, but I'm I'm a little surprised by that. >> I think certainly if we get the direction tonight to proceed with the plan, then we will work out the specifics on the most cost-effective approach. >> Okay. >> Just one last thought was that just I just the slurry seal and clearing off the thing costs more than doing the repaving. So there's not like there's another option that's less expensive. So I think that that's the other thing. Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Liscott HS. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh I want to echo Council Member Bert's concern about bikes. Uh the the cycling climate, as he knows better than most of us because he is an avid cyclist. Uh but even those of us who aren't can see the whole climate has changed with these uh throttle ebikes. Um, and until that situation gets kind of coralled, um, I think we're really putting Calav at risk of becoming what it can be as a pedestrian thoroughfare by allowing the bikes to come through. I was actually surprised to see I was glad to see you consulted with the Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, but then surprised to hear that they thought the plan was really nifty and neat. Um um so perhaps you could speak a little bit more to why they seem sanguin about uh visually impaired people on a road with fastmoving bikes that really aren't even going in a straight line but are meandering some and and also if you could speak to the question of whether Cambridge could be the more suitable route. Um, you know, there are people who will use their bike to get to a restaurant or a shop on Calav and that's their destination, but there are plenty that are using it as a thoroughare from the train to the research park or El Camino. And I think this street is no longer for that. Um, that's not the purpose of of the closed off section of KF. And so we really do need to make it safe for them to go down Cambridge. Um, but could you just say a little bit more about the uh why the lane the bendy bike lane seemed attractive to the folks at the center for the blind and visually impaired? >> Yeah, it's a it's a great question. I really enjoyed chatting with them about this. They really like that it's a car-free area. um they felt like uh they wanted to be in the same space as other pedestrians so there's not a separation between them and others so that they can enjoy that with their able-bodied friends. Um and then for those that are on their own, they they like that there was a um the tactile directional indicator so that they can actually be able to have a route that's a channel and be like on the road they can follow doing that. Now, we we we talked about other things to help make things safe for them. And they said that they would cross the street at the crosswalks and not just meander around on the roadway. So, they would stay where a directional indicator is. And I think that that would help quite a bit. And then they asked about ways to make it easier acoustically for them to understand that where bikes are. So, they thought there should be some changes in the texture on the bike route before you get to a crosswalk so they can actually hear bikes. so they can understand what's going on in that environment before they make a decision to cross the the bike area. So I think they felt like if there's an area designated for them that that would really really help. Plus they can use a sidewalk. So that was the feedback we got. >> Thank you for that. Um I should have opened with gratitude for all the work. So much work and I can see it all coalesing here. Really glad to hear that the process with the ARB has really been productive and fruitful. Um um how has the work taken into account the potential new housing projects that are coming at 414 and 156 California, the ingress and eress for those uh sites? >> Yeah. Well, uh 414 California is on the carfree portion. Um we've met with uh Jason and others on that. Um the outdoor activation standards would apply to any development that happens there also. So it creates opportunities for outdoor dining on the sidewalk or the roadway. Um that building uh if it's over, you know, it might be 75 ft high or so it it would require one change in the plan, which is the central access way would need to be 26 ft wide in front of their building in order to be able to address ladder trucks, which now it's only 22 ft. So there that approval of that project would require a few changes, but that wouldn't affect outdoor dining for anyone else. Um, yeah. And I think it would remove a curb cut if they did that because there's a bar that right now the existing bank has a curb cut for the driveway. So, they would have to improve that. >> I guess I'm raising 156 also because hundreds of people uh will one day if go ends up being built be living there and hopefully make their way onto the rest of Calab to shop and just sort of being aware of that massive influx of people. Yeah, I you know um Cal Avenue is a destination. People love going there and the more people that you have living near it, well, more people will enjoy enjoy using it. >> Can I just ask one question about your slides? I was confused and maybe I wasn't paying um close enough attention when you got to slides eight and nine with which is the public space concept west and east. the little colored lines on the road, the the white dots for the bike path, but the colored lines that go perpendicular to the bike path. What is that? >> The uh lines perpendicular to the bike path are thermoplastic surfaces. That's what you see for how most traffic markings are that are now on roadways, but they're they can come in various thicknesses. So, this is sort of like thick thermoplast. Um that's >> will they be in those colors? Um, they can be in those colors. Yes. >> Was that your intent that this is carrying the branding forward to the >> Absolutely. That was the idea. >> Okay. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Thank you. I like that. Thank you very much. Done, >> Council Member Lou. >> Thank you. Uh, just a few uh initial questions at this stage. I've been able to see this uh in the economic development committee and with CalF merchants and appreciate uh really deeply all the work that's gone into this to understand the timelines. The uh intent is to do potential repaving in June and there's a weather window mentioned of October 2026. So would the idea be all the painting and other markers be complete by October 2026 or would just the repaving be done in summerish and then the rest of the work done the next spring uh like April 27? >> Yeah, the latter. So it's just doing the paving that the other public space work needs to uh have funding allocated for it. Okay. >> I've heard some concerns from business owner that the ballards and emergency vehicle circulation may have issues and as we you know consider redesigning the street I think it's the right time to talk about those. Can you or uh I mean I see our fire chief is here probably for this purpose. Speak to whether there were any operational issues so far with the ballards and uh sort of access paths we've carved out whether we think those are actually sub substantive delays or operational issues going forward. Good evening, council. Steve Lindseay, fire chief pal out the fire. Uh when it comes to the Ballards and emergency traffic flow, uh we did a cursorary review uh earlier today in preparation for this meeting. And looking at the last calls that we've had over about the last month, the month of uh April and um right now in May, uh we we didn't see a significant delay at all in the area. Actually, our average call times for the calls on Calav were about 5 to 6 minutes with one that was about 8 minutes from what we could find. Um, so we have had some reports of people being concerned about our access to the buildings. Um, one of those things is there's a condition where we may park right outside the bowlards and not lower them and take our gear in, such as for a medical call where that may be a more efficient approach. We do something similar when we go to apartments. Sometimes we don't commit our apparatus down into a parking lot of an of an apartment complex and we might park on the street and carry our gear in. And so a lot of that is dependent on the captain, the company officer to make that decision of where they place the apparatus and whether or not they want to make entrance beyond a bard or if they want to carry their gear in. >> Uh if the ballards were more technologically advanced, could go up and down with the click of a button. if they were uh if the street were otherwise designed to discourage cars from coming in but there weren't a ballard so ambulances could squeeze through. Are there any operational improvements for example that you could note that are maybe not hindrances right now? >> I appreciate that question. I think right now the way that it's been designed is really we took a lot of that thought into into consideration and we currently are able to function within the current design. Um, when it comes to committing, like we call it committing, but entering a area that's not designed for vehicles typically, um, we just want to be really thoughtful of that as these are big apparatus and you might have pedestrians, some that might have earbuds on and, um, not necessarily be expecting a 40,000lb fire engine to be driving down. And so, um, these are things that might make us reconsider whether or not we want to drive down there. Now, if there was a fire, for example, and we needed to get apparatus directly in front of the building, we would do so. And we would probably send somebody in to clear out the crowds and also make sure that there was no lingering chairs that may have been encroaching the areas where they're supposed to be clear. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. Those are all of my questions. I'll have some comments later, >> Council Member Lowing. [clears throat] >> Yes. Thanks. I have actually a number of questions, but I'll hold some of them until public comment. Um, one of the things I wanted to probe, however, is a couple of things with respect to outreach. Um, you say initially on page 339, done a lot of outreach with California Avenue merchants, community members, and you say it in a couple of other places, but there's no quantitative information there. So, I don't know if that's five retailers or 25 retailers or or or what. And I I particularly want to hone in on um the cost of the project in terms of when you put the encroachment permit in and so on. Um have we actually checked with and you say over on page um well you said it in your slide where you talk we're going to have about 20 uh activated uh restaurants retailers out there. Do do we know that? Have we talked to those 20 and said are you interested in this at this cost? >> Yeah. Um that drawing is an illustrative drawing of the potential buildout. It's not assuming who will do it. It shows if everyone wanted to do it, what would that look like? >> Okay. >> Um in terms of the outreach, in terms of the number of uh businesses that we've contacted, um you know, when we had our our monthly meetings, it would vary the number of people who would attend. It could be as low as five. It could be up to 20. So really, it depended kind of been on the agenda around doing that. Now we we also augmented that by meeting with businessmen with merchants individually if they requested that and we would do that on site at their location and go through the specific issues and needs they might might have. Now we we held these meetings on Cal Avenue to make it as easy as possible and we picked a time that would work between hours when they were having their meal service and things like that to make it as easy as possible. I would say that at the the beginning like when we had our consultants and we were doing sort of very focused activities I think we had a greater turnout but I think that um you know I think we've had a a decent turnout. I wouldn't say that you know we didn't not everyone who businesses on the street attended those things. There's a history around that. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I know that. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then on on the on the >> I used to be on that committee and sometimes it was pretty sparse and sometimes it was pretty full. So >> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. >> U but I but I really do want to we should do some sort of a test market with those 20 and say look this is about what it's going to cost for your encroachment permit >> and your rent and all that is that appealing. >> Um because if we get nobody's saying >> I want to eat here then we got a problem. So we have to do some revisions. So I mean I don't think we want to go through all this work and then find out that it's not salable. >> Yeah. and and and a footnote to that is a question. It's not here, so I presume it's not included, but that's what I wanted to ask. Um, is there any possibility of grandfathering in an existing parklet if it's if it meets the standards so that they don't have to basically repay for all the construction? >> Yeah, we I mean, the strategy was to um facilitate all ranges of investment. So, if you just want to do outdoor dining like cafe seating as if you have out there now, you can use a lot of that, but you can't use all of it. There's some limits. When we went to the Airb, there's some things that just aesthetically like residential fencing. when you see these little like picket fence things like that, we felt like that really needs to be commercial grade and not residential, you know, the kind of so there's some things we set some limits, but um in other cases we're saying like if you wanted to use your premium fencing that you've created already or screens and you want to add like a transparent screen for increasing the sort of windbreak for things like that, then you could you can use those things and you can do them in the configuration on the street and and it's and it's a um it's perman permanent but not permanent. They're not permanent improvements. So then our utility people are not saying you're building something on the roadway. So yeah, we're doing there's some that really do need some improvement. I think >> I I love your idea of operable weather screening. That covers a lot of uh sins. So that's good. It gives you some flexibility. Uh and it really it really states the point. Um but if somebody says, "Wow, whatever the price is, I don't know what this average thing is going to cost or the lowest price if it's 25,000." And he says, "I only got 5,000 to spend. Do [snorts] we really want to if they would modify it a little bit, hopefully we can work with them to keep them out there as opposed to take it down. >> Yeah, that's that's the way we we structured it. Uh it accommodates a lot of options um for how how you can go about doing that. >> Okay. And then one other thing that in talking with retailers, I found out about the U gas man that goes down one side and that's going to need some accommodation as well somehow because we don't want to shut down half of the parklets. Yeah. >> So what's the game plan for that? >> Well, we we we done a couple of really I think very smart things. One is that in working with utilities and public works creating for the main main that goes down basically like 29 ft from the face of the building on the south side, you need to set back 2 feet. All right. But we said for the laterals, you know, you can you can do a parklet over a lateral as long as you introduce a gas shut off valve for being able to sort of address that that issue because on the main it's very very high pressure. All right. So that's something you can kind of control a little bit being able to deal with that. >> Well, you I think not to miss the point though, council member, the work that Bruce and the teams have done has really been to already map out those specific locations. So that work has been done and the layouts that you're seeing in front of you reflects that as a part of the plan. >> Okay, good. So there there there's no situation which if I'm XYZ retailer, I can't put up a parklet because of the gas lines. >> Well, if the gas lines there, that is a limitation, but it's already been identified. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think as a um like baseline now, if you do a parklet on University Avenue or somewhere else, you know, the parking space is 8 ft. You got to got to set it back 2 ft. It's 6 ft. That's how much these parklets are. Right on Cal Avenue in those areas where the the gas main line is, we're saying it's got to be 9 in shorter than that. All right. So, it's like a little bit less than what is already being done citywide. And then we looked at how to have exceptions where you can do overhangs and things like that over the sidewalk. So, you can actually create a much bigger parklet than what you where you can in other other areas in the city. >> Okay. And I also had a number of questions about bikes. So, I'll hold that till till later. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Uh, I'll ask a couple of questions before we go to public comment. Um, I do want to mention that I really like the, uh, taking advantage of not having cars there so you can do the lighter transparent structures for the parklets. I just think they're much more attractive and uh, really appreciate seeing that. Um, although I do agree with council member Lowing that we should get some kind of poll to figure out, make sure we have the takers that we hope. Um [sighs] just gonna just just just just very briefly uh because the council members Lithcot HS and uh Lou asked most of the questions I was curious about on the public safety front. But we do have the mechanical operable uh ballards. Now, I think this is may maybe Chief Lindsay, just to indulge me just a little more detail. Not a lot, but uh I guess I I just want to make sure that we really can get to uh the places we need uh in a timely way. And so, do you like carry the keys with you? like how does this work to to to make sure that there's just really like if you decide not to park and carry in, you know, because this whole closed street has introduced some, you know, greater degree of risk even if you go have to clear the people out before you get there. And I just want to make sure that we really do feel comfortable. We can get in there when you need to. >> Certainly. And um I'd like to just touch on that a little bit. uh Chief Jassa worked on the project and um I want to thank her for all the work that she did. But what we ended up doing is having our rigs drive through there with markings on the ground to make sure that we had both egress and ingress into that area um both with turning angles from different directions. Um to make sure not only that our fire engine and ambulance can get in there, but also our ladder truck, which is much larger. um it does articulate off the back so it actually gives a swing uh with the operator and we did a series of different uh entries and exits in that area and also looked at apparatus placement. Uh one of the biggest things that is kind of been our sticking point with this whole thing is making sure that we have the proper setbacks with the parklets and also that there's not encroachment into the safety rightway. Uh because with that you know with that lane in the middle that gives us access within all the different businesses there. But if we start getting furniture or things that maybe because we're not, you know, watching it as closely or policing it, um that could create obstacles that even plastic chairs could slow us down. We'd have to move them. Um but that's that was one of the considerations that we took into place. As far as the keys go, yes, we do carry uh key sets. Uh we have uh a lot of keys on our fire engines and ambulances. Uh but we we made sure that we had a copy made uh for every every rig and every apparatus and then our battalion chiefs carry spare keys in case somebody's breaks or they lose them. Um and then we have alternative entry pathways as well. So those were all part of our kind of our research and uh condition uh that we wanted to accept it in. >> Okay. Well, I I'm of course not surprised that you would have redundancies and and things. That's that's your you're pros and that's your job. But I I just wanted to understand it a little better. So I appreciate that. But you know, so this is what you're describing now is sort of the design piece. And so I don't know that this is the right time for it, but you also mentioned like the operations like, you know, in terms of policing the furniture and all of that. I don't know if Mr. Andrade is the right person or who's to ask, but like somebody needs to to do that to some degree. Um, have we how do we expect that to work to make sure that the ways are clear? I mean, do we have like do we plan on once a day someone goes through or how do how do how would we work that? [sighs] >> You're referring to the >> I'm referring to the fact that if a chair is in front of a fire engine, that's a problem. [laughter] >> Well, in large measure, that is why again we've got these outdoor activation guidelines. Much of it will rely on the merchants that have their furniture in the street and that's uh uh requiring uh parameters on where they can be placed, the types of furniture that are used and uh again how that entire uh level of responsibility is established. >> Yeah. And that's that's probably a culture that will grow up or not depending on the the first several months. So I think you know anything we can do to I mean it's in their self-interest, right? So it's their the the safety of themselves and their clients. But I I think that's something that it would be nice to develop an expectation on the street that there is some shouldering of the burden for that because it could become a real public safety problem if we don't have that. So I don't know how one does that, but it seems like that's something we should be looking at as well. >> Certainly both public safety as well as expectations of what the street looks like, how it's maintained, cared for. Uh overall, >> yes, >> I would add economic development staff is having conversations with public works as it relates to code enforcement and just making sure that um that actual enforcement is taking place and we create some some good rules and uniformity along the street. Yeah, that's great because it it kind of relates to um getting back to what's our overall vision for the street and communicating that and so it's kind of part and parcel of the expectations for how one behaves as you know on the street. Um so I I do think that's something we need to be focusing on and communicating as we go. Um to really live into the potential of the place because there's phenomenal potential if we do it right. Um, let me ask a slightly different question and then I'll I'll uh hold uh other comments. Um, you know, we we've heard a lot about uh the ebikes. I agree with my colleagues that I think we all agree they've become problematic around town a bit. Are they strictly prohibited on Calava or not? And could we do that if we wanted to? I know there's a whole enforcement thing around that, but um right now are they allowed like other bikes? they are allowed and again this is per prior council direction. So I I think it is worth noting that what's specifically in front of you tonight is the outdoor activation guidelines. I think you've certainly heard the concerns uh and perhaps desire to revisit the prior direction on enabling uh cycling through the street and as such perhaps that's a a specific topic we would bring back at a different time as to how best to manage that. >> Yeah. and and I just was more trying to figure out the state of play. I agree we shouldn't be have a full debate about that tonight. Um but uh if that's something that could be part and parcel of it because I could see perhaps still have you know being more or less interested in the bike lane depending on what's using it. So that that's part of why I was asking. Um okay. Well, I'm going to hold there and turn to public comment. Madame clerk, how many speakers do we have? We have four requests to speak and uh one person one more additional person just rose their hand in on Zoom. So we have a total of five. Great. An additional person rose their hand in Zoom. So, we have six. Our first speaker is Charlie W. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, and Staff. Charlie Widance, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. I'm here tonight on behalf of the chamber to thank staff and the Calav businesses for their work in developing the permanent outdoor dining activation guidelines for California Avenue and to support the staff's recommendation to adopt these guidelines. The effort toward a shared the effort towards a shared vision will result in transforming California Avenue into a vibrant destination for residents and visitors. These activation guidelines are the critical next step to turning this vision into reality. For some Calav businesses, they have been hesitant to fund highquality permanent outdoor structures while operating under temporary rules. These guidelines, especially the pre-approved parklet designs, provide clear framework, streamline permitting, and the certainty our restaurants need to confidently invest their own capital into long-term outdoor spaces for customers. These guidelines ensure a safer, more m more unified and accessible experience. By establishing clear standards for aesthetics and layout and moving to designs that provide comfortable outdoor dining year round, you have created an inviting atmosphere that encourages residents and guests to gather. A vibrant outdoor dining culture is no longer just a temporary trend. It is a permanent cornerstone of Palo Alto's economic vibrancy and community health. We urge council to approve these guidelines tonight and let's give our merchants the tools they need to build a thriving year-round destination on California Avenue. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Doria S. >> Um thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council. I want to thank you and and staff and the community on Calav um for all the hard work over really actually it's been five and a half years since the street closed and I know initially that not everyone agreed to that closing the street was the right idea but I think what everybody really got behind was a beautiful new community space that would attract people to the street and support our retail landscape there. So, the one thing that I think really needs to be changed, and I'm only going to speak to one aspect of this plan, is the bike lanes down the middle of the street. And so, I'm I was sort of happy to hear some of the comments because as a person who lives two and a half blocks from Calav, I'm there at least five times a week. And I agree that bike I I think any bike lane down the middle would not be welcome there. I think that the community expectation was for a real um vibrant community space and a bike lane down the middle is pretty difficult to deal with, but the new uh I guess it's a throttle style. I'm not a motorcycle person myself except to admire them at a distance. But those um electric vehicles, personal mobility devices are really difficult and unwanted. I think they make the street very unusable for people with young children and dogs and also disabled people. So I think rethinking that is absolutely necessary for a successful outcome that will really support our businesses on the street. Um as to the actual design, I it's very hard to picture this thermoplastic rainbow um and how it will really work. I I cannot imagine something that's equally rough to encourage the bikes bikes to stay on a smooth area that isn't so rough that it would be um unpleasant or unattractive to some pedestrians, maybe some older people, disabled people, children with tricycles. It's just very hard to imagine. I've never seen anything quite like that used. I I've and I don't think there were examples that I found in the staff report. So, it might be useful to have a better handle on how exactly that would function and aesthetically look and how appealing it would be. So, I'm very happy to hear the conversation so far this evening moving away from bike lanes at all in the street. And I'm also would like to note that Cambridge Avenue is already slated for a buffered bike lane uh [snorts] in the ped bike ped master plan update. It's not there's not a lot of information, so I don't know if it's two-way or if it removes um parking from that area, but it does in that plan um say that they would have to have it for days when there were events on Calav that prohibited biking at all, which would indicate that sometimes there's going to be no biking signs at all. I think it gets pretty confusing and I even think that the green continuation of the green regular bike lane would be less confusing, too. Thank you. Our next speaker is Barry H. >> Hi. Uh good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members, and staff. My name is Barry Hatfield. I'm the owner of Gamelandia, uh located at Palo, uh California Avenue in Bird Street. I'm speaking tonight as a business owner on California Avenue whose businesses would not whose business would not directly benefit from the outdoor dining guidelines. Uh we do not sell food or alcohol and we are adjacent to rather than within the closure itself. Um even so I strongly support these guidelines because I believe it benefits the California Avenue business district as a whole. The street closure has already proven to be a major success. It has transformed California Avenue into a more vibrant, walkable, and enjoyable public space that continues to attract residents and visitors alike. Uh, thoughtfully designed outdoor dining infrastructure and the potential opportunities from an entertainment zone will build on that success by encouraging people to spend more time in the district, enjoy the public space, and engage more deeply with the businesses that make California Avenue special. More activity, more visitors, and a stronger sense of place help create a healthier commercial corridor for everyone, not just the businesses directly participating. California Avenue succeeds when it feels vibrant, welcoming, and active. Bringing more people to the area, supports the broader ecosystem of retailers, restaurants, and small businesses that make the district unique. A rising tide truly floats all the boats. I would also just like to add that um I do agree with some of the observations being made about uh California Avenue being a through bike corridor and that problem is only going to become more uh serious as ebike proliferation continues. There is an existing route um along Park Boulevard that connects directly into Sarah across El Camino into Stanford campus. I would strongly discourage staff from considering Cambridge. It's a two-way road with lots of people coming inbound and outbound from parking, picking up food. It is not a I would not consider it for being a uh bicycle corridor. I would look at park into Sarah right out of the underpass um under the Cal Train. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Todd B. >> Um thank you uh council mayor. um city manager and staff, uh fire chief, everyone. Um I'm Todd Burke. I actually live on California Avenue. Uh I overlook the park at the end of the street. Uh a couple of different things I wanted to point out. Given how much time I spend on California Avenue, I probably constitute uh furniture at this point, but nevertheless, um I'm not proposing renovations to street furniture. Uh, but I am here to offer support for item 16, the outdoor activation standards for the businesses and the restaurants. I think the parklets have been a great success and they've really helped transform California Avenue and I think adopting the measures tonight will help even further and I support giving the businesses the certainty they need to make the investments to really drive a highquality permanent outdoor set of spaces. Um, but as we take this forward, I want to offer just a couple of things. I think we maybe could move just a little bit faster. This has been under discussion for quite some time and [snorts] I really think there are some chances to maybe um move a little bit faster in the placemaking that we've discussed. Um, we've studied it, we've tested it, we've debated it, we've refined it, we've put it through the grinder, and I think it's time to really um get this closer to completion as soon as possible. Also, um, we really need to put pedestrians first. Pedestrians, not cyclists, pedestrians. I'm a pedestrian on California Avenue, and I've seen my life nearly vanish before my eyes because of these. I didn't know they were called throttled ebikes. They are motorcycles to me. They're fast. They're obnoxiously fast and super dangerous. I'm a fan of removing them entirely from that portion of California Avenue. Thank you, uh, Council Member Bert and Lifcott Haynes for mentioning that. and noticing it. Um, I know the bike community is very uh viferous here in Palo Alto, but it's a safety matter for pedestrians. Um, and then I think it's very important to make sure that residents are also involved. I know that we've done a really good job with outreach for the businesses. Um, I lived through the street uh tree debacle and when was it 2009 and then all of the meetings we had about which trees and how the sidewalks were going to be partially glass and two lanes from four residents got involved I think a little bit later in the process. It feels like they might be just a little bit later in the process here. So definitely would like to see residents involved. Um, so those are my comments but thank you all for the opportunity and this is a great project. So very excited to walk down the street and become further furniture in the street. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Leland W. >> Hello. Uh good evening council members, staff. My name is Leland Weezner. I've worked in leased offices on Cambridge Avenue for approximately 25 years. I'm speaking this evening although it seems a bit out of place but um in support of reopening California Avenue as we've had six long years of closure and we've got no positive fiscal or community results. We've have no follow-through on promises made and and as as the mayor and others have pointed out, no safety studies providing certain access for emergency fire and police. Every time the topic is brought up, it's a question mark. I I've see and read about alleged decrease in tax revenue in PaloAlto. I would like to think that by now council would realize they are doing something wrong and simply open California Avenue. Indeed, vacancy is down because of the AI super cycle boom. I have leased almost all our office space to AI companies and they are booming. That has nothing to do with the street closure. There is no correlation. This boom in AI technology has saved almost the entirety of San Francisco and many cities up and down the peninsula. Yet PaloAlto remains adamant to keep closed one of the most vibrant city centers they have, California Avenue. PaloAlto has spent millions of dollars in consultants, hundreds of hours on community meetings, but the only thing we have to show for this is a few potted plants, red safety cones, circus tents, random illegal encroachments by restaurants, and signs urging people to walk their bikes that they regularly ignore. And that's the truth. I've almost hit them. They've almost hit me. I would also like to mention that other places in the world allow cars, bikes, and people and dining to work together without any street closures or special bike lanes. I personally experienced the beautiful and ancient city of Ko near Lake Ko, Italy. I experienced cars, bikes, ebikes, people mingling together as it is all good for business and vibrancy. Bicyclists naturally get off their bikes and walk them when there's cars and other people around. There is no signs asking the people to get off their bikes and they just do it. There's no policing. As a result, no business in Ko suffers at the expense of others due to road closures as people roam while cars, scooters, and bikes all interact carefully around each other. Ko is a 2200year-old city. They seem to have figured it out. And I don't I hope that we don't spend 2,200 years trying to figure it out here in PaloAlto. Six years is enough. Please open the streets and stop trying to change something that was never broken in the first place. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Michael. >> Uh good evening uh mayor, council members, staff. This is Michael Ecwall from Laborita over in well California Avenue. Sure you already knew that. Anyway, I want to thank you all and apologize in advance when I ruffle your feathers or cause offense. I'm asking you to vote no on this issue tonight. If you read my letter, which may have been a little too long, you already understand why. But quickly, here's a 2 minute and 32 second summary statement. California Avenue deserves to be safe, accessible, clean, and attractive. In my opinion, safety is paramount. How many times must emergency services be delayed by the street closure before we take this issue seriously? I think the city obviously is aware of these ongoing problems. But just think if 911 is called for your child, your spouse, your parent, and you're watching firefighters or paramedics struggle to gain access when every second matters and it could mean the difference between life and death. I'm sure you'd have a different perspective. So, before investing more money in this project, where are the safety studies? What do our first responders have to say? Although I did hear the fire chief, and I appreciate that, but what about access and emergency response times? How have the response times and routes changed since the street closure? And if they're longer, how do we accept that? So, tonight, you're also being asked to approve an expensive parkllet program. Yet the city as they admit does not know how many businesses will actually participate. And if only a handful of these 19 restaurants build parklets, do we consider that a success? So most of the businesses on our side of the street actually can't even participate fully to have a weatherproof parklet because of the issue that was brought up about the gas man. So the reality is that we are not simply a restaurant district. California Avenue is a business district and any long-term plan must work for everyone in the district. So after six years as a closed street, we still don't have a final vision. We don't have a final design. We don't even have if we did have those, we don't have the budget. So how can we move forward continuously without any of those things in place? So tonight you're also asked that make a decision on the bike lane. And years ago, we were promised a vibrant European style prominade. But instead, what we have today is a handful of planners, some temporary infrastructure, and now we're presented with a FisherPrice bike path running through the middle of our downtown. So, respectfully, it's an embarrassment. And hopefully you vote against that. We go back to basics and figure out a plan to move forward. But if we don't have a budget, how do we continue to waste money on consultants with these plans that aren't effective and we don't have a master plan? >> Your time is up. >> Thank you so much and have a good evening. >> And that concludes public comment on action item 16. >> All right. Well, thank you to our commenters and thank you madame clerk. Um bring it back to the deis for comments. a motion etc. [sighs] >> Council member Rectal, >> you mentioned that these the bike corrals would still be possible or is just grandfathered? >> Um, the chair corrals, the fences with the chairs in it without a parklet. Oh yeah. I mean the um you can get you can get approved to parklet or you can do cafe seating if you want to just do cafe seating and not do a parklet because a parklet would have a platform at a minimum or could also have a roof. But if you don't want to do that and you just want to do cafe seating then you can have a barrier or not. If you want to have a barrier, it can be railing or it could be a low wall or it could be a plexiglass screen. There's a variety of options for what you want can do to accommodate weather if you don't want to have a parklet. >> Okay. And that could be either against the building or where the parklet would have in the in the road itself. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Yeah. One of my concerns was is how many people are really going to get the same that uh council member Lowen had. But if you have a variety of costs, then I think you'll get takings. The question is is how many people really want to spend $40,000 $50,000 for it. But if you have options, then I think that's good. Um I really like the the pre-approved park list. I thought you did a nice job of they look sharp. ARB did worked on that, I assume. Yeah. Yes. Very nice. Very attractive. I think very functional. So I think that's a really good thing. Uh, I've been pestering Alex about we have this 350 square ft limit on the and for the pre-approved parklets, I'm happy with that, but if someone wants to do a custom and spend 100k on a parklet, the 350 seems somewhat arbitrary. I don't quite understand what's the origin of the 350 limit. Can you talk to that? >> Well, I I'd be happy to pick up on that. There were multiple issues that led to the limitation of the 350 and recognized that uh restaurant could have more than one 350 square ft park put. It is a combination of uh fire issues as well as building issues, infrastructure involved uh and required including structural is uh issues for anything that's larger. >> Okay. Can you go more details about that? What do you mean? So fire issues, your word that the existing limit >> there were issues again in our uh citywide municipal code limiting the size of parkletits uh or any structure that without requiring sprinklers. That's one. There are plumbing uh issues uh associated with restroom facilities that are required uh based on the size of seating area that's available. Same for electrical uh and uh other but the plumbing really is kind of a >> not an issue because if you're allowing them to do two 350 square ft parklets but instead they want to do one 500t that's going to be less plumbing than two >> Well again you're you're compiling uh issues that we have uh pushed as far as we believe we can go uh to not apply what are really standard building and safety requirements uh that if the if the building if the structure were a private property versus in a public space would be required and so we have uh tried to be as flexible as we can without really tripping uh a wire so to speak >> but I don't see you you mentioned again plumbing I don't understand how a single 500 ft parklet is going to more plumbing impacts than two 350s. Well, >> it's a combination of issues. Once again, plumbing both for the well, primarily for the food service and the customers that are uh patronizing a restaurant. Again, these arguably should be reviewed in the overall totality of the square footage, the seating, the restroom facilities, the food production facilities, the waste handling facilities, the uh ventilation. Uh again, and all of which um >> have been to be quite frankly uh quite frank have been debated previously by the council and led to this. But we were always told 350 was some state fire code and there's not a state fire code. It's a local fire code, right? And we can re-evaluate that. My concern is that if we have all these constraints, we have this gas line going through. People are trying to move things around. If someone really wants to come in and make a really nice parklet, we're throwing an arbitrary unnecessary constraint on that. >> Well, they're not they're not absolutely not arbitrary. If a private property owner wanted to come in with an application that would uh take a custom approach to addressing these issues, we'd absolutely review that. >> Uh-huh. >> But again, the the pre-approved designs enable a facilitated way to make improvements. >> Oh, I I'm all happy with I think the pre-approved designs are wonderful, and I'm not changing that. I'm saying if a restaurant wants to come through and do a custom design and spend six figures on that and wants to make a good quality design, they're trying to cut corners. Why are we requiring them to be 350? Again, it's we we would certainly be able to review, be happy to review it, but again, that criteria is one of multiple criteria that we believe is uh necessary in order to ensure public safety for the facilities that we're allowing in the public street. >> I could understand if you say the total square footage has to be limited >> and perhaps we should. Okay. But again, we have based upon council direction enabled multiple 300 square 50 square foot structures to be placed in the public right of way recognizing there are fire access in addition to the sprinkler issues separation of structures you know if necessary certainly invite the fire chief to expand on that. Um but again that's >> that's been one of the primary directions that we have secured from the city council over the course of the last several years and if you want to revisit that it's a much longer discussion >> for the pre-approved I'm not trying to rock the boat but for >> the custom ones where someone says I want to pay an architect and make a design I think we should have some flexibility because there's a lot of constraints there right now in adding an arbitrary uh >> you've used the term a few times. This is not an arbitrary criteria. >> It kind of is. >> It is absolutely not an arbitrary criteria. >> So, I mean, what what Oakland does is if you go more than 400 square feet, the fire you have to get a fire permit for that. And we could do the same type of thing. >> I can't speak to what Oakland requires nor uh Oakland standards. >> Okay. Anyway, uh we beat that dead. Um I'll move on. Let [clears throat] someone else take over. >> All right, I'll go to my left. And of course, if anyone feels like I'm making a motion in the course of this, that'd be great. Uh, Council Member Bird, I think you're next. >> U, thank you. So, um, I appreciate that tonight we're going to focus on kind of the, uh, activation standards and the parklets. I want to briefly just toss out some things related. If we move away from biking, um we we really want to look at how we can put make access uh by bike to Calab without riding down the middle of by Calv. So uh bike racks at the entry points uh from the alleys, the little walkway alleys uh at the main street entrances. uh right now they they aren't at the locations for that purpose because that wasn't the objective previously. So I want to look at that and then improvements on uh Cambridge. I just want to suggest that you know perhaps shy of uh a fullblown action on Cambridge. The real problem area is as you approach uh El Camino, that lastund and something feet and removing a couple parking spaces there, I think would be um a significant breakthrough. It wouldn't be a panacea. Um, I did want to uh I I was encouraged that the city manager had said that if if an applicant wanted to apply for a custom approach on a larger pro uh parklet, then staff would be open to it because I I I want to uh clarify my memory that this wasn't the 350 uh square foot limit wasn't the council initiating that. That was staff saying that's as big as you could go. Not the other way around. >> It wasn't the council. It was council going along with staff's recommendations as opposed to the council saying that's the limit we want. So I just want to put that out there because >> I I would agree that was a recommendation we brought forward and I believe we were security. >> That's not the way it sounded the way you portrayed it a minute ago. Either way, um I just want to put out there that fire safety is one I think legitimate issue on the size, although I'm not certain that on an open structure we have the same issues as closed structures elsewhere in the city. But things like sewer, electric feed, bathrooms, kitchen size, all those things, those are all legitimate issues on how much total square footage of parklet. But I fail to understand why they would apply to uh the size of a given parklet if we allow two parklets of that size. It doesn't make good sense. I think we are revisiting a prior council discussion that we can bring back. But I again I I >> but I want to make sure that we're laying out here accurate objective information >> and and hopefully progressive. >> Yes. But but I do want to dispute that somehow as as council member Mere Rectal was pointing out if you have two 350 foot parklets you have uh a greater impact on sewage electric kitchen size bathrooms. >> Well then perhaps we should go back to revisity of the building. >> No that's not the point. >> That's absolutely the point. >> That is not the point. The point is we right now allow two 350s and the question was whether a single larger one is more impactful than two smaller ones. That's the point >> I understand that's the point you're making. The point I'm making is that I believe if we want to reopen that box, we will need to give staff the opportunity to give you their professional perspective on all of these issues once again. >> Okay. So um uh let's see um so the other the other issue is just on um alley access. So if we are really wanting everyone to come to this from the parking lots on either side. We've really got to make sure that we have improved alley access u uh of different sorts. And we don't need to go through all the details at this time, but we really we haven't we've touched on this for a couple years, but we really haven't done anything. And I just want to make sure that's out there. Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Lowing. [snorts] >> Yes. Thank you. I want to go back to the bikes issue um because it was sort of referenced by a couple of folks. >> [clears throat] >> Are we getting to a consensus that we are not going to have bikes going down the center lane whether it be motorized or non-motorized because I would be supportive of that. Uh and [clears throat] whether or not Cambridge is the alternative I think is a fair discussion to to have given some of the things that that have been said. Um, but the the whole idea, you've heard retailers say it tonight, you've heard public comment, is that this is supposed to be a pedestrian area. Uh, and that's not just the emphasis, but the [clears throat] pedestrians don't want to get hit. Um, so if you're pushing the 2-year-old in the stroller or whatever, you you could get hit. But I I totally agree obviously that the emphasis is on the motorized bike, but I think that we ought to just take the take the plunge and say let's not go down the center lane [clears throat] and make it a better access with lots of bike parking because we want it to be a destination as Council Member Bird said earlier. So that that's where I am on that one. I [clears throat] don't know if we have to give direction on that tonight specifically. [clears throat] I had a few more questions or comments frankly. Um I just want to check in on the sort of the not exactly word smithing but I'm a little confused as to on page 353 um when we say if business does not comply with these guidelines city reserves the right to enforce modify or revoke. It just seems like there should be more details in there about what the compliance needs to be on various maintenance items. It's just too fuzzy for to have a dispute about that because we don't know how to solve it. Um, and then on 3A, uh, they have to maintain an upkeep upkeep outdoor activation space. And there's penalties for that as well, which there should be, which there should be, but let's just make it clear to both parties what we really are looking for there in terms of compliance. We don't want to say at the end, oh, I thought that was your job. No, it's your job. So, [clears throat] um, uh, the next thing you you also heard tonight from public comment is I think we understand this is ma mainly focused on on parklet and and bikes, but we want to always keep the big picture in mind and the big picture of where this is going. What's the landscaping going to look like? What's the signing going to look like? When are we going to talk about the arch finally in front of uh California Avenue? Um, that's part of the excitement of this for the public and we're not talking about that so much. We're talking about various things like I'm just talking about like maintenance. So, we want to make sure that those components are there. So, when are we going to talk again about the landscaping, the sign, erection, um, any any lighting changes, things like that? Recognizing this isn't tonight. I'm just saying. Did Econ Development want to answer that? Well, I'll give you the bad news. There is no funding for any of what you just described. And so what we are bringing forward is what is affordable in the immediate term. And at such time as we have a funding source established for making more elaborate improvements, maybe the best time to bring that up >> is is that including signing for the area, way signing and things like that. In general, yes, there is some basic wayfinding signage that is underway at uh both El Camille Rial as well as uh at uh Oregon Expressway. And uh I think essentially that's it, >> which for me segus into my my last item, and that is back to the u the pavement. Uh $300,000 is a number maybe we can put in a way way sign. So, so does the pavement really need fixing? That type of analysis. I think we just need to hear a bit more about that. And again, that may not be tonight, but uh [clears throat] well, I think that will take us back to the drawing board to a certain extent. >> That's all I have. >> Council member Lou. Thank you. I'll touch on a few points, so I'll try to go quickly. Uh, I will pick up on Council Member Rectal's point briefly, though. The best parklets are not necessarily standard cookie cutter 350 foot, same dimensions. Uh, if you go to cities like San Francisco or in the East Bay, the best parklets uh have built-in seating or really lush or sculptural or creative or interesting. And so we I don't want to revisit the guidelines right now, but I think we have to think about an outlet for easier uh approvals for more creative parkletits um citywide, not just on calf. So I think that is a separate item and something that we should come back to. Uh on the action tonight um on bikes, I think the real question is what is enforcable? I think that this current plan actually is the right balance. We already have signs asking people to walk their bikes. If you ask people right now, pedestrians or cyclists on Calav, are you allowed to ride their bike your bike? Most of them will say maybe or I don't know. Uh or maybe they'll or or I I have a hunch they'll more often than not say no. But the point is that many people do ride their bikes and the vast vast majority of people who ride their bikes do so calmly. And the predominantly teenagers who I see zipping by on emotos are maybe not going to be dissuaded or persuaded either way by a sign or by the streetscape. So I think the marginal safety improvement of banning bikes is very unclear. Whereas I think some of the access to the business and some of the uh uh uh the the access to the business via v the bike wax uh is what I meant to say uh does have some trade-offs. I was with a business owner on Calav late afternoon on a weekday. We're sort of looking at bikes pointing by and we're sort of pointing them out saying, "Yeah, that one's fine. That one's fine. That one's a little bit fast. That one actually problematic." And at least in an hour or two we were out there, basically all of the bikes except maybe one was uh in a questionable sort of riding pattern. Um, so I'll that's my defense of the uh bike path uh or sort of pseudo negative space bike path that's in this plan. I will make a point about paving though. I think the idea that paving corresponds to a permanent condition on Calav is uh something that I was pretty unhappy to hear. We know that there is a long-term aspirational vision that we've already done a lot of outreach for, that we've already done a lot of design consideration for, that we've already comm uh gathered community feedback for. If the intent is that we repave and then you know the word permanent was used a couple times that is a permanent condition of the streetscape then I think that is a real problem for me and I think there at minimum could be opportunities to delay the street paving until when it's clearly necessary or to the point where we can have some sort of interim plan where okay we do a street paving in four or 5 years because the road's not getting that much wear. There are very few vehicles on it and in four or 5 years we'll have a funding andor plan figured out for an actual vastly improved park-like setting. I know we don't have the funding. I know we didn't fund uh this last budget cycle. Maybe that was an oversight that we did not really think about in finance committee. Maybe it's something we can fund next cycle. Maybe it's something we can fund mid year. uh in a world where Molly Stones and other developments are putting tens of millions of dollars of impact fees in that immediate area. I know those impact fees are allocated for you know dedicated line item purposes but the idea that we can't find the money to make uh practical improvements I think is something that we can solve if it's framed to us and we have a little bit more time. So in conclusion I think we should move quickly. I think we should approve the plan tonight. Um uh and I hope my point about bikes was uh uh is given some consideration. I also see a light is on so I'm not sure if there's >> I I would only want to level set that any streetscape project is a multi-million dollar project and any uh reference to whether it's $300,000 would be at at best a small down payment. Yes. But I think if we're going to do $300,000 street repaving, uh maybe at those same at that same point, we can look at the strange tripping hazards and angular cutouts that are meant for cars and not for pedestrians and just round them out. You know, that kind of work maybe you can't just do on a straight vanilla repaving project, but maybe if you did a couple months of, okay, where can we put a planter? Not not a tree with roots that might damage something, but where can we just round out these angular car oriented cutouts? That would be okay with me. But just doing a street rep street repaving and saying that's a permanent condition is uh problematic. So, I think we still have to find some creativity and find some options. uh and still get a repaving or refinishing the street done as quickly as possible. Uh uh but yeah, uh you know, we're asking for everything because this is a important space. Um uh and there's a lot of focus and a lot of development there. >> Um Mr. Fukuji, I thought I heard you say earlier when we were talking about the street and the repaving that the alternates were just about as expensive. I think it was leveling and ceiling or something. So, is that right? >> Yeah. From my my understanding. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it's not like 300,000 or zero, right? 300,000 or perhaps a comparable amount. Is that right? >> Yes. It's expensive to scrape the travel markings off the road. >> Yeah. Okay, thank you. Um, all right, friends. We have another item we have to get to later. So, if anyone would like to make a motion, um, just reinviting I just [clears throat] Oh, you're not next though, so I'm going to turn to the vice mayor. [laughter] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, hopefully Council Lowing will second. Yeah, given the hour, I'll move the staff recommendation, the slight amendment to direct staff to to modify the design for a bike free design. >> Second, >> right, have anything further to say about your motion? >> No, I was able to discuss this in detail in the economic development committee and it's been interesting pursuing the conversation. I appreciate staff taking our feedback, coming back, and um yeah, that's the motion. >> Would you like to speak to your second? >> I I just want to add that it doesn't have to be in the language of the motion. Um but I I would like staff to somehow do at least an audit of those 20 retailers to see if they bite on a variety, as council member Rectal said, of uh price points. um just to make sure that we have that interest before we go firing forward. That would just be an add a request. But I'm not putting it in the motion. I'm not suggesting that. >> Council member, >> I'm sorry. I I think I do need clarification on that. When you say firing forward with the guidelines or >> no no change to the motion that uh the vice vice mayor made. I'm just suggesting that as a few of us have brought up here that we just knock on some doors from retailers and say this is the program. Uh we hope you like it. Tell us if you do, which ones you like because we want to make sure that we have, you know, pretty good buy in before we do this. Those aren't the words for the survey, but uh >> staff have a comment on that? No. Okay. All right. Council member Lithcott Hams. >> I withdraw my request to speak. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion? >> Okay. The vice mayor, >> just one question for staff. Then part four of this is approve the proposed public space design concept outlined in attachment D. Attachment D shows your creative bike lane solution. five now directs you to basically um change that. Is that is that still is that still consistent because it's showing also just the general layout for the for the parkletits, >> right? I would interpret number five as causing us to take another look at number four. >> Okay. Cuz I think the general public space layout of the the parklets is is fine. >> Yes. Specific to the bike routing. >> Perfect. Thank you. I'm good. >> Okay. Well, seeing no further lights or requests to discuss, I guess we are ready to vote. Madame clerk. Council member Lou, >> no. >> Council member Bert, >> yes. >> Council member Ling, >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> yes. >> Council member Lithcot Hmes, >> Mayor Vinker, >> yes. >> Council member Rectal, >> Motion carries 61. Okay. Well, thank you all. Thank you staff. We know it represents a lot of work from a lot of people and we have more to do. So, thank you for what you're about to do as well. [gasps] Okay. So, with that, um, our next and last item that we will get through tonight is item 17, but I am going to call for just a couple minute break just so we can stand up, stretch, and be ready for this one. All right. So, we'll just recess for a moment. Calling all council members. >> We're having a meeting. >> All right. Uh we are back for our last item of the evening, item 17 related to uh SB79 and I will turn to staff. >> Great. >> Looks like Director Le, welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening again. Thank you. Um uh we have a presentation. We'll keep it uh maybe briefer than we had anticipated. Yes. Did you want to say something first? >> Uh yes. I'm wondering uh Mr. City attorney if we should have the recusals at this point which I >> Yes. >> Okay. So, why don't we go ahead and do that if anyone Yeah. Sorry it's late. Council member Rectal, do you >> Yeah, because my proximity my homeless proximity to the San Antonio train station, I have to recuse myself on advice of attorneys. >> Thank you, Council Member Beloo. >> Same story here, but with the Calv uh Cal Train Station. >> All right. Well, thank you both. We will miss you and we will carry on. We still have a quorum. We >> miss you. [laughter] >> I don't know if you'll miss us as much as we'll miss you. All right. So, back to you, director Le. Thank you for that. >> Great. Thank you. And just let me introduce Vishnu Krishnan, a senior planner with our office who's been running point on the downtown housing plan and uh work related to SB79. Vishnu. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Vishnu Krishnan, senior planner with the city. Tonight I will be presenting on Senate Bill uh 79 and key considerations for the downtown housing plan including implementation options and recommendations. Now uh staff first presented the initial findings on SB79 um to the council back in October 2025. Following that a council ad hoc committee was formed in January 2026. The ad hoc met with staff three times since to review analysis, provide feedback, and help shape potential approaches. The direction to the staff was to bring forward findings, recommendations, and seek full council input. Next slide, please. The purpose of tonight's item is to consider the implications of SB79, provide direction on preferred implementation approach, introduce the temporary ordinances, and consider directing staff to return with the emergency versions of the ordinances on June 15th. Next slide, please. As you are aware, SB79 is aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing around public transit systems. To achieve this, the law the the law mandates upzzoning of land near rail stations and major bus corridors. Next slide, please. So, the amount of upzoning varies based on the type of transit and the distance from the station access points measured along the pedestrian pathways. This slide outlines key development standards under SB79. Next slide, please. This slide talks about the exclusions as prescribed by the state law for Palo Altoro. Sites zoned with capacity of greater than or equal to 50% of default standards and sites with locally registered historic resources as of January 1st, 2025 apply. After 2032, these sites must either comply with SP79 densities or be incorporated into an alternative plan. Next slide, please. So this slide uh talks about the particulars of the alternative plan. Next slide please. Our understanding is that not all eligible sites are likely to redevelop. So for the purposes of housing projection uh we applied additional filters to estimate realistic development potential. So this slide lists the filters we applied to estimate housing projection. Next slide please. The next set of slides detail the acreage considering the exclusions listed for all three stations. What you're looking at is the number for University Avenue station which is downtown Palo Alto. Next slide please. And this is for California Avenue Calra station. Next slide please. And this is for San Antonio Calrin Station. [sighs] Next slide please. There are four primary approaches that the city can take. one, we've got approach one, take no action on SB79. Uh SB79 goes into effect as written uh on July 1st, 2026. Uh this approach does not automatically exempt historic resources. Approach two, adopt an implementing ordinance. Approach three, reszone all to sites to allow at least 50% of SB79 capacity. And approach four, prepare a full to alternative plan. Next slide, please. Separately, council has three options for the downtown housing plan. Option A, focus only on the development standards. Option B, complete the full plan aligned with SP79. And option C, discontinue the plan altogether. Next slide, please. So, uh, staff and the ad hoc committee recommend the following. Introduce two temporary ordinances. One to exclude historic resources designated on the city's local register from applicable SP79 standards. and second to establish development standards for all to eligible parcels at 50% of SB79 standards. Additionally, we also want the council to consider directing staff to return with interim urgency ordinances uh of the temporary ordinances presented, direct staff to prepare permanent ordinances to be presented to the planning commission incorporating provisions of the interimm ordinances and continue advancing the downtown housing plan. Next slide, please. Getting into the specifics of uh the proposed ordinance, the temporary ordinance to exclude historic resources exempts qualifying historic resources designated on the city's local register from applicable SB79 standards until January 31st, 2032. Next slide, please. And the second ordinance is the temporary 50% SB79 development standards ordinance. This establishes development standards for all TOD eligible parcels through a TOD combining district. Next slide please. This slide illustrates feasibility analysis that we prepared for R1 zones under 50% scenario. We chose a R1 zone uh zoned to DoD eligible site on calf uh quarter mile buffer within the quarter mile buffer. Next slide please. Based on council's direction, uh staff will return with temporary ordinances for the second reading, prepare permanent ordinances for review by PTC and continue work on the downtown housing plan and coordinate with the ad hoc as required. Next slide, please. This brings me to the end of my presentation and I'm happy to answer specific questions. Mayor, I [clears throat] might just add that we did have a an app at App Places memo that was released to the city council today uh today which [snorts] corrects the attachments that were in the staff report. Notably, uh the um the ordinances in the supplemental memo are temporary ordinances, not urgency ordinances. Uh and there's some corrections that uh are included in the supplemental memo. Happy to answer questions about uh that memo uh as needed. And then just alerting to the council to what you already know is we received a lot of public comments uh regarding this item which are available on uh the city's um council's mailbox. >> All right. Well, thank you Director Leight and thank you Mr. Christian. Well done. Um does the ad hoc uh Council Member Lowing, do you have some comments? >> Yes, and Council Burton may as well. [clears throat] Yeah, I just wanted to say a few things about what we're trying to accomplish here with our recommendation as much as for the for the public uh as also for the council members. Um obviously this is our recommendation on how to implement SB79 from the choices that uh staff has laid out. Uh we originally tried to do this at the March 9th meeting and then the May 4th meeting and now it's 90 days later. So here's here we are and we got to we got to move forward with it. So, uh, one of the things I want to say right at the outset is that Palo Alto is all in on to transportation oriented design. Transit oriented design development. Yeah, I knew we shouldn't have done this item late. Um, [clears throat] and that's, you know, that's what SB79 is all about. And we're just, we just are all in on that. This is not a new thing. and the TOD mission is fully incorporated into uh the realities of the current housing element that that's already been approved and it touches numerous areas of our city. So we have no resistance to that at all with just this easy concept. Um so our recommendation however is based somewhat substantially on the calendar uh and our resources. Um, we're choosing to use approaches that are offered in the law to any of the cities that are impacted. Uh, to consider a potential to alternative plan and to exempt a limited number of historic resources in the impacted area. Uh we also happen to want to complete our own downtown housing plan uh which is a subset of the SP79 area of influence and yet another approach another example of our uh proactive approach to uh to this is a hugely expensive and complex and staff intensive undertaking. So the law applies to seven counties in California. Uh it's added on top of our already approved housing element and our 686 unit quota for PaloAlto. Um we created new zoning laws and created programs to get these units built. Uh which is why we have an approved housing element. Um and SP9 is a statement from the legislature that they want more housing on top of that. Uh and [clears throat] now we have to manage implementation of the housing element quotas and the implementation of SB79 with the same staff. And the fact is that for cities of our size, there's simply a practical limit to the number of projects our planning department can receive and process in this housing cycle. Um, and hence our recommendation which leverages these most efficiently over time to implement both the housing element uh and SB79. And finally, I I just want to note that if adopted, uh the action taken in the ordinance would not mean that we can't build any tall highdensity buildings in these areas that are covered by our ordinance. Um you know, this the city has numerous developer alternative programs, uh sorry, incentive programs and a wide open, fully negotiable PHC housing zone option. So we encourage more applications from developers. >> Thanks, Pat. Anything? Um, great. Uh, so first I want to say uh it's a the the alternatives that we are looking at are complex with uh a bunch of tradeoffs and nuances and I think that the staff report is really laid them out in a way that is as clear as possible. Um uh so I hope that that really served uh our colleagues well. Um, I I do want to u emphasize uh what council member Lowing was talking about is really context matters greatly and we have been um focused already on our downtown housing element uh because that is a focus area that we want to incentivize uh new housing. We've just approved a uh a preliminary approval of uh a building of uh uh I think seven stories on forest. Um but that was in a context of uh neighboring buildings that were comparable in scale. Um and uh I think that as we go forward, what if we go forward tonight with the with the recommendation, I we would not only want to be looking at the um downtown housing plan proceeding, uh but other things like the question of whether the El Camino focus area should be extended up into the Calab area. uh we did it in basically South PaloAlto but that was in response to a bunch of projects but we really haven't had a discussion about expanding it and I frankly don't see a reason why we wouldn't uh be looking at uh comparable uh standards uh north of Page Mill as well. Uh not to mention also Stanford Shopping Center, which has been something that we've uh been interested in uh uh dense housing at for a long while. I did want to just point out for colleagues a few clarifications. Um, and if staff can correct me if I get any of this wrong, but on page two in the background, it says we uh uh we could um adopt an ordinance to exempt historic properties or may prepare a tod alternative plan. But the staff report really makes clear that we can do both, right? We can do one or the other or both. So, it's an andor. Okay. Uh second uh I just want to point out in the table at the top of page three when we're trying to grapple with what kind of density is the staff report says in old PaloAlto we do have a lot of 10,000 square foot lots plus or minus and what this density on SP65 would be not only 65 ft tall but 25 units on a a 10,000t lot. just so everybody thinks about what that context is next to um uh low density development. We also had a lot of discussion in the report about what's likely to happen. Um and I think we all on the committee and the staff recognize it's hard to predict. um as different state housing laws have come forward, uh we thought that uh or or there was a consensus that there would be far more SB uh 9 lot divisions and developments. They've been a sprinkling throughout the state, but the ADUs have far exceeded and every city and ours uh in particular far exceeded the projections. uh we had uh economic uh modeling done for the NVCAP area that basically told us we weren't likely to get projects there and we're getting an avalanche of projects in that greater area. So it's hard to predict. Um, but one of the things that I I think we need to bear in mind is that looking historically on the percentage of properties that have gotten redeveloped really doesn't um uh uh give the context for a 7x increase in floor area and even a greater increase in density. So, we don't know what the market's going to do. Um and then um uh there was a note on page five that homeowners in these lower density neighborhoods are unlikely to pursue apartment buildings. I think the issue isn't whether a homeowner is willing but whether a speculative developer is and uh whether a homeowner will sell their parcel to the highest bidder and then that developer uh would choose to as opposed to a homeowner. Um there was also a note on page five that redevelopment would be limited and that public facility and PCs uh were not considered but we we all know that in the downtown area we already have a plan to utilize public facility of surface parking lots. Other older lower density PCs might be considered. So I just want to bear that in mind. Um and um and then um I think we actually have had more recent um uh commercial development in the surrounding areas on Sherman and Cambridge in the Calav area uh than was noted. And so, um, I I think just like in the university area, we're seeing that because of the small parcel sizes on the main street, we have very few opportunities to really work, but the adjacent streets with larger parcels are probably greater candidates to do that. So, those are just to add clarification, but um, we have before us the the, uh, recommendations of the committee, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you for the work that you've done uh to delve deeply into this and for working with staff to get these recommendations in front of us. I think at this point I'll turn to public comment. Looks like we have eight requests to speak. Our first speaker is Erica S. Hi, good evening uh mayor, vice mayor, and the city council members that are left. [laughter] Um, thanks for taking the time to hear us. Um, I would like to ask city council to reconsider the temporary ordinance that you so corrected. Um, I'm here representing 414 California Avenue as a development manager for the project. Um, and understood that the proposal is temporary. However, it does significantly limit the development potential not only of uh properties that are adjacent or within single family zoning, but also properties that are in urban urban corridor areas. Um, specifically the way that the ordinance is currently drafted, it will limit the residential floor area by more than 50% of what SB79 currently me mandates. And in order to develop viable mixeduse properties, we do have to have a balance of retail and residential to support the financial viability of retail. Infill sites like California are obviously critical in terms of having ground floor placemaking in retail. And we do need to have a certain number of units and a certain amount of allowable residential density to make that ground floor programming financially viable. So, I understand it's temporary and that there are other options such as the PCH zoning that you mentioned, but part of the intent of state density bonus is not only around density, but it's offering developers a streamlined process because as we know, time is unfortunately money and a lot of these projects that go into PCH or other similar programs get tied up for years and eventually die because of the lengthy process. So for that reason, I would urge the council to reconsider. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Scott LG. >> Good evening. My name is Scott Levenite. I represent the ownership of 414 California Avenue. As an aside, I want to flag that the prosperity of Calab is important to me. I've spent the better part of 30 years living within a couple miles of Cow Cow. I care about the corridor. Um, this draft ordinance leaves the city and California Avenue worse off. The council should not adopt it. It's clear that Sacramento wants to see housing on Calav because of Cal Train. The city cannot easily avoid that. With SP79 now here, the shopping character of Calav is truly at risk as very little in state law constrains all residential projects. With a draft ordinance like this that constrains F, what you result with is residential being maximized, ground floor retail being cut out. So there's an irony. The ordinance that the city says will protect Gab is what eliminates the retail mix that the city wants to preserve. The city should ditch this ordinance as written and work to maximize housing in a transit-rich location and active pedestrianoriented ground floor that has always defined the corridor. The city can concentrate density on a commercial spine where it belongs, where it advances placemaking, and where it doesn't disturb single family blocks. Meanwhile, this ordinance does the opposite. It suppresses density uniformly across the zone, including the street that should be absorbing it. And the city should really be using the 50% tool more surgically. So, one sizefits-all plan doesn't work. Not here. Palo Alto can do better. I also want to paint a picture of what happens next. The city is exposing itself legally here and I want to incorporate by reference the letter you all received from California um housing defense defense fund which came late in the day today. Uh when HCD finds this ordinance non-compliant for its real deficiencies, study the letter, there are deficiencies. Full unmodified SB79 standards will apply to every eligible parcel. And so HCD will take issue with the front, rear, and side setbacks in the ordinance, none of which are in state law. It will take issue with the daylight plane rules. Standards like these preclude even a 50% density and you'll find yourself back in 2023 when local zoning was superseded by a builder's remedy type program. Uh they may also take issue with the urgency findings uh which rest on a current and immediate threat. So I find the politics a little confusing that city is declaring itself a proousousing jurisdiction trying to access those funds and then declares that new housing density is an immediate threat in the same set of you know five meetings in a row. housing that the idea that housing your cow train is an immediate threat is not a finding that this council can lawfully or honestly make. So again, Palto should do this the right way. Work with developers to create highquality transit oriented mixeduse housing with real ground floor retail that advances city goals for the street on a commercial spine like Calav. This council should be doing everything it can. Frankly, it should be begging developers to keep building ground floor restaurants and shops beneath the housing that is inevitably coming. They don't have to do it and and often they won't. So this ordinance does the opposite. Please reject the draft ordinance. Direct staff to return to a framework that genuinely delivers delivers the 50% the statute requires. Recalibrate for a better calav. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Barry H. Hello again. Uh Barry Hatfield, owner of Gamelandia on California Avenue. Uh I want to express concerns about the proposed uh is it not emergency measures anymore? It still is. The the the matter at hand um related to SP79 is currently written. I believe the city should revise the 50% reductive measures to exclude core business district quarters such as California Avenue, University Avenue, and San Antonio using perhaps the business uh district guidelines that are currently in place. These are exactly the kinds of transit served mixeduse corridors where Palo Alto should be encouraging thoughtful new housing. Blanket restrictions of SP79 development in these areas under emergency uh pretenses risks undermining housing projects already in planning and could limit the long-term viability of these commercial districts. We can protect neighborhoods and historic resources while still allowing appropriate housing growth in our major business corridors. This is especially important because Palo Alto is pursuing official designation as a housing forward community in order to access additional state funding opportunities. Policies that broadly restrict housing potential along our primary commercial and transit corridors appear inconsistent with that goal and risk sending the wrong message about the city's commitment to smart transit oriented housing growth. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Trana C. >> Hi, good evening. Trana Cryan. I'm a senior planner in the land use and development review team at VTA. So VTA has been following SP79 very closely and is very interested in continued dialogue with our local jurisdictions including Paula Alt on the implementation of SB79. We've been participating in a variety of countywide meetings um on SP79, how cities are approaching things like that along with staff from Paulo Alto and other affected jurisdictions. Over the past several months, even right before SP79 became really on all of our radars, we recognize that SP79 implementation is very complex and we collectively as we wait for more guidance or more updates, uh VTA has been very proactive in being a resource for our SP9 students including Palo Alto whether it be through continued info sharing or technical assistance on the MTC mapping and etc. Um, with that, VTA stands ready to serve as a resource for for Palo Alto to assist with SP79 implementation and we are thankful for other collaborative opportunities such as the San Antonio Road area plan. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jeff L. [snorts] Thank Sorry. Thank you. [laughter] It's finicky. Don't worry. Okay. Uh, good evening everyone. Uh, first of all, I want to commend the city and the staff and, uh, the ad hoc committee for putting together what I think is a very reasonable and appropriate approach given the complexity of the situation that we face. Um, I also want to thank uh staff, I think, for uh cor uh handling one of the uh concerns that was in my email that I sent about the fact that SB that the draft the 50% ordinance was going to apply indiscriminately and that was corrected in the amended version um that has been circulated. My other concerns though do remain. Um and I asked why um the daylight plane and the setbacks were being adjusted when I believe SB79 actually has a process by which you don't need to do that. That is it says that you cannot apply standards that are prevent buildings from having the appropriate um F and density. And I noticed that we are not adjusting the uh site coverage in our uh 50% ordinance, but we are doing the setbacks and the daylight plane. So if we don't have to do it for the site coverage, why do we have to do it for um um the setbacks in the daylight plane? So I think you could actually eliminate that from the 50% ordinance. My other point was that the 50% ordinance allows for um unlimited uh density, but SB79 does not and it has density. They were up on the slide um before. It has maximum densities and I think all you have to do is just cut those in half for the uh 50% ordinance and then you're allowing half of what SP79 allows. So um I hope those are simple points to make. I realize the lateness of the hour and the urgency of the matter. So thank you all. >> Our next our next speaker is Cha Chiao L. >> Hi everyone. This is Chao Lam, a longtime resident in downtown North. Uh I was delighted to read in the news that Palto is applying uh for the pro-ousing designation. I hope that uh council members will take into consideration that we are in a housing crisis that neighboring cities up and down the peninsula are not opting for this uh 50% off ramp. In fact, the Menllo Park uh city council even waved staff recommendations resisting the 50% off ramp. So I agree with the other commenters that we should align ourselves with our neighboring cities. Uh thank you. >> Our next speaker is Scott O. >> Hi Scott O'Neal. Um commenting for myself, not Pallet for my town home HOA. Um I want to start by saying that I found out about the lawsuit threats after you all did. It wasn't my first instinct to focus on the merits of the emergency. It was, sorry, it was my first instinct to focus on the merits of the proposal and not on, you know, whether or not it can be an emergency ordinance. Um, but I've got to say that I think the MB law letter was talking some sense. I don't know if changing this to a temporary ordinance changes the substance or will impress them or deter them. uh SB79 passed almost 8 months ago and the options before you are about taking the first steps on choosing a strategy to approach it. The options presented are pretty similar to the ones published about 3 months ago and almost came and could have come before council in March. It doesn't seem great from a rule of law perspective if the city says this is some kind some kind of an emergency or um ex exigent circumstance uh whatever the status is um as of today. Um again it's not something I ever would have pushed to focus on but um as I learned more about the law around it um which doesn't cover temporary ordinances um I thought I you know maybe I dropped the ball on not focusing on that. Um I I want to call your attention. Pallet of Ford proposed what um what they're calling a we're calling they're calling speaking for myself what they're calling a compromise option that would allow SP79 to come into force in some parts of the city. It would at least create the reality that the city is only trying to appeal to um to urgency for SB79's application to areas that are least understood which is still most of the area. I also think there are some solid reasons for allowing core density in the core areas on merit. Um do do you want to keep these areas zoned mostly for town homes for years actually get town homes in some places and only then have SB79 come into full force with the tot alternative plan so there are highrises interspersed among town home developments. Um that doesn't sound great to me. You need a vote of the membership of a town home complex to dissolve it and sell it. And the threshold for that is usually twothirds and can be more. If you want if you don't want threetory developments between possibly 10tory ones for likely the rest of our lives, it's going to be better to more quickly arrive at higher heights wherever the clarity is high that the heights will be high. So thank you very much. Appreciate it. Um thank you. >> Our next speaker is Michael Q. Uh hello everyone. Thank you to everyone and thank you to the council for working so hard and working so late. Um I would associate myself with Scott's comments. I'd just like to I'll keep this short just offer a quick perspective here. Um it's pretty evident both from the Yimi law letter and the joint letter from I believe it was housing defense fund and uh one or one other organization that the legal grounds for a emergency or emergency ordinance although it may be being called something different now are uh quite flimsy to be frank. And I'd like to just address sort of the spirit of taking that approach. Um, six years ago, members of council and I believe one current member of council made a decision to choose members of the housing element working group off the record in the dark on a weekend because they thought it would limit the scrutiny the city was under at the time. and uh yield a more favorable result to residents who are perhaps resisting the heavy hand of the state in development. Well, fast forward to now and as we know and some of us know from meeting this weekend, um Molly Stones, that major project is about to become reality because of that gap in PaloAlto's housing element not being approved. [snorts] I if you can't sort of make a connection there that there's a straight line between those things, the attempts to sherk responsibility from the state and the uh more limited options, I I I don't I don't know what more can really be said at this point. The the best approach is to tackle this openly and honestly and in good faith. And ultimately that will deliver to PaloAlto better options, more autonomy, and um a better result and preserve local control. Thank you. >> That concludes public comment on action item 17. >> All right. Well, thank you, Madam Clerk, and thank you to all the public commenters for hanging in there with us to this late hour. We really do appreciate you staying up with us and uh helping us through this. We do want to hear from you. Um, all right. So, I'm bringing it back to the deis and I see council member Leth. >> Thank you calling in over uh to y'all from Mountain View. Um, uh, I want to thank my colleagues on the ad hoc for working so hard on this and staff as well. Um, I feel perfectly comfortable with the historic resources carve out. Um, on the density one, um, I could you just answer, uh, director late, I' I've had members of the public ask me what if this passes, if the 50% of, uh, the SB9 levels passes, what does that do to projects in the pipeline, for example, 414 and 156? Can you clarify, please? >> 414 is not in the pipeline. they there was a pre-screening and we have not received a an application uh for that project. So I would not consider that a pipeline project. And 156 California um the council took action recently to um add one of the properties to the housing element that has been done. We're waiting for the application uh to come in and there's some requirements in that uh agreement that they have to go through before that happens. so that this would not impact that development. >> I thought it was important that the public hear that. Thank you. Um so now to your point that we've had in places memo that clarifies that what's before us are temporary. Um the two ordinances before us are temporary today, but when they come back on the 15th, they are urgency ordinances. Is that correct? >> Correct. The ordinance today is temporary. It requires a second reading that would take place on June 15th. At that same time, the council, if the ad hoc recommendation is supported, uh would also uh include an urgency ordinance at that time and that was that would also be part of that. So you would have four ordinances in June. >> I see 15th. >> So to this urgency, I am having trouble understanding how we make the claim that urgency is necessary. As I understand it from the staff report, the language is it presents a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. So could you give me some examples of how our public health, safety or welfare are impacted by the implementation of SB79 as it is? >> So So I'll give um a couple of examples, but I'll look to our city attorney's office to maybe expand on more of the the legal arguments um for that finding. Um with respect to SB79 and uh sort of our city planning, you know, initiatives, what we would uh what we want to make sure that we have that SB79 doesn't really give us the time to do is make sure that the infrastructure that would support future development uh is available to the city. Um for instance uh our water resources um is uh how that is fed through the city network and where it is available and how it can support development is something that we need to study a little bit more to ensure that we have enough water pressure um and you know to support development. Another thing is with taller buildings uh that are set forth in this um in this law uh we have seen you know throughout town uh you know seven eights story buildings being proposed um and uh and at some level that's tolerable but if we start seeing more and more of these things it begins to put a strain on our um it may put a strain on our fire resources apparatus necessary to provide emergency services to taller buildings ains uh the staffing and the infrastructure to support that. So these are some of the infrastructure needs that we're wanting to study uh as during this period of time and I'll turn over to the city attorney to expand upon any more uh public health safety issue findings. >> Yes. And and I I will um in turn turn it over to assistant city attorney uh Albert Yang who I believe is online and could um elaborate on uh what director said. >> Sure. Thank you. Um so I guess I'll just note that um the standard of a current and immediate threat it's that's something that's stated in the government code um that's one of the bases for adopting an urgency ordinance. Uh the Palo Alto municipal code also has its own standard um that uh as a charter city Palo Alto the city council is um entitled to rely upon and and that um requires a finding that the measure is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety. Um so it's a slightly different formulation. Um but the the concerns are basically what Director Le um uh uh spoke to uh which is just the um capacity of the city's infrastructure to serve um higher density um housing in these areas. And I get that argument for R1, but I'm having trouble understanding how that argument holds if we're looking at parts of the city that our planning staff has already contemplated and designated for higher densities. So while those areas are um have been designated for higher densities in terms of um you know being uh suitable locations in in each of these cases when you know for example the the housing projects that the city council has seen in the past month um you know utility staff and public work staff have have grappled in each case with being able to handle storm water loads and um other utility um upgrades that are necessary in each case. >> Okay. Relatedly, I am concerned that the blanket effort to um zone everything at 50% of the SB79 density um ignores the fact that on Calv parts of El Camino, downtown transit area, San Antonio Road, we're already in the process of allowing greater density. So, I would feel more comfortable with what's before us tonight if we carved out those ordinances, those areas where we want higher density, where we've already said as a city we want higher density and let's let the 50% reduction apply to the other parts of the SB75 area. >> Yeah, if I can just make a note about that. So, so, uh, nothing about the ordinance that's before you reduces the development standards, um, in the city where we are encouraging greater housing such as in the housing focus area, um, below what it exists today. The ordinance would upzone areas where it's currently deficient in meeting the 50% standard for SB79. Um, so that where we have our policies in place for greater density and greater housing, that still holds. Uh, and we're still studying it in downtown uh, university downtown uh, through the housing uh, the downtown housing plan. >> And finally, and I appreciate I'm over. I'm sorry. This is my last question. how on the one hand we're going for this pro housing designation status and here we are saying we want to put some brakes on SB79 implementation and do you have thoughts as to whether these uh two paths are um compatible or at odds with one another >> great so I I professionally don't see that they are they are inconsistent with each The prohousing designation is an application. It shows the work that you have done, you plan to do. Um it's a you know you go through that analysis and you you um indicate what you've done and if you meet a certain score or threshold um you're awarded that designation. Many communities in the state have done that. Um the and with respect to SB79 and you know this is the policy question I guess for our council for the council to consider. Um but SB79 does uh set into motion a fair amount of um development potential that uh in some instance in instances really increases the um could increase the population of the city uh over over time. And the impact of that population increase um is um you know is the part that I think many jurisdictions who have invoked this 50% threshold or are pursuing a tod alternative plan want to study. They want to study the impacts on um utility operations, on uh uh uh life safety operations, on you know potentially impacts on schools or or related uh components. Um so that that's the kind of thing that you know allowing time to think through those things uh in this interim period would give the city the chance to explore those uh possible uh constraints or concerns and to mitigate them um before the full implementation of SB star takes place. But again, this is a policy conversation for the for the council to to weigh in on those different options. >> Thank you. I'm way over, so I'll look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Are there any on for the for the I guess the base SP79 zoning? If we choose no option, is there an affordability requirement for then SP79 projects? >> Uh yes there is. So they do prescribe affordability levels but if the city has greater levels which is in the case of PaloAlto 15% then that supersedes everything else. >> Okay great. Um, so I think just kind of following up on Council Lifcott and A's questions and to seek clarity, Director Le, I think you confirmed this by implementing the ad hoc recommendation of the 50% capacity that does not reduce any existing development standards in areas where we're currently trying to increase denser housing such as downtown core, Calav, parts of El Camino, Rial, San Antonio, etc. >> Correct. These or this ordinance only upzones areas that are currently deficient at the 50% threshold for SP79. >> Okay. So we only get more housing from from where we are at least right now. >> I'll I'll speak to what the ordinance does which is increase the development potential for sites that are not currently meeting SB79's 50%. >> 50%. Okay. Was there discussion at the ad hoc or staff level of kind of I think where council member Lifcott HS was going of allowing SP79 be implemented in certain parts of the city where we've already kind of had those previous policy discussions about where we do want to see increase density height. >> Well, I'll certainly invite the ad hoc members to to weigh in. And I think to the extent that that conversation took place, it was in this idea of an alternative transportation um to plan and um [snorts] and so I don't think we got to a level of specificity u that was presented in one of the com comment letters that uh the council received uh this weekend or this evening. Okay. Yeah, that'd be helpful if the ad hoc can weigh in on that. >> Well, I'll I'll just share that um actually areas that we've already upzzoned in the uh San Antonio corridor and the El Camino focus group area. um the development standards in terms of floor error ratio and height uh were generally uh well in aligned with what SB79 is proposing and some cases were actually exceeding it. So we those stay in place and actually I anticipate that once we if if we adopt this recommendation that gives us the time to begin to have a a a much more focused plan which is what is allowed under the law is to come up with our own uh variation of of um SB79. But as staff pointed out that has to be done in a deliberate way. we need to really look at so where should we be upzoning uh and I fully expect that we're going to um continue with our downtown housing which would have significant upzoning we've already seen what we've approved on surface parking lots for instance um and then u u expanding the elamino focus area uh and other areas uh near the transit so uh it it doesn't reduce any of the upzoning that we've done that's well aligned with SB79. I anticipate that we will now go into looking at where to target the development in a way that actually has uh a context versus what the state did which was draw a circle and a circle that goes into for instance uh you know historic neighborhoods and places where uh uh that density is not compatible versus areas where we embrace it and say it's very compatible. So, that's what I anticipate. >> I I was just going to add briefly that all we're doing is using the law as it was intended because they're saying if you want to take some time to consider doing an alternative to just doing it all at once, go ahead and do that. It's we're not making anything up here. We're just following what they say. And relative to, for example, projects on uh Calv, we want projects on Calv. So bring us a project and tell you tell us what you want to do and you know we'll work it out with a HIP program or a PhD or maybe something else as we did in inventing new housing area along El Camino in the in the focus area. I appreciate that la that last point about we're doing what the state law allows us to do. And in some ways, I've been I think many of us have been frustrated over the years about the the loss of local control and these very kind of blunt instruments that are just one sizefits-all. Nice to see nice to see the the at least SB79 creating some of these carveouts and recognizing there may be maybe um individual kind of circumstances within cities that we need to be able to to uh respond to. And so I think to to council lift H's concerns which I which I also kind of shared initially about does this weaken our our application to become a a uh pro-ousing designated city. I first I was concerned about that but I mean but the the law gives us this ability to do the 50%. And so I don't understand why. So, I think now understanding that better, I'm not too concerned that we're going to lose that when we're just doing what state law allows us to do. And we've been frustrated several times regarding like a a lack of of a of a focus area plan because we keep kind of running into these situations where every [snorts] year there's dozens more laws that we then have to kind of adjust for and new projects get um get submitted. and we're we're just always kind of playing catch-up on these um on these focus plans. And so I think this gives us that opportunity to to to be able to [sighs and gasps] to to be able to uh develop that. Wow. 11:22 is late. [laughter] I'm trying my best to articulate my my thoughts here. So, I guess what I'm saying is appreciate the work of the ad hoc and the and the and the staff. I I guess looking for just a little assurance kind of from from the staff side that and I think what I'm hearing from a lot of especially our housing advocates in the in the community is that what we're not going to do is pass this ordinance and then kind of just rest on that and use that as a as kind of an excuse to be able to kick the can further down the road on increasing density beyond the 50% that we're going to be establishing here in certain parts of the city where we are hoping for greater density. I know already included this is the downtown housing plan. Great. Glad to see that moving forward. But does I guess director late do you see this in any way as delaying that that work in in additional areas of of upzoning? So there's the three areas. The downtown housing university uh downtown is the one area that's a part of the recommendation. And the idea there is that uh we would look at development potential aligned with SB79. Um and potentially, you know, there's incentives that we might want to consider that, you know, go beyond that if that's appropriate at certain locations. I mean SB79 doesn't even need to be the the ceiling necessarily but um we would look at so that's so I believe that University Avenue in that downtown area is addressed um through the recommendation. Um on the other side of town we have the San Antonio area plan which we are actively engaged in and that's going to be uh folding in any recommendations uh relative to SB79. Um so the the remaining area then is um is the calf and uh that's an area where we don't have any active uh area planning um underway. Um it is something that the council could uh direct us to do and we can study that. We do have some time given the um 2032 deadline for that right 2032. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh so we have some time to to work through that. But I think during this time we'll also be wanting to look at the infrastructure concerns that I've noted before to see how we can uh align all that work. >> I appreciate that. I would like to see us accelerate the a plan for for Calav and I think that though does need to be a more intentional process of engage of of engaging the community and understanding our infrastructure limitations rather than just in an in a um kind of an abrupt decision to just kind of to embrace the full SB79 standards there at the at the well tonight. So, okay. Thank you. And I'll just note tonight and the city attorney can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe to move forward with the recommendation, uh, it there are vote four votes of the council that are are needed to advance the ordinance. >> That's correct. >> Right. Um, I will confess to being rather jet-lagged at this point, [laughter] so I'm going to do my best. Um, >> I've already forgotten what I was going to say >> before you could I could I ask one clarifying question before you go. Is that all right? >> Yeah, I wasn't going to talk for very long, but please go ahead. >> No, just a clarifying because and I think I have no basis for being as tired as you because I've been in this time zone, but I am finding myself feeling rather obtuse. So, can you just point out for me, Director Lelay, where in the ordinance where I can find the reassurance in the ordinance that this 50% reduction only applies to those that are not already meeting the that are not already planned to be higher. >> Yeah, maybe I can uh invite uh Albert Yang to help us isolate that specific location. Yes, sorry. Just uh give me one moment. Uh this will be in the ordinance um right at the right before each of the tables. Um the >> page 434 and actually this will this will be on the supple supplemental memo that you'll want to take a look at. Uh but the the last phrase before you get to the table in each case is unless the underlying district is more permissive. So um taking for example setbacks the front and rear setbacks that are stated in the table of 10 ft those wouldn't imply those won't apply in you know the CC2 for example on California Avenue because there's zero setback in the underlying district. Um, this really only serves to reduce the setback in the R1 districts which would otherwise be 20 feet for example. >> So that example's on page two of the ordinance at the bottom toward the bottom just above the table. So, so I mean in short the these these standards are provided as an alternative to development standards that already exist in the district. So if there are more permissive development standards, the the an applicant can choose to take advantage of those more permissive standards. >> And have we done this upzoning on California Avenue? when we talk about what we've done in San Antonio Road and El Camino focus area and we've said sort of California is a little bit different. >> Yeah, there there is not a housing focus area, >> right? >> Um there is the housing incentive program that applies. Um but uh we don't have the same standards on Calav that we do in some of these other areas. So, I'm nervous that Calv doesn't fit the doesn't hit the exception uh unless the underlying district is more permissive. And I would hate to see it than subjected to the 50% of what SB79 would allow. I'd rather protect Calav. I'd rather call out the streets where we want to be sure that the 50% doesn't apply. >> Mr. Can you we studied this on Calav and relative to the existing standards are they sufficient already on at the CC2 zoning? >> Yeah. So um again this would only allow more uh compared to what is existing and if if the existing zoning is already more permissive then then that's what is going to govern. Um in the case of Cal A um the existing CC2 zoning is generally more permissive. The primary impact that this would have is it it would increase um what's currently allowed as residential F in mixed use. It would increase the residential F from6 to 1.75. Um but [clears throat] the overall F that's allowed on CALAB is already 2.0. Um there is no daylight plane for for most sites and uh there generally is also no setback. So those parts of this ordinance would have no effect. Okay. So, this uh whatever the longer one is we're doing, not the twoe one. I've lost track of the temporary and urgent, but whatever the the longer one is that's still temporary that would do the 50% and the historic uh carveouts. Um it's like a five or six year. Is that right? the the um the SP79 will take effect after I think it's January 30th, 2032. Uh so we have the temporary ordinance is temporary in that we need to go through the city process. Uh there's a provision in the local ordinance that allows the council to take this temporary measure, but we would need to go back to the planning and transportation commission um and back to the city council to adopt another ordinance to implement this or some variation of this through the public process. >> Right. And the [sighs] when we when you come back to council to do that, are you talking then about the one that's the the five or six year? Are you talking about the permanent one? >> Well, I >> permanent relatively ordinances could always be ch changed. Um but the uh >> we would be coming back with the permanent ordinance, but that permanent ordinance really only gets us to 2032. Okay. >> Uh and then if we haven't made uh a new to alternative plan approved by HCD, then SB79 would take effect. >> Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand. So, we would have until 2032 to do the alternative plan. But my question is, but the question I'd like to ask is, how long do you think it would take us to do an alternative plan? How quickly could we do it? >> Well, knowing us, >> yeah, I mean, um, we've got too much on our plate now. Um and so it's something that we'd have to take up as part of the city council's um objectives discussion in a year or two. >> Yes. So we'd take it up in a year or two. So it's a it's it's it's a pretty big undertaking and it's not something we're going to do in six or 12 months. It's something that would be a I don't know a couple of year process and we probably can't get to for a year or two. Is that >> the the the transfer the to alternative plan is a significant effort. [sighs] >> Okay. [gasps] Um because I think that's a factor in thinking through all of this. Um I mean I I I I appreciate all the work that's gone into this. I think the the historic uh exemption makes sense and you know it's it's an awkward SP79 is a very awkward fit in our city and particularly around the Calav area because the area uh that we think of you know Calav um is very very different from the old PaloAlto area on the other side. And so when you think about the policy that was underlying SB79 when it was enacted, it manifests very differently on each side of the literally on each side of the tracks. And so whereas it was kind of a blunt instrument, um we're also using a blunt instrument to kind of address it uh with this 50%, you know, across the board thing. And I think that's my sense of what council member uh Liithkott Hayes is trying to get at and I think that's what we've seen in some of the public comment is can we chisel it back a little? We're not going to get a scalpel but could we make it a little more um fitting to the the context. So, you know, when we think about Calav and these others, especially hearing that um when they looked at I think San Antonio Road and some of these others that the zoning was relatively well aligned, um it feels to me like we should carve out those streets that have the the uh where we do plan greater growth and um you know, things like I I appreciate that good planners like like you all are uh worry about infrastructure and and you know water and other things. But um it seems that that that may not be a big huge thing if we have fairly well aligned uh zonings already and that that could be tailored as we go through this multi-year process. It's not like all the sites are going to be built out at once. Um, so you know, I'm I'm inclined to uh want to go to something that is not the 50% across the board, but so in other words, takes most of the proposed ordinance, but adds um some specific streets. I think we we got a uh a draft from PaloAlto forward. It made good sense to me, and that would be the way I'd be inclined to address this. Um, so that's those are my thoughts. Um, Council Member Lowing. >> Yes. I'd like to make uh two comments on that. One is that um that the time that is is going to take to to look at the TOD plan is definitely years. Um and we may not want to do that. We may choose two years from now to say we don't want to do it, but we don't know that yet. We have to we have to dig in. But the two things I say is that we already have uh the zoning in place and the programs in place to make our this housing element cycles numbers 6,086 we can make that. So relative to any state deadlines um we're we're there because of the applicants that we're getting and this staff is using all their time to uh get that in place. So if you want to say I want more than what the state says we have to have in this housing cycle, that's a whole different conversation than this bill, I think. But the second point is that [clears throat] if a month from now we decided to have that conversation, well two months from now cuz we want to take a month off, but we can always say, "Hey, let's upzone CALF." And we could just go in there in any context that we want and say this side of this street for this amount of you know we'd like to make that XYZ compared to what it is right now. So we're not precluded from doing that. But to to to now tonight at almost midnight to start talking about exceptions to this that I don't think it sounds I don't think it's prudent but I don't think it's necessary if your goal is to go beyond the state quotas before this housing element is up. Uh there's other ways to handle that. >> Council member Bert. >> Yeah, just following up on that. Uh, as we've discussed before, we've done really significant upzoning in these areas and we we did it deliberately. We we upzoned really uh more than was being discussed in the community just a couple years ago. Uh and uh and we're having a whole pipeline of projects as a result. We're we have 6,500 housing units that we are focused on achieving. had is what a 23% increase in the housing supply in in just an 8-year period. These are massive changes to our community. And um uh we all we're doing right now is saying that we by adopting the alternative that uh we've recommended we are upzoning a good number of areas uh and uh allowing ourselves to proceed on further upzoning in a more deliberate way. Uh, but I would I I would echo Council Member Lowing's uh admonition that trying to figure out how to scope different zoning areas tonight uh means that we're not going to be able to go forward and the default would be the SB79 kicks in with the radius that uh is in the uh default legislation. And it's I just want to say that it's not just old PaloAlto that is um low density historic properties. We have in the university area professorville good portions of professorville fall within this. And then in the San Antonio area the icar developments in green meadow. And remember SB79 only allows 10% of the housing units to be exempted for historic status. And so we in all likelihood would not be able to protect um uh the bulk of the historic homes that would be in these jurisdictions. So I think by going forward the recommendations we have before us, it lets us now then proceed on a more deliberate basis, retaining all the upzoning that we've already done, allowing for additional upzoning on a deliberate basis uh while we then develop the more comprehensive plan. But in between now and the uh the SB79 alternative plan development, there's no nothing that prevents us from continuing to do focused upzoning in in additional areas. And I expect we will. So, if given the hour, I'd like to see if we can um move the ball forward. And I will move that we adopt the staff recommendations 1 through six. >> Second. Second. [clears throat] >> Uh I think I just spoke to it well enough. uh for for me anyway. Um so I don't need to say anything else. >> Yeah, just un underscore the point that we can up zone couple months from now anywhere we want but at this point we don't need to we think to make our quotas. So Would you accept a friendly amendment? Um, I I think it's attachment C, which is the one that's Yeah, attachment C. I would feel more comfortable if attachment C, item I, which is the last finding and declaration item, if it's specifically called out in that first sentence. Um right now it reads the city council finds and declares that the implementation of government code etc will create significant incentive for redevelopment of properties in the to zones at densities that would create unanticipated strain and I'd like to change that to will create significant incentive for redevelopment of properties in the to zones that the city has not already identified as being suitable locations for higher density development, allow densities that would create unanticipated strain. >> I think I'd like to hear from uh um staff and on >> whether there's any pardon me, >> it's probably a legal question >> and wait just a sec. uh from both staff, Albert Yang, and our city attorney on any input on that. >> Yeah, I don't I I uh I don't see any issue with that change to the recital. And Albert, any implications we're not thinking of? >> Uh no, I I agree. Uh >> okay, I'll accept that. >> Thank you. My second suggestion is that >> wait, we need the secondary to accept it. >> Yes. >> Thank you. My second is and if the clerk could put it up in section 18.1470 that we um I'm just looking at a print out so I don't I don't know the packet page. It's um >> uh page 25 of the staff report I think >> or at least it starts there. >> So it's the transit oriented development to combining district subsection B applicability. It currently reads, "The combining district shall apply to all sites within a TOD zone except sites designated as local historic. Sorry, what I'm looking at doesn't I think maybe All right. Yeah. Um what I'm proposing to add is uh that second section that so the tod combining district shall apply to all sites within a to zone except those that are historic and sites located in the downtown housing plan assessment area sites with frontages on Calab between El Camino and Cal Train the Palto Transit Center sites with frontages on El Camino and sites with frontages on Elma. There's an extra and in there. Sites with frontages on Cambridge, New Mayfield, Jakaronda, and Sherman. And sites with frontages on San Antonio Road. That's a that those are really significant changes to our zoning uh to do on the fly tonight. So, I would uh that those are in the category of of items that I would be open to looking at uh going forward, but to arbitrarily upzone them and some of those uh um sites with frontages on Alma. Do you even understand what you're saying there? You're you're talking about um going to sevenstory uh buildings tonight decide up and down Alma there. Uh those are serious decisions that we should be looking at for compatibility issues and and the need to do so in order to meet our housing ele. So I I think that goes too far. So we could take out Elma. Are there >> No, I use that as an illustration. I I just I don't think tonight we should be going through and trying to have PaloAlto forward having decided uh which of our um uh areas to uh immediately upzone at very significant levels. When we've gone through our upzoning on our San Antonio corridor, our um our um El Camino focus area, we were very deliberate and our staff looked at uh resources on that uh the infrastructure. We looked at compatibility issues. Every one of those had very significant trade-offs, transportation, bike transportation issues, all the things that have been coming forward to just throw that out there at this hour. uh without any deeper consideration I think is uh not well considered. >> Well, to to me this falls into the area that I was talking about that we could do a little bit later and a little bit later doesn't have to be years. Plus, since it covers so many areas, we could have seven council members involved in for most of these things because it wouldn't be as many there wouldn't be as many recusals. That's >> right. That's really a good point. We uh as we look at these going forward, the vast majority would allow the full council to participate. >> I feel like a lot of the streets listed here are streets we've just acknowledged are already upzzoned or contemplated for upzoning. So are there any streets that are listed here that you're comfortable at? >> But we haven't looked through exactly what that means. You say upzoning, but each one of those is upzone by how much? And what do we think is appropriate for those locations? This is just shooting from the hip to throw this in at this hour without I don't think you know what the current zoning is. Uh I don't in each case. I don't think it's really appropriate and good legislating to to at midnight do some a bunch of very significant upzoning that we haven't gone through in a thoughtful deliberative manner e even understanding the implications of it. What's more having the whole council I just think this is uh it's it's it's not appropriate. >> To be fair, the late hour is not my doing. I I'm also frustrated to be having this conversation at a late hour. >> Late hour or not, this is very significant work to throw it out there without having a a deep long context really on each of these. I mean, each of these ups and when we look at the the the uh El Camino focus area or the San Antonio area, we went through multiple meetings to decide just one of those areas. And because Palo Alto Forward submitted this list, you're just throwing it all out there. And I just think that's really not right planning. This is serious work. And uh we have not had any uh a thoughtful discussion on on what is appropriate and what is not appropriate among these proposals. >> I think we're taking different approaches to how to deal with SB79. And my interest is in protecting the areas that we want to protect because they're our ones. And being really deliberate in saying that it will go forward on these in these regions of town that we've largely planned to be higher density. Um, so I'm more comfortable with carving out the sites or the streets that can go forward with SP9 SP79 as planned as written um, and protect those that we're trying to protect with the 50% to just be more explicit about what goes into the into the 50% reduction. >> All right. Well, sounds like we're not getting a friendly amendment accepted. So, um, you know what I would say I [clears throat] what you're saying, Council Member Liths has appealed to me. Um, you know, it was noted that Menllo Park didn't do any carveouts. They have similar types of areas as we do in terms of just a general community. You know, I look at this list and I could see that if the downtown housing plan assessment area is too broad in some of these areas, do you change that to University Avenue, but leave in Cal Avenue, uh, leave in El Camino Rial, leave in San Antonio Road. Those right there I think are are places that would closely align that we've made significant progress that would signal to people we're not trying to use this as a subdivision back off. We say that we can move faster but we have no you know we we can do this alternative plan you know in less than five or six years but I don't see what's really holding us to that. I I I would be interested in doing uh the um roads on here that we've had significant uh work on. I understand it's not the surgical thing that that you're talking about, but I think at this point given where uh the law is going, how housing planning is going, what surrounding of communities have done, um I think it's something that I would be very comfortable doing. I I just note that uh even where we've done significant upzoning, we could very well see a whole bunch of projects in our pipeline that would come back and have changes to those projects and delay their proceeding because they can squeeze a little bit more and start over again with a redesign and apply under SB79, albeit on an expedited basis. But, um, I just I I'll say again, even with a narrower group, I don't think this is being well thought through at this time that to to just throw stuff in like this without even understanding what's the current zoning, what would be the implication, the change to that is just um uh uh it's it's it's not well thought through. And these are serious matters. Okay, Council Member Lowing. >> Yeah. Um, as I admitted before, I'm not sure why you want to add more housing options now since we have enough that are already designed, but since you do, I don't understand the urgency of doing it in the next 15 minutes with short two council members. So that's all I'm that's all I'm suggesting is if you want to have this conversation about quickly doing some more zoning, then quickly could be a couple months, not a few years. But I don't think it should be the next few minutes. I I just I just don't think that that's what the public expects of us. And I I just don't think there's a downside for sort of quote postponing this beyond, you know, midnight on a Monday night. [clears throat] and stating the obvious. If we don't vote this tonight, then July 1 will come unless we do another special meeting. >> I mean, I I I don't I I think you were being a little tongue and cheek about the couple of months. I don't see us doing it in a couple of months either, right? Or were you were you referencing something I'm missing because I I could be at this point missing. >> I hope this is fair to say. I hear two council members saying that tonight we could vote on this voting. I don't agree with that. But I'm saying that we could make it happen two months from now on an agenda for a couple of these maybe and then a couple months later we could do a couple more and we could build up what at least tonight two council members want to add to what would effectively be more housing inventory that we don't need for a few years. But that's up up to the vote. Well, so are because we're going to at some point have to move around like under the alternative plan the the housing that's allowed under SB79. I don't understand the exact algorithm. I haven't studied that. But >> and that would and that would go beyond um the requirements, but are you saying it's just a timing thing that you want to do that after this housing cycle? Is that >> well after this housing cycle we are going to need it in the next housing cycle which happens to line up with the date at which we have to have this done which is the 32. But if this council of seven wants to activate more height other than what we've already done then that can happen as I said earlier. Um, but I think it needs to happen with some consideration of seven folks. And there's no reason tonight that we have to go beyond what we've already got upzzoned uh and what is also going to be upzoned by definition of the uh of SB79 on July 1st with with the other 50%. So, I I guess I just don't there's just no downside to me that I can see of of waiting and working this into a future agenda compared to, you know, sort of figuratively speaking spot zoning uh into a into a motion tonight. >> Well, I don't think it's a fair characterization. I think we're just, you know, dreaming it up at midnight for the first time ever. Obviously, there's been some thinking beforehand, but I think the downside would be if it was well, it may not be a downside to some, but if you're asking what the difference is and what I would see as a downside is if it was if it took until the five or six years from now to get that to get this sorted. And that's kind of what I hear when I hear we want to kind of save those units for the next cycle. I that's that's what I'm hearing between the lines. Maybe I'm missing it, but that's >> No, what what I'm saying is that the vote will be the vote. But what I'm what I'm saying is just simply that um to give our best judgment on any new areas, we should give it some consideration. And you could schedule this 45 days from now. Well, actually that may be where staff could weigh in to talk about what some of the necessary next steps will be and where that may provide an opening for future discussion. >> Great. So, hearing the different perspectives and knowing that we need to get to four if the council wanted to uh take some affirmative steps toward uh addressing SB79. As I mentioned, this is uh the first reading of the ordinance. It's a temporary ordinance. There will be a second reading uh on June 15th coupled with the uh the urgency ordinance. Um we do need to go back to the planning and transportation commission to make this ordinance that you're considering tonight to codify it in the course of going through that process. we can um share with the PTC and the community the um thoughts that have been expressed here tonight which align with the PE out to forward letter and have the planning and transportation commission uh weigh in on that conversation and make a recommendation to the city council. That's not 45 days or a couple of months. I think it's more on the timeline of 6 to 12 months. Um, but that's something that we can do to bring that uh ordinance back before uh city council so it achieves the so it achieves the near-term interest if there is one to uh introduce these uh provisions. Um, and then it allows for continued dialogue short of the trans the to alternative plan, a more strategic look at how we might make some changes when this ordinance comes back to the council in about six plus months. And I I'm only just given the time and knowing the other work we have, I just I can't be more precise about that. I know that you'd want us to come back as quickly as possible, but I'm trying to be realistic with the workload. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. >> Thank you. I I I appreciate that realistic compromise that uh in sort of a time line that or time frame that the director laid out. I sort of feel like I'm kind of well both physically in between this the sides but I because I completely appreciate what the the mayor and council member Lot Hayes want to see as far as increased density especially in areas of the city where we have we have already embraced increased density in a variety of ways. But hearing my colleagues on the on the left as far as the the hour the process uh even though yes this this is agendaized I don't feel like most of the vast majority of the public would would have anticipated [clears throat] this this dramatic of a of a departure from the the recommendations and a pretty significant change. um just kind of and [clears throat] so I'm I'm not I'm not really comfortable doing that to tonight, but I think I think a six to 12 month time frame of being able to bring some of these discussions back to the council be able to have the have the PTC weighing in having a full council be able to make this decision and having uh the public more engaged. I I don't think that is that significant of a of a of a delay. So, I would definitely support I would definitely support that. >> I have a question. We're talking about the full council weighing in, but aren't we going to have some of the same conflicts? >> Um, so, so I mean, it is a matter of public record as of today. Um, one of your colleagues has sought um FPPC advice that um, you know, may allow him to participate. Um, the other I'm not sure that there's a path forward. So, you know, you could have six uh members who are eligible to participate in the near future, but I would be surprised if you had seven >> and we might still have five. We don't know. >> It's Yeah. Well, we we don't know what how the FPPC will answer the question. That's correct. >> Well, isn't it true that that would apply if we only looked at them as one group, but if we broke them up, they would uh uh have uh less potential for a conflict. one of the council members only has conflict down in the San Antonio corridor. >> There there are potentially ways we could segment the discussion that would allow the full council to participate or in all or or part of the debate. I mean that that was not possible the way that this discussion was initially framed but we could look at that going forward. I mean, theoretically, any changes could just be zoning changes. They don't have anything to do with SB79. >> Yeah. It's it's not it's it's not so much whether they're SP79 or other zoning changes. It's what properties they'd affect that would be controlling. It's the properties that they would affect that would be controlling. whether it would affect um council member rectals or council member Lou's property. I I'll just add that um as I had been saying throughout the evening that I think that we will be doing upzoning of certain targeted areas u uh within uh I would say likely a subset of those that were put on the screen sooner rather than later. Um and uh we already some of them already in the downtown housing plan. I already mentioned that I am supportive of expanding the El Camino F focus area and there could be others. And so we were talking about this. Oh, this awaits five six years or do it tonight. And actually there I I fully anticipate that we're going to be looking at the the the best locations to upzone sooner rather than later. the entire set might take five or six years, but not to get to some of these focused ones. And I'm glad that director late uh provided this uh alternative that basically would let us identify which of these areas we would want to do a focused upzoning on sooner rather than later. >> So, how can we turn that into some kind of compromise that's in the motion tonight? >> Well, it would be to incorporate uh Director Leight's recommendation. Do you have language that would capture what you were suggesting? >> So the idea >> the same hour for you as us. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh the the idea is uh um uh to move the recommend staff recommendation with direction to staff to consider the Pelto forward letter. I'll just use that for shorthand. Um uh yeah when developing the permanent ordinance before the planning and transportation commission something along those lines >> with an implication that it's it's not necessarily all or nothing right >> yeah I mean I think there are uh like for instance there are areas on San Antonio which is the subject of the San Antonio area plan we've talked about some upzoning that we've done but that's been further east on San Antonio and the part that's closest to the rail station is the part that's next to the Ikler one-story building. So, I think there's going to be a need to sort of be strategic in our analysis. >> That's the very point I was making. Yes, >> I'd like to see a time frame around that. >> Yeah, >> like to see what >> a time frame. Well, um, so director lady, you game to, uh, propose language that would capture what you were describing >> time frame. >> Uh, well, both >> I think the clerk's working on some language now. >> Maybe clerk got it and then your time frame was that it would return in 6 to 12 months. >> Yes. Okay. Do I recall? And I have to say it's 8 a.m. for me right now. [laughter] So I'm starting over on the next day. My body body clock. Uh >> probably put that at the end of [clears throat] that sentence. Clerk to return to counsel within. >> Yeah. And and I want to clarify the the what we're talking about here because I'm tempted to um I mean I mean I'd like to see KAB in particular um called out but if we c if if not I would at least want that to be uh prioritized. And um are you contemplating that this would come back like it's something along the lines what what council member Bert was saying not you your recommendation doesn't have to come back with all or nothing but are you contemplating they would all come back at the same time or you would like the 6 to 12 months what happens then are all of these analyzed >> so the street segments that and areas that were generally identified tonight and discussed would be presented to the planning and transportation commission uh along with some staff analysis as to some areas why we think it might be favorable to advance uh some of these um areas and where caution or concern might be flagged uh for the commission's recommendation. Um, I'll note it's been mentioned here tonight and that I know it's the council's interest to advance um to be uh more uh that there's a strong interest in getting more housing on the California Avenue area. That's something that's been communicated to us. So, I understand that that's an that's the one area where we don't have an area plan. So, as I'm looking at this, this that would probably be an area that we'd want to pay some attention to, as well as to help advance what council's already told us to do, which is to accelerate, I think is the word, uh, housing on on California Avenue. So, this might be a means for us to do that. So, to answer your question directly, in 6 months, 6 to 12 months, what comes back to the city council is a planning transportation recommendation that considers these all of these different straight segments. It is not, to be clear, a transportation alternative plan. That's a that's a whole other thing. Um, but we can certainly look at all of these and there will be a recommendation on which ones to advance and which ones maybe not to >> and not necessarily when you say which ones not to. [sighs] >> So, we got we got >> you you wouldn't necessarily have to. I mean, you you could even say part of one of them or from like I don't know. I'm just going to Yeah. Yes, >> mayor. We know from X to Y or something. >> It it's not an all ornone. >> Okay. >> Scenario. If there's areas along that that we figure, you know, makes sense, then um we would include that and we'd hear the PTC's recommendation on that. >> It feels like letting California Avenue go. I can strip mo most of these streets off of this list, but it feels like tonight is an opportunity to say what we've [snorts] all been saying, which is that Calab needs more housing. And Calab is precisely the sort of jurisdiction that the state contemplates having housing. It's right by a Cal station, Cal Train station. And I just feel like why why not take the opportunity to to say calv between the train station and El Camino is not subject to this. >> I could go with that. Well, my answer would be that under normal circumstance, if we were to say that we are looking at reszoning all the Calav area to seven stories, which is what would apply there, um that would be a public process and we'd both be looking for PTC um to be making recommendations in a very thoughtful way and for public participation on the ramifications of I think there's a gross underestimation of how significant these changes you're trying to throw out at this hour are. These are things that we would normally give very careful consideration to. They're they're very significant zoning changes of a whole district to to just throw it in on the fly is not something I have ever seen done in a city. And I don't think it's good planning process. I think we should be doing this in a thoughtful way. Having this come back in six to 12 months, that's that's timely. So I I don't get what the urgency is other than trying to uh respond to what PaloAlto forward is. >> Don't say something you're going to regret. [laughter] >> I don't regret anything I'm saying. >> Okay, good. That's good. Um, I think that what we're trying to do is be very thoughtful and go through this with you because the other alternative is to vote no and it all goes through. >> Well, >> and I don't think that that would not be responsible. So, we're trying. We have different views of what responsibility is and what is appropriate on this. And so, we're trying to get and we're getting very very close. So, I think we're almost there. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. you know, SP79 is uh painting with an incredibly broad brush and we all agree that drawing a radius around our train stations isn't a great way to do urban planning. We all agree with that. Um so I am not trying to to vote no tonight and just let all of SB9 go through 79. I'm not. I am looking for some commitments to what I thought we had we've been talking about for quite some time. Um what if we added under seven uh just say with a particular focus to the calav area? >> I would like that. >> Yeah, that's fine. Council member Bert, how would you feel about adding one more thing, which would be you mentioned the possibility of extending the El Camino focus area north toward Calv. Would you be willing to put that in as something that the PTC should consider? Um, I'd be fine with uh framing it the same way with particular focus to the Calab area uh including um uh El Camino Riale in the vicinity of Calav. Yeah, I must say I just don't understand the urgency of of the specificity because that's what we're asking PTC to do, but uh I won't hold it up at this hour and go ahead with it. I guess what I'd like is some words that explain why we're calling out Calab and El Camino similar to those words in red. Um it because it it just says that we're going to consider them. um and not any kind of I I understand we're not making a commitment now with what we're talking about and we're trying to reach agreement here and we're trying to give that give but I do think commemorating that the intent that the council's been talking about of of adding uh high density on in those two areas just so perhaps with particular focus to the Kell area including including El Camino Riale in the vicinity of Calav. Um, which council has identified as suitable for higher density development or given that it has or something somehow to tie that concept there. Otherwise, they're just named. It doesn't Mayor, is your question to the maker of the ad or to be just justification. >> I think the maker of the ads thing was accepted by the maker of the motion. So I was directing at the maker of the motion. But if I should be directing at the maker of the ad, I can. [laughter] >> Well, actually what is the normal procedure is if you have an amendment that you want to specific recommend, do so. Uh if you're asking us to uh articulate your intent, I can try and >> No, I was asking you if you like the language. I was asking if you would incorporate any of those language, but and I was just waiting for an answer. >> Well, I I don't know what specific language >> I'll come back and say it again then. >> Okay. >> You weren't specific, but go ahead. >> I was if you didn't like the words or you weren't listening to the words, we'll go it again. All right. Just following the course of behavior tonight. Um because I'm actually rethinking the words because >> so sorry I think I captured it. It's in italics under seven. >> Yeah, thank you. >> I'm fine. >> Seconder. >> Yeah, that's fine. You mentioned something about the red. Did you? >> Yeah, I to I copied the language from the red. I was trying to track it so it was the same. Hoping that would be more acceptable. >> Okay, great. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Anything further? No. Okay. I think we can vote. Confirming the friendly amendments have been incorporated into 3A and seven. >> Okay. >> Council member Bert. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Council member Lith Cods. >> Yes. >> Council member Lowing. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay, we did it. >> We got through all of the action items on all of our agenda. So, thank you everyone. We will do it again next week. Good night. All right.

Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission for Wednesday, May 27th, 2026. Uh [clears throat] could we call uh could we call the role, please? >> Yes. Uh Chair Chain >> here. Vice Sher G here, Commissioner Aken here, Commissioner Peterson here, Commissioner Hecman, Commissioner James here, Commissioner Templeton. For the record, we have quorum. >> Okay. So, I just wanted to make an announcement that both Commissioner Templeton and Commissioner Hecman are running late and they will be listening into the meeting. Uh, and then we'll read it out into the record once they arrive. Uh so do we have any agenda changes, additions and or deletions? >> Um the just one note that there was an item um that was previously going to be on the agenda, item four in regards to parking programs update that is not going to be heard this evening. >> Great. Um and so now [clears throat] we have inperson the next agenda item is inperson public comment. So there will be time for public comments. uh that are not related to items on the agenda at the end of the meeting uh via Zoom. So, right now it's uh in-person public comments on items that are not otherwise on the agenda. And do we have any comment cards? >> Yeah. And to the chair, we have not received any public comment cards. >> Okay, great. Thank you. So, on to city official reports. Assistant Director Armor, >> thank you. We'll jump in and take a look at your upcoming meetings. Take a moment to share the screen. Your next meeting is scheduled for June 10th. And at this time, the item that's scheduled for that is the special setback on Hansen Way for the property at 3,300 El Camino Rial on June 24th. At this time we don't have any items scheduled and we do expect to um to cancel that meeting. In addition, I wanted to note that we have been asked to shift um from the current practice to summary and action minutes instead of verbatim minutes uh to for consistency with council and other boards, commissions and committees. So uh we have sent some in for verbatim minutes. The April uh meetings will um will still include that, but starting with your May meetings, they will be um shifted over to summary and action minutes. Next slide. For council, uh some recent updates. So on May 18th, there were three approvals. the coverly conceptual master plan, the um addition of 15, one of the two parcels involved in the project at 156 California Avenue was uh added to the housing element uh housing inventory sites inventory and the project at Old Trace Road, 4130 Old Trace Road, that tenative map was pulled from consent and discussed, but it was approved on June 1st. Next week, we expect city council to discuss Senate Bill 79 and the downtown housing plan and give staff direction to move forward. They've been provided with two um draft ordinances, both the urgency ordinance um versions and a longer term version, but we do expect that work will then come to planning commission for formal adoption um likely over the summer. uh but we will have some time with the urgency ordinance in place if they do proceed with that plan. Uh after that we've got a economic development committee meeting. They will be uh discussing the retail ordinance again. They will also be taking a look at the shrink wrap rule item that was discussed by the planning commission. So that's on June 3rd. Um, for both of those items, uh, the staff reports are written that if we get a unanimous recommendation from the economic development committee, then it would go to council on consent rather than a discussion item and only discussed if pulled. And then on June 8th, city council will be discussing the San Antonio Road area plan and the additional work staff has done since their study session in April. With that, I'm completed my presentation, but I'm available to answer questions. We also do have a representative from the tra transportation department who can speak and give an update. >> Uh, let's for armor. >> I have one question from vice chair G. >> Thank you, chair. I had two questions. So, one is that I was wondering when the language of the Cberly ballot measure is going to be vote discussed at council and if that's going to be in the next couple of meetings. >> That will be on June 8th. >> Okay. Thank you. Um just cuz I thought that was coming up. I didn't see it in your report. And then I have a second question about the parking item that got moved. And maybe this is a question for transportation. That's not scheduled tentatively for any of our coming meetings yet. >> We have not set a new date for that. >> Thank you. >> All right. I think that wraps it for questions for you for now at least, Miss Armor. [laughter] Mr. Arce, >> thank you chair and commissioners. Uh my name is Aussie Arcles, senior transportation planner with the office of transportation with my May 27th, 2026 updates. Next slide, please. Uh starting with the Churchill Avenue temporary closure analysis on Monday, May 11th, the city council continued deliberations on the potential temporary closure of Churchill Avenue at grade rail crossing. This was a continued item from April 15th, 2026. At this May 11th meeting, the city council directed staff to work with the Palo Alto Unified School District on a cost sharing agreement to secure long-term crossing guards at all railroad crossings uh and to bring the Jed Foundation back to the rail committee this year with datadriven safety strategies for all four crossings. We are also focused on speeding up the timeline for quiet zone implementation, especially at Churchill Avenue, and working closely with Cal Train to explore extra gate and enclosure options to maximize safety. Next slide, please. Uh, moving on to our next update. We recently celebrated the official construction kickoff for the new road bridge replacement project. On Thursday, May 21st, we hosted a start of construction celebration right at the bridge site. This project is a highly collaborative regional effort and we were joined by officials from East Palo Alto, Calrans, Valley Water and several several other regional partners. The event went incredibly well and featured official remarks, great photo opportunities, and an unveiling of a brand new 3D rendering of what the finished product will look like. Very cool. To give you some quick background on the project, we are replacing a functionally obsolete concrete bridge that was originally built in 1911. This is a major investment spanning 18 months. And the replacement bridge will include two 10- ft vehicle travel lanes, two 4ft shoulders, and two pedestrian sidewalks and a crosswalks. Lastly, construction work officially begins on June 1st, and we are very glad to have successfully launched this important infrastructure project alongside our regional pro partners, and we look forward to keeping the community updated as construction progress progresses over the next year and a half. Next slide, please. [clears throat] Uh, quick report out on this year's bike to wherever days and Energizer Station celebrations. I presented on these uh last month. Uh there were several uh Energizer stations uh across Palo Alto on Thursday, May 14th. Um it was a beautiful day. Tote bags were distributed. Encouragement and the popular iike Palo Alto shirts were also distributed and even bike chains were oiled up. Uh specific to the Energizer station at Bryant and Homer, which is where I volunteered. Um so it's the data point I have. We served increased number year-over-year. This year we had 170 cyclists stop at our station and saw another 118 others ride by without stopping. That's nearly 300 cyclists moving through this just this one intersection in a 3-hour window. So, we want to thank all of our organizers, volunteers, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition for putting on a great event for bike month. And lastly, before I close last next slide, um a couple notes here. uh the study session on your agenda that was uh scheduled for tonight, the parking programs update and downtown parking modernization initiatives uh specific to downtown will not be heard tonight because OOT staff needs to carry out additional internal coordination as well as coordination with uh downtown stakeholders. So stay tuned for more on that. Um, and then my second note here is I plan to attend the next PTC meeting on June 10th uh because a second uh PTC meeting is canceled in June. Um, so just wanted to give the commission a heads up about that. And that concludes my updates for May 27th, 2026. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Does anybody have questions? Um, we got one from Commissioner James, then Aken, then G. >> Um, [clears throat] excuse me. So my my question is uh a little tangential to the new bridge but my understanding is the new bridge is a is a key component um once it's replaced then uh further um modifications reconstruction of that channel and so so it's outside my question is actually outside of transportation but I I know that um [clears throat and cough] we were all very concerned erned about the um the Valley Waters uh maintenance uh sort of corridor and easement there. And I would love for us to find a way to make sure that as the design moves forward for that next phase that that that is addressed and that we find a solution. It is the perfect time to find a solution to that vexing problem of the of the five- foot easement that's necessary for the valley's uh maintenance uh and and see if we can find a different way if we're if it's if it's being updated if that channel is being updated if it would be very easy for that to slip through because it's not about the primary reason of flooding. But I would like to know if if there is some way that we can flag that >> so that it is included in the design for that. Does that make sense? [clears throat] >> It it makes sense to me. And what we can do is follow up with uh public works staff uh probably their project manager to at least send that note as a an item for consideration. >> Uh I think that'd be great. And I think I was a little hard on the public works staff when they sort of brought that up. In retrospect, I feel a little bit bad about that. I think I was asking them to solve a question that was largely about jurisdiction and it was more of a political issue. Uh but I think at this point where where that's being redesigned, it could be a design issue. It could be an engineering issue and we could engineer ourselves out of that problem. At least that's my hope. But I think it would be very easy for it to slip by and not get get included in that uh in that redesign effort. And I I would love for us to find a way to to do that. I mean, I don't know if my colleagues agree with me, but that would be my wish. >> We can certainly circle back if we have more information to share on that. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Commissioner Aken. >> Thank you, Chair. Congratulations on the new bridge and the uh bike to anywhere day. Um I noticed there are pneumatic tubes out [clears throat] on the 1100 block of Waverly. Do you know what project that might be associated with? >> Short answer is no off the top of my head, but we can certainly look into that. >> Okay. Not critical, just curious. That's it. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner or Vice Chair G. >> Thank you, Chair. I had a question actually that's not relative related to your report here, but related to a comment I heard from a town hall meeting and actually I see chief transportation official low behind you and so she might know what I'm referring to about the Chamalus feedback. Um, I actually didn't know very much about this project prior to a public comment mentioning about it. I was just wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about it. Sure. Is this on? Okay. Uh, chief transportation official Rya Hudlo. Um, so, uh, the Chamala's path is a concept. Um, I wonder if are you able to pull up Google Maps. Um, if you can go to the corner of El Camino and Chimalus. It's C H I M A L U S. Um, so it's actually um a an easement on three Stanford owned properties that goes between El Camino and Ballpark Path and um the easement is for Valley Water, but the properties are all owned by Stanford. Stanford is open to the project there um either way. Um, and this was a concept that's come up several times in council meetings and um, so it was added both to the bicycle pedestrian transportation plan and then when we're going through the CIP process, it was also added to the CIP in response to those council requests. Sorry, on the fly here. Um, just another point to add, uh, it also became a uh, a a more important project, priority project. Uh, more recently when council uh, made the decision to move forward with the El Dorado Avenue uh, bike pad undercrossing and trying to make that link across El Camino to this easement. So Sam is just going to share the visual. You can see it. It's a at the moment it looks like a green corridor between the residents the residential area there on the right side of the screen and then the um that section of Stanford Research Park on the left side. Is there a way for us to like can you point out where the start and the end of this project would be like because you're describing what is a line, right? If >> you can go up a little bit, Sam, to El Camino. So, it would start there. Um, and I don't I can't see what street that is. Is that Matadero? >> Fernando. >> Oh, Fernando. And so then you and then you continue down. Follow the green down to the other end. Keep on going. And oh there we are. So see there's kind of like a looks like an arrow of trees. It and um that's where the ballpark path uh has a kind of an acute angle on it. It would join right at that the point of that bend there. That makes sense. Thank you. Um, and then I guess kind of as a general followup, relative to the BPTP, is this one of the fewer projects that have begun kicking off? I know that we had kind of a whole whole list, but do we know is there a prioritization exercise that has been performed there already on the priority projects? >> This project is >> No. So, you're saying this is from the BPTP, right? >> Uh, yes. It's one it's on the list for the BPTP. So, have we begun executing on any or like planning at least for any of the other BPTP projects or is this the pri or are we have you done a prioritization exercise on those yet? >> Um, yes, the the BPTP has tiers of priorities and so there are some um that are moving forward. So um based on grants and opportunities and so for example um we need to repave East Bayhore Road this year and there's a line on the BPTP and so we are putting together a really quick design to throw in so that it gets done as part of the repaving. That's kind of the cheapest way to build out the BPTP. Um and then there's other projects that have grant funding. So if those ones are moving forward already. >> Thank you. Um just maybe an interesting point. It could be cool to incorporate some of this in the report that you guys provide because I heard about this through a community members but it was really cool to see that some of the projects already kicking off. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh next up we have Commissioner Peterson. >> Thank you. So I was impressed. >> There you go. I was impressed with the I guess it's I don't know if you call a building information model or a transportation information model, a bridge information model, but that uh visualization. Um so I have a couple questions on those. Uh so from your standpoint, was it useful in your decision-m process? Like I don't know, did you have to actually pay for that out of your budget or did the contractor do that on their own? I don't think the city led on that effort, but I'm not uh entirely sure where the rendering came from. I know it was just part of the celebration, but I don't have any more details on it. >> And it was Granite Construction. I mean, uh if grantite you ever hear this again, I know they're the cavemen of of the construction industry. I work there. I know. I know this company. It's not where I expected to see a beautiful visualization like that. Oh, >> we we do have Go ahead. >> Hi. Um my name is Holly Blade. I'm the assistant director of public works. Yes. >> Uh yes. So we coordinated with Granite Construction on that rendering and we each paid for half. >> You paid for half. Okay. >> The city contributed half the funding for that. >> And then one last question. Did you did was there any big insight that came from it that you know something would every every project something would have gone wrong but that just through the process of building that visualization you were able to kind of prevent something that you wouldn't have seen otherwise? >> Um I think we used it more as a visual aid. I mean, Granite is professional. They actually we worked with them on our Highway 101 bike bridge um a few years ago. Um I think it was more for the community to see how what the bridge would look like and how involved it is inside the creek bed and everything. So to see the piles go in and the big the larger bridge structure that will be there once it's done. So I think it was more for community outreach than it was for granite. And it was cool because it did show the process of the construction. It wasn't just a um the [clears throat] end of the you know what what it's going to look like. It was it was cool. So I appreciate the effort that you put into that and everybody else that worked on it. Thank you. >> Great. >> Thank you. Uh seeing other lights, I've got a question. Um, this is for well maybe um maybe Miss Low would be able to answer this best, but I noticed that uh in the CIP item that we're going to be seeing next. Um there's there there's an item for the Crescent Park traffic calming item. And so I wanted to find out what the status is on that >> if this is information um from the next report. >> It's not from the next report. It's just that it >> triggered the question. >> Yes. >> Um yeah. So um given the council schedules, the council agendas, unfortunately, it's been pushed to the next fiscal year. So it was on the docket. It kept on it's been bumped several times. It was on the docket for I think the 15th of June and um a number of other items got bumped and that ended up getting pushed to the next fiscal year to go to council. >> Okay. And so it's the questions also triggered by a public comment that we received this week to the planning commission. Um and I guess the member of the public was asking to be please updated on the status but they haven't received any updates. Is that because no date has been set yet or? Yeah, we don't know what the date is, but we can respond to them and let them know that it unfortunately it's been pushed. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> And then has the design been finalized for that project or is it still >> So we will go to council to that's part of the question for council. Do we want to move forward with 100% design? >> Understood. Thank you. >> Are there other questions? Okay, I think that's it. So that brings us to our first [clears throat] action item tonight, which is uh the review and recommendations of the finance committee and the city council on the proposed 27 to 31 capital improvement plan and comprehensive plan compliance uh of that proposal. Could [clears throat] we have the staff report, please? >> Yes, thank you. And I would like to introduce our newest planner in our long range planning team. Lesie Velasquez is um going to be presenting for this item this evening. Uh good evening. Tonight I will be presenting on the 2027 capital improvement projects. We also have representatives online and in person from various departments including transportation, public works, community services, utilities, and administrative services. to answer more specific questions about the capital improvement projects. Next slide, please. The purpose of this item is to review the new capital improvement projects for consistency with Powalto's comprehensive plan, a process which takes place every year. Next slide, please. There are 217 active capital improvement projects in total with 189 existing CIPs. These 189 existing CIPs have been previously reviewed for consistency with the comprehensive plan and therefore do not require additional review. There are 28 new CIPs. One of these is a placeholder project or an administrative project that also does not require review for consistency with the comprehensive plan. The other 27 new CIPs which do require review for consistency with the comprehensive plan include 17 projects related to the natural environment element of the comprehensive plan. two related to the community services and facilities element, seven related to the transportation element, and one related to the land use and community design element. Next slide, please. The two CIPs related to community services and facilities have to do with investing in and improving recreational centers and facilities. Next slide, please. The seven CIPs related to transportation involve projects to improve transportation infrastructure, including bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Next slide, please. The one CIP related to land use and community design focuses on improvements to the Palo Alto airport. Next slide, please. These natural environment related CIPs are focused on improvements to water infrastructure and city vehicles. Next slide, please. These are the rest of the natural environment related CIPs in our focus on improvements to the city's electrical system and grid. Next slide, please. [snorts] Finally, finally, as previously mentioned, there's one placeholder CIP, which accounts for estimated administrative costs, including salary and benefit costs of city staff assigned to manage information technology fund CIPs. Next slide, please. Our [snorts] recommended motion is to recommend the to the finance committee and the city council that the proposed 2027 to 20 2031 capital improvement projects listed in attachment A are consistent with the comprehensive plan 2030 policies and programs. Um I'm available for questions as are other representatives from different departments. Thank you. >> Thank you so much for the presentation. Your first presentation at the BTC. [laughter] >> Thank you. Um, so I saw that uh, Commissioner Templeton has her hand raised and so so we did get clarification um, from our city assistant city attorney um, that since she's joining um, just due to a delay that she's had to come late um, that this was something where she can participate once she has joined us rather than online. >> Okay. All right. Um, okay. Do we have any clarifying questions for staff uh before we take public comment? No clarifying questions. I see no lights. Um, okay. Then I think we can just move on into Oh, sorry. Uh, are there public comments? >> Um, through the chair, we have not received any public comment cards and there's no request from any members of the public to speak. Okay, great. Thank you. So then I think we can just move on to discussion. So um if anybody would like to start, please light it up. >> Okay, we'll start with Commissioner Aken, then Peterson. Thank you, Chair. Um as usual with this item, I have some detailed questions which you uh should have received already. Um, so back at page 19, item WS 20001. Uh, this does seem consistent with policy N4.1 as is noted. Uh, but how is it associated with program N 4.13.2, which is about storm water? >> Yeah. Um I think that project and then a couple other ones some other commissioners noted um that the sort of program noted in the um table didn't quite match because the the program um identified is related to storm water and the projects are more related to um just waste water and drinking water infrastructure. Um and that we agree with that um upon looking sort of more deeply into it. Um so we can just remove that from the table and correct that. Um but overall the the other um primary comp plan goal and primary comp plan policy identified for those projects um matches. So I think it's just the the program that is inconsistent. >> Thank you. That's the way I would interpret it too. >> Yeah. And we'll note that not all projects have programs associated and so that's fine just to remove it. >> Good. I would have suggested that if you hadn't suggested it already. Um, so I have exactly the same issue with WS2700. Just to make sure that's on the record. All right. Also on packet page 19, WS27001. This is a another issue of the same kind. Um, so is it uh consistent with program N4.10.1? >> Yes. Yeah, we would do the same thing for that project as well. >> Great. Thank you. And that's all I have. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Peterson. >> So, the question I have on these is, and I sent it by email, hopefully it came in early enough, is which of these are uh, prevailing wage public works and which of these are not? I know it seems on the surface they all would be obviously public works, but the prevailing wage requirements are a little bit more choppy than that. >> [sighs] >> Um, I don't have that information. It may be that some of our representatives from other departments uh may have additional information about their projects. Looks like >> uh just for the public works, >> just for the record, Commissioner Templeton has been able to join us in person now in chambers. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Just to answer your question, um, per our I think MUN code, anything over $25,000 in a public works contract, and that public works is just a type. So any utilities, parks, um, facilities, public works has to be prevailing wage. >> And then is there anything on here that's under 25,000? That's kind of what I was looking for was if there was something that was some dimminimous type work that was on here. And I didn't see anything. I'm not aware of anything. Um, at least public works um department doesn't have anything under 25,000. I don't think utilities does. I'm not aware of community services andor transportations anything under 25,000 either. >> I saw like one circuit panel that maybe was, but I mean that's wasn't going to dig that far in there. Okay. Thank you. I don't see other lights, so I guess I will ask my questions. Um, so I'd just like to note that I think we're we're we're keeping many of the CIPs, the new CIPs, um, in the natural environment section of the or using the natural environment section of the comp plan as rationale for it. But for future versions of the comp plan, when we're working on a new comp plan, it might make sense to have a category that is more directly related to utilities and providing excellent utilities and maintenance because it's not necessarily uh uh intuitive for the public to see a bunch of utility maintenance things and then and then link that to the natural environment. Um, so that's just for us to note in the future. Um, and then I did have a question. Oh, I wanted to say that I was really excited to see the quiet zone improvements in in there for a CIP this time, the um TR2700 or 27,000 um because we all know about the impact of the train noise uh and how difficult it is for our community on a regular basis, but also more recently because it's a mental health issue. So really really excited that that is there. Um similarly I'm thrilled to see uh the TR 27003 which was the funding for smallcale improvements through where when the feedback comes in through 311 um and requests from the community uh because for a long time the commission has been wanting to have these kind of quick hits and so I'm really excited about that one. And then um Commissioner Akin mentioned the inconsistencies that I also saw, but that will be solved. Uh and then I did want to just comment that year year after year we have a vehicle equipment placement item and that one is VR 3100 0. And it lists the rationale for that as uh clean and healthful air. But really replacing like the scheduled maintenance for our vehicle fleet to me isn't just because of clean and healthful air. That's a really good reason to do it, but it's not the primary reason for the um for updating our our vehicle fleet. And so uh it also that same r the rationale also was provided to be N5.2 which is about vehicle idling. So, I'm not sure that that makes sense to include it all. Clean and healthful air maybe is reasonable, but seems like a little bit of a stretch. Um, and I would just suggest that it would make more sense um to say that it was C1, which is about delivering community services effectively and efficiently, or C3, which is recognizing the intrinsic value and everyday importance of our parks, community centers, libraries, civic buildings, and and cultural assets by investing in their maintenance and improvement. Um that said, I did want to ask staff like is it important that we keep the same rationale as in the past just for consistency. This is not the first year that we've had had the regular vehicle maintenance item. It's just the first year I noticed this kind of rationale that was a little bit of a stretch to me. Uh yeah, I can't obviously since I just started I can't really speak to the rationale of the past but I think yeah the thinking is just that um you know when you're improving um vehicles and fleets that is obviously going to have um you know improved reductions in emissions um and like improved sustainability outcomes. So I think that was kind of the rationale there. Um but yeah, I can't speak to sort of um how it was like originally designated because I wasn't the person who who did that. Is it something that we can change or is it not a good idea to change it for administrative reasons? >> I'm not sure. Can you change it? >> I think we can look into it since this isn't this the final version. Um, see if there's adjustments that could be made. >> Okay. Regardless, I think we should take off the comment um the I can't remember the what they're called, but the the the 5.2, which is about idling, because that doesn't really make sense. Got it. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh, and now it's Commissioner Tupleton's turn. >> Oh, sorry. I don't know. I must have accidentally pressed it when I sat down, but I'm happy to join in. I just uh wanted to confirm that I've been here since uh before the meeting started when you called it to order. Um I wasn't yet promoted to panelist, but Miss Armor wanted to correct the record. So, if if you would like to you there's a limit on the number of just cause you can use um each year, but if you would like to use that um to correct the record, you may. >> I don't know what you're referring to. Um but you're saying that >> Sorry, I'll defer to our our assistant city attorney. >> Uh so, under the Brown Act, um virtual attendance is not allowed ordinarily unless you have uh an exception. One of those exceptions in this case would be what's called just cause for virtual participation which can include a variety of things which um we've consulted online and I think you meet but um you're limited to the number of just cause virtual appearances every year um and in this case might be as few as two but I can confirm that later. So, if you would like to use one of those, we certainly can put you on the record as doing that. But, um, that's really up to you. >> And the state is limiting whether or not we can use just cause and dial into our meetings. >> Yes. >> And that's not a choice the city is making. >> No, that's state law. >> And it's only two. >> Um, I would have to confirm. It's based on the number of meetings you have every year. >> Okay. Well, we didn't miss any votes, so I guess it doesn't really matter, but I think that's highly objectionable, and I hope the city is fighting the state for that. Thank you. >> Uh, okay, Commissioner Aken. >> I just wanted to add a thank you. Um, the uh detailed descriptions of the electrical grid projects, those are intrinsically interesting to some of us, but but more importantly, it really helps us explain to the public what's going on. So that level of detail is much appreciated. Thank you. >> Okay. I did have one more question because I don't see anybody else. Um so when I totaled up again this is the first year in that I re remember um seeing this many uh projects that are for upgrading our grid and for water supply. Um so this this is the first time I remember seeing such large numbers for um utility projects. So I was totaling them up and I saw that the proposed CIP uses of the electric fund are about 320 million but then the sources are about 184 million. So, I just wanted to ask if um if staff knows why there's that difference or is there going to be a $200 million funding shortage? Uh good evening. Hi, Alan Curator, director of utilities. So, that is a great catch. We're actually bonding a lot of these projects. So, that is the outside funding. So, we get funding internally from our rate pairs and also from that bonding. So, that's what you'll see. We're also staging that those projects over time. There's a three-year window to use those bonds. So, our first trunch of bonds will be about 80 to90 million that we're going out with a total of about 300 million. And um excellent catch in terms of the number of projects. So, our electric grid modernization is looking at a significant reinvestment in our grid and we've broken those up by each project that we so it's manageable, it's achievable and we can track it. So, that's our main function. And so you'll see a series of projects over time, probably around 19 projects on the grid mod program looking at upgrading our substations, reconductoring our subtransmission, uh upgrades to our uh distribution infrastructure. So um that way we can track it and we can also show that in our bonds and in terms of the payment. >> Thank you so much. I'm so glad staff was here to answer that because it makes so much sense um to understand it that way. And I was looking at the fun the kind of funding plan and it it seemed that there's a very clear plan for you know what we're doing in each year. Um and again thank you for the detailed descriptions that sort of indicated why something that wasn't going to be done for many many years needed to start now because of equipment ordering and all of that. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um so again because again I just wanted to flag for the PTC because we will be involved in the next comp plan. Um I think that there's a lot of confusion in the public in terms of understanding why say our budget for natural environment looks so large. Um, and I think people don't realize that the lion's share of that quote unquote natural environment budget is actually because of our utility. And I think people also don't realize sometimes that we are unique um in the area for owning our own utility. Um, and so our budget is a little bit different from neighboring cities. And so that's why I think it's important that eventually when we redo the comp plan that we find a way to make that clear and more transparent to the public. Uh, all right. That's it for me. So I don't see any other lights. Would somebody like to make a motion? Vice Chair G. >> Sure. I'm trying something new out. I've emailed Sam and Jennifer the motion that I'd like to make so we can have it on screen so we can all take a look at it. >> And I have not received it. Did you >> I sent it like 5 seconds ago when I pressed my little the little button. So we >> in this case Oh, here it has just come through. >> Okay. So >> So we can just work on timing of that. So [laughter] I can I'll read it aloud while Sam is pulling up. So I move the staff recommendation with the adjustments made by Commissioner Aken on the removal of relevant comprehensive item um as discussed and for the staff to look into adjustments made by Chair Chang on the vehicle maintenance rationale. We have a second. >> Second. >> All right. Do we have additional discussion? >> Commissioner James, >> I'm just wondering did you want to add something about looking at the Oh, sorry. looking looking into how things are categ categorized in this uh natural environment um going forward or is this not the right place to to include that? >> I think staff can maybe answer that question now. >> Yeah, I can jump into that. That that is um what that element of the the comp plan is called. So, it's something um as suggested by Chair Chang that could be considered when we next update the comp plan. at this point that is the appropriate reference because that's where those policies are. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh any additional discussion? All >> right. Mr. Cha, could you take the vote, please? >> Yes. Um Commissioner Aken, >> yes. >> Commissioner James, >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Uh Commissioner Timbleton, >> Uh Vice Chair G, >> yes. Uh >> Chair Chang, >> yes. Motion carry 6. >> Okay, with that I think we move on to our next item of the evening which is a study session to review the city of PaloAlto proousing designation program application. Uh can we have the staff presentation please? >> Yes, thank you. Um we have uh Julia Knight who is available on Zoom to make the presentation for this item now. Wonderful. Thank you assistant director Armor. Good evening planning and transportation commission members and chair. My name is Julia Knight. I'm a senior program manager and happy to present tonight's pro-ousing designation application materials. Next slide, please. This is a brief presentation uh for tonight study session will cover the prohousing designation program background the application requirements Paulo Alto's specific policies and self-scoring summary the opportunities for public engagement that we're offering in this process and answer any questions or respond to any comments you or the public may have. Next slide please. The peral housing designation program was established by the state as part of the 2019 2020 budget act. It's administered by the California Housing Department uh Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD. And the goal of the program is to acknowledge jurisdictions that have housing policies that exceed uh state law, essentially that accelerate housing production. And uh the benefit of getting this designation is that you as a jurisdiction become eligible for additional infrastructure funding and grants and you become more competitive for uh existing programs. We have a number of uh peer jurisdictions in the peninsula that have earned the designation already including Redwood City, Sunnyale, and Mountain View. And there are about 74 jurisdictions statewide that have earned the juris have earned the designation so far and we hope to join them. Next slide, please. The uh program is uh non-competitive which means any jurisdiction that can demonstrate through the application that they have sufficient uh policies in support of housing production and acceleration receives the designation. The designation is good for 3 years uh at which point you need to reapply. Uh [snorts] basically demonstrating that you are still exceeding state law. uh in pro housing production policies. Um as part of the application requirement, you need to provide documentation that you're in compliance with all of the state laws, of course, and that your housing element is in compliance as well. Uh the meat of the presentation so to speak is a self-scoring sheet that uh staff and jurisdictions put together outlining policies that fall into different categories that are provided by the state uh demonstrating our proousing uh programs and the materials are reviewed on a rolling basis. So, um, any jurisdiction can apply anytime and Palo Alto is applying now because city council has made this a priority for this year. Um, great. Uh, we're going to target 30 or more points in the different specific policy areas that I mentioned included in the application process and we can receive points for both enacted and proposed policies. Uh and my understanding is that for the proposed policies uh you just need to have those documented as things that are on the books with key milestones and you know uh good intent to execute and that if for some reason those were not uh enacted later that would just be considered in the next round of the application process when you reapply. You would not include those um in your next application. So you can get points for ones that are proposed with good intent to carry out. Next slide, please. This is a quick summary of our scoring uh that staff has put together and we've worked carefully with the city attorney's office and uh a number of other teams within the city to make sure this is all uh in good shape. And we've also worked carefully with HCD uh on courtesy reviews to make sure that uh the programs we are putting forward in each of these four categories are uh compliant in HCD's eyes and they have uh confirmed that they are uh on the whole very much compliant and therefore we think we're very likely to get the designation which is great. Um the four categories are generally land use uh housing production acceleration timelines reduction in construction development costs and direct financial subsidies for affordable housing. Uh there are a few examples listed here of the different types of programs we're highlighting in each of those categories. Everything from our great work with the CDBG program to our focus areas and uh affordable housing incentive programs. All of our great ADU JADU work. um and [clears throat] a number of our policies around affordable housing and supporting affordable housing development. So altogether we are targeting a score of 41 points which is uh you know a comfortable threshold above the 30 point minimum that is required in order to earn the designation. Next slide please. It is important that there is a diligent public participation process as part of this application that is a requirement from the state. Uh so far we have posted the materials online for public review as of May 18th. We also have printed copies available at our development center at uh 285 Hamilton. A uh and then we also had a listening and info session last week. We have tonight's uh study session with you all as another opportunity to gather public input. And there is an online comment form which there's a little snapshot of on this slide that will be available through the end of the public comment period June 17th if anyone wants to provide comments online through that form. Next slide please. We will be targeting a midJune consideration uh of a resolution by city council which will authorize the city manager to finalize and submit the draft materials that we're reviewing today. um a and then after the close of the public review period which is anticipated to end June 17 but if there are significant changes to the materials we will extend it another 7 days. Um but after that we will submit the application um assuming council has authorized the city manager to do so and then we expect to hear back from HCD on the preliminary review materials by the end of the summer. uh and typically HCD will then work with uh jurisdictions and staff to finalize the materials further and fine-tune them. So we expect there to be a little bit of back and forth with HC HCD starting you know maybe late August after they've complete their initial review uh and think we are on track for crossing our fingers a positive designation determination uh in the fall. Thank you so much. Next slide please. My contact information is here if you have any questions and I really appreciate everyone's input and uh the time tonight. So, thank you so much. >> Thank you, Miss Knight. So, do commissioners have any clarifying questions before we move to uh public comment? Uh, Commissioner Aken and then Vice Chair G. I think you've answered my question, but I just wanted to confirm. So for uh the policies that uh involve numeric targets that we might need to adjust in the future. Um I noted that is particularly important for a 1B, 1D, 1G, 1i. Um, I gather that we present to HCD a snapshot of what our um, enacted policies and intent are and that then is used as is until the next review some years down the road. >> Yes, that's my understanding. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Ty, >> I'd sent in a couple questions to staff and so I'm just going to ask those questions so the rest of the commissioners get the answers to these questions. So for the projects that are proposed, uh, by what extent are we committing ourselves to implementing them, suppose if we pull it out and decide no longer to pursue the project, how would that impact our application? Um, so if it happens between now and June 17, we would adjust the points we're requesting from HCD. Um, but if it happens after we in theory receive a positive pro designation uh status in the fall, it doesn't uh impact our designation. Our designation is good for 3 years. uh it would impact what policies we would include in our reapplication to renew our designation 3 years out. >> Yeah. My question is less about the impact on the pro housing designation but more about let's just take a pick on item 1L the one about the San Antonio road area plano we are stating that we're proposing 3800 to 7400 units in the buildout but for whatever reason our San Antonio road area plan finishes and we only decide to do I don't know 2,000 units is that lock by submitting this information as part of our application to HCD does this bind us to performing the 3800 to 7400 100 unit buildout on San Antonio Road. >> No, it's framed clearly as a proposed policy and therefore can be adjusted later. >> Thank you. And then my second question is about the buffer. So how much buffer do we think we should maintain since 42 points is quite a bit over the 30. So what is staff's take on that? >> Uh we're at 41 points and um we think that's a good >> No, no, no. just in case it wasn't wasn't clear. Um the thinking on that is that it's good to have a little additional buffer. Uh we have looked at what some of our peer jurisdictions have done and most of them are applying with numbers in the 40s. Um HCD does keep track of your ultimate total score. And so I I believe I will I can double check this, but I believe that they look at that as part of the funding and grant infrastructure competitiveness. So if you know we apply and get 40 points of the 41 that might make us more competitive for some of these infrastructure grants uh that are available to pro housing designations districts than if we only applied with 30 points if that makes sense. >> Thank you. That was helpful. And then as a followup we you both mentioned just now as well as in your presentation about our neighboring peer design uh districts like Mountain View and Los Altos that have received this. Can you point to specific um incentives that they were able to receive due to their pro housing designation? Like, oh, Mountain View would got this grant that they normally wouldn't have been able to get like can we talk about concrete benefits here because it's it's a little bit hard to understand. We are improved competitiveness, but what does that actually mean? >> Absolutely. I can offer some general figures and um I don't have any specific to our pure jurisdictions, but uh would be happy to follow up with those laterers. So, uh, since 2022, I believe the state has issued about $56 million in pro-ousing incentive program grants. So, those are dollars that only prohousing designating jurisdictions have access to. So, that is, you know, 56 million across the 74 now designated districts. So, it's uh, you know, a a pretty nice chunk of money, especially when you look at how expensive affordable housing projects are and things like that. Um specifically it'll support it'll also make us more competitive competitive for ASIC um which is the affordable communities sustainable communities if I got that right but um affordable housing sustainable communities uh grant which is great for like our uh nonprofit developers. It would allow them when they're developing projects in PaloAlto to have a more competitive edge um over other jurisdictions that are competing for those same dollars for affordable housing projects. Um and then uh the local housing trust fund as well more um competitive. Uh many of the grants that go through the incentive program which is the new program that we don't have access to. Um many of those are 1 to5 million or half a million to $5 million. So they're pretty good chunk. Um, if you think about our lot T project, for example, uh, our affordable housing project on lot T, we're anticipating a city a request from the develop nonprofit developers for a city contribution of about $5 million. So, some of these grants we would now have access to could help supplement those um, in significant ways. >> That's helpful. Just to reiterate what you said, there's a $56 million pool that is just for pro-ousing designated jurisdictions and then there's other grant projects of which if you happen to have pro- housing designation, you get a little bit of a bump, but you're also competing with like we could apply normally, but we get a little bit of a boost in this process. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. And um the way the 56 million works through the prohousing incentive program is that they issue NOA's notice of funding availability. So, they've put out like three different big buckets of money that only prohousing designation application uh or prohousing designation jurisdictions have been able to compete for in the past. Um so, they've done a three or four of those totaling 56 million over the last few years. We expect another one will come up soon and we'll be able to apply for it this time if we get our designation. >> Thank you. And one last question about this, which is you mentioned that there are 74 jurisdictions with this designation. How many jurisdictions are there in California? Just so that we have a rough estimate because if for example there were only 75 and we're the only one that's not getting it, right? That would feel pretty different than like there are 5,000 jurisdictions in 74. I'm just trying to understand the competitive advantage that we're going to get here. >> Let me double check. I believe it's in the 300s. So, uh, you know, it would be competitive. >> Okay. Thank you. I think that was helpful hopefully for others. >> Thank you, Vice Chairy. Uh, Comm Commissioner Peterson. >> Thank you, Chair. So, I want to commend staff on on this uh effort. I think this is actually a great demonstration of the good work that we've done in Palo Alto and I like to see uh that everything has been checked. Uh there was no category that was uh essentially left unchecked as not in process. I had expected that we somewhere had um there was some some holes in our system. In your uh assessment going through this, do you think there's there's where do we need to do work for the next three years or do you think we're we're good where we are? We just need to keep doing what we're doing. >> My I think doing what we're doing is great. Um and I think making sure that we do follow through on these proposed policies. That would be my recommendation. >> And then the I saw that we have a 2024 annual report by the Palo Alto uh transportation management association. >> Yes. And so this is incredibly helpful um to really understand as a commission at least for me as a commissioner the the thought process of most of the transportation um I guess users of Palo Alto you know people's commuting into Palo Alto or trans transportation within Palo Alto and I think some of the insight in here really comes into the the use of bikes and walking and uh public transportation. It it's is that uh a specific focus of the the TMA? [sighs] >> I believe so. Um we may still have some of our transportation colleagues here, but um that is attached to this report because it supports one of the programs and demonstrates the number of users uh benefiting from our like commuter change incentive programs. Um, and it is like one of the very very few things that there's not a online URL hosted for. So, we had to append the entire document. So, that's why it's there and maybe looks like a bigger part of the application that um than the other items, but everything else is just linked. And HCD wants all the documentation they can get to confirm that these programs are both on the books, but also making a difference. They want to understand the metrics. The TMA, interesting enough, is one of the only city programs that just going through California Avenue to the different businesses and talking with the business owners and the employees that somebody mentioned to me as being one of the most critical components of Palo Alto that if you work in Palo Alto, you can apply for subsidized uh transit passes. And I think that helps bring um employees into Palo Alto. And then on page uh 96 I noticed that if you look at the uh figure 4 here uh they call it the bike love geoence boundaries. Uh but Palo Alto has the single largest continguous uh bike area from the entire peninsula all the way down to uh Santa Clara. I don't think that shows in our um our application that not only did we, you know, get the two or three points, but we if we could take more points, we're I think we're owed 50 points because we are certainly doing better just by graphic 4 alone. So, I do appreciate this and I appreciate all your work on this. Thank you. >> Absolutely. And thank you for thank you for your comments and um I wish we could get more points for that. That would be great. Unfortunately, we're sort of capped by the way the scoring sheet works, um, scoring criteria from the state. Um, but that is something great to keep in mind, and I think staff can continue to highlight that, um, as we think about all of our our future land use planning. Uh, I'll also just quickly circle back to a previous question. Uh, it looks like we have over 400 member cities uh, in the state >> and then if you start including like little townships and things, it gets up to 1,200. Thank you. Uh so I don't see other clarifying questions. So I just have one quick one before we check if there's any public comment. Um so staff had mentioned that as part of the public uh engagement process that there was a community meeting on May 20th. Was there any substantial feedback or at that meeting or otherwise >> from last week on the 20th? >> Correct. Uh no, there was not substantial feedback. It was um a very small attendance group. But um we did try to promote this council uh or sorry this commission uh study session as well. Uh and it was included this this discussion was included in our um uplift local last week. So we were hoping that uh we might hear more from the community tonight. >> Okay. Thank you. So um now let's check in to see if there are any public comments. Have we received any comment cards or is there any meeting online? >> Uh to the chair, we have not received any public comment cards. And if there's any members on Zoom that would like to speak to this item, I would invite you to raise your hand. We have no raise hands on Zoom either. >> Okay, great. So that means we can bring it back to the commission for discussion. So we'll start with Commissioner Templeton. >> Thank you very much. >> And Commissioner James. Yeah, I uh I think it's fantastic that we can design be designated or apply for designation so that we can get more affordable housing uh grants. I think this is a problem. It's very hard to build affordable housing in PaloAlto and this is one of uh the ways to get to a solution. So, um, I appreciated your questions. Really brought that to clarity out that this is important for us to do as a city because it helps us reach our goals that, um, I think pretty unanimously. Everybody wants to build more affordable housing. Um, so I think this is great and great great work. Thank you, >> Commissioner Jens. Uh yeah, I would like to echo that that I think this is terrific that we have this opportunity and sort I absolutely support, you know, that we're applying for this pro housing designation both for the for the practical reasons of of being potentially able to get more grant money. Um but also [clears throat] I think there's a reputational piece to this. Um and I mean I've listened to talk shows where Palto is kind of a favorite punching bag of of uh prohousing advocates. And I'm no issue with the pros housing advocates, but um they tend to ignore some of the some of the things that make it complicated here, some of the the free market realities um that we face that some other neighboring communities don't. Um and so I think I think the reputational piece is important both to u to the world and maybe to HCD. Um uh when I look around Palo Alto, I see a very very rich tradition of affordable housing that goes back decades. Uh I can walk uh out this door two or three blocks and and and encounter two of them uh that I think are remarkable examples. [clears throat] And I think some of the new some of the new uh new affordable housing projects, particularly the ones that the city uh has has skin in, some some some taxpayer money in u I think are like shining examples of this. So, uh I'm eager for us to do to to do more of what is our uh our our tradition and uh and to to meet to meet uh uh these challenges uh to our standards. So, I hope this hope this um gets us there. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Aken. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, so category 1B appears to refer to uh our interim and urgency ordinances for implement implementing SB79. So I'm curious as to how this constitutes a local proousing policy given that essentially something for this purpose is required. >> The excellent question. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, the way the SB79 law is written is that the SB79 base zoning from the state basically will apply unless the jurisdiction passes local uh zoning laws that exceed what SB79 requires. And so we are doing that. We're taking that approach or planning to at least um as of July 1, the city of Palo Alto is proactively choosing to provide zoning that is in excess of what would be required by SB79. And so we're hopeful that we'll receive those points. Uh but the application does not ride on them. And so if the HCD decides that isn't um a great fit, we still think we will receive the designation. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm suppose I must have misread uh the uh ordinance that was proposed. It wasn't clear to me that it exceeded SB79. Uh but if it does, then that certainly uh makes sense. >> So it I'll clarify that the draft ordinance that's going to be discussed uh next week by council um meets the the requirements of SB79. um that all of the parcels be zoned to at least 50% of um what would be allowed if it just went into effect. Uh it also will mean that at the time of our next housing element process, we will then be looking at updating those um to do the the full capacity is my understanding of it. So it's it's one process that falls within the state law. >> Okay. So it's forward looking to a time when policy will exceed SB79. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Um second, uh I noticed that the response to category 3E, which is on packet page 67, involves BPTP. Um but BPTP is still in some sense awaiting final adoption. Um, so it's not mentioned on the list of uh proposed policies on packet page 53. Should it be could be um I'm happy to happy to add it. I was debating that too. Um because it will be knock on wood knock on wood it will be enacted by the time we apply at the end of June. So I was going back and forth on that. Um, but I'm hoping that it sounded like council was supposed to look at this in June. And so if council passes it in June, then we will just take that like enacted off of the scoring sheet um and have it just be proposed. If it doesn't pass, then we would maybe just rework that a little and be sure to include it in the uh prior appendix. >> Okay. since implementation has phased. Um I think you probably have the flexibility to do that sort of thing, but I just wanted to make sure that it was documented in a way that was obvious to everyone reading the material. I think my other >> Thank you. We can definitely tweak that. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Knight. Um I believe my other questions have already been addressed. So that's all I have for now. Vice Georgie, >> I think I would say that I very much agree with my fellow commissioners. I think thank you, Miss Knight, for highlighting the amount of money that we would be getting. I think in a potential future staff report, that could be something that would be included already in it. So that would help provide some additional context for what we're looking at tonight. And I also want to agree with what Commissioner Peterson said in that I think this is very thorough and we're all really and as well as what Commissioner Temple said that we're all really excited about the funding that would come through and supporting low-income housing here in the city. And then one other comment I had is it could be helpful potentially to include the number the number of points that are from already enacted projects just to have kind of that contrast in case we happen to not finish our proposed. I think my quick count of that was 26 but some of the projects are enacted/proposed so a little bit hard to separate those numbers out but I think that could just be helpful as a reference point. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, so I think we've all done our first rounds. Before I go for a second round, I'm going to chime in with my thoughts. Um, echo what everybody said. This is fantastic that we will be eligible for funds that we wouldn't otherwise be eligible for. And I really think what Commissioner James said, I mean, just really well said about Powaltto's history of being an affordable housing leader in the area. Um so I had a question sort of in the details of this. So for example uh for 3A where right now we have an 100% a waiver of city development fees for 100% affordable developments. uh if we were to make slight edits to that such that we said that we're only going to give that waiver to to uh 100% affordable developments that are at 80% of AMI. Um is that something that would change our points or is it just something that we wouldn't include at all even in a future update? Like what is it? What are the implications? >> So, I I'm just trying to make sure I I frame correctly where we are today. I I believe that where we are today is that it's for 80% or below. >> No, right now. Right now, uh our waiverss are forund 120%. All right. And there's been extensive discussions both at city council and building commission about what that means in terms of actual on the ground affordability for some member of the public who actually wants affordable housing. Yeah, >> thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I wasn't um wasn't sure. So, thank you for clarifying that. Um I don't think it would affect our points uh to be honest. Um, it may be that we would adjust our our wording in our future application when we reapply um for redesignation, assuming we get designation the first time around, but um I don't think it would affect that. Um, and there are a bunch of different ways to qualify for those points. Uh, and there are categories that we haven't included um that we haven't competed for in this application that we could always consider competing for additionally. Great. So I I think we're we're still safe even if we adjust to that. >> Okay. Thank you. And then similarly, if we were to adjust our San Antonio housing plan numbers, um so this is one one L. I think that was the one item that gave me a lot of pause because I don't think that there has been buyin either from the public or from the PTC or from the council on what those numbers should be or what the range should be. So if we were to just, you know, adjust it lower, would that matter? I >> think so. Uh it's really about the intent of trying to upzone to so that category is about zoning and showing that we are actively looking at our zoning and trying to adjust it to encourage more housing. Um HCD asked us when we did like our courtesy review to provide numbers wherever possible. Uh it's clear that those are preliminary numbers and it's clear that the plan isn't expected to be up adopted until 2028. So I don't think anyone's holding our feet to the fire on this but it's a demonstration of good intent. >> Okay, great. Thank you so much because I asked this because our hands as a city are so tied by what we've said that we're going to do in the housing element as it should be. But therefore, we were very careful about what we promised in the housing element because if we didn't meet those if [snorts] we didn't meet that implementation deadline for the programs, we would be penalized for it. And so I just want to make sure that for this prohousing designation is very different from the housing element. Correct. In other words, we're not bound by any of this. >> No. And this is a elective program. We do not need to provide a pro-ousing designation application. Uh like a housing element is required by the state. You have to do that. It has to be in compliance. They check up on it with an annual report. This is very much an elective um if you want to optional program where they're trying to just uh acknowledge and reward cities that are going above and beyond. >> Thank you. And I agree with uh Commissioner Peterson who thinks we should get 50 points for some of these things. [laughter] Okay. Um so then we have Commissioner James than Templeton. Is that right? Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner James. >> Well, can I heat more praise on instead of asking questions at this point? [laughter] >> I love praise. Go for it. >> So yeah. Yeah. Um, so I just want to kind of acknowledge that it sort of breaks my heart that [clears throat] uh the state feels like it has to to require standards for dealing with encampments, homeless encampments, and that that's just assumed. But I am impressed um that the city has aligned their resources with where those needs are. And I'm thinking about home key and the RV lots and I think a lot of credit is due that we are spending our money where our needs are. So u I say that with a little emotion but it just seems seems tragic that the state assumes that we have encampments. Um I would also sort of like to heat praise on the patm pom I I don't love their acronym but I think there's a lot of other things. bike love. I love that whole um that whole program and I love the branding on it. I love their communication and I just love how we're doing um pilot programs gathering data so that we kind of understand what's going on and we can we can uh we can promote uh sort of alternative means of of people getting to where they need to go, you know, at a at a lower cost with less pollution. And so I I am just so impressed with how they think about those problems from a strategy standpoint, from a tactical standpoint, and they just approach it with real real smart business sense in my view. So I think they deserve a sort of call out. That's all. >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Tomson. >> Thank you. Um, yeah. I I'm I'm thinking about earlier tonight when you mentioned the encampments we have. So, I think it's okay for the state to say we have them because we do. I mean, it's unfortunate and that's why we want to get these housing grants. So I I I want to acknowledge because I think you felt you feel very powerful about that and I think this is a great step in the right direction. Um so I [gasps] wanted to ask uh Miss Knight about how different the numbers that are in this uh proposed list are from the housing element. Do you think they're hugely different or I I'm trying to gauge cuz I I've heard some comments about it and just want to know like these are possible in the housing element or not. Is this a departure from that or maybe if it's a struggle to answer I'm I'm more asking did you make these numbers up or are they based on something? >> They're not made up. They are thing numbers have been presented in public meetings uh to planning and transportation commission in some cases uh to city council to the community as early uh for in the case of San Antonio area plan as early projections. So they are things that are documented as part of our discussion and that's why we include them to show the state we're taking this seriously. >> That's great. >> That's all. That's fine. >> Senior >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> I was just going to say u assistant director Armor, do you have anything you want to add to that? you're more familiar with some of the housing element details. >> Yeah, that's fine. It's consistent. That's what I thought. Um I think it's great. And then um the other question for you, Miss Knight, is uh is is this approval a snapshot or are we kind of operating on a um like a like a bank account? like we can't go below a certain threshold ever at any point in time or or if it's a snapshot and it it is approved when we present it and then we present it again some some years later. So the the threshold is 30 points and so any year that we apply and are uh able to confirm that we've earned 30 points in all four different policy areas that are required we can receive the designation the redesignation. We're not requiring >> three or per decision. It's not ongoing. It's per application. Right. >> And the approval application, >> correct? The approval if that we receive the designation is good for three years. It's not something that needs to be >> that's what I wanted to hear. So I think that some of the anxiety that you've heard in the questioning here um may be addressed um on mass through that answer. So, I'm I'm not only providing it for us, but I hope that in the future that you can make that clear because um we we do a lot of things that are legally binding and we're trying to understand what is happening because this is a little different than some of the things that we see. So, making sure that clarification um at the time this is our intention we're presenting it. here's the points we have and documented from our intentions and then we'll see you in three years kind of thing. So, um anyway, I just I thought that might be useful um uh framing for some people on the commission and certainly helpful for me. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Thank you for that feedback, >> Vice Chair G. >> Yes. So now I jumping off Commissioner Templeton's question, I actually have kind of the opposite of what I was previously saying, which is [laughter] we have 42 41 points in this application and that would be good for hypothetically 3 years. But one thing that caught my attention was that during your presentation, you had said that if you have more points, you are given even higher preferential treatment, right? So suppose we are we become the most housing pro housing jurisdiction in the state and we're going to like 75 50 75 points right we're like through the roof. Is there any way that we could say hey this year we're going to add an addendum and now we're so much higher so that we can try to get more of those grants. Right? Because I think what you're hearing from the commission is that we're very excited about getting this funding and any ways that we could potentially get more of it is exciting. And so is that a possibility for us to submit these addendums to get more points. >> So you're asking whether we have to wait 3 years to apply for proousing again or whether we could submit a new application sooner than that. >> Yes. Miss Knight, do you know the answer to that? >> Believe we could. Uh I don't know there would be an addendum. I think it probably would be a reapplication. Um there's a little like asterisk here that it's a three it's expires like 3 years on January 1 after you apply. So we're actually looking at like 30 months at this point. Um for whatever that's worth. So it's a little bit closer if that helps. Um we could probably fold in more of the good work we're doing um then. But I'm happy to follow up with HCD. They'd probably be, you know, excited to have this level of enthusiasm in their program. >> Yeah. Um I'm not saying that we will get there. I'm just saying I think that's something that our law our council and others could think about if this is an e like if we see tangible benefits of at 40 points we're getting a third of the applications in, but at 50 points we'd be getting two/ird of the application of the grants that we're looking at. So, I think that's something to think about. Um, I didn't want to put you on the spot to answer the specific questions around that, but I just kind of want to throw that idea out there as a potential way to get more of this money. And then I also want to echo what Commissioner Pearson and Commissioner James have said about how this is such a great collection of the work that the Pine Department has done. And I think this also could be something useful to give to new commissioners to be like here are all the things that we are doing because I think it's really hard actually to go and read through you can read through the comprehensive plan you can say okay like here are some of the areas but what what are the tactical programs and these kinds of programs it was really cool to see across my first year to be like oh I saw this come to through the PTC and now I see it here oh there's this other project that I haven't seen yet because I've only been one year but we the staff's been working on behind the scenes. So, I think that was really cool. And I also want to jump on Commissioner Peterson's question and maybe Ms. Armor can elaborate further about areas that we could see potential more more projects or or plans to get more points hypothetically like where where are we missing right compared to maybe your experience in other jurisdictions or Miss Knight if you want to opine on what some project uh programs that are peer jurisdictions are doing that you're you're not seeing in our application [snorts] >> I can director armor do you want to speak to that >> I I can start and then um if you've got anything to add feel free to jump in. Um this actually is the first proousousing designation that I've worked on. Um so I don't have experience with it with other uh organizations but uh in planning we love to look at what other jurisdictions are doing and getting ideas from that. We did a lot of that with the housing element for example as we were trying to move that forward and get that completed. So, I uh anticipate that with this first application, we're we're looking at what are we already doing already planning to do since our uh our plate's pretty full at the moment, but that we would continue to look for other opportunities, especially uh you know, a year or year and a half from now when we're looking to reapply. I don't have any specific examples to discuss tonight, though. One example I'll provide is that um if you look at the enhancement factors um that are available on top of like the base category points. There are certain enhancement factors we applied were applying for and I think we're likely to get. There are certain there are other enhancement factors we didn't apply for because we didn't think we had policies that aligned with that. But other jurisdictions have gotten those. That's why they're there. Um a lot of those are tied to environmental and social justice issues. Um so that is an area for potential growth if we wanted to try to you know uh focus on adding those enhancement factors in a future application. >> Okay I think that was helpful and also I remember your presentation you listed four major areas right one through four and how many points that we're getting across these. So also something to think about in areas that we are not getting as many points in to be an area for kind of the lowhanging fruit if we want to pursue additional programs. Thank you. Thank you, >> Commissioner Templeton. >> Thank you. I I just wanted to give some uh just went through college application process uh context to what what you're asking for for a little bit of a comic relief here tonight, but I think he's asking us to have a brag sheet. Um and and that goes nicely with Commissioner James reputation uh comment. So maybe that's not a um planning staff, but perhaps a comment the planning staff could give to the communications team about how to talk about the great stuff we're doing and um raise our profile here. Thank you. >> Thank you, commissioners, for those comments. I don't see anything else. So would somebody like to make a motion? >> We do not need a motion on this. >> Oh, right. Because it's a study session, although there was a recommendation that we were supposed to give. So I think you've got it, though. We Yes, we've we've heard your strong support for this. We've heard your comments and suggestions and questions. So, thank you very much. >> Great. Thank you. All right. So, then the fastest meeting ever. [laughter] Our next uh our next item is commissioner questions, comments, announcements or future meetings and agendas. So, does anybody have any comments? And if we don't, I know that there's one thing that we want to discuss from last time. or vice chair G. >> Thank you, chair. So, I have two comments. So, one is that although I we didn't quite get the technology to work today, one thing that I am thinking about is for when we do have those motions that are really complex, especially if we're going through ordinances where it's like I want to make the language on section 2 subsection D subsection two to have all of the the items written out. And so one thing I'm trying to do is keep a list of that and email that to staff so that we can at least see it. I think we also get really tired of the verbal regurgitation of all of it after a time. So I think that's something that I'm personally trying to do and I also encourage if anyone else has any ideas to improve the process there. So that's one comment I have. And the second comment I had is during premeating we had discussion with assistant director Armor about how we can collaborate and of make these meetings a little bit more efficient in terms of questions. And one thing that we've discussed potentially is to have if you have questions that can be sent before Monday at 8 a.m. to get those in and then staff will try their best to have some kind of response as needed uh before the meeting if that would be helpful. Um and then I know Miss Armor if you want to comment a little bit more on that. >> Yeah. Um it it will depend somewhat on workload and and the character of the questions, but um I recognize that it could be helpful to have written answers to some questions in advance of the meeting um as you all are preparing for the discussion. And so um the possibility if we get those questions over the weekend that we might be able to put together kind of a a desk item or a an addendum um to the original report to provide some of those answers. We can give that a try. See if it's helpful. >> Yeah. Jumping on that too. I think something that triggered this was that when I came to premeating, Miss Armor was like, "Oh, well, we had other commissioners already email that question." So, if it's also helpful for staff to know this is a point of interest for many commissioners for them to help potentially elucidate some more. So, for example, for the stream corridor protection ordinance, if people are really interested in a in Edgewood or Esther Clark Park, if there are a lot of questions about that, getting those in ahead of time could help staff also provide more detailed information up here so they're not doing as much research on the fly. >> Uh, okay, Commissioner Templeton and then Peterson. >> Thanks. Um yeah, I I I think we're still experiencing some kind of brokenness in how um staff is communicating with us. The same symptoms we're having about not getting the one-on-one emails that other commissions and boards and council get, but also being able to if you get a good question from a commissioner, then don't respond to them directly, respond to all of us with the answer to that question. I think that would be one way to handle it. Um, but I'm I'm wondering if you can tell us like have have you made any progress at all on trying to get that fixed with the >> Right now we're having the batched emails instead of the emails coming in. in terms of the comments from the public and having it come through. Yeah, that that is um the process that we've worked with the clerk's department to um to implement. Um Sam, I don't know if you've got anything to add in terms of >> and that process is only for us or >> [snorts] >> um in terms of you know the public comment needs to be posted publicly as well. So that >> when does it need to be posted publicly? Um, we try to do it at a regular time so that you've got the information the same and the public has the same information. >> Okay. So, you can't have it go to us as it as it trickles in and then post a batch within 7 days or whatever before the meeting. >> I asked uh >> I think you've been working on Yes. I asked counselor Yang about this and he said that essentially technically it's supposed to be immediate. >> Yeah. And so that is why uh I guess we have technical limitations that are preventing >> are all boards getting the same >> that I do not >> treatment because I'm pretty sure it comes in I thought I heard differently from members of other boards. So um anyway if that's >> I can check the other liaison to see >> it would be nice because getting it in a batch is different than getting an email. So if you have an email um a set of emails that have come in and you can see it from each individual, you can read who it's from and have the context and like reading in a batch, it's always just >> it also allows us to reply. >> It does and and to group things and to sort things so we can read them together. Like there's a lot of benefits from a process perspective. Um and um I don't believe that there is an actual technical limitation and if there is an understanding amongst our council team that there is some other limitation um it it would be nice to understand that in a way that we can accept. So, as we've mentioned before, my understanding is that if we're providing you public comment, we're going to supposed to be providing it to the public at the same time, but I will double check um on the questions you >> even that there's no technical limitation. The internet is instantaneous. So, this is like what I'm trying to say is that is a solvable problem. It can be published um as soon as an email comes in. So, just just throwing that out there. Anyway, at the very least, it would be nice um and I think this one is not uh has no question about whether it can be implemented. If a commissioner sends in a question and you want all the commissioners to know the answer, you could send it all to all of us. Um and that might be one easy way to solve the suggestion from vice chair. >> Yeah, up until this point, I've um accepted those questions and shared them with the project planner to have them be prepared to answer at the hearing. Um but um I am open to seeing how it would work to provide some responses in writing. Um again, just like the public comment, we do want to make that available to the public as well as to the commissioners. And so um what I'd be doing is I'd be preparing it as supplemental information that gets published on the web and you would receive an email when that >> you can't reply to commissioner questions without also publishing it on the website. if we're providing additional information that should be available to the members of the public as well. >> So, this is a change in policy or maybe I don't know if it's a change it's a change in how we've been operating because I think we're trying to tighten up our my understanding is that our staff are doing the hard work of trying to tighten up our processes and to be more in compliance with what is required. Yes. >> Right. I think transparency is really important. So solving this um if you could have those emails automatically badged up and automatically published at the end of the every day then you could still reply to us and it would be compliant and transparent. Anyway, we don't have to solve that problem here. just just wanted to chime in and say I think that the suggestion to be communicating with all of the commissioners um may save you time and I think that would be helpful. Thank you. >> All right. Uh Commissioner Peterson. >> So I want to agree with uh Commissioner Gee on the um the putting up the the information. I think that's a great idea and I appreciate that you are uh bringing new technology in here that I think probably is taken as uh normal everywhere else but here we're like you put the question on the overhead we're like wow that's [laughter] or the the motion so I want to I want to plus one that I think that's a great idea and then I think on commissioner Templeton uh and then for staff as well having been a staff member SEIU member at the county and being expected to be the fire hose of information to you know from our little department and certainly being more of a trickle of of of information. Um, I think from my standpoint [snorts] is everybody is probably using AI agents and so staff is still functioning by agreement non AI for the most part whereas we come in with the AI. So we're expecting that information to be hitting us. And I realized this was becoming key when I sat down in a professor's office and he asked me what I thought of a recent paper that had been submitted. And then he motioned to his board above him and he was querying the paper with an AI agent and is no longer reading papers and is going through papers like that where we used to actually read them. So I think it's possibly necessary that as all the commissioners we we ingest information at a at a fast pace now is that maybe um putting in a request either for additional staff or making that available for overtime uh or even overtime working from home while you know trying to keep up with the commissioners because I'm assuming staff is probably usually limited to eight hours a day and Like you could work, want to work more, but you're actually not allowed to work more than, you know, you can't work 8 hours in 1 minute. >> It all needs to be part of the budget. >> Is there anything we could do to help on that budget if we all waved the flag and was like, "Hey, we would like, you know, more hours, more budget for our staff so they can, you know, put in the extra hour a day or something." >> It's not something we're asking for at this time. >> Okay. How about a technological solution to the instant posting problem? >> If you have suggested programs that could be used for that, we will check in with our AT department and uh clerks to see what functionality there might be for the website. At this point, I'm not aware of anything that we currently have available in house, >> but feel free to email me with suggestions. >> Commissioner G or Vice Chair G. >> Yeah. So, I'll jump on that and say I I'm happy to talk to staff about some of that. Um, but also jumping on what Commissioner Peterson has said about the AI generation, I do want to applaud staff for sending out the report that Commissioner James and I have written about our conference. And so, you should have that out mostly generated by AI proof read by both of us. So, not proof read by staff. So, I will well admit that. And we're happy to answer questions because staff did not write this. So, um, >> and staff is happy to answer questions too on on the subjects to make sure it's consistent with our understanding. >> Defer to staff about, uh, like expertise on any of the laws or any any of the concrete areas where staff is an expert. If you have any questions about things that happened specifically at the conference, we're also and also information shared by peer jurisdictions, we're happy to answer those questions. Um, so, uh, feel free to read that report and send questions to us. Thank you. And all commissioners can go on that. If you didn't go already, you could ask for next year. >> Yeah, we highly recommend. And then chair, I did have a question. I I got carried away. >> Uhhuh. >> Commanding everybody else. Uh [laughter] >> go ahead, Commissioner. >> Uh uh citizen director Armor um on California Avenue, the uh the old um nutouse. I don't know if you're familiar with it's very famous. Should probably be a museum of tech, but it's seems to be under construction. My understanding was it was going to be demolished. It was going to be a bagel house. It was going to be a bakery. Um, has something changed on that? I don't I know that's probably not your responsibility to know every little address, but if you had some rumors on what's going on there. >> I don't know of anything to share at this point. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. I think that's it. Um, so I know that what we were going to discuss uh to follow up on last what we brought up last time was uh whether we wanted to try and schedule a break for the commission. And I spoke to assistant director Armor and staff is nervous about having a break scheduled in uh because there may be urgent issues that we don't know about right now and we don't want the commission to be the reason that something is delayed by two weeks. >> [snorts] >> So, um, one thing I did want to note is that we do have a break coming up in like a unscheduled break, but one in June because there isn't anything scheduled for that meeting. And wanted to get your thoughts on all of this because we do have all seven of us here so that if a commissioner is missing or even three commissioners are missing, we can still have a meeting. And so as we should always do, we should I think maybe to ensure that we don't hold up uh an application that is time-sensitive um that we just go ahead and schedule our our lives as we would and then um operate that way. But I would like to hear what everybody thinks about this. Go ahead uh Commissioner Templeton. >> Yes. Thank you uh for for bringing that up. Um staff regularly is worried that we're going to interfere with something and we have never once interfered on our end with our planning. Taking Christmas break or taking a summer break has never caused a problem. In fact, when we plan for it, it caused less of a problem. So, um I know that that there is this sense that we should all be um non-stop, but we don't have to be and we can choose to coordinate. Now, if if we're not coordinated, that's okay. But I want to just push back on this because I I do believe that if if something big is coming up, we can put something we can put something back on the calendar or have an emergency meeting. But um every time we try and talk about having a break that we can schedule to be with our families and to take time for ourselves, um this concern comes up and I just want to protect that uh time. So, I want to put it out there that um certainly I really hope that we don't have any late December um [gasps and laughter] uh special meetings uh like we have had the previous years. And I do think that if if we happen to align on time off at in August, then we should say so so that staff can plan around it and so that we don't hold anything up and that they are able to uh put something forward before that break or immediately thereafter and plan better. Uh because really it's all about planning and courtesy and working with our our staff and making sure that everybody's clear on who's going to be here and when. Uh, with that said, um, I think right now the the Q4 schedule looks pretty good. Um, I do feel like it's unlikely that none of us is going to take any time off this summer. Um but >> so I think maybe what we can do is right now to the extent that we we might not all know what our schedules are but at the end of last meeting we had suggested that we come to this meeting with where we think we might have either we already have something planned in which case we should have already told staff that we have it planned um or that we're thinking about something we can share that amongst each other right now if we can go ahead and do that. Yeah, I agree. I think um I did I did mention last week that I won't be here on the 26th and it's not reflected in the schedule um of August. So, we should uh note that and um it looks like the 10th is not happening. Is that right? >> You're talking about >> June 10th? >> No, June 24th is not >> June 24th. Okay. All right. Wait, Miss M Miss Armer, normally you don't confirm or you haven't confirmed that a meeting won't get cancelceled until the meeting immediately before that one. >> I generally do wait um because if something were to come up and we had enough time to do the legal noticing that was required um I'd like to preserve that as an opportunity. um if it's desirable to the commission, I feel comfortable um stating that June 24th would not occur at this time. >> Perfect. That's just I want to double check for for your case based on precedent. So, >> correct. Correct. So, I it is true. I generally try and wait until it's clear there's no way we could get something on because sometimes we're rushing it to get it at the last minute to keep something moving forward. And it's that because it's hard to uncancel something, right, for whatever the scheduled meetings. >> Correct. If we were to cancel it, then we'd have to do a special meeting. And I also don't like telling you guys that you're going to have that free time and you can schedule something else and then say, "Oops, never mind." I'd rather I'd rather have it on your calendar. And I'd be interested to hear um your preference as well, but my default would be to leave it on your calendar until I know it really isn't needed. >> How do you feel at all about if you know that we're going to have we're going to miss a meeting that you then have a buff if you do it in advance, then you have a buffer to move the urgent thing either the week before or the week after. Is that does that work? >> The meeting before, the meeting after. So, for example, if now I'm just looking at my own schedule, so this is a hypothetical, but if the 26th were cancelled and you knew it and you had something coming down the pipeline, you could plan it for the August 12th or September 9th, >> correct? >> Right. So, is it helpful to know? >> So, so we we do try to keep the different meetings balanced. So, for example, if there was a possibility of something that that might be needed on the 24th, you know, you could defer it to uh of June, you could potentially defer it to July 10th, except that I know that we currently already have two things targeting that date. And I try not to put more than two items on your agenda unless they are short items. Um, so I think I think that's reasonable, but I'm just trying to balance with with the message that you gave our team during premeating. Like is it useful to know this is to have everybody out in the same are you want to know if if I knew that we were going to have three people absent for one of our meetings. Uh, which is why we ask for that as soon as you know when you're going to meet miss a meeting. Um, if I knew that we would have three commissioners absent, I might try and adjust the schedule to make sure that more can participate, but I'd like to have the opportunity if something really did need to move forward and the other agendas were already full um to not cancel that if we do have a quorum. >> Are the August and September agendas already full? >> I don't we don't always know ahead of time. >> That's okay, but they're not yet already full. So, you could still do all the balancing you need to do. [sighs and gasps] assuming we don't have more than those agendas can handle. >> How are you going to get things that council's going to be out for a month too? How are you going to get more things on that that you don't know about yet? >> Um [sighs] things do come in that are unexpected or we get a resubmitt and therefore we can bring the project forward more quickly. So for example, >> does this happen on forest? Well, you have seen that there are times that I try and give you a heads up on the things that are coming up on agendas. >> I think you're hedging and I think it's manageable if people want to take a time off. I'm just pushing back on that. >> I appreciate that perspective. >> Okay. So, with that, why don't we just right now as a commission planning, let's see if people have plans. If they don't or if they all land scattershot everywhere, then it's moot. So, that's all we need to do. All right. So, can we just go down the line? Um, Commissioner James, or if we can loop back to you, Commissioner James, if you you look puzzled. Okay, go ahead. >> Um, I think I will be traveling on July 8th and maybe traveling um, I don't have a date in August, but um, I I'm sorry I didn't bring that, but I >> but another time in August probably. >> Okay, Mr. G, >> I am likely traveling on July 8th. Don't know yet if I can attend remotely. >> Okay. Um I am traveling on June 24th and conveniently there is nothing on that. Yeah, I was going to join remotely. Um so that's it for me that I know of right now. >> Commissioner Peterson. >> Uh the Petersons are not the kind of people who plan in advance. Kind of wake up in the morning and we're like, "Hey, let's go to Santa Cruz and come back in a week." So we can work around the city. >> Commissioner Aken. I also have nothing firmly scheduled. Um if anything happens it would likely be the last two weeks of July or the first two weeks of August. >> Uh well based on that based on that we are a little bit scattershot although there may be two of us. So there's two of us for July 8th and two of us possibly possibly two of us uh for the end of August. And so, uh, I'd have to check in with Commissioner Hecman, but I'm not sure that it makes sense. >> I just want to throw out there, people don't have firm plans because we haven't canled. So, that's that's all I'm saying. And it's okay. Like, if you guys don't want to take a summer break, that's okay. I'm throwing it out there because in 8 years, first of all, inevitably something's canceled when now we're having something canceled in June. But secondly, like August is is a beast. It always is. And so, you know, uh that's up to you. Um but that's that's my advice is if you really do need a break in summer, claim it now because staff will roll right through. And that's cuz that's what they they have things that we need to do for them. So like >> well so maybe more explicitly does like I know that I will not be traveling in August. Will anybody else be or I won't be taking a break in August. Will anybody else be taking a break in August? >> I will. >> Okay. Yes. And it sounds like uh Commissioner Aken will as well. >> I won't know until 2 weeks before the wilderness permits open up. >> So you can't plan anyway. Got it. Okay. And then um Commissioners G and James haven't chimed in. >> August. >> Uh don't don't plan to travel in August. >> Nope. Okay. So I think we're not lining up if that's okay. that is okay and we can always change our minds if something materializes but it's worth asking and I encourage everybody to think about this every year because we have to accept the reality there are it's going to happen August is going to come up and you're going to be like dang it we talked about this and that's okay but it helps staff if we can plan in advance thank you >> yeah thank you for bringing it up okay um so then our yeah we have to do virtual public comment. I'm just checking if we have minutes to approve as well. >> Okay. So, our last item of the evening is virtual public comment. So, uh Mr. Jar, are there any hands raised for items that are not that were not on the agenda? >> Yeah. If there's any members of the public that would like to speak uh for uh virtual public comments, now is the time to raise your hand. >> And I see none. Okay. So then we are adjourned. Thank you everyone.

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> to the Palo Alto Park and Recreation Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 26th, 2026. I'd like to call the meeting to order and we'll start with a roll call. >> Commissioner Kleinhouse. >> Here. >> Uh Commissioner Smith. >> Commissioner Axelrod. Chair Freeman. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Way. >> Commissioner Ding. >> Here. >> And Commissioner Smith. >> I'm sorry. My Commissioner Brown. All right. There you go. >> We have four out of four. >> Okay. Okay. Now we'll we'll open it up for public comments on non-agenda items. Uh if you're here in person and would like to speak, uh please fill out a speaker card, hand it to the clerk. Uh if you're joining us via the Zoom and for an item that's not on the agenda, just raise your hand and the clerk will call you. However, due to a recent change, we'll hear the Zoom comments at the end of the agenda. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. For our looks like our first and only public comment for the non-agenda item would be Daniel G. >> And I also would put out that for public for the non- after the first speaker starts speaking, we have to turn off the speaker cards. Thank you. >> Hello everyone. Hello council. My name is Daniel Garlick. I am a parent, neighbor near Rinconada Park. This is my son Decker. Can you say hi? >> Hi. >> He's second grader at Walter Hays. We just wanted to follow up on our public comment that we made via Zoom in the last meeting, which is to bring a food and beverage concession to Rinconada Park. We are talking with Sarah about this and just wanted to use this as an opportunity to build civic engagement. Palo Alto already has a model for this working with Ada's Cafe at Mitchell Park. There are a lot of great attractions over Rinconada. Perhaps tennis or pickleball, I'm going to stay out of that debate. But this could be a great opportunity to create more community in that park. Thank you. Yep. >> There are no more public comments in person at this time. And thanks to everyone who spoke today. We appreciate you taking the time to share your comments. We'll move on to our uh first item, which is a Are there any proposed changes, additions, or deletions to today's agenda? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to our next item, which is the approval of the minutes. Um On the the approval of the minutes from May, I'm so sorry, from April 28th 2026. May I have a motion to approve the minutes with any necessary corrections? >> I move approve. >> I'll second. >> I can second. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Yes, chair, there were no minutes in the packet from last month. They were Yeah, they were they were delayed, so they weren't put in the packet for this >> Okay, so we'll strike that as an item then. Okay. Okay, thanks. We'll move on to the council liaison report. Um, Councilmember Lee. >> Mr. Kane's. >> Thank you, chair. As ever, it is a joy and a privilege to get to be the council liaison to the PRC. Um, and I think when we have a full chamber like tonight, we're reminded that the issues you uh examine and address and arrive at opinions on are so germane to the well-being of our entire community. So, another opportunity for me to thank you for your service. Um, my report on council as of late is as follows. Um, as you may know, uh we recently voted unanimously to move forward with a ballot measure uh for a sales tax to support the Cubberley land acquisition and the beginning of redevelopment of that parcel. Polling shows the idea is up for grabs. It will take a concerted effort on the part of supporters to see it through. Uh, but council is thrilled to have five confirmed community partners in that effort, the Friends of the Palo Alto Recreation and Wellness Center, TheatreWorks, Maker Nexus, Avenidas, Palo Alto Community Child Care, and a potential sixth intending to come online, the Society of Heart's Delight, which is a coalition of individuals and groups in the Chinese community. And there are several stalwart long-time friends of Cubberley who have indicated an intent to mount a campaign to support the ballot measure. Council will vote on specific ballot language at our June 8th meeting. It will take all of us to get it over the line, and council can't thank PRC enough for your support of this issue. Uh, the second item I'd like to report out on is the city is is sponsoring its first-ever event for Pride. It will be on Sunday, June 7th from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. right here outside City Hall in King Plaza. From um Hamilton Avenue between Bryant and Ramona will be blocked off for people to spill over onto that street and enjoy remarks as well as entertainment. There'll be a number of organizations tabling. We have a number of co-sponsors for this event uh beyond the City Council and the Community Services Department. We have Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, Stanford Health Care, Stanford Medicine more broadly, Embarcadero Media, Grocery Outlet, Palo Alto Community Fund, Rivian, Stanford University, Kaiser, Sutter Health, Baymac, Society of Hearts' Delight, Palo Alto University Rotary, Youth Community Service, and um individuals including Jennifer DiBrienza and Jesse Dorogusker and Yudi Ding. Um also, the Palo Alto Police Department has created a pride patch for their uniforms that all officers will wear in the month of June. It is coming together, and we hope that you'll spread the word. Third, we've had a lot of activity on housing. 156 California as a builder's remedy project proposed three towers, uh one atop the Molly Stone's grocery store and two towers nearby. Our Council Ad Hoc Committee made up of Council Member Lauing and Vice Mayor Stone um negotiated with the developer to bring the height of those towers down and um arrive at a design that uh felt Council felt that we could get behind. And so, that project is moving forward. And then, there are two projects on El Camino in the sort of fish market uh just north of Barron Park area area. 3781 El Camino, 3606 El Camino, both seven stories. I believe 130 183 units of housing with 13% below market, one 321 units of housing 13% below market. And so, our efforts to put more housing projects in the pipeline to build uh particularly the multi-family units that we need in order to welcome more people at different income levels to our city continues to proceed at quite a pace we haven't seen in quite some time. Fourth, we voted recently after much deliberation in response to our concerns about youth mental health and the loss of life at our train tracks we voted not to close Churchill Avenue. We did so because we have very strong evidence that when we have paid track monitors in place that lives are not lost there during that time. When we've had monitors present and so we're you know have reason to be confident about that solution as long as it is maintained and we're also working on creating quiet zones which will mean that the train does not have to sound its horn when it comes through Palo Alto. That is probably 18 months away but it is in progress. And the closure would have resulted in putting cars right in the way of kids on bikes and on foot trying to get to school. The roads to which traffic would be diverted are not are simply not ready to handle that volume and we feared that potentially greater hazards would be put in play and loss of life for different reasons and we couldn't make that trade-off. We're confident that what we've already put in place with track monitors is a major step in the right direction to protect our youth. And finally last but not least our budget as you know we've been facing a significant deficit but our finance department and staff have been working hard to figure out how to close that deficit in smart ways and we will expect to approve that budget in the coming weeks as the fiscal year draws to a close. We will prepare to start a new one and the work of this great little city continues onward. Thank you very much. >> And thank you thank you for a very in-depth report on what's happening city council appreciate that. Uh we'll next move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the departmental report, item number two. >> Thank you, Chair Commissioners. My name is Sarah Robistelli. I'm the Community Services Division Manager. While the slide decks um point up, thank you, Eric. Um if you head to the second slide, we'll do a recap um of some of our special event. May Fet Parade and Community Fair was held on Saturday, May 2nd. This year's theme was not all heroes wear capes. The event drew a strong community participation with approximately 750 participants in the parade and over 1,500 attendees at the community fair. While the parade um had eight fewer entries than last year, the fair drew more than double the number of booths compared to the prior year, reflecting an increase uh community partnership participation. New groups included Taiwanese Cultural and Sports Association, Canine Companions, and Scaffold Play and Lab. Overall, the uh event was a successful celebration of community spirit, creativity, and local engagement. If you advance to the next slide, we have some of our upcoming uh special events. This week, we have our inaugural uh Thursday Live event, which will launch May 28th, this Thursday, with live music on both stages, featuring local uh favorites bands, um as well as a bunch of foods available, um a kids zone, community ribbon cutting with city officials, and um everything begins at 6:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. with the community leaders kicking off the ribbon cutting at 6:00 p.m. The summer family movie night series is also kicking off here shortly. You'll see that in the middle of the screen. The recreation department will be hosting its sixth annual summer movie night series which begins at Mitchell Park Athletic Center Athletic Community Center fields. The seating will begin at 7:00 p.m. with the movie starting at sunset and to kick this off on June 5th is the first movie of the of the summer is Dog Man. And then on the right-hand side of the screen the 4th of July chili cook-off and summer festival will feature food trucks, beverages, kid activities, inflatables, live entertainment as well as the free chili cook tasting. This year's competition has already drawn 16 chili teams up from last year's 12. And there are cash prizes for which will include categories for best vegetarian, overall chili, best overall chili, best booth, best spirit, and people's choice. On the next slide, Commissioner should have received an invitation to attend the Bryant Street Community Center grand opening on Wednesday, June 3rd from 4:00 to 5:00. This event will celebrate a opening of downtown teen center, preview upcoming classes, programs, and highlight the new downtown home for La Comida Senior Lunch Program. We hope to see you there. And um on the next slide, echoing just of what Councilmember Julie Lefcott Haynes um just presented, but City Council took a a great great um important action, and that I'll I'll skip keep moving um in the interest of time. And I'll hand it over to Assistant Director Ben Hesteen for our updates on the sluice gate. >> Uh good evening, Commissioners. Ben Hesteen, Assistant Director of Open Space, Parks, and Golf. I have the the esteemed pleasure of giving you a sluice gate repair status update tonight as a follow-up to the update we gave in the fall. Uh this picture here we will revisit, but on the lower right is the sluice gate, which is currently stuck in the closed position and in need of repair. Next slide, please. Uh I think it's helpful to step back a little bit and provide background information uh to better understand the the sluice gate in context as I don't think everyone is is really familiar with it. So, um to do that, and I apologize, this will take a few slides, but I think it's important. Uh so, this is a picture of the tide gate structure uh in the Baylands that was built in 1957. Uh the purpose of the structure is to regulate flows through of through the Palo Alto flood basin to provide flood protection for Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creeks. It holds bay water out of the flood basin and discharges stormwater runoff into the bay via one-way floppers on the other side of that of that photo uh to keep uh floodwaters from backing up into the creeks upstream and the surrounding community. Uh so, it's critical flood control infrastructure. Uh it is managed by Valley Water. Of the 16 uh gates within the overall structure, one of the gates is manually operated sluice gate that was installed in 1978 and maintained by the city of Palo Alto. And it's designed to let baywater in when open and keep it out of the flood basin when closed. So, it's it's a two-way feature versus a one-way feature. Next slide. So, here's an aerial of the Palo Alto flood basin and gives you another uh look at the at the geo- geography in the area. Uh so, the basin's approximately 600 acres. If you want to visualize it another way, it's the size of about 450 football fields. So, it's a massive structure. At the northern end of the flood basin, I'll just kind of go clockwise um to get our bearings on what we're looking at. Uh so, at the northern end circled is the tide gate structure that was pictured in the previous slide. Um and that's also where the sluice gate is housed. Uh the flood basin is flanked by the San Francisco Bay and Mayfield Slough to the north. Um and going around clockwise, Charleston Slough in Mountain View to the east. Uh Highway 101 to the south, and then coming around on the west side, uh the Matadero Creek outfall, the ITT property, and Bixby Park um to the west uh of the flood basin. So, you'll notice the flow also depicted from the three main creeks, uh Matadero, Barron, and Adobe. And the flood basin also receives inflow through different uh storm water um runoff sources as well. But, those are the primary um inlets for water getting into the flood basin uh aside from the bay itself. And in in 1992 uh depicted in in kind of the the the shaded callouts, the Emily Renzel ponds and the restored salt marsh were created, which results in approximately 1 to 1.5 million gallons of water per day being pumped into the mouth of Matadero Creek, which then flows into the flood basin. And that water is mixed at a 1:1 ratio of fresh water and salt water. Uh the fresh water comes from the regional water quality control plant as treated effluent, and the uh salt water comes in from the bay as kind of depicted uh in in the the yellow uh line with the with the arrows. So, that kind of gives you a little bit of the of uh hydrology of of the flood basin and how water gets gets into it. Uh Bixby Park, um to draw your attention to right in the center, um it oh is important to mention was formerly the Palo Alto Landfill, and the sluice gate was installed uh in 1978 as part of a mitigation effort for extending the landfill. I believe it was about 40 acres. Uh next slide, please. So, now we're going to go through the brief 50-year history of of the sluice gate. Uh so, in 1975, prior to the sluice gate being installed, the city council agreed to a 1-year trial for creating a salt marsh area in a small portion of the of the flood basin as mitigation for extending the Palo Alto Landfill, and that landfill closed in 2011. Uh 1978, the sluice gate was installed, and that will allow water to flow into the flood basin to create kind of a artificial man-made um tidal marsh habitat uh as part of that mitigation effort. Um in 1992, those two those projects, Rincon Marsh and the Salt Marsh, were established and they provided uh pretty significant new inflows into the basin. Uh um in in 2018, uh Valley Water tide gate replacement uh project planning began. Um the you know, the the structure was aged and uh it was found out that replacement was needed, and that replacement plan in 2018 uh going all the way into uh I think 20 23 uh before they kind of shifted gears, included a new sluice gate uh which was going to be automatically controlled, new new uh remote operable um a new modernized sluice gate, which had also aged and had exceeded its its lifespan at that point. Um in 2020, uh the sluice gate was no longer operable through manual cranking due to marine buildup. Uh prior to that, the the motorized functionality of the sluice gate also had not worked, and one of the reasons it was included in the original tide gate replacement plans, um which was going to be constructed by Valley Water on the city's behalf. And then in 2024 is when the big shift happened in the tide gate replacement project was deferred until 2060 uh based off uh uh aligning with with the federal plans to construct uh the Shoreline 2 project. Uh so, that was deferred significantly, and the focus shifted then to extending the service life and seismic reinforcement of the tide gate. Uh the sluice gate was inspected and confirmed not leaking through a a dry inspection. And in 2025 Valley Water began its uh last year its its tidal tide gate seismic retrofit rehab project. Um but without any plans to uh include any work on the sluice gate that was then put on the city to address. So, next slide. So, you picture here back to this photo is the um westernmost bay of the tide gate structure looking at it from the bay side. Um the sluice gate's pictured on the right coupled with its motorized assembly and one of the flap gates is pictured on the left. That's uh one of one of the uh seven flap gates on that side. It's it's operated by Valley Water. So, you can see the kind of a the different um type types of gates. And the sluice gate's 48 years old now. Uh the motorized system has not been functional as I mentioned before um and the physical gate's stuck closed due to marine build-up uh barnacles and that kind of stuff. Um So, having provided all that background, what here's the update. Uh it we've submitted a permit application uh last year for for to clean the sluice gate and knock off all the marine build-up um and also perform a uh underwater conditions assessment. Um the underwater work um is different from uh like a dry inspection cuz it will reveal submerged corrosion and fully identify um marine growth impacts on the gate. It'll uh facilitate inspection during actual hydraulic loading uh when when the water is is high. Uh so, we can really see any potential leakage path or vibration um and and evaluate the gate behavior under under uh under pressure. And the gate will also be pressure washed to dislodge the marine build up, aka barnacles, to restore the manual operability of the gate. Um, and then we can fully assess repair needs and feasibility of restoring that antiquated motorized system. Uh, so the purpose of this work will be to extend the life of the system similar to the to the mindset going in by Valley Water to extend the life of the tide gate. Um, you know, we're simply trying to get it uh, operable until that Shoreline 2 project happens and which in in which case the idea is that the tide gate replacement project would resume and also presumably include a new sluice gate at that time, but that would not be until 2060. So, that's kind of a while. Um, the Valley Water's project, just as a an aside, is going to resume in September and they're going to be if you if you remember last year they did the seismic retrofit and so this year they're going to do repair work on six of the the floppers. Um, to as a kind of a second phase of that seismic retrofit project. Um, and then for next steps for the city, assuming all that goes well with the cleaning and initial repairs of the sluice gate, um, we are evaluating and need to continue to evaluate water level trends in the basin based off sensor collected data uh, and we want to ensure that the sensors are accurately reading water levels because that dictates when we open and close it. Uh, and that that will inform kind of our operational protocol. Uh, so for future planning also, um, it should be noted that the Rensold and Saltmarsh inflows that I attempted to highlight um intentionally may inadvert inadvertently support the goal of the sluice gate function. Um but that needs to be looked at more. And that's my update for the sluice gate. Uh next slide we're going to roll right along and take questions on all of it after. Uh just a couple things uh there's some irrigation budget cuts coming in the proposed FY27 budget that have been um discussed in finance committee and uh uh in the public realm and I wanted to just clarify that the uh system-wide cuts we're shooting for a 10 to 15% irrigation schedule reduction uh system-wide. So not just Foothills, but in throughout the entire park system. It just so happens that Foothills is Foothills was was kind of highlighted more so in the in in in prior discussions in the last week uh because that is the one preserve that we have irrigated turf. But in all areas of irrigated turf in parks, we're going to be just dialing back the schedule uh 15% to achieve some reductions and uh as a as a budget cutting strategy and also also water conservation measure. Um and then shifting gears towards the other side of the the slideshow the slide is the natural grass pilot. Uh so a couple weeks ago we uh had an agronomist come out uh who's going to be helping us construct the um the the pilot study at Bear Park uh to enhance maintenance practices to see if enhanced maintenance will increase playability and turf quality. So the first step in that was to do some testing do uh so there's a picture of us um spending the day out there doing uh testing and taking soil samples to inform that approach. Uh we're going to be receiving the draft kind of uh proposal for conducting the study uh from the consultant and reviewing that with the ad hoc as as the next step. And just to make sure that that um plan kind of aligns with council's intent for the natural grass pilot and and and you know allow some opportunity for the ad hoc to express feedback. Um and we'll probably be providing uh regular departmental uh updates on on the project as it proceeds. Um it will entail uh some uh difference in how we go about maintaining the fields at Greer uh over the next year. Uh specifically two fields. So, the biggest change is that two of the fields at Greer will be closed out for 2 weeks in October so we can conduct a a mid-season renovation during fall when it's ideal weather-wise because it's cooling down and it's still warm enough to get uh seed germination and that kind of thing. So, we'll be aerating, injecting sand, and and trying to improve drainage and field playability. Um and and we are working with uh the uh user groups uh just to coordinate um reservations and and ensure that they have other places to play during those two times for the groups that are affected on those specific two fields. So, that's a little bit of a new like a little bit of a curveball, uh but more details will be coming out um as we start to finalize plans and discuss things with the ad hoc. Uh next slide. And then I wanted to highlight in See, this was April 28th to and 29th, uh parks maintenance staff and the watershed protection team and also open space administrative staff participated in a GSI uh certification training. GSI stands for green stormwater infrastructure. Uh and learned how to maintain uh bio-retention areas uh in in a in a way to uh kind of like align with best practices for maintaining those facilities. Uh this is um pictures of the training that was put on by ReScape and so we did a one day of classroom training and and and one day of field practicum uh where we renovated a a bio-retention area in Rinconada Park off Hopkins. So, just want to highlight that cuz it kind of shows one of one big operational shift that we're doing towards uh increasing maintenance and service levels of these bio-retention areas and also um furthering kind of like our regenerative landscaping uh techniques and >> [clears throat] >> uh in-house knowledge uh as well. So, it's it was a great cross-departmental effort and it'll be ongoing and kind of a kickoff to uh you know, an ongoing uh maintenance program. Uh and I'll kick it back to Sarah to finish us off. >> All right. Um the full department of CSD was invited to um upgrade uh Bodin Park with a spring native planting. Um this was completed as second planting will be completed in the fall. Uh we want to thank our volunteer Juanita Salisbury um for providing the planting plan. Um next slide. Highlighing some before and after photos and upgrades of pathway improvements at Ramos Park. On the left-hand side, you'll see the before and on the right-hand side, you'll see the after. We want to thank our public works crew for completing that work. Um and then lastly, um if you go to the next slide, we wanted uh recently staff visited the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Commission Vault Museum at McLaren Lodge to learn more about uh their approach in preserving and sharing departmental history. Thank you to their staff and Commissioner Kate Anderson for welcoming the city and sharing lessons learned from their project. The Friends of Palo Alto Parks also participated in the visit as we continue to explore opportunities to celebrate and tell the story of Palo Alto's park system. So, thank you to them. That concludes our departmental report. >> Thank you and thank you for a very in-depth report. I think that's the longest we've had, but that there's a lot of information. There's a lot of information that you covered during that uh time frame. So, uh I'll open it up to any commissioners that uh have any questions for staff. Commissioner Sure. >> I have a few questions. Uh thank you for clarifying that the reduction in irrigation was not limited to foothills. That was not my impression from the packet that city um council was reviewing. So, thank you so much because that's uh good uh that's good and I support that. Um about the GSI certification, if we could plant locally native plants that support local biodiversity in the bio-retention system and local butterflies, we could thank put things for monarch. I think our mayor just uh declared monarch um um, some kind of monarch statement. So, that would be a really good outcome if we could use those bioswales for enhancing monarch habitat. Um, regarding the, um, sluice gate, thank you so much for the update. I get a lot of questions about that, so I really appreciate this, um, and I have two questions. One is is there any concern that the corrosion of the sluice gate could in- increase flood gate at some point? This flood risk? >> The information we have on the sluice gate is in 2024 it was inspected by Valley Water and the seals were confirmed to be intact. Uh, so we don't have any reason to believe that there's any any risk of leakage, but this inspection will, uh, look a little deeper and verify that, uh, and expose, uh, the the sluice gate structure a little more since we'll be washing off all that marine build-up so we can fully evaluate. Um, in its closed position there's no, you know, flood risk, uh, with it being closed. >> Okay, and the second question, the mitigation it was supposed to create was to create the salt marsh or tidal marsh in a some a section of the, uh, flood basin. Uh, the water that flows in now is not as salty. It's not it's mixed half and half with fresh water and salty water. So, are we looking at all at any of the vegetation community to see if there's, uh, changes in the vegetation in the, um, flood in the flood basin. >> It currently there hasn't been studies of the plant communities in the flood basin. Uh we're focusing right now on repairing the sluice gate. Uh but that is a you know, potential need to do a a full evaluation. It Valley Water I think analyzed the flood basin uh plant communities um just as it relates to um their project. So, that was like within a limited area. I think maybe just a few acres and and found some uh you know, some different varying plant habitats that were um you know, like emergent wetlands that were uh muted uh saltwater marsh habitat. Um Another thing to note is that when the uh uh during storm events when the uh flappers flapper gates get get um obstructed by like a log or something, that can result in multiple days of water flowing in from the bay. Uh that can also impact uh the plant communities in the general vicinity of of the tide gate structure. Uh but to the extent that the uh um you know, renzole pond salt marsh habitat I mean, inflows affects uh salt marsh habitat that really hasn't been looked at. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Way. >> Vice Chair. >> Wait. >> Thanks for the great report uh both Ben and Sarah and I really enjoyed um the parade and wish I join you for the museum. Uh sorry missed it. And um couple questions uh clarify question regarding the sluice gate. It's really detailed update. And uh I just to clarify, is currently the sluice gate totally non-operational or only manual cranking? What's the status now? >> It's been uh stuck closed uh in the closed position for uh several years. It's the motorized functionality has been uh not functional for for more time than it's been stuck closed. Um so there was a period of time where it was manually operated with a with a a manual lever. Uh and so we're we're looking to uh at least restore the manual operability of it. Um however, in terms of practical operations, we would really need that that motorized functionality restored as well. Um so we don't depend on just, you know, manual operation. >> Got it. When the retrofit work resuming for whether um temporary impacts on Baytrail access or public access to be expected to change in any way? >> For the uh for the work that we're doing? >> Yeah. >> Uh no expectation of changes for the public access aside from maybe a a couple days of um you know, barriers for staging equipment. Um the uh Palo Alto uh uh seismic retrofit project done by Valley Water. Um that that will also that will impact access um during during a few months while they're doing that work. >> Okay, I'll ask more of the environmental questions later. And one clarified question for the uh water um sort of reduction due to budget cut. So, how uh what specific turf are considered non-functional? How do you set up criteria to define that classification? >> Yeah, so AB, I believe I'm going to butcher it, AB 1572, that's the um Assembly Bill uh for non-functional turf on January 1st, 2027, municipal agencies are supposed to be complying with that rule prior to it being prior to your private landowners having to comply. Uh so uh the not the definition of non-functional turf is basically areas that are not used for recreational purposes. Um so those would be like passive grass areas, um grass in median strips, um there's a little bit of of a gray area in that in that some sometimes it's a little bit up for interpretation as to what is used and what's not used. Um and I think when we get to the point of proposing actual like turf removal projects, we want to get the PRC and the community's feedback to ensure we're not missing anything in terms of our own assessment of what's non-functional. Um but you know, we have to do our due diligence due diligence and our best effort to identify non-functional areas and work towards uh reducing them. >> Great, you have a guideline and a process set up. Thanks. Thank you. >> I'm sorry. Excellent. >> Thanks for the amazing updates always. Um one for Sarah. So for Thursday live, is the format [clears throat] going to remain the same as third Thursdays or is it any different? It's exciting to have it back, but I just want to see >> actually pass this to Adam Howard since he's in the building. >> Uh good evening, Adam Howard, senior community services manager. Uh though we'll build off some of the momentum from the third Thursdays. Um it's Thursday live cuz it won't always be the last Thursday. We want to build it around other events. Uh but some of it will be same live music, games for kids. Um and then each month we'll have a little something special outside of the live music. Um this month being a car show. So we're going to bring in some exotic and classic vehicles for the crowds. Um so some similarities and some additions that um will build off as um as we receive from community feedback. >> Awesome. Thank you. And uh small one for Ben on the sluice gate. Um I'm curious after the inspection we'll see what happens for next stage. Are we going to get estimates for both what the minimum uh fix is versus what it'll take to get us all the way to 2060 now? >> Uh is there a follow-up update or >> As the outcomes of the inspection, are we going to get scenarios where you have to fix this now and it'll take this much versus if you fix this much, you probably don't have to touch it until Valley Water redoes it. >> Right. I think I think that'll that'll we'll have more insights after we do the inspection and evaluate all of the systems, the mechanical systems, uh cuz there's the tide gate, I mean, I'm sorry, the sluice gate. There's the the the motorized system, the the there's the electronic system that to actually the motor. Uh then there's sensors that that sense the water level. So we kind of have to look at all of it um as in in phases uh and then we'll be better we'll be able to make a better um uh strategy as far as like like what you know, maybe a cost-benefit analysis as terms like what does it make sense to fix now, um what level investment do we should we put into it given that uh we all we're only trying to extend the life uh you know, 20 20 to 40 years. Um because we you know, are likely going to try to avoid replacing the structure cuz that's probably not going to be um you know, there's not going to be it's not going to be cost-effective. >> Yep. I I just wanted to make sure we are inspecting all the elements that may come into play if we want to extend the life for another 30 years. >> Right. >> We are. Great. Thank you. >> Commissioner Dinh. >> Thank you to staff for excellent work and updates. First, I had the honor of serving as a judge for the May Fete Parade. It was wonderful to see over 45 energetic civic and the community organizations showcasing their community spirit and impact. Uh congratulations to the top three winners. Boost the Dance Class for taking first place, followed by the Palo Alto High School Pep Band and the Gamble Garden in third place. Second, I'm proud to support and sponsor the inaugural Palo Alto Pride on June 7th. I'll be tabling there, so look forward to seeing many of you there. And finally, it's great to see the progress on the natural grass pilot at Greer Park. I especially appreciate Adam and the band's effort um proactively communicate with the user groups regarding the planned 2-week closure in the fall. Yeah, thank you again for staff for your thoughtful communication behind all those efforts. >> Okay, any others? Okay, I'll just um um tie again to um the live one California Avenue. It's nice to see that that's coming back and hopefully that'll stay being an ongoing event. It seems like people really really enjoyed those and really missed them when they when they started disappeared, so thank you for for getting that back on track. Um the um as far as the uh soccer field closure, we talked a little bit about that, but maybe the if the ad hoc is going to discuss that, I'll I'll let it go, but is that uh what has been the feedback from the user community that you've talked to about when that closure would take place and whether or not the what the inconvenience is going to be for them and it will in fact just be for 2 weeks and not more than that. >> Yeah, I I talked a little bit to reservation staff on on Adam's team and the feedback has been okay. They've been understanding. Uh I think perhaps there was some confusion earlier when we we did a general placeholder not knowing what specific fields were going to close. So that there was concern that the closure was going to be like the whole park for longer than than than what we're doing. So we've we've refined that based off our discussions with the agronomist and we'll further refine that as we get a written plan. Uh but we're intending to only shut down two fields uh uh fields two and four uh for for for uh about 9 days in October. So it'll affect one weekend only. Um in terms of those two fields. And I know our reservation staff is working to uh uh with groups to like move them to other fields for those like 2 weeks um if they need it. >> Okay. So that that that information is has been communicated out to the >> Yes. >> the faculty community and so that's we've cleared up all of the discrepancies that I guess were that's been >> communicated to any group that's reserving rare >> Okay. >> in the fall. Thank you. >> And uh um lastly good job on the chili cook-off. It seems like um we're and the that hasn't been the termination date hasn't ended yet, right? So you have 16 teams right now and they have until when to um The fact that we have a lot of people here who probably interested now in doing a chili cook-off so now that they know, hopefully we going to add to that group. >> Right. If if you are interested in cooking chili for the 4th of July >> say me, but yeah. >> You're You're still welcome to sign up. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Cool. All right. Thank you. All right. Great. Uh we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is uh the ad hoc committee and liaison updates. There was For what? I'm sorry. >> More detailed questions for the staff >> You can ask There's no If you have additional questions, go ahead. >> Sorry, I thought we just do the brief. Um quickly going back to the uh sluice gate. Um I really like the detailed report. I'm just wondering if we currently have any ecological data on habitat health, biodiversity, and also is there any additional opportunities to improve the habitat resilience while extending the infrastructure? Um extending the service life of infrastructure. >> Uh to evaluate the like the health of the plant communities, um going into that would really need to be a approach as a holistic uh We need a holistic approach to determine the Are we looking at just plant community health? Are we looking at overall ecological health of the flood basin, including wildlife? Um it would be a multi-agency effort. Uh and so it it it would be a big a big project to actually uh study the um the flood basin depending on uh what what level, right? So, um we don't have any plans right now to do that. >> Okay. >> We're focused solely on restoring the operability of the sluice gate. >> Okay. >> Um but that could be a future need to do a more a more in-depth holistic ecological study of the flood basin similar to what was done, you know, in the original 1976 mitigation project where there was a lot of a lot of you know, they were looking at substrate salinity and the the bottom contour of the flood basin looking at the whole thing. So it's it's there's a lot involved with that. >> Excellent. Well, it's good something to bear in mind. That leads to question. I'd be interested to know the division responsibilities between Valley Water and the city of Palo Alto for operation, maintenance, habitat management, long-term plans related to the tide gates, the sluice gate bearing. How how much we involved in terms the funding, maintenance, workforce, and their remote. >> Yeah, we're we're in charge of maintaining the sluice gate and Valley Water's responsible for the tide gate structure and they have an easement for the operating the the flood basin to make sure it attenuates peak peak flow in storms. It's designed to, you know, attenuate a 100-year storm impacts. And so that that kind of operation is done by Valley Water. And we don't have a lot of involvement in that in that, you know, overall flood control picture. But it is the basin itself is primarily a flood control facility. And and so I don't want to speak for Valley Water, but I think they look at at it primarily through its its ability to to manage flood waters and as its primary purpose. >> Excellent. So would this eventually support educational partnerships with our local schools using environmental programs or community volunteer activities tied to marsh stewardship, climate resilience in the long run. That's all my questions. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to um the ad hoc liaison report. Anyone have any reports that they'd like to share with the rest of the commission? Commissioner Axelrod. >> Um the Councilman [clears throat] Litvak Haines covered Cubberley very well. There's a lot of progress on there, so thank you for that. Uh >> Commissioner Axelrod, can I it's hard to hear. Can you >> Oh. Sorry. Is this better? Yeah, I was just commending um Councilman Litvak Haines on the great updates on Cubberley. I think she covered most of the points, but uh we're going to continue to engage with that. Um one small one from Safe Routes, we have an amazing resource in Ventura, a bike safety park that um it seems like we're not getting the word out enough. It could use a little more love, so I'm going to be bringing it up with staff to see how we can get the word out on that one a little bit more. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Uh Commissioner >> For natural connectivity, um I know uh Commissioner Ware and I have been looking at uh reviewing city policies and plans like the comprehensive plan, parks plan, urban forest master plan, sustainability and climate, and all the other planning documents, and identifying the policies and programs that are um that have something to do with the biodiversity connectivity, whether it's supportive or there is a gap, or there is something that could potentially be um conflicting. So, that's what we've been doing. >> Thank you. Okay, as far as the uh parks uh at Hohwald and the park dedication, um the Ventura is the one that's is sort of ongoing. I I know sorry reached out um on to the Palo Alto community child care. Is there any update on that? Have you heard back from them? >> Um right now I am working with different internal departments and making sure um there aren't any carve outs um that are going to be necessary as we plan for the future. Um and once once that um I hear back from multiple different departments, uh the next step is having that land surveyed. >> Okay. Thank you. And the only other item on that on the parks is the uh Measure E. Um I don't know if um Commissioner Klein has given anything on that. Okay. No. I know that that's going to come back uh coming back to the commission in June, I believe, on the agenda. >> I that's exactly what I was going to say. It's going to be on your agenda shortly. >> Okay. Okay, cool. Good. All right. I think that is So, we'll move on to item number four on our agenda, I believe it is, which I'm sure everyone's been waiting for. Um But uh But before we move on to that that item, um I want to begin with this. I want to thank everyone for uh attending uh the meeting today. Um I also like to remind uh everyone that uh we expect a uh respectful environment throughout tonight's discussion. Um We understand that members of the public and commissioners may have uh differing opinion opinions uh regarding pickleball and tennis issues and that is completely appropriate. However, I ask that there be no audible expressions, reactions, applause, or interruptions during presentations. There'll be some I'm sure some some good presentations going on or public comment or commission's discussion so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard respectfully. So, with that being said, let's move on to the item on the agenda on number four. >> Good evening again, Adam Howard, senior community services manager with the city of Palo Alto in the recreation department. Here tonight to discuss the pickleball facility usage in Palo Alto and an expansion evaluation. Next slide, please. So, ultimately, we're here tonight for the staff and the ad hoc committee are recommending that the Parks and Rec Commission support the recommendation not to increase inventory of the city of Palo Alto's pickleball courts. This includes the conversion of additional city tennis courts at Mitchell Park. This is based off our analysis operational use, parking, noise, and user conflict concerns. We're of course going to go over that in tonight's presentation. Next slide, please. Just a little bit of background as to how we got here. April 22nd, 2025, the Palo Alto Pickleball Club presented to the PRC providing some information regarding court demand, overcrowding, player wait times, and a request to convert Mitchell Park courts three and four into eight designated pickleball courts. The commission asked staff to look into this a little bit. So, on August 26th, 2025, staff presented to the PRC regarding court usage specifically in Mitchell Park um and at that time uh the commission requested staff to kind of take a broader look at the issue, um looking at court uses across Palo Alto, looking at parking in Mitchell Park, um and looking at possible solutions, including uh the idea of conversions of of the courts in Mitchell Park. Next slide, please. Uh so, first I want to kind of give you uh a background of uh the courts, how they are today, and including the expansion that has already taken place here in Palo Alto. I'm going to go over these, but I'll show you kind of visually each of these sections. Um hopefully that's a little easier to follow. Next slide, please. So, it was 2018, um where you see the picture the the yellow outline, those were previously courts five, six, and seven. Uh at that time, the court policy was updated really just to allow pickleball to play on those courts um on a first-come, first-serve basis on temporary lines. Next slide, please. It was in 2019, um with increased demand of pickleball in Palo Alto, that new courts um were designed. So, this space outlined in blue was an area outside courts five, six, and seven. The fence was taken down, and some space was added so that two pickleball courts could be added. Next slide, please. Court five uh what became four designated pickleball courts. Uh all of these courts were lit uh by existing lights. Next slide, please. Uh courts uh six and seven became multi-use courts. Um these courts, over the time, have gone through a lot of different priority times, uh each time uh pickleball getting more and more priority, uh until we got to where we are today, uh, which is priority to pickleball, uh 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All of this space opened officially in 2020. Next slide, please. These two kind of stand-alone courts, um, were lit in April of 2022 with the help of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. Um, and so we were added lights from the existing poles to light these courts as well. Next slide, please. That's where we are today. So, there are 15 lit pickleball courts in Mitchell Park. Uh, do want to point out that each of the three middle schools and two high schools have pickleball lines on their campus, um, but no nets, no resources for those. Uh, we have 27 city operated pickleball tennis, or excuse me, 27 operated tennis courts, 10 of which are lit. There are four in Mitchell Park, six at Rinconada. And then there are 27 Palo Alto Unified School District tennis courts, uh, which are available to the public during non-school hours. So, evenings, weekends, and holidays. Uh, that includes seven lit courts at Palo Alto High School. Um, that's a total of 54 public tennis courts. Next slide, please. Uh, so with the request of the commission, we wanted to look at overall court usage in Palo Alto. Uh, staff did, uh, multiple spot checks. We did that 68 days in total over, I think, 6 months. Um, really focusing on night and weekends when we found that the demand to be the highest. Uh, and this is really, um, kind of the outcome of that. So, we found that the pickleball courts, uh, were always at capacity with people waiting. Um, the lowest number we saw waiting was five. The highest rate people waiting was 60 people waiting. Um, on average over those 68 days, it was 26 people waiting. Next slide, please. For tennis courts, generally you were able to find tennis courts available somewhere in the city. Of the 68 times, there were five instances when all the available courts were in use. Those were all evening times, so when lights were necessary. >> [snorts] >> Only 15 times of those 68 were tennis courts available at Mitchell Park. So if we do do any changes to the Mitchell Park courts, we will be kind of pushing people to other courts here in Palo Alto. And we found that most often the availability was at Palo Alto High School. So those are not city operated courts anymore, but they're still available to the public and there is no bathroom access there on the evenings or in weekends. While we did this, we also looked at the parking specifically at Mitchell Park. So although evenings was the busiest for the courts, weekend mornings is really when we found the parking to be at its busiest. That's when all the amenities are kind of available. So we, you know, we're talking about the library, the community center, cafe, fields, and the multiple uses they have, the Magical Bridge and other playgrounds located in Mitchell Park, both group picnic areas and individual picnic tables, and of course the courts that are located in Mitchell. Generally [snorts] we did find parking open but limited, five to 10 parking spots. Often those parking spots were located at the East Meadow Park entrance, so that's kind of the furthest parking spots from the main amenities in the park. There was one date where all the parking was full, and that coincided with one of the largest rentals that the community center has for a Lunar New Year. And at that time there was no parking available in the parking structure. So, I think what this finds is parking is is limited but handling what we're doing currently in the park. Any kind of ongoing additional demand would likely put the parking at capacity. Next slide, please. So, with that information we started to kind of evaluate what we could do for the pickleball expansion. We looked at the pickleball expansion in Mitchell Park three and four at the request of the pickleball club, but we also wanted to look at some alternatives, some of which we've looked at before, which is dual striping courts, resident permits or reservations, lighting currently tennis courts, or looking for new dedicated pickleball sports space. So, we'll kind of go over these in detail here. Next slide, please. So, we begin with the idea of evaluating conversion Mitchell Park tennis courts three and four. So, in this picture that's the the two tennis courts highlighted in yellow. If you did this, this would increase pickleball courts from 15 to 23. It would reduce tennis courts from four to two. It's also important to note that with any of our increase in pickleball courts, it has come with increased kind of regional popularity and demand. Next slide, please. So, if we look at three and four, as you can see that the courts three and four currently located a little bit in a more centralized location in the park and there are concerns about that location and what additional noise and crowd will bring. So, the larger highlighted box is the Achieve Kids play area, which you can see is directly adjacent to those playgrounds. So, we've heard concerns about that for the Achieve Kids. Next slide. This other highlighted box is the Mitchell Park Community Center and Library. That box specifically indicates kind of the rental spaces that the community center has. And as you can see to the close proximity, staff has concerns about how the noise from that pickleball would impact rentals that happen there really every day especially on weekends. Next slide, please. This would be the remaining two tennis courts that would happen in Mitchell Park. We have concerns about the immediate impact. You know, tennis and pickleball although share similarities kind of play differently. You know, tennis needs a little bit more quiet. Pickleball brings in larger social gatherings and a little bit more noise. So we have concerns about the two kind of being so adjacent to each other. That's even highlighted with one and two does a lot of our private lessons and instruction. So the need for communicating to each other would be really important. That would be really difficult to do with the pickleball courts so close. And then, you know, staff just continues to have concerns about the increase in demand that would be created by those additional pickleball courts. And we would foresee kind of additional need to convert one and two in the future. So those are our concerns about the tennis impacts. Next slide, please. This conversation in particular had a lot of feedback and I'm sure you will hear a lot of that tonight. I wrote 160 emails that we have surpassed. I'm we're well over 200 at this point. And I did my best to kind of summarize that for you here. We're hearing, you know, the pickleball courts are are crowded leading to long wait times. We hear a lot about the value that the pickleball brings to the community both socially and physically. We heard from the tennis community that they don't want to lose lit kit lit tennis courts, specifically that the the four courts that are available in South Palo Alto. A lot of concerns from residents about the overcrowding of Mitchell Park and all of its amenities. Uh noise concerns at the park and the surrounding neighborhood, including our partners at the Magical Bridge Playground. And then you'll hear a lot about the limited parking um that we currently have. Next slide, please. Since we saw a lot of uh concerns with the expansion of three and four, we wanted to bring forth some other um ideas that we have at least looked into here in terms of expecable expansion. One of that is the dual striping of courts. The idea here is that you put both tennis court tennis lines and pickleball lines on courts. Um that allows for increased play during like limited times and days, uh flexibility of uses, and there's relatively low cost uh to dual striped courts. However, we find that that creates kind of additional conflicts between users. Um dual striping requires portable nets, storage, and the management of space and those equipment needs. Uh locations to do that are also limited because of noise and parking concerns that we've discussed. And our biggest challenge there is that ultimately it builds demand um with no long-term solution on how to resolve that demand. Next slide, please. We looked at a resident permit system or reservations. The idea here is that you would allow residents to reserve court space um on the pickleball courts. Um this could reduce capacity issues without changing the facilities, um and ideally would increase priority use by residents. Um some issues with this is that, you know, it it requires ongoing staff management to create these permits and provide enforcement of issues. It's not typically how we handle Palo Alto public spaces. And a big issue is this just really decreases court rotations, which ultimately could lead to more wait time or less people using the space. So we kind of see that as a decrease in the value of the court space that we currently have. Next slide, please. We looked at the idea of lighting Cubberley tennis courts. The idea here is that you really provide lit tennis courts at Cubberley and you allow pickleball to be all of Mitchell Park courts. This does allow for like long-term separation of pickleball and tennis. Both sports kind of gain important aspects of the access and space that they need. However, anytime you're talking about lighting, there's a lot of challenges with that. You need heavily discussed and needs to be vetted and approved by the community and the neighborhood. It's really difficult to have a timetable as how when that could actually happen. There's large financial impacts with that. And our biggest concern is that the concerns at Mitchell Park remain. Parking, noise, impacts to the other users would only would remain and and possibly get worse with that solution. Next slide, please. The next one is is building dedicated pickleball facilities. This is a great idea in theory. You allow new space designed specifically for pickleball use. Ideally, it's space not being used by other users or being underutilized. However, finding a a location is is very difficult because of the challenges we've discussed. It's our largest financial impacts and again, the timing to pull something like that off is is unknown. Staff has as done its best to find this kind of new possible location. What you see here is at the Baylands Athletic Center. There was some real possibility here. The Baylands Athletic Center has a lot of parking. There's some a space that's available. You can see on the picture on the left is kind of a zoomed out picture of the Baylands Athletic Center. The highlighted yellow is kind of behind what the baseball field and softball field. You can see on the right kind of zoomed in. It's currently pit with kind of overgrown weeds, not being used for anything. So we thought, you know, maybe this is a possibility. With with its current location, I think it would could get along well with what's around it currently. It could hold, we think, about six courts. It would, at a low estimate, be about $1.6 million to build. But there's a bigger concern. Next slide, please. The space next door, currently being redeveloped for a new housing development, puts what would be there as a new homes at about 20 ft from the pickleball courts. Something staff has worked tirelessly to avoid. Now, if both were built with each other in mind, could that be something that works in the future? It's possible, but with with that home development, that space becomes less of an ideal option. Next slide, please. So, with all that said, we're kind of back at the recommendation that we recommend not increasing inventory of pickleball courts in Palo Alto currently. Again, we've looked at a lot of different possibilities, and just given our analysis of the needs of operational needs, parking concerns, noise, user conflicts, we really at this point think that we need to stand pat and look for future options in the future. Next slide, please. That is my presentation. >> Thank you. Adam, I want to start by thanking you and the staff for all the work you've done to get us to the where we are today. I know having been involved in this for the longest period of time that a tremendous amount of of time, outreach, observation, and analysis has gone into listening to both tennis and pickleball communities. We'll hear more more tonight as well. And trying to find a balanced approach that's that's been something we've been working towards and will continue to work towards even after even after tonight. I also want to say that the the report you you presented is extremely thorough. A lot of effort went into that and that's obvious that a great deal of of work and thought went into putting it together. I know we've gone you know back and forth on on this and trying to make sure that we can address all the issues that that are involved there. But again, it's not we're not saying that this is this is the end the end of the game. It it continues. So, the the operational analysis, the court court observation, parking review, and the evaluation of alternatives clearly show how seriously staff that the staff has approached this issue. So again, I want to thank you and the job the good job that you and the and others who have worked on this went through. So, before we jump into um public comments, want to see if there's any commissioners that have any clarifying questions for for Adam before we move into the next question, please. Vice Chair, What wait. >> Thanks, Chair. Yeah, I also echo what Chair just said. I really strongly commending Adam, you and your team have a such a rigorous data-driven analysis over the last 7-month period. It's really, really well-documented the sustained peak demand for pickleball at Mitchell Park and also clearly identifies real ongoing constraints around parking, noise, conflicts among multiple park users. This is exactly the type of balanced evaluation we rely on. I just want to ask one question about the deuce trap courts and for the for the possible deuce trap courts and increased residency priority use, do we have any operation tools or technology available to support enforcement and fair access? For example, reservation system, digital checking, real-time court management. So, we're in the center of Silicon Valley, maybe there's software we can adopt. >> We don't have that currently. We have We have software and price for our permits, creating permits. We do that for our room rentals and USTA tennis matches. So, we and pickleball tournaments. So, we we have a process for creating permits, but it's that's kind of where it stops. So, you know, in terms of digital check-ins, um we don't have that. It still takes a lot of staff power because you you know, to have a permit that follows the policies, staff have to make sure that's happening. So, we have to hold and touch each one of these permits. So, we kind of have the bare the bare minimum, but none of the additions that would really be required for something like this. >> Sort of follow up, do we have other jurisdictions, say neighboring cities, how do they use deuce trap to multi-use courts effective practice? Is it a best practice or do they tend to increase user conflict or administration burden? Do we have some comparative data we can, you know, conversation with them to learn the best practices? >> I I think when it comes to dual stripes, we actually did it pretty well with uh courts six and seven in terms of creating priority times, listening to both user groups, really trying to touch on on the specifics. A lot when it comes to dual striping, a lot of cities have have followed our lead on that. Um but there's no avoiding conflicts because they're both there and ultimately they both would like to have the space on their own. Um so I can't point to a neighboring city that could say that there's no conflict when it comes to dual striping. Um we have done it in the past pretty well. I just I don't I haven't seen it avoid either you're increasing demand and you can't answer to that demand um or there's just ongoing conflict between user groups. >> Yeah, thank you. Yeah, great work. Thanks. >> Any other commissioner for clarifying questions? >> Uh Commissioner Ding. >> Yeah, thank you Adam for this detailed report. I just noticed we have a attachment A for the courts court counts. Would you mind sharing on how we can explain or demonstrate that table works because I think a lot of the community members might not understand. >> Sure, thank you for that. Um so with that spreadsheet, uh you can see I we listed the the locations of the courts on the left-hand side. So Mitchell Park, Rinconada, Palo Alto High School, uh Cubberley. And then across the top are the dates that we were there and the times that we checked it. Um and we try you know, again, there you'll see like 10 or 15 minutes before we have to drive from location to location. Uh and then just in terms of colors, uh if something is is red, that means on that particular day and that that particular time, everything was full. Uh I put on the top uh green, that indicates a weekend day. And [snorts] then yellow was an open court, meaning there was no one on it when we checked. And and it was daylight like Cubberley, we wouldn't highlight it if it was dark cuz we're just suggesting that it's dark. Um so if it's highlighted, that means it was available for use in terms of daylight and it was free. It was no one on it. >> Thank you. That's very extensive and detailed. Great work. >> Commissioner Axe around. Thanks for the great uh report, Adam. And I I guess we're in Palo Alto pretty lucky to have an amazing resource like Mitchell Park. And just seems like we're a little over our carrying capacity, so it's lovely that we have that. A couple of quick clarifying questions. One is parking concerns seem to be pretty paramount. I was wondering if there was any out-of-the-box solutions that were considered for other parking locations or sub-leasing them from private lots or however that has uh could be done. And secondly, on the lighting Cubberley project, is that uh stopped as it is or is there more investigation that's uh evaluating whether that's a potential in the future? >> So for parking, um we really only looked at the Mitchell Park parking lot since we have ownership of that. Um I think you'll hear from the pickleball club that they've looked at some of the surrounding neighbors uh and larger parking lots. Um we didn't do that. We just don't feel comfortable driving parking to parking lots that we we don't own. Um but there there are public streets and parking lots in the area. Um Second Second part of that >> All right. >> lighting Cubberley, is that ongoing? >> Uh so I think that's still looked at um because I think it would be an asset to the tennis community um but apparently we're not looking at it as a trade-off um in terms of like we only light it if we, you know, provide pickleball courts. I think in long-term um that would be great for the tennis community and since Coverly's being addressed is is long-term plans, I think that's something that can continue to be discussed. Uh, I just don't see it as like a trade-off. >> Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? I I do have one. You You mentioned that there are there's 20 I think you said uh 27 tennis courts that are lit. Is that correct? >> No. >> 10 10 that are lit, right? >> Uh Yeah, there's 27 in our in our inventory. >> Okay. >> Sev- uh 10 are lit. That's Palo Alto. That's Palo Alto overall. >> So that out of that 10 the two the four courts that um Mitchell Park are part of that inventory. >> That'd be >> So if you were to take two of those tennis courts, it would reduce it from >> 10 to eight. >> to the six. >> 10 to eight, right. Exactly. >> Okay. Um and as far as the you mentioned the new housing that's going in over at uh I guess >> The Baylands Athletic Center area. Yeah. >> Um any thoughts on that happening? I think you mentioned So I that's something that could happen at the same time. But um I know that there's other cities that have put in place uh I guess you call no noise uh paddles and balls and that's could be a consideration that if if that was going to be something that would happen at the same time that the housing was going up, that that would be that could be a rule that could be implemented for that particular uh pickleball location. Like is that something you think we could think about doing? Uh that not and not negate it, you know, not not move it up. But >> Yeah, I mean I mean I think that's part of what that conversation would have to look like. Is there Is there ways to if both are built with each other in mind, meaning not only the physical structures, um but the rules that we put in place there. Could Could we do it in such a way that they could coexist? Yes, but it it seems um I'm hesitant only because there's a lot of concerns when you put pickleball next to residence. Um But there are could be worth the conversation. >> other cities that are that have implemented policies like that. So we wouldn't be I don't think we would be one-off in doing something like that. So it's something we >> People are trying all over the all over. >> Okay. All right. Uh question. Yeah. >> So the public's been waiting an hour and 20 minutes. I suggest we get to the public. >> Any other commissioners? Okay. Let's move on to uh public uh comments. >> Okay. Uh so we currently have 37 uh public comments in person and two online via Zoom. Um so the first speaker will be Harriet S. Who has um in lieu of speaking in public has chosen to submit a video. So I'll be showing the 1-minute video here. >> Okay, our next speaker also has chosen to um Oh. The computer froze. >> [laughter] [snorts] >> Okay. I got I got a blue screen on this side. I'm not sure if we're still live. >> Can you move on maybe to uh public comment in in person? Are you able? I can move my computer over. >> Okay, up next in person we have Hope C. >> Should I start? >> Thank you, Adam, for the thoughtful report. Thank you, commissioners, chairs, and council person for the opportunity to deliver these remarks. Um, I'm Hope Chen. I'm a long-time Palo Alto resident, decades, and um and my me and my family, we live near Mitchell Park. We really appreciate the rich opportunities it provides us to connect with our community, our neighbors, cultural events, um The sport of tennis is very special to me and my family because um one, my husband has been trying for a little while to teach me, this klutz, and it's slowly making progress. But besides um bonding as a family, this is how we connect with our neighbor Walter, a retired Stanford professor, our new friends Carla, Jennifer, Patrick. Um, so we really appreciate the opportunity to keep these courts here um so that we can have these experiences connecting with our community. So, thank you. >> [applause] >> Okay. Can we um >> Yeah. >> Good. >> Pause on the on the applause, please. Yeah, up next we have uh Joyce R followed by Young G. >> Thank you, Council Adam, for There you are. Thank you for your really thoughtful report. I'm Joyce Reynolds. I moved to Palo Alto in 19 uh 78, and um I'm also the past board chair of the Magical Bridge Foundation. Um, I don't play tennis or pickleball right now, and I appreciate how many people want to play and the what the issue the Park and Recreation is facing. But I what I haven't heard, I appreciated your excellent report, but the impact on Magical Bridge and the people who attend there, these are people with special needs who have an opportunity to be with the whole community. And as you saw from the video that Harriet did, you can't even talk to somebody because of the noise. And Adam, I was disappointed that you did not show how close the Magical Bridge Foundation is in your in your highlights to the pickleball and the impact that that has had. So, I would really strongly ask you to consider. That is the only place that Palo Alto has invested in a special needs community. >> Thank you. Your time has expired. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Up up next we have I just want to remind everyone not to do any audible clapping, please. Thank you. We can move along pretty quickly if we >> Up next we have Young G, followed by Nadia. >> And just as a reminder, um the chair has allotted each individual 1 minute. >> Uh my name is Young. I just want to say I want to say converting tennis court to pickleball pickleball court is a shortcut. It's a very bad shortcut. It hurts the community. Mitchell Park is a multi-purpose park. It serves all the people around there. So, Uh when I try to uh organize a social match at in for the evening, I find it's very hard. I find it very stressed. It made me and my friends have to go to uh different court to find a to wait. So, I I hope we can keep those uh tennis courts. >> Up next we have Nadia, followed by Sheryl K. >> Hi, good evening everyone. I'm a tennis mom with two tennis children. I have the privilege of playing with many Palo Altans. A lot of my team opponents and teammates are there. Raise your hand. Um I'm for more tennis courts and more pickleball courts. I think with the epidemic of loneliness in the US, uh more social sports can only be really good for our community. Uh let me just tell you about the solution that my small town in Southern Philippines has come up. Um that's where my mom plays a very uh tennis which has been very popular in my town and she wakes up at 4:00 p.m. 4:00 a.m. to get to the courts at 5:00 where it's practically packed by then. And so pickleball the pickleballers in that town had considered that sports as completely distinct from tennis. They've never asked to share the courts and they've never asked to repaint the lines. In that in that part of the world it seems unthinkable and downright impolite to encroach on a well-loved facilities of another vibrant community. >> Your time has expired. >> Thank you. >> Up next we have Sheryl K, followed by Melanie H. >> That was Sheryl and my name is Melanie H. I'm a Palo Alto resident living only 3 minutes from Mitchell Park. My kids practically grew up in the playground and library and I spend a lot of time at the tennis court over there. I strongly support keeping the tennis court as they are. The park already struggle with parking and restroom capacity. Expanding pickleball will increase congestion and make the experience for the whole park visitor even worse. I've also been a long time tennis captain and many of my teammates have told me that Palo Alto public courts are their happy place and we do want to keep it that way. We tennis is not not just exercise, they build community, we build friendship and connection in that court. We even accepted the recent 25% residency requirement for Palo Alto based tennis team because I understand the goal was to give more priority to Palo Alto residents. That makes sense, but if we reduce tennis court two, you are you are making even harder for tennis players, youth and adults to actually play here. >> has expired. >> Thank you for your time. >> Up next is Zehkala M followed by that Caleb, sorry if I mispronounced that, followed by Tracy F. >> Carla McGreen Hello, good evening everyone. My name is Carla McGreen. I live in Palo Alto. I'm a long time tennis lover. Uh I started playing tennis 20 years ago when I was a student in graduate school in Michigan. Both of my two kids play tennis and I frequently taking my younger one to the Mitchell Park tennis court to play tennis. And we we do not want any of the tennis courts in Mitchell Park to be converted really. Uh I'm here to speak for opposing that proposal. And we in the the tennis community do not want that kind of proposal to come back again because we have to deal with this every year. It's not very nice. So uh So now when I I my 11-year-old that the plan of conversion. She goes, "Why? How come, Mom? There are already so many pickleball courts there in the park." Uh maybe we should convert some of the pickleball pickleball courts back to tennis court. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Up next is Tracy F, followed by uh David M. >> Hi, my name is Tracy, and I've been living in Palo Alto for 30 years, and I'm a tennis player. Uh one of the things that wasn't mentioned is that courts one and two are mostly used for instruction, which means if you take away courts three and four, it's Mitchell Park is just not available for the public for social tennis. Another thing I want to mention is when you go there on weekends, there are certain elder players that look like they've been playing there forever. They come at the same time, they have the four people. Like if they kind of like they've been playing there forever. And if those courts are taken away, I don't know where they're going to go, but it just feels I don't know if they're represented here, but it just feels really unfair for those people that are actually using the courts to have those taken away. Thank you. >> Up next is David M, who will be speaking on behalf of a group of five or more. He'll be allotted five minutes. >> Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. Uh my name's Dave McQuarrie. I've been a a resident of Palo Alto for 10 years. I've been a father to a special needs child for 20 years, and I've been playing tennis for more than 40 years. I'll go with that. Um tennis courts are a long-term resource uh that the community is serving to children, to to leagues, to seniors, of course to parents, and to adaptive participants. Once these courts are converted, they are rarely converted back, and over time we steadily lose the recreational diversity that we offer our community. This issue is also a personal one for me. My daughter, Maya, has special needs and tennis has been an outlet for her. Sometimes it's tough to get her to tennis, but once she gets there and when she's back, the joy that she feels and that we see on her is profound. Uh the structure, the space, the rhythm of the game, and the support of the local volunteer coaches gives us and gives her an opportunity to participate comfortably and successfully in a very safe sport. Uh losing these courts would directly affect families like ours. Popularity growth alone should not be a reason to reduce the services that are afforded to a wide group of members of the community. And I would just finish with this suggestion, and I'm not going to use all my time. I think you've all been here long enough. I know there are a lot of people behind me. Um I would encourage the commission to also consider the broader community, the many residents who may never attend a meeting like this, to voice how much they use and how much joy they get, uh but who still rely on access to Palo Alto's public tennis courts. Thank you. >> Up next we have Jack K followed by Olena V. >> Hi, good evening. This is Jet. Um I'm captaining a USTA uh adult league uh tennis team, and I'm also Palo Alto resident. Uh this season, for instance, we uh had uh 10 matches and hosting five. I requested our preferred time uh I three preferences, and all were declined due to the uh courts unavailabilities. Uh if two more courts are uh converted to pickable courts, it'll be very difficult to um secure courts to host matches. And we already have um Palo Alto resident requirement imposed and we are trying to get more resident play for our team and I strongly ask not to be converted to pickable courts. Thank you. >> Up next is Olenka V followed by Tom N. >> Good evening, everyone. Adam and staff, thank you for that recommendation. And I'm Olenka Villarreal, a long-time Palo Alto resident, and I'm also the one that started the Magical Bridge Playground, specifically Palo Alto being the first. I want to be very clear and say I am not anti-pickleball, but I am about placement. Who is having the time of their life and who is being displaced? So, when I sort of started this whole adventure of Magical Bridge, I came before the city over 18 years ago and indicated that most ADA-compliant playgrounds here, really around the country, are not designed to include families like my own and many others, the one in four that have a visible or invisible member of their family having a disability. And so, they offered me this beautiful little quadrant outside of um where we are today, and it was magical because it was close to Ability Path. It was close to Ada's Cafe, Achieve Kids. We could not be more thrilled. And after seven long years, we raised the money, did the playground, and you know, here we are 10 years later. We're very proud that this Magical Bridge has brought guests from all over the world marveling about the inclusive nature and so on. And in the early years, we had the tennis courts, and they were quiet neighbors, if you will. And then, of course pickle ball took residence and I understand the the you know from the enthusiasm for the sport. But for the one in 31 people living with autism, sensory sensitivities, PTSD, dementia, other disabilities, that constant high-pitched pop is not just background noise. It is distress, anxiety, and it overwhelms these individuals. Families are now leaving the playground, they're not able to enjoy it as much because they just can't tolerate the sound. And these courts do intensify a problem that already conflicts with the mission of that park. As you can tell by my shirt, when I say all ages, all abilities, all welcome, that should be what our park does for all Palo Altans. It should be serving us all. And so with Ability Path, my own daughter Ava is there. She represents now a group of people in the back of Ability Path. They are the most marginalized of our community here. They are the people that are not verbal. Um they rely on the playground, they rely on the park to walk across, roll across in a safe way, a quiet way, and and be able to have some respite. They are no longer able to do that. One of the members was almost hit by a car the other day. So >> [snorts] >> it has changed tremendously. So again, I want to say we are not anti-pickleball. We are asking I'm asking on behalf of the many families that couldn't be here. We are asking for equity and consideration. No one wants this noise within earshot of their homes. So why is the one corner of the city's most marginalized people that have these services, why are they supposed to inherit this um noise situation? So we'd like Mitchell Park to return to its roots of inclusion. Um please do not force the most vulnerable members to once again be the ones expected to tolerate what others would never tolerate for themselves. So I thank the Parks and Rec Commission for helping restore Mitchell Park to what it was always meant to be, a place for every member of this community. And I ask that you please make Mitchell Park magical again. We welcome your suggestion to move the pickleball courts in a location where they can enjoy their space, have plenty of parking, and play 24/7. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Up next is Tom N, followed by Robbie K. >> Uh good evening, Commissioner. Thank you for your time. So, what's in front of you tonight is about balance and fair equity use of space, public space for everyone at Mitchell Park. So, here we heard a lot, as you can see, ad nauseam, about pickleball courts want more space. They have about, what, we're looking at the data, 80% of the resources versus tennis, 20%. So, just on the merit alone, I think that you guys should reject their plea because it's really unfair use of public funding for just snuffing out one community to build up another. I I don't think that's a fair use of uh open space resources for everyone, especially when you're talking about inclusion. So, I urge that, you know, you support to keep the status quo as it is, because as of now, we have a very hard time getting tennis time in. And I I am I love tennis, and I can't seem to get enough time at Mitchell Park. That's why I love >> Your time has expired. >> Thank you. >> Up next is Robbie K, followed by Frank L. >> Good evening. Mitchell Park for all. Mitchell Park is truly a gem amongst Palo Alto's parks. It's a community resource that's used by people from of all ages for all activities. Increasing the already large footprint of pickleball will destroy the essential character of the park. I've used that for I've been at the park for 40 years. Children, especially those at the Magical Bridge Playground, are already being seriously disrupted. Picnic-goers, tai chi practitioners, other users of of the nearby lawn and the playground are also affected. Pressure on parking, we've heard a lot of that already. Senior citizens in nearby residences are afraid to speak publicly, but are also affected by the noise. And finally, the expansion will severely affect tennis players losing their only hub in South Palo Alto. Two points. Palo Alto doesn't have a shortage of pickleball courts. Our neighboring cities do. >> Your time has expired. Up next is Frank L, followed by is it C Fang L? Is there Frank L? Okay, moving on to uh is it C C Fang L? Okay, we will move on to the next person, which is is it is it Kam Tron? >> Uh good evening, everyone. Some uh somebody suggested me to come and speak, and as a personal rule, I cannot say no to that. So, um I I want to congratulate everyone here who use sport as a way to promote well-being to our life. With that said, I'm a tennis player. Um And um I really appreciate um Palo Alto have a lot of court um that really help me improve my well-being and it's really easy to find a good tennis player around here because of the the the the infrastructure that Palo Alto provides. So, I really appreciate that. Thank you. >> Up next is Lawrence V, followed by uh as in Wenshin H. >> Hello. My name is uh Luke Van der Velde, uh Lawrence, and both of my younger kids learned to play tennis on those courts, and they're going to they're already mostly gone. Um And I just think it's unfair to take those away from the community that uh lives here in Palo Alto and that lives around those courts and doesn't have any other courts nearby. Um Again, nothing against pickleball. My wife actually plays pickleball sometimes, and she agrees with me um in opposition to expanding the pickleball courts at this point. She's not here. She's at home with the kids. And um I just want to say thanks for your for for letting me speak, and please keep the tennis courts. >> Up next, we have Ted F. Oh, sorry. Wenshin H, followed by Ted F. >> I Thank you. Um my name is Wenshin. I'm a long-time, you know, USTA captain, and uh I played at Mitchell Park very often. And I don't notice that the Mitchell Park is uh you know, multi-culture park, serves for multi-purposes with uh inclusion and with all different activities. Now, if a pickleball converts uh course into pickleball and uh we don't have any course available for public use because of one and two are used by the coaches. Even look at Riconada, uh court at five and six are used by the coaches. We only have four courts at night for the whole Palo Alto's citizens to play. And uh you know, the noise level is uh horrendous. And I'm not too against the pickleball, but I think uh it should move be moved to a proper place that uh you know, have less impact on surrounding activities. So, thank you. >> Up next is Ted F, followed by Cliff C. >> Hi there. Uh Palo Alto resident for 20 years. Uh Mitchell Park courts is my home court. I support tennis and pickleball court uh pickleball because we play both. Uh I've seen, you know, all all the folks here are my friends, really. You know, I've met them on these courts. There are 87-year-old and their groups that I see play daily on these courts. Um you know, to young kids, men and cash who play every day after school. They get up, they they ride their bikes from the from the adjacent schools and tell their parents to meet them there. Right? And they're so dedicated. This is our future. Okay? So, please don't take their livelihoods and these you know, they're old young and old. Don't take their livelihoods away from them. David Siegel, you have so much power with your club and I encourage you to please focus that energy and the persistence to finding a solution that doesn't negatively impact other folks in the community. Thank you. That's good. >> Okay, please please refrain from the clapping, please. Up next is Cliff C followed by Robert C or V. I wasn't unsure there, but yeah. >> Hi, I'm uh Cliff Chambers and I'm president of the Mountain View Pickleball Club. We have six dual-striped courts at Rengstorff Park and two dedicated courts. Our city has Council has decided they want new dedicated courts and a proposal is coming to them in late June for a private property uh public uh pickleball facility. The details have not been announced, but I just want to let you know that other cities are really trying to increase the supply of pickleball to take off the demand from from Mitchell Park. And by the way, all you cut me off, but we we have no conflicts at all with our dual-striped courts. In fact, we have an agreement with the tennis club on the shared hours that we negotiated. It works really well and I think, you know, there's an opportunity. But we do support There's Pickleball is growing [clears throat] exponentially and we all need to expand pickleball courts in some capacity. >> has expired. >> Uh excuse me, sir. I I would like to add a rebuttal. Because uh he's not speaking the truth. >> Hey, hey. >> I do have a conflict of video. I >> Can we uh can we have Please. If you can't um control yourself, please leave. Next speaker, please. >> Um up next is Robert C or V. It's I think it's Chan, Robert Chen. Possibly. >> It's C. >> It's a C. Okay, thanks. >> [clears throat] >> Good evening, council members. I had a speech drafted, but I I'll cut it short because others have already covered uh a lot of what I had in mind. So, if you expand two more courts at Mitchell Park to pickleball, you will leave exactly one lit court available for for walk-on tennis with bathroom access in all of Palo Alto because seven of those 10 lit courts are routinely booked during peak hours between city instructors and USTA matches. Thank you. >> Up next, we got Karina T speaking on a behalf of a group of five people. >> Uh hello. My name is Karina Saing. I'm a junior at Gunn High School. For the past 3 years, I've been a member of the Gunn High Pickleball Club. When I started high school, playing pickleball helped me form a lot new a lot of new friendships that have become some of my strongest bonds. Many sports I have tried over the years are intimidating to play, but um pickleball is easy to learn. The sport welcomes new players and players like me who aren't super athletic. I can play with friends who are more athletic and experienced than I am, yet we can still enjoy competitive and engaging games together. Based on personal experience, I find playing at Mitchell Park often challenging. The public courts at night and on weekends are super crowded. This makes it hard for my friends to regularly play to regular meet up meet up and play. And waiting takes a lot of time. Trying to play at Mitchell Park often feels like the long lines at an amusement park, which I think we can agree we don't No one likes. I also took part in a free public league that was called the Experimental Pickleball League hosted by the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. It was for a few weekends during the summer, and I enjoyed the team aspect of the play. The matches were fun, and I felt that the regular playing helped me really get to know the other players. I hope that Palo Alto will create and support opportunities for youth to play pickleball, and please consider providing space for youth use. The overcrowded conditions during the times when we want to meet up are both intimidating and a big deterrent. Please consider making it possible to host Palo Alto youth pickleball leagues, just like you do for youth soccer, softball, and other sports. And the Palo Alto Pickleball Club has indicated that it would help make this happen. Pickleball helps foster a strong sense of community and has been an impactful impactful part of my life over the past few years. If you give youth the space and opportunity to grow and engage, we can make our own pickleball communities in a safe and central location. Please support the expansion of pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Thank you. >> Up next we have Max Z. >> Uh hi commissioners. My name is Max Z, and I'm a sophomore at Palo Alto High School and president of the Paly Pickleball Club. I'm here to not only represent the voice of Paly, but also to give you insight into what what teens and kids feel about pickleball. So, pickleball is special. So, you may see many older adults playing pickleball at Mitchell Park and assume that pickleball is for elderly people, but no, pickleball is an all-around sport where anyone can play and where anyone can find community. This impact of pickleball does not only apply to adults. As president of the Pickleball Club at Paly, I have seen what pickleball means to high schoolers and how they perceive it. I'll use myself as an example. I started playing pickleball during the COVID-19 pandemic after my mom fell in love with pickleball and we would go uh to have some fun with her family. Uh now as a 15-year-old, I have schoolwork and extracurriculars to attend to, but I still find ways to play pickleball. I also play soccer as the benefits of pickleball are similar, the most important being mental health. Uh and pickleball has one advantage over other sports, which is playability and accessibility. Of course, I'm not only not I'm not encompassing every en- encompassing all experiences that people around my age have, but I believe that I represent as well after talking to so many of my peers. Now, as a school club, the Poly Pickleball Club represents the interest and growth in youth pickleball over the years. At the very very beginning of the club, when the founder Christian Sue first started the club, there were only seven people. Then after a few days, the club grew to nine, and in a month the club had 20 people. So, now after 4 years, the club has grown steadily, even though high school clubs rarely increase in size due to the graduation of seniors. Poly Pickleball Club is an exception. Over 4 years, the size of the club has grown 30% on year on average, an astounding amount compared to other clubs. Currently, 47 members have attended at least one time, which makes the club among the top 10 clubs at over 161 clubs at Poly. The growth of the club not only reflects the growth of pickleball at Poly, but also represents the speed at which the sport is growing at the youth level. With the growing community of youth pickleball players, you would think that there would be more youth playing at the public courts such as Mitchell Park. Yes, youth are seldom seen at the Mitchell Parks. Uh why? Because the obvious reason that it is daunting to go into a place full of adults, and it's pretty loud as well. Uh we used to know where we can play the courts outside of school hours, and where to organize youth activities, and as a high school club, a place to engage other high schools. A common place designated for youth pickleball would not only open opportunities for youth players, but also enable space to build build community with others the same age. Critics may say that youth just don't have time or are not interested in playing outside of school, but given the evidence in the few youth gatherings and tournaments organized by the P A P C, 20 to 50 kids usually attend every single time, rivaling even adults present in there. Uh and designating four of the eight pickle expanded pickleball courts to prioritize youth over normal paddle down play would increase the amount of youth playing at the pickleball courts, and minimize conflict by youth programs. The impact on the mental health of teens will also drastically outweigh the few cons cited by David. He will state Uh if we had space then we can have some youth leagues, community events, and more mini activities as Karina has said. Uh so thus to accommodate the rising popularity and need for public pickleball courts and advantages of having youth priority courts, please for all Palo Alto youth recommend the proposed expansion at Mitchell Park to the City Council. Thank you. >> Up next is Long N. >> Good evening. My name is Long is a Palo Alto resident. Um Mitchell Park is very um special. It's surrounded by four school. Um Fairmeadow Elementary, Hoover Elementary, Los, and um Challenger. Um Uh a lot of student go there after school and it's a very good place for children. So whatever you consider, please whatever you decide, please consider that children need to have a healthy, safe, peaceful environment to learn, to read in a no noise environment. Reading in a park is exciting feeling. So one um statistic I provide you, City of Palo Alto 15 pickleball court population 67 people. I think it's 7,000. Mountain View nine pickleball court population 82,000. Santa Clara um city um 16 pickleball court population 130,000. >> Your time has expired. >> Thank you. >> Up next is David S speaking on behalf of a group of 10 or more. He is allotted 10 minutes. >> Oh, man. >> Good evening, commissioners. Before I start, I would like to thank the staff, and in particular Adam Howard, for his support of this transformational sport of pickleball over the last 9 years, where the courts at Mitchell Park have become a place of refuge and solace for so many. Hello again. My name is David Siegel. I'm a 35-year resident and president of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. I represent both our membership and thousands of people that utilize our beloved courts. Before I continue, I'd like I would like everyone in this room who enjoys pickleball at Mitchell Park to very, very quietly raise your hands without applause. Thank you. I stand before you today not simply as an advocate for pickleball. I stand here as someone who has watched the sport quietly, profoundly save lives. Please, before you decide anything, I need you to truly hear what is at stake. During the darkest days of COVID, when our city fell silent and our neighbors retreated behind closed doors, something remarkable happened at our courts. People who had nothing, no connection, no purpose, no reason even to get out of bed, found their way to a pickleball court. And there, they in the simple act of showing up alone and being welcomed into a game by strangers, they found a reason to keep going. I'm not speaking in metaphors. I am telling you that for some of our neighbors, pickleball was the difference between despair and hope, between isolation and belonging, between darkness and life. And for some, it still is. Imagine for a moment you're 70. Your children have grown and moved away. Your world has grown quiet and small. You drive to Mitchell Park hoping for a game, walk up to the courts and see mobs of people and paddles stacked in the rack. So, you get back in your car and you go home alone. Again. That is the reality for so many people in our community every single day. And if you choose the status quo, that will remain their reality tomorrow. Or imagine you're a teenager in the city, one of the loneliest generations in American history, craving unscripted face-to-face connection that no phone can provide. On June 14th, coming up, students from the Gunn and Paly pickleball clubs will gather with the Palo Alto Pickleball Club at Mitchell Park for a youth event. Real competition, real laughter, real friendship. Our proposal includes four dedicated youth courts because our children deserve more of these moments, not fewer. Adams' report didn't mention this. I wish it had. This commission understands that the the stakes of the youth mental health. The city and PAUSD recently approved 1.7 million dollars for a single year to put track monitors at our four train crossings as a suicide deterrent. Well, pickleball won't solve that crisis alone, but research consistently shows it reduces isolation and builds belonging among teens. The return on investment will be substantial as evidenced by the social benefits the existing courts already have provided to adults. These examples sum up the two primary reasons for our proposal. It is not just about reducing wait times. It is about taking the "no more room for newcomers" sign off the courts so the joy and benefits of pickleball can be reach can reach more people. And about our club being able to host more community events like the youth gathering I just described in partnership with the city. Every day we see youth who are We see elders who are lonely. We see adults of all ages looking for community. For a great many of these people, pickleball can be a powerful antidote. But de- but demand already exceeds capacity. People are sitting at home because the courts are full while other courts around town, as Adam mentioned, sit idle. People who could be playing, meeting new friends, and building deeper ties to the community. To better serve this broader community, we worked hard with the city and other organizations to address concerns about expansion. On parking, we secured 35 spaces from Ability Path, far beyond any needed by expansion. We are discussing additional parking with the Unitarian Church. We met with Magical Bridge and the city about sound barriers and have offered to pay for them if feasible. We sat down with the Tennis Club President, the Paly Tennis Coach, and recently the Palo Alto Youth Council. We have even offered to fund lights at Cubberley to expand tennis availability after dark. We have shown up every single time. With love for this community, not an obligation to it. What is most glaringly absent from the report is anything about the undisputed health, mental and physical, social, and community building benefits of pickleball. Some items in the report are worth highlighting. There is no dispute about the long waits and the crowding at the 15 pickleball courts. While demand on the 54 tennis courts is much less. And the report notes that, quote, "Courts were generally available at several other locations throughout Palo Alto during the same period when the pickleball courts at Mitchell Park were fully occupied." Unquote. On parking, despite numerous references to issues, of 68 periods, the report states, quote, "Parking was observed to be fully occupied during only one observational period which coincided with a community center rental event. Those are Adam's words, not mine. It is also supposition that expansion will increase Palo Alto's regional popularity as a pickleball destination. Data suggests the opposite. Our non-resident membership has fallen from 50% to 40% over 5 years as nearby cities, like Cliff just mentioned, expanded or improved their facilities. And roughly 100 new commercial courts have opened, including two large facilities in Milpitas and San Jose, and a new six six indoor courts near Costco in Mountain View will open in January. I agree with Adam that the Baylands site is not realistic given ecological noise and cost issues. And while everyone would welcome a new site, the constraints of proximity to residents, ecological concerns, and development costs make that simply unrealistic. Before you is a binary decision. We either expand at Mitchell Park or we deny the benefits of pickleball to new players, especially youth, and severely limit our ability to expand community programming. This process has in some way frame been framed as framed the issue as tennis versus pickleball. That's exactly wrong. The real conversation is pickleball versus loneliness. Pickleball versus depression. Pickleball versus community. The staff recommendation rests primarily on concerns about traffic, parking, and noise. Those are legitimate concerns, and we take them very seriously. But we ask the commission to weigh them against what is on the other side of the scale. A city goal of improving the social and mental health of our residents. Choosing the status quo is a choice, and it has consequences for the health and social cohesion of the city. The club has had thousands of members over its 10 years. We're not a fringe interest. We are your neighbors, your parents, your seniors, your teenagers, and we are asking with full hearts for the repurposing of only two of the 54 public tennis courts for eight pickleball courts that would cost the city almost nothing. Doing nothing is not a neutral choice. It is a choice to tell lonely seniors that the door is closed. It is a choice to tell our teenagers there is no space for them. It is a choice to let a community building miracle wither for want of space that is easily obtainable. All we are asking today is for the courage to take one more step. So, I don't just ask you, I beg you. I beg you to think of the 70-year-old driving home alone. I beg you to think of the teenager who needs just somewhere to belong. I beg you to think of the neighbor for whom these courts are not a hobby, but a lifeline. We're not asking you to ignore our neighbors' concerns. We're asking you to ensure those concerns are not given any more weight than the health and well-being being of a community and the thousands more who could benefit from it if capacity was expanded. So, please make the motion. Put it to a vote. Change lives. The opportunity is right here in front of you. Please don't let it slip away. Thank you. >> Can I Okay. I've asked Can I ask you not to use any audible clapping, please? >> Up next, we have Jack K. >> Hello. My name is Jack Coleman. My wife and I were both born and raised in Palo Alto. We were still residents. That would be 1953. In 2019, I was diagnosed with Parkinson's. The disease primarily affects my right and dominant side. So, I taught myself to play left-handed to keep the game I love in my life. Pickleball helps me feel good both physically and mentally. Since I started playing pickleball at Mitchell Park, I made friends and soon had a cadre of people that I played with regularly. As pickleball became more popular, we found ourselves spending more time waiting to play than playing. So, about 4 years ago, we shifted to Rengstorff Park. I have not played in Palo Alto since. The Parkinson's Foundation supports pickleball as highly beneficial for those of us afflicted with this disease. It also states, and I quote, "The social nature of the game boosts mental health and emotional well-being." I see a neurologist once a year. And after the exam, she says, "Whatever you are doing, keep doing it because it's working." I golf, ride bikes, and walk, but pickleball is what I live for. While I would love to return to less busy courts closer to home, I mainly feel sorry for those residents with afflictions like mine who won't even take up the sport due to the crowds at Mitchell. Thanks. >> [clears throat] >> Up Next is Henry R, followed by Peter F. >> Good evening. Uh Henry Riggs, uh I'm an officer with the Palo Alto Tennis Club. Uh you're probably lucky I won't even try to match the 10-minute speech that you just heard. I also don't particularly want to be adversarial. Uh I'm I'm here to thank this commission um and particularly Adam, good to see you by the way. Um and uh appreciate the many thoughtful comments that have been made everything from magical bridge to uh simple practical uh conflicts between the way tennis is scheduled and the way pickleball is scheduled. Um but I I also want to acknowledge um that uh or at least point out there isn't a way that converting two tennis courts in demand to pickleball is going to solve a youth crisis. And I'm sorry to be so blunt at this point, but >> Um I just hope you will not rob Peter to pay Paul. >> Yes. >> Build build new courts. Ask for funding. Thank you. >> Up next is Peter F followed by Victorio F. >> Uh good evening uh chair, vice chair, and the commissioners. I'm Peter. I'm a parent of at the Chenega school which is right next to the pickleball course in Michelle Park. And earlier I experienced some mental health issues playing tennis and getting reconnected to the community at Michelle Park quickly helped me recover. Without the tennis course in Michelle Park, my recovery and all those great friendships wouldn't have been possible. And also I mean I have a lot of respect for people who play pickleball. And I also know that the the the game is uh developing very fast. But the the reality is that this sport is really noisy. I mean as a parent of students who who is right next to the pickleball courts, the the noise there really greatly affect their day-to-day learning. Not to mention also the the the magical bridge, the folks who the community there are also I have to say disturbed by all the noises. So, I I really hope that the city can find a way to both support recreation while also protect the learning environment also the the overall benefit of the community. >> Thank you, your time has expired. >> Thank you. >> Up next is Victor F, followed by Anne C. >> Good evening and thank you for listening to me. I would like to point at the difference in the availability of tennis courts and pickleball courts. There may be tennis courts that are not as crowded as pickleball courts, but if you try to go on a on a tennis courts and you have made arrangements with one, two, maybe four people and you don't find a tennis courts in one park, you have to go to another area of the city and sometimes you have to go to two or three and you don't end playing. In pickleballs, you get there, it's social, and there is a much bigger rotation and the likelihood that you will not be able to play is very low. And furthermore, if you take Mitchell out, you take light court lit courts out and in the evening, you have only four courts. Thank you. >> Up next is Anne C, followed by Jared P. >> Good evening everybody. I'm Ann Cribbs, um, an Olympian from 1960 believing tremendously in the value of sport for all of us, whether it's pickleball or tennis or swimming or track and field or anything else. First of all, I want to say thanks to Adam, but also to the commissioners and to the community for all of your very thoughtful and passionate discussion of this issue. And, um, I really believe that we live in an incredible community with incredible facilities. And I would like to see all of us see how we can work together to to make the changes that need to be made with, um, the conversion of, uh, the tennis courts to pickleball, which I support, first of all. I also support the quick, um, movement toward getting, uh, lights at, uh, uh, Cubberley, uh, as soon as we can, um, because that would extend, for sure, the use of tennis, um, to the evening. And finally, I'd love to see us, um, restart the joint commission task force that we thought about a couple of years ago, the tennis and pickleball people working together to achieve, um, a really good solution for Palo Alto. I think it's really important. Everybody's a really smart person here and can get it done. Thank you. >> Up next is Jared P., followed by Jenny L. >> Uh, hi, thanks. I'm Jared. Yeah, I'm just a casual tennis player who was handed a flyer and was curious what was even going on here. Um, and so, just watching all of this, it's pretty crazy. Uh, but I I thought the recommendation from Adam made a lot of sense. Looking at it, it's really obvious that, uh, there's a lot more pickleball players than tennis players. And if you've even gone there, you'll see that. Um but the tennis courts get good use. Um However, from listening to people talk, it's pretty clear that if pickleball takes over a couple courts, they're just kind of taking over the whole park. And that's how multiple parties are going to feel. And I just don't understand why pickleball doesn't go to Cubberley or the high school or just some other location. What That seems to make the most sense to me based on what I've witnessed here. That's all. Thanks. >> Up next is Jenny L, followed by Is it Mingxia Z? >> Hi Adam. Thanks for the report. As a tennis fan, I encourage us to not be blinded by the possibility of dual stripe or the multiple benefits of pickleball. That does not negate the main issue, which is noise. Chairman Freeman, you had a question on what do other cities do? Well, Boise, Idaho did convert the tennis courts to pickleball. And they had to revert them back to tennis due to legal settlement due to noise. So, I urge the commission to consider that noise is a true disturbance. And there's legal precedents when noise ordinances are not considered. My second point is for the marginalized community at Achieve Kids. They are next door to the proposed courts. Their outdoor space is where the loud pickleball popping is. We cannot even tolerate residential housing being next to these areas, but these marginalized kids who cannot speak for themselves need to have a voice and need to have their space to try to emotionally regulate. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Up next we have Mingxia Z, followed by Cash. >> Good evening, everyone. Uh last year John Wall, the Steven House the president of Steven House board of directors, stated that there's no one complaint that in the building. Uh this is was not accurate. Some of some resident told me that John Wang does not address their concerns and he doesn't represent them. They complained that the noise start from early morning until 10:00 p.m. at night. So, the some of you could not take a nap during during the daytime. They complained that was not a life. Under the proper remove the people court. I heard their old signature and I heard they text me about all this information. That's all. Thank you. >> Up next is Cash. >> This is my son Cash and he and I bond over tennis. There are four courts at Mitchell, down to two, make it virtually impossible for us to play anymore and continue our bonding. You'd like to say a couple of words. >> After school every day I play tennis with my dad and and sometimes I meet with my friends and when I meet with my friends it gives me a bonding experience between them and and it makes our friendship bigger. And it gives me a chance to get better at tennis. And I really like playing tennis. And my dad has taught me how to play tennis also along with my two coaches. Um it is a good place for me to hang out after school and I get healthier every single day I play. And without these courts where will I go? Thank you. >> Okay, our next speaker, um let's try this again. I'm going to pull up a video. They're choosing to uh they chose to submit a video in lieu of a speaking in a public comment. So, let's try this again. Hopefully, the computer doesn't crash this time. So. All right, let's go back here to this. >> Eric, if we're having um Oh, okay. >> We're good. >> Okay. >> All right. >> The one thing about about pickleball is it's a very noisy game. And so, there aren't very many places you can play, and that's why we focused on Mitchell Park because there are no residences close by. You The one >> Our next speaker via Zoom will be Brian N. Doesn't seem to be responding. We'll move on. Our next speaker will be Karen H. >> I was here. The audio was off. >> Oh, sorry about that. Uh we can go back. Sorry, Karen. Please wait. Uh Brian N. >> Thank you so much. I'm Brian Eder, CEO of Ability Path and Learning Links. We're adjacent to the pickleball courts as well as Magical Bridge. And the issue for us is that the challenge that the pickleball courts caused to a oasis that was created for individuals with developmental disabilities and learning differences. They have very few places to go. And I heard David talk about an oasis. It is an oasis that was built specifically for that community. We are not against pickleball. We work effectively with David and the the pickleball club. It's about expanding it at this time versus finding a longer-term solution that meets the needs of the pickleball players as well as tennis players and while protecting a underserved group that has very few options and to take that away and make it almost unusable because of noise is a travesty. It's a travesty. Magical Bridge was built for that community. Pickleball has grown to expand because of demand, great. Find another long-term solution elsewhere. >> Thank you. Your Your has expired. Up next is Karen H. >> [sighs] >> Oops. Karen? >> Can you hear me now? >> I can hear you. >> Okay. Um thank you to staff for your diligence and uh ask you to consider the following. Those with developmental disabilities are considered sensitive receptors by CEQA. And while there is certainly no CEQA analysis here, the standards do give us a clue as to the criticality of the consideration before you. I refer here to Magical Bridge and to Achieve Kids. And second, I point uh Parks and Rec Commission to a city policy regarding the planting of trees. A program that you all are surely very aware of. And the program is right tree in the right place. The wisdom in that guidance is specifically to avoid conflict. Something that also applies here. Thank you. >> And then our last speaker will be Brian uh W. >> Hello. >> We can hear you. >> I believe Mitchell Park, as other people have said, should be inclusive. It needs to include all different parts of the community and not one activity should overpower all these all the all all the others. And that's exactly as what's happening with pickleball. It is causing overcrowding issues, noise issues, parking issues, and limiting and restricting the activities of other activities. People going to the library, birthday parties, and and people attending kids who want to go to the Magical Bridge Playground. Did you know that there are some amazing soundscape features within the Magical Bridge playground. Those are no longer audible due to the amount of noise coming from the adjacent pickleball courts. Instead of expanding pickleball, I believe the city should look at ways to restricting pickleball in order to kind of control things and allow these other activities to flourish. Thank you. >> Yep. >> [applause] >> But There are no more speakers at this time. >> Okay, thank you. And I I do want to thank all members of the public from both tennis and pickleball communities who took the time to speak tonight and share your comments, perspectives, and concerns with the commission. We appreciate the respectful dialogue, the passion of both communities have for the sport, and the thoughtful input that has been provided throughout this process. Your feedback is important to us and will help guide our discussions this evening and future recommendations as we continue working towards a balanced and fair approach for the entire community. Before I move on to the rest of the commission, thank the ad hoc, which is of a member a member of the ad hoc along with Commissioner Brown. And I can say that this has been a difficult issue to work through because there are passionate and valid perspectives on all sides. I also want to want to acknowledge and applaud the what the pickleball community has achieved over the past several years. The growth of the program and the level of community engagement has truly been impressive and it's clearly reflects the value the sport brings to many residents from youth to older adults as a lot of the speakers here have have indicated tonight. At the same time, I continue to feel somewhat conflicted about converting additional tennis courts simply because one sport is growing in popularity. Uh in the past we have we attempted to strike a balance between two tennis courts that were converted and felt like a reasonable compromise at the time. Then one of the concerns I continue to have is understanding where the balance point ultimately is. Uh particularly if additional conversions simply create more long-term pressure for future requests. What I also appreciate about the report that Adam gave is that it recognizes this discussion broader than just court demand. It also as he indicated involves parking, involves noise, operational impact of surrounding park amenities, nearby residents, and overall user experience at an already heavily utilized park. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the many residents who took the time to send letters and share their concern. I think that Adam indicated we had something like over 200 letters and then I know I did and I'm sure most of the commissioners have done as well. If we read those and and and listen to most all of the input from tonight's comments as well. The input has been has been important and helpful throughout this process. >> [snorts] >> What I'm most interested in hearing today is your perspective and that's what we've heard on where things stand now and as I indicated earlier this is not a slam dunk, it's not an end of the process. We still have a lot of work to do. Um I've been on a commission for four years and I think this has been at the commission uh probably three or four times and it's not something that's going to go away. Uh it's I think there's a lot of you know there's there's enjoyment and health on both sides. So, we want to continue the dialogue and I think as um and Chris, one of our speakers has indicated, if there's a need to get both communities together so that we can share the experience and be able to work out a solution. I've been I've played a number of cities uh in Southern California and other places and they're all faced with the same issue. There's never enough courts. But a lot of these organizations are constantly trying to find ways to um be beneficial to both tennis uh and and uh pickleball. And at same time, we've got uh you know, Mitchell Park, when you when you go there, whether it's in the morning, the noon time, or the or in the evening, it's a beehive of activity. So, the city has done an excellent job of of of putting together a park where that's just brings everyone in the city uh together. So, um those are those are my comments and like as I said, being part of the ad hoc is has been going back and forth as to as to where we go with that. I'm going to put um well, as I said, Commissioner Brown is on the ad hoc with me and um comments. >> Sure. Uh thank you everyone for who [clears throat] spoke tonight and who just is here in attendance. I'll try to keep my comments brief cuz it's not fair that you guys have a timer and when we don't. Um so, um I've been working on the courts probably on and off the entire time I've been on the commission. I think counting courts is one of the very first things I did when I joined the commission and I had a really hard time keeping up with all the pickleball paddles cuz every time I went down to write down the number of people. More people would come up, so at one point I just wrote a little infinity sign cuz this is just more people coming and that was 5 years ago. Um, it's a wonderful community that's been built and I think staff has been very responsive. Um, the parks master plan says that at least every 5 years the city should evaluate demand and capacity of major recreation facilities including pools, gyms, and tennis courts. Adam has and staff have worked to do that almost annually um with pickleball and tennis especially at Mitchell Park. Um, so been very responsive. Adam has sliced through the red tape um uh and of local government to just make sure that we're being responsive both in policies and um actual striping of the court. So I just want to commend the pickleball community and staff for moving quickly as the demand has grown so quickly. It's not an easy uh feat. >> [sighs] >> Uh, space is at a premium. It's hard to find space especially space for an activity like pickleball. I grew up in Palo Alto when we had a bowling alley and an arcade. We just don't have space for those types of facilities anymore. Um, but I I do appreciate the comments regarding mental health um and creating opportunities for the youth to grow up in um and that's not lost on the commission. Uh, these are when we have conversations of trade-offs and um making concessions it's always going to be a very difficult conversation. Um, and I think to echo uh Chair Freeman's comments it's about finding balance and it's not a forever answer. We will constantly evaluate that and I think we've built a little bit of trust in that bank with Adam's great work in making sure that we're constantly revisiting this conversation and saying is this working now? Um, let's let's take a fresh look at things. Um, going back to the balance, one of those guiding principles in the parks master plan is balance, specifically not dominated by any one type of experience. It also mentions flexibility, specifically supports multiple uses across um, time with adaptable spaces. So, I think I'm supportive of obviously the ad hoc's recommendation and staff's recommendation to pause at the ex mention of pickleball in Mitchell Park currently, but not to pause at the effort of identifying future spaces for courts. Um, I think we've done a great job at sort of is there a space that's sort of readily available that we can move into quickly? Um, but maybe we should be thinking about this more holistically. If we could create the dream pickleball location, where would it be? Would it be covered so that when it's raining outside and people are bummed out, they have somewhere to go. If we were to just collect all of that information instead of what's available, what kind of facility could we dream up? So, really kind of taking off the the barriers um, and opening up that conversation of of what could be possible um, even if it's not necessarily something that's we're ready to plug and play right away. Um, I'm not in favor of the reservation system. I think it's like a regional activity and I like the idea of being inclusive um, with our neighbors. Um, so that was not something that I was supportive in terms of next steps. It was really about um, looking for other locations um, and to use the uh, analogy of the tree that was brought up during public comment, even if you were to expand the tree or or or maybe transplant it, not saying that that is a recommendation, but just something to explore as we're looking for like a dream pickleball facility, it can grow into something even bigger and you guys have already had such great success in sort of your found location. But let's see what's possible and this commission is is supportive of all of the diverse uses. It's just this is the feedback we're hearing right now and so that's as being part of the ad hoc is what I will be recommending to move forward. But thank you for everybody for coming out and voicing your opinions and it's a lot lost on us. It's it's late so a lot of time so I appreciate it. >> Commissioner thing. >> I just want to express my empathy for both sides. Personally, I've played pickleball at Mitchell Park and tennis at Cubberly and both sports have brought tremendous value to my physical health, mental wellness and social connections. It's easy to see why both communities feel so passionate about access to courts. At the same time, I appreciate the broader operational considerations outlined in the report including parking, noise, user conflicts and impact on surrounding neighborhood. I think after reviewing Adam's report and analysis, I would like to respect and support the staff recommendation at this time. Moving forward, I would also love to see continued creative solutions and collaboration between both the pickleball community and tennis community so we can find balanced ways to support a recreation and a community connection for everyone in Palo Alto. >> Vice chair. >> Thanks chair. Um I echo [clears throat] fellow commissioners and chairs Um uh about your passion for both sports and also especially how to collaborate between pickleball and tennis club so we can work together. I also appreciate the strong advocacy from pickleball club. However, given that noise has been identified as one of the primary operational constraint Mitchell Park, I would encourage the pickleball club to actively partner with staff on practical mitigation strategies and in shared accountability moving forward to reduce noise. And including scoring acoustic fencing, sound barrier panels, sound damping netting, curtain systems, vegetation buffers, one of the uh commentator public comment already mentioned plant more trees around those area can reduce noise or quieter paddles, sports court orientation, and spacing um strategies, particularly because of proximity to the Magical Bridge Playground, a very unique important inclusive space serving children of all abilities including neuro-diverse children and families seeking a calmer, more accessible environment, which I do appreciate and empathize. I think long-term sustainability will require not only increased recreational access but also meaningful efforts to reduce operational impact on the broader community and as well as in consideration of our staff time who's been working very hard and appreciate Adam and his team's thorough report on that. And also I think the role of this commission is to evaluate the full spectrum of park impacts, not only demanding isolation, and this report clearly shows those impacts are already significant at the Mitchell Park. Having said that, we should not give up on looking for alternative or better space and we have responsibility to balance recreational demand with the overall accessibility, comfort, and a sharing experience for all park users in the city and the region uh in the large. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Arthur Roth. Thank you. So, I'm a a long-time tennis and uh slightly shorter-time pickleball player and a frequent user of Mitchell. I really appreciate I have kids, library facilities, playgrounds. It's an amazing place. Uh I think pickleball demand is very high and the benefits are very real that we cannot uh ignore. Uh and I really appreciate all the parties looking to work together to provide a long-term balanced solution. What I understand from staff is that it is not ready for a conversion of courts as they stand right now and I understand that. And I would hope that we can work with the parties involved here to come back with a long-term plan that identifies potential expansion opportunities for pickleball while addressing the conflicts we've heard about at Mitchell, the parking, the noise. Um there are mediations and I'd love to see if we can dig into those a little more at a as we go and come back with a plan for those and also continue to see what can be done for more lighted tennis in South Palo Alto, including use of things like Cubberley. So, I I'd love to see the conversation continue to move forward even if we can't do it right now. >> Thank you. Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Kleinhaus. >> So, thank you. I really appreciate everyone who came to speak today and the tremendous amount of staff work that staff and ad hoc did. Uh it's definitely not easy to have two communities that are so passionate and receive so much benefit from a essentially the same place. But to me, the group that came here to speak from Achieve Kids and from Ability Path and the Magical Bridge, the fact that they were not part of this conversation at all, not at when the pickleball first came or later, is really troubling because we have a large community. If I look at our uh the principles of our Parks Master Plan, one of the principles was mentioned by Commissioner Brown, which was the balanced. But there's also one that says inclusive, responsive to the entire community of age, abilities, languages, culture, and levels of income. And the next one is accessible, easy for people of all abilities to use year-round and access by all model of travel. And I think we failed here. So, that's very, very troubling to me. And I don't necessarily I don't play tennis or pickleball. Um and but I don't know that we really have looked at the entire picture here. And now we have another aspect and Mitchell Park of the uh new housing for people with developmental disabilities. And I don't know whether they'll be able to use their outdoor space there because of the sound. So, we need to find solutions for the sound no matter what. It has to That has to be done whether there is expansion or no expansion. And in addition, I do think we need to look for another space or another solution. So, I'm going to talk about Mountain View for a minute because when Mountain View first looked at creating more pickleball, they looked at Cuesta Park. And there was a huge outcry from park users that didn't want the noise in their park, and um from other users around them. So, the city of Mountain View went and looked for a different solution. And as we've heard today, they're moving forward towards an agreement of some sort of public um private relationship with a I'm not sure where, but it's supposed to come soon. And that will potentially relieve some of the pressure on our parks or on our pickleball, but also maybe that's the model we need to look at instead of trying to find a place in a park where there is the the there there are a lot of users in the park. Some of them we heard today, but there's tai chi people in the morning. There's people do a lot of different things. The dog walkers, everybody's impacted by the noise. So, we need to find hopefully an alternative place that is better than this one really for the entire community. And I do need to say something about the alternatives because, you know, you showed us the picture of potentially having something uh on Gang Road over by uh where the new housing is planned. But what we didn't mention again is what else is there, which is San Francisquito Creek. And if you're going to bring noise and light into right next to to a creek, that is another impact which we need to consider because that's a natural I mean, it's in flood walls and all, but there's still wildlife moving through there. We know that. There is still impact to a living ecosystem inside the creek. So, we can't ignore that either. And so, I really hope that the pickleball club people themselves try and maybe with staff or somehow find a similar solution to what Mountain View is working on. I think that would be the best for everyone. And for now, I would support the staff recommendation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Councilman Filseth, Scott King, I don't know if you are making a comment tonight. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Burt, Mr. Smith. >> Um I need to apologize to the community. I moved here in 1960. Uh and I played a lot of tennis. Uh but here's where I failed you. When I'll use the term we, uh Linka was the mother of the Magical Bridge, but we had an organization called Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. And uh I failed in several ways. We all patted ourselves on the back, Joe Smedley and Pat Burt, all of us. None of us said, "Wait a minute. We're going to bring in 600 kids a day, and we got two crappy bathrooms." All right? Five years later, our friends at pickleball came, and I don't know how many, but there's hundreds more. We have two crappy bathrooms. Now, one of the things I'm hoping by December or September, I hope, we'll have new four-hole bathrooms. Okay. But here's where I failed. We got Magical Bridge going, and then we got pickleball. I don't know if Monica Williams is in the audience. She used to beat me all the time in tennis. I mean, just it was not even fair, okay? She was so good. And she started the pickleball club, and I believe there's a bench there that says, "Monica Williams, the mother of Palo Alto Tennis Club." Now, here's where I failed. I even helped her in the early years. But I didn't concentrate on the sound. And what bothers me tonight, no one talked about new balls, new pal- pal- pallets, and all that. But here's where I failed is the noise. And uh Monica, yes, is the mother of pickleball in Palo Alto. But, what else is she? She's the mother of the Peninsula pickleball. And we they're very proud now. We've gone from 60% members to 40% outsiders. Yes, we let the other communities not do pickleball. We filled that gap. And if we look at it from a Palo Alto standpoint, yes, it's nice to be with neighbors. But, like the young man that came up, Santa Clara is what 1 and 1/2 two times our size. They have what? Six courts. So, if you look at the courts around the Peninsula, we solved the problem. So, uh the uh So, I think we obviously have to work together. But, what we did and Monica did a great job and others about of getting more and more courts. And I did not think about sound. And and that there's no question about sound. Maybe it's not the legal maximum, but it is the biggest thing. So, to put two court the other two courts right next to Ada's Cafe, right across from a playground, doesn't make any sense. So, we have to work together. But, pickleball is not only Palo Alto's problem. And uh so, I think we need to keep that in mind. And I I am supportive of commissions uh Adam, your your proposal. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I'd like I mean, Councilmember Lisa Cain, do you want to >> Thank you, Chair. I'll just acknowledge that this is an incredibly challenging um conversation for us to have as a community. I echo the comments of the tremendous passion shown by members of all sides and it's a constant challenge in the city to balance the needs of various communities with limited budgets and limited land. And so I know that there's a lot of um heart in the room right now, but there's some hard feelings as well. And I just hope that as we continue to move forward, we can all treat each other with kindness and compassion and work together on the solutions we desire. Thank you. >> Thank you. So I um move that the move forward with a motion. Um the that the Parks and Recreation Commission supports staff's recommendation not to convert additional tennis courts at Mitchell Park at this time, recognizing the operational, parking, noise, and use of conflict concerns identified in the staff report, while continuing to support balanced recreational opportunities for both pickleball and tennis communities. Uh and I further recommend that any um final decision regarding additional uh conversions be considered by the uh Palo Alto City Council. Um I'm open to I got >> What was the last >> on the City Council. >> Yeah, so I I was adding something in because I think that this is um a very emotional um issue that involved both tennis and pickleball. And so I think it's it's probably one of those issues I think we should um also get um comments from the City Council on that. >> Can you split that to two different motions? One >> Okay, I move that the Parks and Recreation Commission support staff's recommendation not to convert additional tennis courts at Mitchell Park at this time uh recognizing the operational parking, noise, and user conflict concerns identified in the staff report while continuing to support balanced recreational opportunities for both pickleball and tennis courts. >> on. >> Second, wait. Um Eric, if you can transcribe this, we're going to put it on the screen so everyone can see it. >> All right, you want to start again, well? >> Okay. Well, okay. Well, um Where did we leave off here? Uh additional parking uh and user conflict and uh and user conflict concern. Well, you can actually leave that off, I think. Just so I think it um further recommend that the final decision regarding additional court conversions be considered by the Palo Alto City Council. >> I'm sorry, I can't see The screen is not working, so we're trying to coordinate here, so it's hard. So >> Wait, I'm happy to supply you >> the the uh motion, the first motion? Would you mind reading the first motion? >> The first motion? >> Sorry, first motion again, please. >> Hang on. Okay. Do you have all of that, Eric? >> It was the last part that a final decision be left to the City Council, is that what you >> And that any final decision regarding additional court conversions be considered by the Palo Alto City Council. >> So, can you separate that to one motion about the staff recommendation and the second >> I um Commissioner Kleinhouse, can you speak into the mic and >> Yeah, I asked if it's possible to split to two different motions. One to support the recommendation from staff and the ad hoc, and the second one regarding whether or not this should be going to City Council. >> That's fair enough. I I accept that. >> At a point of order, uh wouldn't it be a motion? I thought that's what we were getting ready to do, to make a motion. >> We're making a motion and a second motion. >> That's correct. >> two items to vote on. >> Okay. So, >> But that motion needs to be seconded. >> I need to have a second on the first. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. And how about a second for the second? >> Can we do one at a time? >> Well, we can do >> motions. >> Uh we have to have a motion, and then we do another motion. My understanding, I don't know what the lawyers say. >> Sir, it's good. Go ahead, sir. >> So, if the motion on the table, which is what Chair Freeman um just stated, and I heard uh Vice Chair Way, I believe, um you seconded. And is that for the full motion? >> I second first motion. The second was third. >> Okay, we have to deal with the first motion. >> us do one thing at a time, please. >> No, I I think it needs to be in full because if there is not a second on the full motion that fails. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm trying to understand. We have a motion to >> No, you shouldn't. >> So, the first the first motion which was seconded by Commissioner Way, by Vice Chair Way, was recommended that this Wait a minute, that's the second. Let's Let's see get the right one up here. The first motion should be uh supporting the staff's recommendation. for um Let's see. I move that the Parks and Recreation support staff's recommendation not to convert additional tennis courts at Mitchell Park at this time. So, let's make that the motion. Do I get a second on that one? >> Is it this the full staff recommendation? >> Right. >> Or do we need more motions? >> Did I under Here's what I understand. We're making a motion to approve the staff's recommendation. >> Right. >> Yes, that's correct. So, the we're going to do an A and B motion. >> Right. >> So, right now the A motion will be read and will um we have a first and second. Is that correct? Can you verify, Commissioner Way, that you uh seconded the motion A. >> Yes, I did. >> I'm sorry. This isn't the staff recommendations. What's on our screen is not the staff recommendation. So, either we do part of the staff recommendation. >> So, the first recommend the first motion should be staff's recommendation. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, that's the recommendation to um not to convert the additional tennis courts at Mitchell Park at this time. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Right. That's >> was much longer than that. >> No, no. That's He's He This is his >> different recommendation. >> All right. >> Okay. >> And forget about the second. Don't think about it. If there's a second one, then we will deal with it. >> Okay. >> Can you read the staff recommendations? >> Mhm? >> Yeah, I can. I know, but I'm going to know what other motions need to be there. So, I was wondering if you can read the staff recommendations. >> You put that up again. Yeah. >> Okay, this is the motion. Can you also put the staff recommendations, >> [clears throat] >> which was different than this? >> No, it's >> This is the >> This is the staff recommendation. >> The one on the screen is staff recommendation. Adam's recommendation. >> Okay, let's keep it simple. Let's say that this is a This is a motion, which is staff and the ad hoc Um can I make a motion that staff I think staff and ad hoc committee uh support the recommendation to not increase inventory of city of Palo Alto pickleball courts, including conversion. But, this is different. >> Yeah, that's where we're going. Just >> Okay. >> Should we vote on that? >> Well, >> Is there further >> Yeah, I would guess Is there further discussion? >> Well, we want to make a >> Now, we have a motion. We have a second. >> Well, let's clear up the first motion first, please. >> Yeah, but I think we we have to have discussion if there's needed discussion on the motion. >> If it's If If we have a second on the motion, we can >> We have a second of your motion. Okay. >> My understanding is then you have discussion and then at some point we decide to vote. Now, >> I would like to make >> I would like to discuss something. So, >> Sure. Go ahead, Mark. >> Okay. Here's where I'm coming from. We have We have worked on this for years and years and years. There is no reason that we don't make a motion after all this hard work. Now, if we want to do something later, that is a second motion. But, I think we should vote on this motion and then, if, you know, we can make motions for whatever we want to with >> Okay. The first The first motion is to vote in support of the staff's recommendation not to convert the additional tennis courts at Mitchell Park. >> Right. >> That's the first motion. Do I get a second on that one? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair >> Yeah. >> Way has made a second on that. Do you want to speak to your second? >> Yeah. Fully support what the report reflects and it's very thorough. As I mentioned earlier, we have to look into the overall park impact, noise, parking, etc. And currently, the noise is the primary impact. We need to resolve that before we add more courts. >> Okay. >> Oh. >> I would like to speak to that motion. >> You can speak to it. >> Uh I fully I fully uh agree with the motion and just want to say we have spent so much time, effort, and money, and hours of people coming down here, and I think they deserve a motion. And so I would I will vote yes on that motion. >> Okay. Well, we have to the clerk will ask for the vote on the motion. Okay. >> Ready to have >> Yes, we're not yet. Okay. All right, so uh Commissioner Brown? >> Yes. >> Uh Commissioner Ding? >> Vice Chair Wayne? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Freeman? >> As our Chair Freeman. Um Commissioner MacLeod? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Smith? >> And Commissioner Kleinhaus? >> Yes. >> Okay. It's unanimous. Motion eight uh passes. >> Yay! >> So the second um I second motion is to um forward this to the city council for review and approval. Take a second on that. >> I don't want to pass on this responsibility to city council again. I thought if we respect all the staff time already done, I think it's done. >> I um I just for clarification, the city staff is planning to update city council and supply a memo of um all the work that went in and discussion that happened um this evening. >> So then there's no need for a motion if you want to >> Yeah, I agree. I don't think there's need for second motion. >> Okay. Yeah. Commissioner >> MacLeod. >> Um could I make a a separate motion that the staff return with the plan incorporating the parking and noise abatements at Mitchell that were discussed and um lighting courts at Coverly so we can continue further um, discussions. I'm happy to see. >> So, is is that an amendment to the motion B? >> Wait a minute. No, Roger. >> Can I just make a comment that that the ad hoc will continue to work on this with staff and so we heard the feedback and from everybody and we'll continue to incorporate that in the work plan as we continue to evaluate this with staff. So, we can do a a separate motion, but Chair Preuss and I heard heard everything loud and clear. >> So, it's still part of the still part of the amendment. >> I think it's important for the ad hoc to continue. They just need to look at the wider scope, maybe. And so that will be up to them to look at potentially what Mountain View is doing or other options. And so I wouldn't I prefer not to limit what they're going to look at now. >> And and I will also just add it is in the work plan. >> Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. If it doesn't need a motion, I'm happy to leave it with the working group. >> The ad hoc will continue to work on the items that >> Right. I I just have to hear what the upcoming Sorry, I haven't looked at the timeline, but what we should expect as continued work on this. Potential options. >> Yeah, we'll meet with staff to see what is realistic in terms of returning back to the full commission with an update on next steps and make sure that all stakeholders are aware of that date. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. I think we're I think that's a closed issue. >> I would move for agenda for a finish What What do we say? >> We're saying that the ad hoc will continue >> No, no, I mean to say we're going home. >> That's not Okay, we'll move move to the next item, please, which is um uh, let's Uh, Sarah, so it's your >> Uh, commissioner questions, comments. >> Right. Let's move on to that one. >> Uh, future meeting agendas, um, I can speak to that. Um, let me pull that up. And then I believe it if there's any Uh, chair, just as a reminder, I believe you're taking public comment on items not on the agenda at the at the end of the meeting. So, for next month's meeting, we have second deck study, measure E site, and we have a park improvement ordinance uh, potentially for Foothills Improvement Plan, as well as a Rostrata Creek pipeline. Um, I am well aware that there is too much on the agenda, so one of those will get pushed. Um, and then just looking out one more month in July, there um, one of those PIOs can be pushed it um, to the July meeting. >> So, for the for June agenda, we have two items, right? >> Uh, oh, well, currently there's a potential of four, but realize that one, perhaps two, may shift. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, clerk, do we have anyone on Zoom for >> There are no additional speakers on Zoom at this time. >> Okay, thank you. We'll adjourn the meeting. >> Now you can go home. >> Mhm.

Okay. Shall we start? >> Recording in progress. >> Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the May 21st, 2026 architectural review board meeting. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Yeah. Uh, Chair Chen, >> present. >> Vice Chair Adcock, >> Board member Hirsch, present. Board member Jojo >> present. >> Board member Rosenberg >> For the record, we have quorum. >> Thank you. Next is agenda changes, additions, and deletions. >> No changes planned for this meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. And we will move on to in person public comment. This is the time for anyone uh in the chamber who wanted to speak an an item that is not on the agenda. If you like to speak an agenda item, you will have it later this morning. Do we have any? >> Um through the chair, I've not received any public comment cards at the moment. >> Okay, thank you. Uh and um if you h if you're if you join us virtually and you have general public comment, you will have it at the end of this meeting. Thank you. So next I will hand over to Steve for city official report. >> All right. Well, good morning at our second meeting in May. Let me share my screen here. So, I just have one update of a coming or should I say newly submitted project that's located at 2197 East Bayhore Road. So, that's a site and design application that will construct 62 residential town home units. And as for some upcoming items, we're looking at our June 4th meeting of having the city parking garage located at 375 um Hamilton Avenue as well as a builder's remedy project located at 762 San Antonio. And we do have some upcoming planned absences. Uh we will be cancelling that um June 18th meeting due to uh a lack of quorum as indicated by those absences. Uh if there's any more planned absences uh that come up, please direct that to staff's attention. >> And I just found out actually I cannot be here next meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> We'll mark that down for the record. And with that I can entertain any further questions. Any questions to the staff at this moment? >> Just looks like the tier one and two wireless is canceled for next time or not in next time's agenda. >> Correct. I believe that was in the the staff report, but there's been some shifting of of projects. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Okay. If not anything else, we will move on to our action item two, which is a public hearing quaso judicial 788 to 790 and 796 San Antonio Road review of a an application to reszone the subject properties from CS to uh PCPHZ and to redevelop the site with an 80 8story mixeduse building with 167 residential rental units including in 28 below market are uh rate units and approximately 1,400 square ft of ground floor retail space. Uh SQA status is an addendum to the previously certified housing incentive program expansion and 788 San Antonio mixeduse project EIR is currently being prepared. Um any disclosures? Yes, I visited the site. >> Same. >> Same. The same. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh and then I will hand it over to Joey for staff presentation. >> All right. Good morning. Morning board members. Joey Den with our uh planning department. So I'm here to present to you item number two on today's agenda which is as you mentioned 788 San Antonio um which is for a planned community planned home zone reszoning. Uh next slide please. So, similar to um our last meeting, since it's this project's first review with ARB, um staff is requesting some um initial feedback on several um architectural and site planning topics that will relate to the findings ARB has to make later on to go along with a more formal recommendation. So, I just kind of wanted to frame that um early on um to guide our review. So there'll be things like building height, massing, stepbacks, transitions to uh ne nearby properties, the frontage design, especially along San Antonio Road uh frontage, the treatment of that ground floor uh retail corner facade articulations, materials, open space, and the way the garage access, garbage, loading, and fire access all kind of integrate into that design. Um so no formal recommendation is being requested today by staff. Um the environmental review so departmental reviews are still ongoing. Um but again the intent for today is to receive ARB's initial feedback so that the applicant can consider any refinements before uh the project returns uh to ARB for a formal action. Um after A or B the project will then go to PTC for their formal recommendation and then finally the project would return to council for a final decision. Next slide please. So the site is located on the corner of San Antonio Road and Legghorn Street. Um this corridor is currently dominated by onetory, twostory um commercial and service uses but that corridor is in the transition process. Um there are several uh projects nearby either approved or proposed um housing projects um such as the 808 San Antonio Road which ARB reviewed at our last meeting. um the six the 762 San Antonio Road project to the south which is a builder's remedy and then the 824 San Antonio Road project to the north. Next slide. So the San Antonio road area plan um this is not yet adopted. Um but since this site is in that plan area the future vision for this corridor is relevant to this project. um especially when we explore that frontage design um taking in mind the special setbacks and then any potential for future multimodal improvements. The area plan is expected to head to council in June. Um staff will be looking for a recommendation on what the preferred or core scenario for the area plan um will be. The plan does present several options, but based on all the feedback um that was received through all the prior study sessions that were done, um the most likely recommended option will include some form of highdensity housing um with the maximum permitted heights up to 90 ft more contemplated along the southern side of San Antonio. to the side that this project is on. Retail um or active ground floor uses at key corners um and several um and there were several options for multim modal improvements. Um but that's something that staff is hoping for council direction on um with but it in no matter what it will include some sort of enhanced pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Next slide please. So this is the proposed PC PHC which is shown on the left side here and that's being compared to what's currently allowed or required under the base zone district of uh service commercial um and through the housing incentive program. Um, so the what the project is proposing is an eight-story building the with maximum heights up to 89 ft to the parapit or 94 ft to the top of rooftop equipment. Um, this is contrasted to what is um they're allowed currently which is 50 ft. They're also proposing 167 units 28 of which would be lowincome BMR units. This would equate to approximately 20% using the city's weighted PHZ calculation. Um the project also will include approximately 4 1,400 square ft of ground floor commercial. Um this is compared to what the base zone requires um which is a minimum of 6,500 square ft of ground floor commercial. Um they are also proposing a floor area ratio of 3.75 whereas the HIP only allows up to a floor area ratio of 2.0 and they are proposing approximately 74 parking spaces whereas city standards requires 184 approximately. Next slide please. So this is the site plan um for the project which kind of shows also how the project operations will be organized. Um note that the San Antonio frontage is designed with that retail corner with at the corner of Lake Horn which is shown at that pink box at the corner right there. Um it also this this ground floor also includes a residential lobby, a co-work space both along that San Antonio frontage. Um open space and landscaping along there and also a bike room. Um now vehicle access and most if not all of the operations are shifted onto Lake Horn Street. So no curb cuts will are being proposed along San Antonio Road. Um but it does place all that operational activity on Lake Horn. So that means trash staging will be on site. trash pickup, fire access, loading, all of those services on Lake Horn. Um, and then just because we already have it on the screen, the bike room has approximately 167 long-term spaces, which is approximately one space per unit. Next slide. So, going to parking mobility, the project is proposing those 74 spaces where 184 is typically required. Um, additionally of those spaces, some of those are proposed as car share or um, guest/ future resident spaces. So, this roughly equates to a ratio of44 spaces per unit. Um, the applicant did provide a draft transportation demand management plan that presents and kind of addresses this lower parking calculation. Um, but this is still currently under review by the Office of Transportation. Um, let's see. So, while the specifics of parking calculations may not be a decision point for ARB, staff is hoping for feedback on this since it will affect the overall parking strategy. Um, which will then affect the site circulation and design um things like the garage access. Next slide, please. So, speaking of which, this is the proposed um garage entry um and arrival area off of Legghorn Street. Next slide, please. These are the typical floor plans. Now, floors one and two are those podium floors. Um mostly those garage spaces and that ground floor area. Um so, all that operational and staging again is on the ground floor. the most of the there are some residential units on the second floor but mainly those the residential units start on the upper floor starting on level three um and then the ground floor level three and eight is where the open space and landscaping is. Next slide please. So the proposed open space is mostly along the San Antonio frontage area on that ground floor and it's mostly along that adjacent area to that retail, the lobby, the bike room and the co-work spaces. Next slide. And then the other areas for open space are primarily on the podium courtyard on level three which is on the left side and then also on the roof terrace on level eight as well. The landscape and plant pallet being proposed is mostly native and drought tolerant species. Next slide. So the project was revised after the council pre-screening to address feedback that was received on massing and stepbacks. Now this plan shows that courtyard break that's facing San Antonio Road which is roughly an average step back of 55 ft from that property line. Um, and then also to note there is a upper level setback on the corner of San Antonio and Lake Horn. Um, which you can kind of see from that elevation right there. Next slide. These are the building sections showing the vertical organization. Next slide. So for elevation materials, the design uses a mix of stucco, various materials, panels, cladding, metal elements, especially along the railings and canopies, and storefront glazing. Next slide, please. So transition and privacy. Now, this project is adjacent to um that 808 San Antonio Road project. Um and this does that site does have an existing residential PC on it. Um it's currently under review to change but because that PC is ina is in place the special requirements as identified in the staff report or uh also um code section 1838150 would be applicable. This slide shows the privacy exhibit that was provided showing that northern elevation. So this is what's would be facing um the adjacent 808 San Antonio Road project. It identifies facade bras, reduced glazing, some solid balcony railings, and interior window coverings. Um and so similar to the previous discussion at the previous um ARB meeting, staff is hoping for feedback on the transition and privacy concerns and any impacts to light and air um in particularly to this northern elevation that faces San Antonio or 808 San Antonio Road. Next slide. So, I'll close by restating that um no formal recommendation is being requested today. Um but staff does recommend but the recommending action that staff does recommend is that A or B um take uh or would provide initial comments and feedback and then continue to a continue their project to a date uncertain. Next slide. that staff is available for any questions. The applicant team is also available on Zoom and I believe they have a presentation as well. >> Okay, thank you very much. So before we moving on to applicant uh presentation, do we have any questions to the staff at this moment? >> I have one quick question on clarification on lot coverage that it states 67%. Um that is on the ground level, correct? is um not the podium level. It just looks a lot at least in planned graphically looks more than 2/3 filled on the site. So I just wanted to confirm where that was coming from. >> I mean lot coverage is based on the ground level. Um there are certain projections if on upper levels um if the canopy comes out more than 4 feet that do count toward lot coverage. Um I believe we've included everything that should be included in lot coverage though. >> Okay. >> But we'll take a second look at that just to be sure. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then if I could direct your attention on the plans, that would be a 0.1 um that denotes the lot coverage and those amounts >> um or 0.11 >> underneath the project data table on the far right hand side. >> What was that? Oh, 0.1. Yes. Yeah. No, I I did uh catch all of those, but you just just want to double check just because graphically it looks more full than 67%. >> No other questions at this time. Thank you. Um, I have a question about how the trash comes out because that trash you were saying is going to be staged over on Legghorn, but it really is sort of on that residential um the residential trash is denoted on the opposite side of the um building behind bike storage. So, are they going to come out this sidewalk, go towards the back, and then roll it all the way out as opposed to just coming out the short side and heading out to San Antonio? I believe their plans, operational plans is to roll that trash through the site and then onto the staging area. Um, but I'll defer to the applicant to confirm that. >> Okay. And then just out of curiosity, do we remember what the 808 I couldn't remember off the top of my head if the 808 is also they're staged on San Antonio for their trash? Correct. >> Their their trash would be staged on site. >> On site, correct? >> Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Actually, I do have another minor question on the slide that showed um the entrance. Um it's the the plan that's on a 0.11 um and the 74 units. The blue box for I guess loading um was different than what I see in the plan. So, I was just curious if that was reducing one more parking space. >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? >> If you want to go back to your slide, show it like cuz I don't know what slide number this was, but I just made a note on the graphic. >> You said this was for uh the slide with the site plan and >> maybe if I keep talking, this you won't catch it. Zoom in on me. >> I believe that's slide six. >> Bear with us while we pull that up. >> It's sheet A0.11 in the package. Yep. >> Yep. That's the one. Um, so the blue are loading areas, correct? Is that what you mentioned? The blue boxes? >> Yes, I believe those are the loading areas. >> Okay. And in uh our plan, it's the one on the right is noted as future resident parking. So, is that reducing from 74 to 73 parking spaces? This is uh you're referring to floor two, correct? Oh, the one on Yeah. So, those >> Sorry, you're correct. I I was on the lower plan and you're on the upper. Thank you. >> I I have a question regarding the retail parking. So, based on the proposed size of the retail, uh how many parking space do does it require? I know it they didn't propose anything but based on the code like if there is >> so the code does have an allowance for um 1,500 square ft or less of retail to not have a parking requirement. Um that said this is a planned community reszoning so um all aspects of the uh development standards are you know as negotiated. Yeah, understand. Thank you. So, if no additional questions, uh, David, you have >> Yeah. Uh, out of curiosity, bike parking, does that also include, u mechanical bikes, uh, scooters, whatever scooters you can take to your apartment, but bikes that are motor driven bikes or, you know, do you know what are the rules on that so far? I mean, yeah, you can have like EV or motorbikes. I don't know that they're designed, you know, some of the motorbikes are a little bit larger. Um, I don't know that these are specifically designed. Um, we could look into that. Um but certainly um there you know our office of transportation has been trying to encourage people to put um plugs and stuff into the bike rooms because there are more ebikes um and people like to be able to plug them in when they're there. Um so that has been something that we've been pushing for and that some applicants have been providing. >> Um it is a voluntary thing at this point. um you know certainly as part of a PC you could negotiate it but um it's not in our code as a requirement right now. >> I I mean I bring this up specifically here to this project which is somewhat remote from other areas in PaloAlto and low in the number of vehicles on site. So it would seem like a natural progression. The other question is uh you're looking for feedback in privacy areas. Is that the is that where the question came up? The uh adjacency to the neighboring building? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yes. We are looking for feedback on uh transition standards and privacy um you know along the entire the project's impact on the corridor but also primarily um along that northern elevation that's facing um >> the nature correct neighboring building. >> Correct. Yeah. So could you just repeat for for the record here what what are the decisions that you have already kind of been studying uh in that area in that with of that >> for privacy. >> So the uh plans currently show um they the building currently employs some facade breaks um they reduce some of the glazing or windows in that area. Um they also proposed that they're going to pro be providing internal window coverings to those units. Um and also those balconies along that elevation would be of solid material. >> Okay. So so the edges will not be glazed as they are in the most of the rest of the building then. >> Correct. >> They'll be solid which provides a certain degree of privacy. Okay. Uh so there was a discussion between planning and and the and the applicant here uh regarding that and it is you know it's going to affect us all the way along the corridor here. >> So it I don't know if we discussed that on the last project that we reviewed. Uh out of curiosity do you go back on issues like that and discuss it with the previous applicants? Um yeah, I mean that's something that we'll certainly discuss. I you know the context of this is that there was there was some early discussions about stepbacks um from these neighboring um buildings. Uh and I think both uh both of the developers had some concerns about how much that would affect you know their ability to provide the number of units that they would like to provide. And so the discussion was around how much is related to privacy and might be things that could be addressed and how much is related to massing. Um and so your feedback on those components I think generally where the planning commission um uh landed was that you know stepbacks weren't necessarily warranted. Um we wanted to see more stepbacks on the San Antonio frontage. Um but huge larger setbacks on the um between the buildings weren't necessarily um needed. Um so the developer at 808 did make some changes to their design to have the masting set back a little bit but then did add some balconies. And so then that discussion became more around privacy concerns and how are we making sure that those uses can um you know both you know live together basically. >> Thanks. Uh you know I come from New York and we have zero lot line. It's a completely different world. >> All right. Thank you for the questions. Any additional questions? If no, we will just move on to applicant presentation. To the applicant, please state and spell your name for the record and you will have 10 minutes. Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Edward Kim. Uh, Ed Dw. Oh, perfect. Good morning. Uh uh board members and thank you staff for the presentation. Uh my name again is Edward Kim, project architect with KTGY uh representing Grub Properties uh this morning uh for the proposed project. Uh next oh uh I'd like to note that the applicant team um and the design team are available for questions um after the presentation. Uh the current design uh reflects feedback from the city council pre-screening um as mentioned by by Joey and and city staff. Um and we're also actively evaluating the parking approach um in response to PTC feedback. Um in today's presentation, I would like to focus on the architectural elements um massing, street frontage, ground flooror activation, privacy and materials. The project is organized with the intent to support the San Antonio corridor's uh planned transition towards a pedestrianoriented and mixeduse um environment. Uh next slide please. Uh along San Antonio uh road, the building is expressed as two primary wings um with a recess central courtyard. Uh the goal is to reduce the continuous length of the street facing elevation at the ground floor. Uh the base is further defined into or divided into smaller facade segments aligned with program areas uh entries and material changes. Again with the intent to create a finer grain pattern at the pedestrian level. Um, one one thing I'd like to note, um, is that the proposed project also incorporates, as as Joey mentioned, retail at the corner of the intersection between Leg and San Antonio. Um, and this is the only project, uh, in terms of the adjacent properties, uh, 800 and 762 or sorry, 808 and 762 that provide that retail. Um, and again, that was in response to the, uh, city council pre-screening. Um again I think the the proposed building scale aims to be consistent with the adjacent properties and the proposed developments upper story stepbacks, recess courtyards, materials and facade articulation um aimed to differentiate the building uh relationship with its neighbors uh while contributing to a um a diverse San Antonio corridor. Um next slide please. Um the project's goal is to reduce the apparent mass um through three primary moves. A a recessed courtyard upper upper level step back and changes in the facade plane. Uh the deep San Antonio road facing courtyard break um provides breaks and uh reduces the building volume and provides daylight into the interior facing units and amenity areas within this courtyard. Um, this courtyard is designed to connect indoor and outdoor amenity spaces at the podium level. Um, including a gym with a spillout zone, spa, sund deck, and landscaping. Um, at the upper level on the project corner, uh, the rooftop club room and outdoor terrace address the suggested step back from the pre-screening to reduce the perceived mass at that corner. Um together these elements can distribute activity across multiple levels of the building while breaking down the overall scale. Um in addition the project integrates multiple standards of the ODS base middle top facade artic art articulation wall modulation um and wall plane changes that range from 2 feet to 5t in depth accompanied by material color and or textural changes. Um, next slide, please. Um, with no residential units at grade, the ground floor's primary goal is to enhance the pedestrian experience. Uh, the the project's ground floor design includes the 25- ft required special setback. Uh, incorporates ODS standards for the public realm and sidewalk character uh, widths and the landscape area percentages. Um, our goal again is to provide a pedestrian zone that highlights active and both at both active and passive gathering spaces uh with abundant landscaping. um internal to the program or internal to the building. The residential lobby, retail, co-working amenity and bicycle facilities are intentionally positioned along San Antonio Route providing San Antonio Road providing day-to-day use storefront glazing and pedestrian cyclist access points. The design intent is a continuous activated frontage where ground floor program and landscaping work together uh not as separate layers but as an integrated sequence from the uh from the public realm into the building. Um next slide please. Um the existing site has a total of five curb cuts um out on the out on site today along San Antonio and Legghorn frontages. Um, in contrast, the proposed project consolidates these into one um, access singularly off of Legghorn. Um, the goal is to reduce conflict points between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists um, along the San Antonio corridor um, and support a more continuous multimodal path. Um the consolidated entry uh shown in the kind of orange yellowish uh arrow um on the on the site plan um serves as a primary arrival point for residents and guests with materials consistent with the broader exterior pallet um as seen on the two renderings on the on the right. Um this vehicular entry is intended for clear wayf finding um for the building entrance and parking access. Um next slide please. Um along the northern facade um the project provides privacy measures um outlined in the ODS standards and a few additional strategies. Um as Joey mentioned right glazing is limited to the required maximum of 15%. Um facade brakes are provided to meet and exceed actually the the required minimum of 4t wide and 2 ft deep. Uh that occurs every plus or minus 40 ft or so. Um the two balcony stacks serving 12 units on this project are offset uh from the adjacent building as feasible and are provided with solid railing um as as mentioned to reduce direct view and sight lines toward neighboring property. Um unit windows are positioned to the extent feasible um to avoid direct alignment with the windows on the adjacent building. Um and lastly, management uh provides all units. Um again, this is a a management um uh offering uh for interior window um covers and privacy treatments. Uh next slide. Um the the project's goal is a cohesive material strategy across all elevations um utilizing the permitted building materials um outlined in the objective design standards. Uh the the palette consists of oo skin um GFRC panel and three finishes for a very subtle or for a subtle variation um in what we're what we call kind of a terracottaike expression. Um large format tile stone veneer, smooth finish stucco and storefront create a distinguishable base. Um fiber reinforced cement panel um is proposed at the roof terrace and the leg horn elevation. Um and stucco and colors cohesive to the overall pallet are applied throughout the building. Um warmer and natural tones are prioritized um on this project to highlight a residential scale while material changes are coordinated with facade modulation. Um next slide please. Um so as this project began uh with city feedback and has been revised through each stage of review um with updates to the massing ground floor frontage site access and material strategy. Um the current proposal reflects our team's design objectives uh reducing apparent building mass uh increasing ground floor engagement with the public realm consolidating vehicle access points and applying a consistent material approach across the building facades. uh we look forward to your feedback. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you for presentation. So before uh questions to the applicant, we will open it to public comments >> and uh to the chair uh I do have two requests to speak. Um if there's any members on Zoom uh that would like to speak, you may raise your hand. Um our first speaker is Steve L. Good morning. Um I have no experience as you know in architecture but I want to talk about the parking which I think will be a issue of contention throughout year the PTC and the council's deliberation. This project is about the future in three important ways. First, as the applicant said, they won't rent these units for at least four years. 762, 808, and perhaps the Toyota site will follow. So, we're talking about housing coming online in the next 5 to 10 years. As an unfortunate note, this project in its various forms has been around since either 2017 or 2018. Why that time frame is important? You have the San Antonio area plan that will provide one significant mobility enhancements to allow residents here and along the corridor to move more smoothly walking, biking, and perhaps with shuttles and eventually transit. And second, as of Monday night, you have the Cubly renovation going forward and its ability to enhance the close by Charleston shopping center. Third, this is a future city goal to reduce ownership if possible and car use for the enormous environmental benefits. I don't know how many parking spaces will end up in the project. I don't know how successful all of these efforts will be to increase mobility. I have myself who does not drive and two friends who have for their entire adult life functioned without a car ownership. We have options for ride share. We have the now exploding Whimo option. We have the potential for zip car and rental cars. There are lots of ways for people who are interested to eliminate the cost um which is quite substantial in increasing of car ownership use and insurance. So, please, as you move forward, think about the enormous benefits that this project and the San Antonio area plan enhancements will bring to the city and meeting its city goals with regard to reducing car dependence. Thank you. And I'm not dissing you by leaving. I have a plane to catch. >> Thank you. Our next speaker is Herp B. >> Chair Chen and board members, uh like the like the previous uh speaker, uh I rely upon uh the board for its expertise on on design on the environmental issues. Uh this comes to you under the plan community district zone regulations but also on something called planned home zoning that has never been included uh in the zoning code as uh required by law either as an amendment to the PC zone or as its own zone district regulation on other uh environmental issues. This is also in a general area where there have been concerns about oversized uh vehicles uh in which residential zones uh sorry with the letter R are uh excluded as an areas for overnight parking. But we have previous plan community zones before the PHZ and now these with PHZ which should be included in the definition of residential if a majority of the floor area is residential in those uh in the oversized vehicle ordinance. So they're treated the same way as other residential projects. There are other environment issues which have probably been discussed in uh the previous uh EIR uh but change circumstances uh need to be taken into consideration for such things as sea level rise adaptation. uh we we have an idea of how much uh in the past uh sea level rise would affect this area but it's changed and I think more so similarly with uh underground water uh water table where projects uh build uh garges anything underground they their walls create a dam so where uh the underground water level you know previously in part were under those projects Now it's going to be shifted to other projects such as this one. And in terms of earthquakes, Hayward fault is overdue and there's lots more active in the San Andreas fault. So the Earthquest Crayola Crayola maps need to be uh considered for the for for that. Um uh overall the fact that uh the these you know PHZ zones so-called uh have been approved you know that doesn't uh mean there's uh precedent set that you have to do this as well. Well, I mean, I'm old enough to remember a comments Senator Sam Irvin made at at the Watergate hearings where he talked about where people were getting away with sometimes killing people without suffering consequences or stealing uh without suffering consequences. But that doesn't make didn't make you know murder meritorious or lararsen illegal. In the same way, the fact that there have been PHZ zones adopted in the past doesn't mean uh that if someone would be challenging this issue on uh the lack that it's in the zoning code, uh those other things are are not a precedent. So, I appreciate looking forward to discussing a design, but no one's going to challenge the project in court based upon the design. Thank you. >> Thank you. and uh through the chair we have no other requests for to speak. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And then we will move on to uh uh so uh to the applicant you will have 10 minutes rebuttal. Do you want to respond to any public comment? >> Uh no just thank you for your comments. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. And then uh it's back to the board. So do we have any questions to the applicant who want to start? Kendra. >> Sure. And um if we can ask the applicant, you'll be at the podium for a few minutes at this point. >> Great. >> Appreciate it. Um so I'm going to dive into some of the the nitty-gritty here. Um first I'm going to sort of reiterate my question that I asked the board is that um the trash, how's that going to be handled? >> Yeah. So on-site management would be using the termination room within the building and moving it and locating it within the trash staging area just outside of the building frontage on Legghorn. So it would come sort of out that side yard. If there's any way to pull up that floor plan, that'd be great. >> Yeah. Here. Um and do you have the set um available or >> Yeah, if we can. >> Or if not, then yeah, we can pull up >> staring intently. >> If you want to pull if you want to pull up slide number get to the slide number seven, >> please. >> I can just pull up the plans if you just want to refer to the the sheet. >> Yeah, that'd be great. >> Sure, that too. Um, a 2 Z. >> That's right. Uh, we can go to A 1.0. >> That works, too. >> Yeah. So, the line work is on 1.0 is just a little bit crisper. >> Sure. Um and so the termination room on the left side of the building plans would then be on-site management would be responsible for carrying it through the residential gate, the enhanced entry zone um and enter the trash staging area that is shown kind of as a hatch where the 130 um dimension currently lies right now. And so you'll see a pair of doors um 6 foot wide that we've coordinated with um environmental waste um during a series of coordination meetings. And so then on-site management on day of service would be responsible for bringing all the bins and um and service for that moment into the trash staging trash waste hauler. >> I'm sorry. What was the uh uh sheet number? >> Oh, sorry. >> 1.0 A1.0. Yeah. Thanks, Joey. Up, up, up. There we go. >> There we go. >> Beautiful. And if you can zoom in just a little bit, Joey, that'd be awesome. >> All right. Beautiful. >> Great. Thanks, Joey. >> So, there's your residential trash on that lefth hand side there. >> Correct. So my question is, are they going to come out down this sidewalk across the back of the building and stage over here? >> Uh, no. Everything would happen internal to the building. >> Internal. >> Correct. >> Okay. So how would they get from this residential to and am I accurate in saying that this is the trash stage and over here on Lake Horn? >> Uh, correct. So where the where the dimension 130 currently sits, there is a hatch zone with double doors or double gates. Um, that would be representing of the trash staging area. >> Oh. Oh. Oh, okay. Over in that zone. >> Yeah. And so Yeah. Yeah. And so the waist hauler on day of service would come and stage along Leg horn um where the hatch is currently shown um on the street. Uh the waste hauler themselves would then um access the trash staging area, pull the necessary bins, locate them back into that trash staging area, and then on-site management would be responsible for re moving the bins and maneuvering the bins back to the the termination room labeled residential trash. >> Understood. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, and secondary follow-up question to that is that for the residents to be bringing their trash, where do they go? >> Yeah. So, if we go to an upper level, um, Joey, if you can go to, um, A2.2. >> Beautiful. >> Um, and as you're pulling that up, um, and so, um, coordinated with the termination room on the left side of the building, or I guess the >> the north edge of this building, uh, you'll see a trash vestibial with two shoots dedicated. um that terminate into that residential trash. And so there'd be a single uh location for all residents. >> Beautiful. And so basically in theory, right, B5 would walk all the way down here with their trash to to locate that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um but there is a trash shoot on every level. >> There's a trash shoot on every level. >> Beautiful. >> Um Okay. So, if we don't mind staying here for another minute, I will follow up with a couple points here. It it appears that this A4 is a studio apartment. It doesn't look like it actually has a separate bedroom. Um, so I just wanted to clarify that point and your counts and everything like that because just the way that it's laid out, it appears to be a studio, but it's colored as a onebedroom and I believe it's counted as a onebedroom >> and that's on all levels. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Clarification point and making sure that the counts are accurate. Um, and also on this note, there's several plans specifically the A1's and variations thereof. It also is attack uh affecting A6, A7, these two here and then that guy right there. Um, all of these seem to have an internal layout for that bedroom with no exterior windows. It seems to be that the window is sort of through the living room. How does that work? And isn't there a light and air? Bless you. Isn't there a light and air requirement for a bedroom? >> Yeah. So, the borrowed light um uh code requirement would be triggered here. And so, there is light and air. Absolutely. Um but uh the quantity of glazing or the openness of that bedroom to borrow light from that living space uh would be adequate enough for this to be a um kind of a inset onebedroom. >> Mhm. And so for this A1 like specifically here there's a reason that you would not make this a studio because you got a little bit extra width to make sure that it's a onebedroom. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. Yeah. So all the internal spacing um complies and meets the standards for living and um sleeping areas per code. Um, and then the light and air as mentioned would be addressed through all the openness through the sleeping area. >> Okay. I would just uh I'm a big believer that I understand that it complies with code. I don't think most people want to live in a bedroom that has no fresh air. So, any place that you can get those bedrooms to the exterior, I would just strongly encourage it. I think that that's um just healthier living. So, that would be my two cents on that. Um, and that's all my questions for the moment. I'm sure I'll have more as my fellow uh board members come up with things, but those were my questions for today. Thank you. >> I can go next. And actually, if we could go back to A1.0. Um, I have a follow-up question on the trash route. Um, yeah, you can go here. So, um, can you Yeah, we can leave it here. Zoom out. That's fine. Uh, so I understand this Whoops. Where's my pen? area. Um the fenced area is that uh where the trash would go and then >> correct >> then there's a note here that trash loading is here. So early morning or something um management will take the bins and roll it out to the street. uh to be determined in terms of service time. What we've coordinated so far with environmental waste is um because the service time duration uh tends to be unpredictable um we're anticipating that on-site management would take it out uh early in the morning. >> Yeah. >> Just to clarify that on the street would be just the loading area for the truck itself, not the bins. >> Correct. So the Yeah. the personnel or the staff for the waste hauler themselves will come and pull the bins out of the fenced area >> and service each individual bin separately one at a time. >> Okay. And then this area is also noted as move in move out. So um move in moving truck would stage out there. >> Correct. And so on and on-site management would be responsible for maintaining um hours of operation, hours of when resident loading would happen so it doesn't overlap with trash service days. And >> I guess question for staff is there I can't remember if there's a bike lane or anything on Legghorn and how would you know moving trucks sitting there impact bike routes? >> There's no bike lane on on Lake Horn. Is it a shared bike lane with cars? >> Not I don't believe so. No. >> Yeah, we can double check that, but I I don't believe it is. >> Yeah, I'm just looking at the little symbols on the ground. It's like we've got the shared bike path on San Antonio there. I I'm not sure if this is the same here at Legghorn. So, we would just need to double check that. But it does, at least from this image, sort of appear that maybe the bike lane is shared with traffic based on that symbol. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right now in San Antonio, it's shared with traffic. >> Yeah. So, >> same level. >> A similar situation is here. It also lo labeled as loading zone and I'm not sure how it will impact the bike lane. >> Yeah, we're we're not going to allow a loading zone on San Antonio. >> Okay. So, this this place here will be gone. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Bike safety is extremely important and we don't want to have accidents because a moving truck is sitting on >> right and and that with the changes to that corridor we just don't expect that that's going to be viable in the future. So >> yeah and I guess similarly um a follow-up question on that because it does you know moving trucks will sit there for at least an hour or so depending on how you know how big a family is moving in. So that's close to an intersection. That's a lot of, you know, blocking of potential bike route and pushing bikers onto um traffic. So not a fan of that. But anyway, we're in question stage. Um where are deliveries like such as Door Dash coming and also like ride share? Is everybody just like Whimo or Lyft, Uber are coming into the enhanced entry zone? Uh >> yeah, so it it's to be determined. I think we're working in evaluating that solution. Um I I think the plans that you're currently looking at right now um was the the initial feedback that we had received from the city after submitting this was that San Antonio road San Antonio road corridor would not um have any parallel parking or loading. And so I think we're still evaluating um how to strategize those op those services >> particularly with a lower number of parking spaces and encouraging ride share which totally support but that also means places for white ride shares is important. So on the same plan, I'm curious how this ramp is successful like how there's no turn radius and a super tight turn. Is that one way, two-way? >> It's it's two ways. Um it's two ways. There is there is some flexibility I think for the diagram itself. We've shown it at right angles. Um but there is a way to chamfer it and round the corners. Um for that um the ramp >> potentially lose parking space, right? Um potentially I think we we can absolutely study uh where that turning radius and whether it's 5T 10 foot inside turning radius I think we can study that. Um but in terms of the the ramp slopes themselves uh they would be compliant or I guess they would be um meet the transition requirements and so we're trying to speed ramp up to level two. >> Yeah. Yeah. Your ramp um triangles makes it look like you have no space for radius and also parking spaces. So, >> okay. Um, what's your construction type? I don't remember seeing. >> Yeah, it's type three construction. So, wood lumber. Um, five levels of wood lumber over uh three levels of type one. So, um concrete, steel. >> So, the uh on the second level you have some apartments and on the third level of apartments would also be concrete construction. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. Type one. Okay. Um, so, uh, kind of in the weeds question, your Florida floor is 10 foot three or 10 foot n, I forget. Um, but on your seventh floor, you have 11' 3. Just curious why that is. >> Yeah. Um, so we're trying to make up uh an accessible path out to the roof terrace um within that club room space. And so for um to meet accessibility threshold requirements, we're popping up that upper floor an additional um 12 in so that we can make up the transition. Um the construction of that roof terrace is going to be on pedestal system and so we've got to be able to flush out the transition between indoor and outdoor space. And that so that's essentially what's accommodating um the uh accessible path. >> Okay. Actually that leads me to questioning your second floor podium. Is that is that outdoor terrace also on pedestal pavers? >> Yeah. Uh yes, it will be. But that slab will also be depressed. Um and so we can actually keep the head clearances required for parking and mechanical back of house uh plumbing routes while still accommodating a flush condition with the courtyard and the interior space >> apartments under that as well on the second level. >> Correct. Correct. And so the the location so again we're going to we'll continue to refine and coordinate the plumbing jobs. Uh but we'll reant anticipate the drops for the courtyard and the drainage slopage that would need to accommodate for that. Uh we tried to be as far away and remove from those residential units as we could. >> Okay. >> Yeah, cuz you're right up against that 90 foot with 89 something and your floor to floor with particularly with the terraces seems very very tight. >> Um okay, next question is about this is more operational question. tandem parking in a rental environment. How how is that um going to be managed? >> Yeah. So, I think all parking would be available as on kind of an as needed basis per tenant. And so, the tandem stalls would be dedicated to any of the two-bedroom or larger units that need um that may have multiple vehicles. Um and so we anticipate the allocation to be done all through management. >> So, all the tandem parking would be for the same tenant. uh would be for the larger units potentially. Yes. >> Okay. Um I'm going to go to the landscaping question. >> Yeah. >> Uh or does somebody else want to ask questions and I can come back to mine? >> You can go ahead. >> Yeah. >> Um okay. Thank you. Um between particularly between uh 788 and 808 the feels like a canyon between the two buildings. You have a a green hatch in your landscape plan. um curious what that is and would there be any space for even any tree planting both for like even you know columnary trees like cyprress both for privacy between the two but also more importantly I'm concerned about you know views of any kind of greenery from any of these apartments on the north side for one and even within your courtyard like the apartments that Kendra was pointing out to with the onebedrooms you're looking out your window or balcony onto the wall, the other wall of your building. So that internal courtyard is similar situation as the next building over. So what's the landscaping plan that would make that a little bit more greener? And >> yeah, so I I think um maybe I can take that kind of in in two separate um uh responses regarding the north. Um so we've got a fire separation distance that we're trying to um comply with for eg um for fire access around this building for hose reach and fire incident. Um and so uh the path that you see there right now is dedicated to um access uh to the rear for fire incident. Um the green hatch that you see along that north is also trying to accommodate for some type of bio retention or or storm water treatment. Oh, sorry. Uh yeah, for storm water treatment as well. Um and so I think we will absolutely explore what kind of vegetation um makes the most sense and is viable uh in considering those conditions. Um but yeah, but I think um we can we can absolutely look at that. Um uh jumping to the podium courtyard and the units that are um kind of fronting on maybe a side of an additional unit. Um again, I think there are um and so I'm looking at Yeah, perfect. Um and so again there's still the need for bio retention or filter um uh planters on this Kodium courtyard to for storm water treatment as well from the roofs. Um but there is some landscaping that can absolutely um be uh planted within those spaces. Uh the storm water treatment also is raised and so the landscaping it's not like you're looking out the window and seeing landscaping at the same finished floor as the pedestal system, right? And so all of those would be elevated. And so from a resident experiencing within that space, uh you're probably looking at a planter that's maybe 36 in up and then planting on top of that. And so you're more likely being able to see some type of vegetation directly outside the window. And that would just be for the third floor level or maybe up to the fourth and above that is >> Yeah. Yeah. So only only affected the um or that would be the scenario for the level three units. >> Um just to ask is there any possibility of having some kind of green walls along at least some of these walls that don't have balconies. So when you're looking out from the balconies you have greenery instead of a blank wall. Joey, do you mind going up uh two levels or one level? So going to L like the next sheet or maybe the one sheet after that. >> Yeah, it it's it's certainly something that we can study in. >> That's it. Now go back. You can go back to that one. Right. So So M just to make sure um understand. So when you're on like level six and you're sitting here in this bedroom and you're staring out, you're looking at a solid wall there and that's problematic. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Um, all right. I'm going to go to a question about the retail space, which is quite small. What are the potential retail options for a,400 foot space? >> Yeah, it's coffee. Um, kind of quick dining pickup, right? I think they're they're um still community serving or resident serving retail that can still thrive within that footprint. Um so yeah. Um, and I guess slightly on the practical question, that space looks like has a little trash area. And if it is any kind of coffee and stuff, you would need some storage space, some behind the bar space or um, seems too small for a restaurant, but could be, I suppose. But by the time because you also need to have space for a kitchen and all of that. Is that all within this, 1400 foot space? >> It it would be. Yeah. >> Okay. Um and I assume and we don't Oh >> yeah, sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Um this we actually have a project up in Oakland and the coffee shop that we have there is actually just around 1,000 square feet. So this size when you include back a house, a restroom is actually uh really spot-on for a coffee shop type use in our experience. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And just to jump in for a point of order if you don't mind stating and spelling your name for the record. >> Sorry. Uh Megan Watson with Grub Properties. M E G A N W A T S O N. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> I have one last question. Um on the material board, um it says terracotta, but you mentioned it's GFRC. >> Uh it should be GFRC. Yes. >> Okay. Um >> and so the oo skin um that we're currently proposing right now. Um it kind of gives the overall look of terracotta. um where we know the the the terra cotta itself can be um fairly difficult when in terms of structural weight and attachment and so forth. Um so this is a solution that kind of brings some of that terra cotta look and feel um in a much more readily available applicable application of an exterior facade >> but it would still need GFRC also needs a framework. It >> it would it would still need framing. It still be a rainscreen system. Yeah. But it's substantially um more accessible to be able to put it on a building. >> Yeah. >> And I'm just going to talk for a minute while I'm holding this up to try and get the uh the visual of this on the record. I don't know if the video will zoom in. There we go. Um just so it's and and then on that note, we're using all three of these in a mixture. >> Correct. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> That's it on my questions right now. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for these questions. Who want to go next? Uh I'm I'm okay. Um a curious question about uh retention. Uh can you do this on the roof? Is it conceivable to have it on the roof since it seems to be lacking on this site? you know, it seems to be a limitation on of the site and there it's a reach that you have all of these separate areas. >> So, I'm not clear what what you're asking about retention of >> water retention, rainwater retention, >> storm water, >> storm water. >> I don't I don't know the answer off the top of my head for that. I don't know if the applicant happens. >> And the applicant, have you ever done it? >> Yeah. uh for a roof structure it gets extremely um heavy and so we tried to put that at least always on the ground or on a concrete podium um to be able to accommodate the the additional loads. Once we stop putting them up on a on a wood frame building um the roof becomes extremely complicated from a structural standpoint. >> I guess maybe that's why we do it in New York because we don't have wood frame. >> Yeah, possibly. Um, so that's a that's a tough one unless you were able to make a section of the building concrete that would be able to carry that. Uh, but it looks to me like from the discussion here, it's it's so far a question that hasn't been solved. The retention the amount of retention areas are really not shown on here. So, um I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about what's going to be the way in which you use uh the San Antonio road uh as access for your building. And if you you know if it's a large number of people having indoor garage access accessible connection to vehicles that are either delivering people you know to the site or picking up you know it seems like it's an over overkill for an interior area that the street would be more and your front entry is right there. What is How are you going to use the street? Have you thought about it? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um so if uh Joey, if you could turn to a 0.10, please. Um this would be the pedestrian and and bicycle circulation diagram. Yeah. If you can and if you can just kind of zoom into um the San Antonio corridor. Yeah. So, so um there there are substantial uh um opportunities for ingress and egress along San Antonio and that's kind of the primary goal for having all these external facing um access points for residents, guests uh and especially the retail as well. And so we imagine that again within the special setback and ultimately where the bike lane um sits or the dedic kind of the the dedicated bike lane sits within that zone um you'll see the green arrow or the green dash line continues the San Antonio corridor bike um kind of multimmoal path and then all the red arrows from San Antonio Road leading up to I guess what looks like a purple dot on the screen would be points of connection for residents, guests and also retail. And so we anticipate that ultimately in the kind of the full buildout of the San Antonio corridor and the vitality of this retail at the anchoring corner uh that residents would be activating that street frontage pretty frequently to be able to get to you know coffee shop or whatever the retail may be. Um and again if if there's ride share and there's bike path ultimately when everything is kind of envisioned and built out for San Antonio corridor uh we imagine that that's going to be a pretty um highly utilized uh access point for both pedestrians and bikes. >> Well, you're kind of not discussing motor vehicles and pickups and drop offs, etc. >> Yeah. And so I I think the the thing that we've got to strategize and we will absolutely do that is um uh with the latest information about San Antonio corridor not having parallel parking or striped zone for loading or ride share pickup. I think we've got to strategize exactly how we solve for that um within this building or along the Legghorn. Um but in terms of the dayto-day use for vehicular access um right residents would be parking within the garage and then accessing it internally. Um and but we again I still think um you know ultimately the vision and the goal would be to bring everyone out towards San Antonio. Um I think this is an opportunity that we can take advantage of. I know we're uh one of the few first projects prior to a San Antonio corridor area plan being um and so I think there is challenge absolutely being first or being kind of one of the first. Um, but I think ultimately when this plays out, I think it' be a great addition to it. >> Just to raise the issue because uh we discussed it in the neighboring building and I think they had a layby on on the site if I correct to that. Yeah, they had a layby so their cars could pull off the off of uh San San Antonio onto and drop off or pick up. Uh, I'm not saying that's the best solution and hopefully maybe San Antonio's will. >> Uh, yeah. Okay, that's working. Uh, so maybe um maybe you're waiting to get the re feedback from the San Antonio study. Is that possible? >> Yeah, it's a little bit of both. I think there's still coordination that we've got to do with our team and the San Antonio corridor kind of what's envisioned and so uh something that we will absolutely study. >> Yeah, I don't just don't think you can really depend upon your garage to be the space aim I don't think has digital information about the inside of your building here. You know, they're not likely to be picking up that way. >> Sure. Uh so you know I I think you really I think you have to make sure that uh between yourselves and the city and the study that is being done there's a some sort of a solution to the San Anton it's a very you know it's a very busy kind of periodically very very busy street you know on and off and um >> uh if if the parking along the street edge were designated in some way, you know, and not just parking spaces, you know, that would be a possibility or on site, you know, but somebody's got to solve the problem of of uh this and coordinated with all the other transportation issues that are the issue the ma one of the major major issues of San Antonio Road. Um I just a quickie on the color of material is a sort of a pinkish color to the to the uh facial material whereas that color is on the board that that color and then there is the color of the of the sophet wood which is a wood color. Is that the color or is it in the works? >> Well, it it's it's yet to be finalized. Um, but we are anticipating that it is kind of that pinkish orang-ish tone. >> Uhhuh. >> And so again, I think there's there's material nuanced selection in terms of color. Um, and so we can kind of further refine that. >> Okay. I mean, we could wait on that until you're finished further further down the line here on the next presentation. Um, I noticed that in the lobby area you don't have any area designated for mail and package delivery. What are you going to do about that? >> Yeah, hasn't been space planned just yet. Uh, but we are anticipating that we will need package parcel room and mail for USPS. >> So, uh, are some of the areas adjacent to it? I mean, the commercial is a certain area right now, and as you say, it could be a coffee shop, but might be better if it were accessible and open to the building so that when you're on your way out, you're attracted to go in there. Uh, can you steal from the other side if you need need space for that? Because at the present moment you seem to have a an appropriate space for an entry lobby and it's all designated with the outside double height, you know, double height space. >> Sure. >> Where where you going to get the space for that? >> I I think it's worth studying. >> Okay. >> I think it's worth studying. Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm I'm willing to wait. Uh I guess I could uh hold off. I think that the other questions that were raised uh I I would I would say that an opinion about the garbage being at the remote end of the building. I think that was really kind of raised already. Do you think that that collection is the best spot for it or wouldn't it be better to have something closer to the ent uh to the elevator side of the building even though I understand it's an out outside more pleasant area for an apartment give up enough space to create a room for garbage collection? >> Um, no. Yeah. No, good question. I I don't I don't think it's very um it's uncommon for on-site management to be able to pull bins and maneuver them to be able to get to this trash staging area. Um >> I'm not worried I'm not thinking about that. I'm thinking about throwing their garbage down the chute. Why wouldn't that be better off on the way to the elevator? >> Yeah, I I mean we can study it. I I think there's many projects that and we we can share precedents as well where elevator or elevator and trash vestibules are disconnected. Um and so I think for us it was more about trying to get elevator access to the priority amenity spaces. Um and yeah, so we can we can take a look at it. >> Okay. Um I think we would hold that one for the future too. At the moment I have no more questions I think. >> Martin. >> Sure. Um, thank you. Yeah, I have um a couple questions. Um, one is, you know, so this building will have probably a lot of dogs or at least some dogs. Like, have you thought about dog hygiene? Yeah, so we do. Uh, let's see if we go to uh a I guess we go to our architectural site plan uh a 1.0 um again. And so we do have a dedicated sort of location for pet spa, pet wash um on the ground floor. Um we know residents are likely going to be taking their pets uh also kind of direct access when possible to a pet relief area or pet dog run. And so along the northern edge um or sorry the that would be our eastern edge there's a spot dedicated for dog run. Okay. Yeah, if you want to zoom, uh, it would be on the western or the eastern edge plan north. >> So, behind the building >> behind there. Correct. >> That's right. Um, and so we would be providing access uh from the lobby to the kind of western edge to a dog run along that. >> That's that uh >> kind of that peachish tone. >> So, how how how do I get there? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, you'd be coming through the lobby space through the bank of elevators across the entry enhanced entry zone within the garage all internal to the building and then access it off of the western the uh eastern uh boundary the property edge. >> Oh, I see. >> Yeah. Um and then right adjacent to the bike storage uh you'll see a kind of a zone dedicated for a pet spa. >> Yeah, I I I saw that one. Yeah. Okay. I didn't Okay. Okay. Um the other question you know maybe more important than dogs kids like is there any space for for kids in this development? >> Uh I think right now in terms of the offering for the unit typologies um not necessarily heavily family oriented uh these are primarily studios and one-bedroom units. um if there is the occasional cap, but we're not putting a entire amenity package specifically for family oriented um uh market. And so this would be kind of working individuals u maybe young couples kind of in the the kind of tech industry or whatnot around here. >> Mhm. Yeah. Um you know, maybe maybe that's you know your your intention, but it's it's quite common for you even families to live in one bedrooms or two bedrooms. there also a lot of single, you know, single parents who might not afford a larger home and um because you know what um yeah, I think um I guess we can get back to it in the comments uh later. Um so the other uh my next question is about uh bicycle uh circulation. >> Yep. And um so if we go to 0.10 and it looks like there are really two areas to access or two two doors to access the bike storage. Um, so I'm um so you of course in both cases the the bike has to pass the the sidewalk. Um, and then the the Why did you highlight one of the entrances with the red arrow and not the other one? >> Yeah, both could be highlighted. Um I think both serve as access points. Um they'd be secured for residents. Um >> yeah. >> Um probably the one that's has or or the one that's highlighted. It looks like it's like a zigzag shape. Um maybe not as convenient for bicycles. And I can It looks like even the one in the back, you know, would probably be a zigzag. Um what you know what I'm what I'm trying to get at is is like how do we make this entry safe for the pedestrians. >> Sure. Um and also, you know, convenient for the bikers. Um yeah, I think one thing to note, um with the the within the 25 ft setback, I we're we're taking it on ourselves to kind of show at least a bike dedicated bike lane that's separate from vehicular traffic. Uh, I think my understanding and and um Claire and Joey feel free to chime in is ultimately as this corridor is built out and envisioned where that bike lane sits within that 25- ft uh special setback is is up ultimately up for um discussion, right? Um and so I think currently we're we're taking a first pass at just kind of showing that there is a dedicated and separate bike lane. Um but there is some flexibility ultimately uh when the San Antonio corridor area plan is is is adopted. >> Yeah, we um I'll jump in. Uh and we we are hoping to get more clear direction from council this June. Um so coming up very soon about what their possible preferred option might be for the San Antonio Road area plan. Um and so we're hoping that that that further direction will give us some more guidance um that we can then apply to this project. For now, we have discussed that we will be asking for an easement u as part of this project. Um but we haven't um gone into detail about whether that will be you know the full length of the ease um the setback um or if you know we might ask for a lesser setback um which we did on the previously approved 808 San Antonio project. Um but we'll at least have a sense of what kind of the maximum that we would be looking for is I think by June. >> Okay. Um I have some comments on that but I'll save it for later. Um so if we go if we go to um let's say building plan level 4 to 7 8 2.3. So we already spoke about those two apartments that are looking um how do I make the these ones? Oops. Oops. these ones. Um, have you thought about flipping like mirroring the the floor plan so that the balcony is closer to the courtyard area? Uh, you know, also for for this apartment, that would also mean the bedroom is not directly behind the elevator might be quieter. And, you know, mirroring the rooms will um result in more light. Yeah, I think there will be further refinement. Um I think one thing that's ultimately driving this is also structural um columns, right? This level, oh actually sorry, level below that would still be in type one construction. So we've got to coordinate both living spaces, interior layout of those units with structural columns. Um and then typically we want all the plumbing and mechanical to stack for the residential units above. And so yes, for the refinement, absolutely. >> Yeah. Um then >> uh that's it for uh for now. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I have one little question if I may. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Um hopefully a little on the pool on the second floor deck, you're showing a pool which is like 14 by 22. It's a small little pool. It came up. I forgot to ask about this. Um, so it looks like it's three steps up from the pool deck. I'm on sheet L0.01. Want to go there? >> It's above the one more up. There we go. So, there's a pool deck and there's steps and a ramp next to it to go up to that level here. Um, so that all makes sense. So how deep is this pool given your very tight floor to floor? >> Yeah. Um so the pool would be slightly depressed. Um and where that occurs and so I think we're imagining a 4ft or uh 3ft 4ft pool. Um if you go to sheet sorry I'm going to point you somewhere else real quick. Uh a2.1 and we can toggle between 2.2 2 and 2.1. Um, but essentially that pool sits right above where we're showing the spa equipment. And so the use or the depression of that spa um is accommodated with the space below that, right? Because all of that space won't be necessary for equipment room. And so um we're trying to make sure that there's no impacts to head clearances below that. And so we can isolate equipment kind of around wherever that pull depression occurs. The spa equipment is the pool um >> is directly below. Yeah. >> And that's the the pool heating equipment. Okay. >> Exactly. >> Right. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Speaking of families, that's what I forgot to ask about. >> Thank you. And I have a couple questions. So, um first I will start with the parking. So compared to the previously approved park uh plans, so you provided underground parking and it's a five-story building with less much much less units compared to what you proposed now. It's eight story now, but now you get rid of the underground parking and also provide less parking space with more units. could you please walk through us about why you make this change? >> Yeah, I I can I can probably expand a little bit and um maybe uh Megan can expand just a little bit extra, but uh the the cost to be able to go down and dewater and dig and excavate um tends to make projects infeasible um in current in in kind of today's economic um uh kind of construction costs. And so the the strategy is to be able to deliver a project kind of quickly through the the construction process is to take all that um parking that was originally sunk in and subt and bring that up. Um and so that that's essentially kind of I think the biggest um kind of delta or change between what was previously entitled um or sorry previously uh proposed and what you see today. >> Okay. And and you know your neighbors also proposed the underground parking there, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. Um, and another question is about the floor to ceiling height for the fitness center on the third floor. If we go to sheet A4.0, we can see the sections. If we zoom out. Yeah. On the upper left to show the So the floor to ceiling height for the fitness center is about nine 9 foot high right for the fitness center. And then since it's building type construction type one and then you will have the duck work below the structure which means for the 1,500 fitness 1500 square foot fitness center most likely you will have only like 8 foot tall ceiling something like that. >> Yeah. So I think at the ultimate the finish of it we're probably looking somewhere like 86 um right with drops offs or venting as well. Um we we make every conscious decision trying to get make sure that there's no plumbing routes coming from up above uh that those can get routed prior to entering into this space. >> Um and so we try to maximize absolutely the head clearance including finish in that space. >> I think it depend on what kind of equipment and activities you will put there but 8 foot for 1500 finish it seems like it's kind of low >> but and another question about the elevations. So um on the railing types you propose two different types of railing. One the front and side the street front are different from the ones along the back. Could you please >> tell us why is that? >> Yeah. So um we wanted to prioritize the visibility on San Antonio and on Lake Horn and so that's why you're seeing the glass railing um so that there's always kind of activity and um kind of residents that you can see at multiple levels. uh once we get to the rear um right we we don't necessarily know ultimately what's going to happen on the Mountain View property. Um but again I think for us you know if 15 20 years down the line if another project kind of comes in with a closer proximity then you know we may be looking at um uh you know a different treatment there for glass railing or um for railing in general. And so, uh, we wanted to kind of prioritize edges and kind of what's our priority frontage, uh, with the glass railing. Um, and then the rest of it becomes kind of metal railing and then obviously on the north as described becomes solid railing. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Have no more questions. How about the others? >> I have one for staff. Um I forgot to ask about the um historical resource um evaluation that was completed and um the conclusion is that um it does appear to qualify for a listing under category 1. Um I wonder uh I don't remember if the previous cuz there was a previous SQA on this. Did that um provide like mitigation measures for demolishing this building? >> Correct. Ex. It did. Yeah. So, we made overwriting considerations when we adopted the EIR for that. So, it would streamline the SQL we're doing for this project is an addendum that would streamline off of that previously approved EIR. Um, so the demolition of that historic building and the mitigation and overwriting considerations have already um been considered and approved. >> Thank you. >> And I have a very brief question, super brief. Um on level eight, uh the club room, if we don't mind jumping to A2.4. Perfect. Um to get to that roof terrace, you either must go through the club room or you must go through that stairwell. Is that correct? >> Yeah, we would be going through the club room. >> Okay. Is there any intention that the club room gets rented out and that it would be like for private events, things like that? And then if yes, does that mean that the roof terrace is automatically included with that private rental or I mean for like people in the in the building I would assume. Um but what if someone wanted to get to that roof terrace and there was an event going on? >> Yeah. Yeah, good question. Um no, we haven't resolved that just yet. >> Okay, fair enough. >> Oh, we got a comment, please. >> Um yeah, as a practice we do not do that with our amenity spaces where we would host private events. Any events that we would have would be uh directly for our residents. So it would be open to everyone at the building. >> Sure. >> Let's say someone had a like kids birthday party or something and they wanted to have their own thing there. Nobody else would be allowed to use the club room. Or is it that the club room is always accessible to anyone in the building? >> It's the latter. Operationally, we don't do it for private. >> Okay. Great. Thanks for the clarification. >> All right. If you have additional questions. Okay. If no more additional questions, we will close the public uh session and you can sit >> have a seat and we can have internal discussion. So who want to start? >> Kendra, >> you want to start? >> Sure. So I think I think overall um uh I I I I like I like this project. Uh, I I think it it it it uh you know, looks pretty, you know, I like I like the materials. Um, you know, I like I like the setback on the corner. Um, I think that's a big plus. Um, I think the height, you know, is is higher than the kind of the the existing zoning, but it's it's similar to the other buildings around you. It's not, you know, more high than that. Like to me this is kind of the new Palo Alto kind of there's kind of the University Avenue and kind of old Palo Alto and there this is the new Palo Alto. So um you know I like I like that you incorporated retail. I think that's that's really nice. Um I think the recess courtyard on the level three is uh you know is is is excellent. So I think this project has a lot of you know things that um that you know I like and probably we like and you know we would like to see in other projects too. So I think overall it's um you know a really nice project. Congratulations. Um kind of couple points for discussion. I mean of course parking is is um you know is is a big topic and um you know I it also somehow feels like um you know you would like to have you know eat the cake and have it at the same time you know you are saying okay we don't want to provide parking spaces because everybody will be car pooling etc. On the other hand, I don't see a really good solution for pickups and drop offs. You know, I don't see a solution for uh ebikes. Um I think, you know, if so many people are supposed to use bikes and ebikes, I think the entrance into the building is, you know, not as convenient. So um you know for for bicycles and so I think that's just I think something um you know I just would like to comment you know comment on I think it's I think it's an interesting idea to to emphasize a car-free society but you know what what are the other implications you know for that like you know you have to I I um yeah so for ebikes, access into the building, you know, the pickups. I think you have two designated drop off spaces on on uh on on San Antonio. Now, just imagine it's between 8 and 8:30 and there there are going to be potentially 100 people going to work with Whimo. You know, the average car, you know, let's say waits for 5 minutes, you know, so that that, you know, that, you know, results in, you know, potentially, you know, 10 Whimos standing in front of the building. between 8:00 and 8:30 like where are they going to be? Um so I think that's not that's not resolved. So um so I think that's number one comment. Um number two comment is um you know this is a really big in development with you know 67 units and I think when it comes to these big developments um you know just speaking for myself I would like to see um you know more of um uh uh a more of a heterogeneous mix of residents, you know, like, you know, this is not, you know, I don't want to see like a student residence with, you know, just the same type of students or yappies, you know, living in the building. I think it has to be a mix between those people and families and you know uh you know potentially single families uh older people and um I um you know that was that was my question about the kids space and you said you know you don't you don't want kids in this building or you don't you didn't plan the building for kids. Um well that's just not the kind of a building that we are looking for. I I I I'm looking for like I'm looking for a building that serves a wider spectrum of society. Um you that's just a comment you know this is a you know discussion section. Um so that would be my other you know comment is you know what you know uh you know think more about you know how you can accommodate kind of a broader spectrum of of society. Um yeah and I think some of the details um you know that we discussed like that you know the garbage I mean I 100% agree with you know those comments um I think that could be you know over uh you know thoughts through and um yeah so I guess these are these are my two you kind of major uh major comments and I think you'll be back you know later and where we can, you know, I can we can probably talk about more details, but these were I think the biggest, you know, the biggest one. But overall, I think the building is is, you know, is is pretty and you you listen to the previous uh commissions and hearings and I really appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Who want to go next? David, >> hopefully this working. Um, I think that I'd like to say something about the detailing and the way in which you've put this building together because you spent a lot a lot of time on the outside of this building. The aesthetics of it are really quite excellent. Uh, my opinion is the way you've scaled it down with a expressed slab on every other floor. um the ground floor with a canopy continuing continued black line that sort of integrates the slippage which is something that nobody's mentioned so far which is a hell of a clever idea. uh uh it just breaks the scale down in a certain way that gives it that a certain urban quality to it that is a way of dealing with urban facades that I like very much in what you've done here. It is on the major avenue and it's an expression when you turn the corner it's different and the back is different and the side other sides are you know but the facade is the real facade the change in materials the massing breakdown uh I hope some other people pick up this kind of way of dealing with a bu a big a big building like this idea of course in initially to create that kind of center common space. You know, it's a great big space and it's a great organizer for a building. I think it it leads to some problems in the sense that the side wall where it's adjacent to another building that's equally massive is not going to be the best of all places. But I'm thinking about this. We never didn't ask the question, but this is going to be a rental building, isn't it? >> Yeah. I mean, that makes a big difference because people are in and out of a rental building, whereas ownership of an adjacency where you're that close to neighbors, I don't think is is is so great. uh you know I talked about the fact that as a New Yorker it creates other problems but at least it doesn't have that particular problem of closeness to one building to another and uh clearly the zoning would have had to have had that discussion a long time ago and so we're living with this kind of possibility of closeness between apartments that uh you need to create extra privacy for that whole facade. And in some cases where buildings are going to be between two other buildings like this, you know, it's even more common. Uh um however, you know, I don't want I don't want that to say that the building that you've designed is not very attractive because I agree with my cohort here. It's a really attractive building. and the selection of materials is really well thought thought out. So I have some other concerns though. I think that for one uh you haven't addressed the some of the elements of the entry the mail room and the package room and those sort of things really ought to I hope you'll get it in the next presentation. It may mean that you have to adjust the functions that are along the street side there. uh the uh San Antonio and reduce them a little bit. You've kind of recognized I think with this very large um bike storage room, you know, it's terrific. I don't see any problem with your I disagree with my partner here that uh it's a it's a major concern when you come out of that room. Maybe you need a bigger door, glasser area. I don't know quite quite what you need for access to the to the street, but you have plenty of room to work with at this point. And it is the transportation issues are as mentioned the most critical element here. And I think you're addressing it by saying, look, we're looking into the future where more of the uh transportation is really going to be in whatever the term would be used for the cars that you either rent or that you call up and get, you know, that whole thing is changing day by day clearly. Um, uh, so I don't see how it can be, I mentioned before, I don't see how it can be done in the garage. I think it's going to have to be something that's part of the study along San Antonio Road. And they better do complete that study quickly because you you guys are coming online faster than the solution to the San Antonio road is getting there. So it's a difficult issue here. Um I think that the garbage room really I hate to do it but I think it should be the it shouldn't be at the far end. I'm I'm for reducing the distance that people have to go to drop their garbage. You say I understand you say it you've done it before. That's it is com commonly done and I've seen it in other projects. So I can see it's coming along as a but but to put it that far, you know, it's a couple of hundred feet that somebody has to take their garbage to every single day that they're throwing out garbage, it just seems to me it's going to be picked up on Legghorn. It ought to be at the Legghorn area. and I firmly would vote for that one if my fellow board members would agree to that. Um, we always talk about garbage anyhow, which is so annoying to have to do that, but you can see and I know about that. Um, so, uh, I think that some of the apartments, you know, I have a hard time with this ventilation issue, saying you're borrowing the light. Uh, I don't that that I don't think they they would allow it in New York. So, I don't know. It it concerns me that you're borrowing light from a living room window that you can't even see from the bedroom. uh that kind of it unless you prove to me that that it's commonly done now here and I I mean I think in terms of ventilation you can take care of it but in terms of light you're really that borrowed light for a bedroom off to the side the standard way of doing these is the opposite right is to put the bedroom on the outer wall and a bathroom which clearly have to ventilate uh is inside somehow. Uh I I mean I've seen it never seen it done this way so far. This is the first time I've seen it. I don't know. Have you ever planning ever seen anything like that before? >> I'm not sure. >> Put you on the spot. Sorry about that. Um, a two, you have the units that are deep into the notches. Can I just say it that way? You know what I'm talking about. I think that whole apartment that's in the furthest end of the notch needs to be redesigned. I think to get more light, it's it's a very tight area. You're looking just at a wall. Frankly, I think you carry it all the way across to the dead wall of the unit next in front of it and use that space. Uh, and then it's looking differently. You know, you don't have to take all of it because you want some privacy separation between it and its neighbor, but I really think it's a it's a possibility to use use the space and have the view out towards the pool, etc., you know, even if it's around the corner, there's more light out there. Think about doing something else with that. It's a dead end. To me, it's a dead end. Anyhow, um, uh, well, I think we've had plenty of discussion about the the the relationship to the neighboring building. Um, one of the things I didn't mention that is really a positive element about this building is that you've gone flipped over backwards to make places for people to enjoy themselves in this building. you know, the exercise spaces, the room at the top, the uh just the size of the of the and location of the bicycle planning has been really terrific this way so that you have a percentage of of uh rooms that are common rooms for this building. So I agree with my fellow here who says that uh it would be nice to have a broad swath of the population of PaloAlto here in this building and I think you've accommodated most of them. Maybe it's not family housing but frankly we're getting a lot of town homes. Uh that's family housing. Uh plenty of family housing will be built here as a matter of fact. So that element of it with lots of kids I think will likely go towards town home projects whereas this building is really a more rental type that uh smaller families perhaps turnover as well you know so different people will occupy it at different times I the population in terms of the number of kids. I think you have to almost look at the whole city to see exactly what's happening in terms of it. And we're getting ever increasing number of town home projects. Um, you know, I'm going to let somebody else get in here because I'm taking too long and I want to read my notes. >> I can go next. I'll follow on some of your comments, David. Yeah, thank you for the presentation. I agree with David on the exterior design of the building and I wish the interiors were equally successful, which I don't think it's quite there yet. Um, I'm with my fellow board members on trying to get the apartments to be a little bit more familyfriendly that you can have a larger cross-section of people. While there are town homes, not everybody can afford to buy a town home, which is very different from renting an apartment. So, I think that's really important. And that leads me, you know, looking at the individual plans of um the units. The B's are quite successful with the larger units, but like you have so many of the A's, the A8, A1 with the interior, bedroom, and a bathroom towards the exterior wall. It's like the apartments in the layouts feels like it's intended to not spend very long in your apartment which people you know outside of work do spend a lot of time at their home of any type. So I think making them their their homes more pleasant uh have and more pleasant place to live. I think it's really important um is so while you know yes you might have the code required borrowed light maybe maybe not please go beyond code and make it much more pleasant living environment for people um two-bedroom I had kids in a two-bedroom apartment you need space for kids toys and all that stuff so having common spaces be have more space than giant bathrooms just things like that just think about the types of people who you want to invite to this space and make it a little bit more family friendly, more um a larger cross-section of people can live here. Um I stand by my earlier comment about greenery. Actually last week I went to a really great presentation by a Stanford faculty member about how uh seeing greenery from their workspaces and living spaces really enhances their personal well-being. uh and the that you know I agree with that even before I went to that presentation and I even uh and I would like you to consider that as you design these places with you know views of greenery as you come out as you're in your apartments in common spaces more so in the apartments it feels a bit lacking um last one about like you know uh other uh board members have already mentioned about ride share deliveries it is you know while it's 167 seven apartments. It is a relatively small site uh especially with not being able to use San Antonio for a lot of that. Um so how you organize your leg horn side of the street to be able to get ride share deliveries and all on the street versus Yeah, I don't I guess um you can ask a Uber driver to pull into your garage, but I don't know how you say that to a whimo. Um and in the future there's going to be more and more of um the you know the autonomous vehicles for ride share. So um think about that and try to organize the site please because I don't think it's quite there right now. Um, I think that's Oh, on the materials, um, the fake terracotta, GFRC, and the Stuckco to go with it is a little too pink. Uh, which compared which does not quite match with your render views. Um, I think your renderings are a lot better than your sample colors. Um, and I know every print and every screen image will have a different color rendering, but these are quite um off on the look of terracotta. So, I would like you to reconsider those with a little bit more orange and less pink orange and brown than pink on the colors. And that's it on my comments. Thank you. I'm going to echo a lot of what my fellow board members have already said. Um, I actually overall really like the building. I think that the layout of the sort of U shape with the central courtyard is lovely. Um, I do have concerns about, as uh, board member Adcock called it, the canyon between this building and the next eightstory building over. However, I also understand that's just sort of the nature of the beast in its situation. um thoughtfulness regarding those window placements, especially when we know what the neighbor is doing. Being able to shift our windows one way or the other, having a 15 degree angle um so they're not staring directly across that canyon um into the neighbors is definitely going to be beneficial. And yes, window coverings are fine and they work, but um you know, those moments that you do want the window open, you really just don't want to be staring at your neighbors. So, anything you can do in sort of shifting gently, um maybe even putting some frosted glass on the lower portions and then clear glass on the upper portions, things like that to just really try and mitigate that facade I think will be beneficial. Um my biggest issue overall with this project really is level one. Um I think that there's a lot to be said for I really like your enhanced entry zone. I think that is going to be sort of the solution for the Whimo and the Amazon drop offs. And um I think once you know there there's ways to have it so that you pin like when you go to the airport there's zone 3 versus zone 2, right? There's going to be a way to say, "Hey, when you're a lift, pull into this little parking lot, pick me up." Right? So I'm a little less worried about that than maybe some of my colleagues are. However, anytime there's a gate and there's a parking space right next to the gate, like butdding up right against it, it's always a little problematic um in in in true functional state. So anytime you can get sort of even just a couple feet of relief for a walking path, something like that, right next to the gate. So just reanalyze where your gate is placed, whether it should be actually a column back, right, something like that, or maybe a column forward, just to really be thoughtful about that gate placement. On that note, um the gate at sort of the setback line where you go from the angled driveway into the actual building itself, maybe you flank both sides of that with electrical spaces and then um instead of having one side be this really long and deep electrical and the other one is parking spaces like right at the gate again. So again, understand that gate is going to be open during most of the day and it's the secondary gate which is going to be the one that's predominantly closed. understanding all of that. Just again having someone sort of trying to pull in and pull out right at that gate, especially when you're transitioning from uh a visual atmosphere. Imagine it's a sunny day out and you're going from really bright sunshine into that shaded space of the underground parking, right? It your your eyes have adjusting to the glare and somebody's pulling out right in front of you. So, anytime you can give that breathing space, I would encourage it. And since you're going to sort of reevaluate the parking spaces down here anyway, um as board member Adcock had mentioned, the turning radius of that ramp once that gets reevaluated, just keeping these things in mind as you go through some of this um re-evaluation of parking layout. Um I'm also going to in in that same vein, I'm going to throw that big wrench in there that board member Hersh had mentioned. I really think that trash needs to be next to the the elevators as well. It's just a functional daily thing that everybody's going to the elevators every single day. And people will constantly say, "Oh, I'm going to bring my trash out as I leave for work." Right? It's much more difficult to get people to really take their trash out when they have to do it in the middle of the day, go to the opposite end of the building that they never go to for any reason other than the trash. And I know you guys do this for a living. I'm sure you've got buildings where it's just fine. While you're re-evaluating that whole area, just really try and see if you can make that work cuz I think having the trash next to the elevator is going to be a big benefit. And again, that will domino affect things upward as well, right? having that trash on level one right behind the elevators will affect some of your parking which in theory you're going to be reevaluating anyway. You know, it looks like there's sort of a little nook kind of primed and ready to go right next to the elevators on the upper levels. It doesn't need to be big. It's just for the trash shoot. So, that makes some sense. Um but maybe on maybe you'll be reevaluating some of the A1s or A1.1s and maybe those become a two-bedroom unit, right? Maybe you need a little bit of space behind the elevators to make this work. I don't know. It's up to you guys. Um, on that note, just a friendly reminder that the A4 really is a studio and not a one-bedroom. Um, again to echo the sentiments that I don't like the bedrooms on the inside. I know it's code compliant, but people need to be able to look out their windows. I'm sorry. So, maybe that again that A1 and A1.1 maybe that can combine into a two-bedroom, right? Maybe that's a better use of that space. Again, I'm not sure. You guys will figure that out. Um, love the courtyard. Love the pool area. Uh, I think the fitness going out to the pool area is really nice and that's one of those things I'd almost say you might want more doors because a lot of people do like to spill out their their fitness and their workouts and some people might want to do yoga outside or something like that. Um, what else can I say? I love the the concept of the pets having that pet spa. My one comment would be maybe that's something that you embrace a little bit more again when you're reorganizing things. Maybe that's something that actually is accessed from the outside and maybe that's something that becomes sort of a use for the people as well as for outside, you know, maybe it's more of a retail space. Maybe it's a little bit bigger and a little bit more embraced. I don't know. But it's um it's a really nice amenity to have and also partnered with the dog run in the backside. I think it's going to be really beneficial. Um, the reason that I think it'd be kind of nice to have it outside is I can imagine someone sort of leaving for work again, dropping off their pet at the thing, going to run groceries, coming back, picking up their pet from the spot. If that's an amenity, or if it's really just they shower their own dog, they might want to take their dog outside to walk right afterwards as opposed to showering and then bringing them right back up to their apartment still so wet. So, um, again, just food for thought there. The roofing and that setback terrace, I really appreciate that at the corner. I think that's very well done. Um, to echo the sentiments of my fellow board members with the materiality, I am so pleased to see that you guys did something other than white and gray and black. I am like pleased as punch that you guys have terracotta here. I think it's going to be great. Little bit pink in the samples. So, it's one of those, but I I like the materiality um texture change. I think that that's going to be sort of a nice variation that's going to create a really interesting effect. Just making a little more orange. And then again going back to this wood in your renderings this is a bit more brown and in person it's a little orange. So just really dialing in those. But I'm just pleased as punch that you guys are doing color. So I think that's all my comments for now. I think uh mostly in agreement with everybody else here. So uh thank you very much for your presentation. Looking forward to seeing the project built. >> Thank you. >> Um sorry to interrupt. Uh a quick thing that might impact your the trash shoot thing. Just remember there's a code requirement for elevators to be within 200 feet of stairs. You might be exceeding that. You might end up with another elevator by the other stair which might help with your trash comment. >> Thank you. >> I'm going to jump in on that one because she she stole it from me. I was about to say that I said missing to because the thought struck me that you know you're going to have act you can create it with access to the parking garage if you had an elevator at at the far end. You could create it to an additional exit entry for the the building, you know, but in particular exit because somebody taking the trash is probably going out, you know, afterwards and could could this would keep at least keep the trash at the same end of the building, you know, and you your process could could work the way you've described it before. But one ele extra elevator. Think of all the money you're saving by not cutting a big hole in the ground there. We're letting we're letting you off on that one. Spend a little bit of it on another elevator. It would fit at that end without a great deal of problem with uh the planning at that end of the building. You know, it's not going to take up that much space. An elevator versus the actual trash room. itself, which does take up a hell of a lot of space, especially at the ground. And having it at that back end is a good idea where it is now, and your process could work. But an extra elevator would reduce the load during the morning rush and the evening rush, whatever, for the whole building. It's a big building. You need to you need to do that. >> And then I did have one last minor comment. really happy to see that there's retail. It's one of those that oftentimes because of the way that the code is requiring extra parking spaces, things like that for retail that whether it's for sale building versus a rentable building. I mean, when we see just nothing but like lobby lobby lobby lobby going all the way down San Antonio, it's going to be really problematic. So, I'm thrilled to see that you guys have retail. And I would be very actually disappointed if you guys are penalized being required to have extra parking spaces because of the retail. I'd rather you keep the retail and have a little less parking. So, for whatever food for thought that's worth, thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you very much for all your comments and thank you to the public uh to the uh to the applicant for your for your presentation, for your design. And when I look at the rendering, it it looks quite exciting and I think it's well designed for the exteriors and the way how you break down the huge building and also apply different different materials on it and also you stagger the uh terraota tiles between different floors. I think it's all different kind of treatment that you apply to this building break down the massing and also I like I do like the way that you use the black canopy to connect the third floor transition to the sec to the double height lobby and retail space and wrap around the corner. I think it really helps and all those glazing areas and also co-work space all those um amenities all um activate the the street front. I think it will help it it's really uh along with the landscape it make the street really uh pedestrian friendly and welcoming. Uh and for the circulations uh I agree with my um fellow members. I agree with the trash issues. I think ideally the trash shoot should be close to the to the elevators and also um I also don't like the the non-wind uh uh bedroom uh design. I think bedrooms always have the should always have the exterior windows and also um it seems like I'm not I might be the only one who might think we need more parking here for this project. It seems like everyone else is fine. But when you look at this, it's a 167 uh units and you only provide 74 spaces and also a number of them are still tendon parking. So it would be a challenge for the tenants. Uh if you could provide more parkings, I understand it's market driven parking nowadays especially this is a PhD zone as you proposed. But I think if you could provide more parkings, it could allow you to widen your your potential uh tenant selection and also it could promote your list of up um velocities. So I would encourage you to provide more parking in this case. And also u when I look at the lobby again, it seems like the lobby could be um less used than it is proposed because when when you see on the first floor plan, people go down the elevators, they go left to the bike and then they go right if they want to have go to the parking space or to the parking garage or to the uh Lhorn Street for the right share. So it seems like there is very few circum circumstances that people will really go through the lobby and uh use that area. So I'm wondering whether it makes us understand because the San Antonio road it doesn't allow the loading zone there. So I'm almost wondering whether the retail and lobby could switch so that the lobby could be at the cer and then it has the it also facing the black horn which is close to the right share the loading zone space while you still don't lose your retail and or maybe switch between the co-work and the lobby so that you're close to the back storage. I don't know. But uh uh and also uh for the for the upper floors, I do concern about the ceiling height you provided at the fitness center because of the 8 foot high ceiling. It seems like it's quite low for commercial fitness center and it will limit your uh equipment selections. And also I would encourage you to match the railings because currently it might look like the back of the building and the front of the building. It it looks like two different buildings because the materials you apply are different. The reading types are different and the back of the building are more flat compared to the variations you did for the front. So I think if there are some more connections between the front and back it will make the entire design to be more cohes cohient and I think that's all my comments for now and anyone else want to add something? No. Well, I'm just concerned some of the Yinx's comments here would alter the entire ground floor plan. Um, and it concerns me that seems to me that there's a good arrangement on the ground floor. Uh, the off center is very much a part of the design too, uh, with a black element that moves through the facade. Um, so I I don't I don't see where there is a conflict in entering this building. If you're a pedestrian, certainly you're the location is fine, close enough to the corner. If you're a biker and you're coming into the building, there's a connection on the ground floor back to the elevator, right? So where where where do you see a conflict in circulation? >> No, I mean I I'm not talking about like the conflict of of the circulation. It's more about the lobby itself. It's like who will go through the lobby itself. As you said, for the backlist, they will use the corridor that connect to the >> to the uh to the elevator and then for whoever the pedestrian it is who entering who is going to the site, they will >> going to Legghorn Street. Is that what you mean? >> Yeah. >> Why why would they go to Legghorn Street particularly especially because it's a garbage collection area >> that is the drop off area, right? because the car cannot drop off people along the San Antonio. >> Well, I think that's something that's they're studying right now. I don't think that's a a given at this point. >> Building next to us has a layby, the car has would be pulling into the >> closer. Yes or no? If the if the long-term the eventual goal is to promote the bike safety along the San Antonio, then it would be good to cut off the bike. >> It may not be a perfect relationship, right? That you'd have to wait till bikes go by if that's the case, you know, or they have a priority. Somebody has to work that out. And then I don't and with this building the facade of this building is much much longer than the depth of it. >> Right. >> So how how to make the side street into a way more kind of delivery a pickup area just doesn't seem reasonable that garbage is coming out there. From what I heard that is what proposed >> but you know it's not going to work for any other any other project along the street edge there on San Antonio. >> Pull up the site plan again so that everybody is on the same page. >> Bear with us while we pull that up. And yeah, just to clarify that um you know, while we're still seeking direction from council on the preferred options, we don't anticipate that there will be parking anymore along this frontage. And so there would be no area for a loading area um necessarily along this frontage >> along the San Antonio >> frontage >> frontage. Correct. >> O that's all I can say. It's going to be a disaster if you don't have some kind of a solution for the San Antonio. I the side. It's pretty obvious here. You wouldn't put the entry into a garage off of San Antonio. So, they've put it on the side and look at the amount of space it takes up. So, how are you going to actually have and you have aund and some 50 people potentially looking for ride share situation here? How how's that going to work on a side street? And the buildings all along the main corridor >> don't have that capability. Are are you so I mean that that's why we require something on site and it's not being provided on site. So but the facade has been set back and there's the possibility of doing it on a sort of a layby that uh area on that frontage even though it conflicts as described with a with a bike passage. to put it on a side street does not work because there aren't so many side streets. So this >> for for vehicular, you know, drop off and pickup, are you suggesting that they have something come up as a curb onto the site? >> Is that what you're suggesting? >> Okay. >> It has to be it has to be studied relative to the frontage on on San Antonio. I just I think it's unrealistic to to suggest, you know, they've gone out of their way to provide something inside the building that that takes the place of it. And I think everybody here was saying they don't really think that's going to work. You can't you can't get people in and out of of a building by coming into the building. It's just I don't think it works. I'm not a transportation engineer, but this does seem to me to be a major problem. >> I honestly can't remember how the next door project is doing the drop off. Is it >> So, they have it as a K turn. So you come into their parking garage and then they have a area that you pull over. Uh >> so similar to this. >> Yeah. So they've designed it where you come into the parking garage too. >> So it's so it's more of a development for this area to be able to have enough space for ride share. And maybe some of these are not parking for residents, but rather ride share pickup, drop off areas and also Amazon deliveries and door dash and all those things that uh will make some of the parking reduced, but that's going to be necessary. Um, to Yingshi's point about the lobby, while yes, this in-n-out is probably not that used, I think, as a massing, I think that's what you're getting at as well. Um David um on the overall um you know elevation of this area of you know demarcating the entry lobby as the highest um in the hierarchy that highest priority and then the retail like in that elevation with the with that design. Sorry I'm drawing your elevation on top of your plan the lobby the retail in which this slips into being fitness with the outdoor space uh next to it. I think that's a really great composition. So, moving that lobby while it is not going to be the most used indooroutdoor um access I think is still successful as a massing design. >> Okay. >> Any other comments? Well, it just it's too bad the San Antonio study wasn't sort of started earlier, you know. Uh it's just it I think it just has to come together, you know, and uh all all due speed is necessary here because you just don't want a nonfunctional building here. a beautiful building, a wonderful building, an addition to this community. Really, I love it. But, uh, I'd like to see the San Antonio piece answered. And starting with the thought that, oh no, we're not going to have any of that. You know, doesn't work. Just tell you straight out does not work. It won't work. That's a feeling I have. I'm not a transportation engineer, but you have to study really the whole block and the number of people who are going to be here. You know, it's New York is a good example here because we we have sides we have sidewalk pickup all along major streets. Um it's an this is now becoming much more of an urban area, a denser urban area and you have to deal with those issues. A thought on that is also like I think this is bike parking correct and there's a little bit of bike parking over here. Um, a while. Oh, my app wants to update. Cancel. Cancel. Remind me later. Sorry. Um, I don't know what happened to my screen. It just Yeah. Um, so I think if um all more of the bike parking got moved to San Antonio side, you would have a little bit more breathing room on this uh right side on Legghorn side um to deal with this loading. Uh while you don't want to get too close to the intersection, just food for thought on how you could potentially use a little bit more of the Legghorn side of the street. >> So if >> So I'd love to do kind of a consolidated summary. Yeah. Do you think you could put that on a word? And so we have a few notes we kind of put together um of the things we feel like we heard. Um so we'll throw that up on the screen and just want to kind of confirm if we missed anything or Sorry. So first one is uh further evaluate the turning radius in the garage as well as the parking space design. Um, I think the component of the parking space design was um partially related to board member Rosenberg's comments about the electrical. I don't know if you want to be more specific. Um um I think in general, but um kind of also going into comment number two, um the project's designed with limited parking, but doesn't accordingly include drop off and pickup spaces, improved bicycle areas, improved pedestrian entrances, etc. Accordingly, this needs to be reconsidered. One board member expressed the need for more parking. >> You can make the two >> two. Okay. Second one, just two board members there. Yeah. Um, >> can we add can we >> we add to that coordination with the uh uh San Antonio road uh study is required. >> Yeah, we should definitely add that. Thank you. and and no, you keep going with that thought, but when you're done with that thought, I put a little pink line up there for um >> uh >> I think coordinate with syrup. That's fine. >> Perfect. So, where the pink line is, I think maybe we just add in um consider distances from gates to parking spaces. And that would just be part of that comment one. Yeah, perfect. Have the comment. That's it. Perfect. Thank you. >> Um so moving on the further study the lobby parcel pickup and drop off area. Um and uh I don't know if that captures fully if there were other specific components of the in mail boxes mail drop. >> I think it's important to include but I also just want to like you know to be on the uh applicants advocacy side here is they they clearly said that they're thinking about it. They just haven't gotten there yet. So just making sure that it's on their list of things to consider and and how to do that. Um and then um need to really study between you and the city's work. Oh, you know, I I kind of added um your thought on coordinating with the syrup as a separate item, so we can probably remove that bullet point. Um there um consider the color of the tiling material. It should be more orange and less pink. Um, reconsider the location of the trash to be closer to an elevator and closer to Lghorn. May want to consider adding another elevator. Encourage the units to be designed. >> Uh, can we just say uh uh if uh if garbage stays where it is, consider >> Okay, >> good point. They might already be code required to add an elevator. >> Okay. Double double check the 200 foot distance. >> Could we add to that uh related to this study the access to the garage uh and the exterior from the the secondary elevator? >> Oh yeah. Uh, so related to this access to the garage from the second elevator >> garage and exterior and exterior. >> Exterior what? >> And just exterior in general. >> Yeah. >> Um, yeah. >> From the elevator. >> Sure. Yeah. >> From second elevator. >> Thank you. uh encourage the units to be designed to accommodate a larger cross-section of people. Um this might be kind of a subcomponent of the very last um um point too. Um but uh some of the spaces with borrowed light should be reconsidered to go beyond the code and make it more pleasant environment such as having a window for the bedroom. consider making common spaces larger and having smaller bathrooms. So, that that last point was kind of related to the larger cross-section of people, making the living spaces a little bit more livable for potentially for families. >> I don't know if we want to add like kid-friendly. >> I just do feel like I need to put on the record. I actually sort of descent from the rest of the group at this point. I think that this since this is rentals, I'm a little less fussed about it. So, just, you know, putting that out there. I understand that basically everybody else is in a disagreement with this and that they all think that it should be more family oriented. I'm less concerned about it. So, I just did want to put that on the record. >> Yeah, I will also echo on that. >> I I I agree with that point of view. >> Oh, okay. So, there's two of us that want more family oriented and three of us that don't really mind the way that it's designed as is. That's I'm glad we clarified that. >> Okay. So, should we still be looking at a larger cross-section of people or is this still a point that >> Well, I think it's a market driven. >> It's a market driven. I'm about to say yes. >> I was going to say to the two board members that were really sort of pushing for this, I think that it's well worth considering if that's something that again, if it's market driven and if they can get more of that, that'd be great. But again, it's one of those that I I just wanted to sort of clarify that I I'm not sure it's like a requirement as more of a suggestion for what we think will actually be beneficial, right? And and but I would rather the two people that are for this speak to it rather than me. So >> I would say just refinement of um plan designs that uh provides more family space whether it's couples or kids within apartments than um as you refine the design I should say. It's a refinement of design to accommodate um >> family space. >> More family space where they're coup. Yeah. >> And common I would say common areas too, you know, especially the outdoor spaces. >> Okay. Um, so maybe let's take out the Yeah, maybe take that out. Um, and then the very last sentence on the last bullet we can probably remove too. >> Um, okay. >> I think there was one other comment. I think it would be good to coordinate the window placements with uh 880. Of course, that can change because they can move their windows any time, but sorry. Uh okay. What? Yeah. 808. >> I think it would also be in their interest to coordinate. Uh do you also want us to note I'm realizing now uh window placement as it relates to the balconies as well um on some of those kind of interior. >> Yes. >> Um >> neighboring buildings >> neighboring units >> facing their neighboring units. It was like on the interior of the courtyard >> future undecided certain situation. Well, the the ones I was specifically referencing were referencing the interior to the lot that were interior to the courtyard. Um, there were some of the balconies are facing a wall. Um, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Or >> consider refinement to the >> Yeah. >> the balcony design or balcony placement. and light and air and light and air with light and air considerations. >> With light and air considerations >> I think the applicant knows which light up to them to figure that one. >> Yeah. >> Can we add light air and views? Not just light and air. >> Light air and views. Yes. Okay, that's are everyone comfortable with the two different types of the balcony railings or they have to be consistent? Any opinions on that? We have similar comments for the other projects before. I think in this case the um glassier balconies are nice when they can be glassier. Um it so I'm personally I'm fine with two kinds of balconies to be able to have more privacy where needed and um be more >> right. How about the ones facing the rear? >> That's a good point. I think kind of thinking about the future really uh other than the um San Antonio and Legghorn frontage, the other two sides should anticipate future development and and plan for a little bit more privacy instead of having to change it out in 15 years or whatever. >> Yeah, just look at the rendering they provided on a sheet sheet A10.2. When you look at the building here, the rendering in this angle is it could be just a totally different building from the one you look from the front, right? >> It's it may not be because just because of the rating types, but also materials. So if we keep the some of the materials consistent it will be help. Speaking of um you know railings for the you know for for the balconies um I'm always you know worried that the balconies will be used for storage uh in especially on the left side of the you know the building where there are two balconies next to each other like on on on San Antonio. Um and uh you know one of there are two balconies there. One of them is for a a onebedroom the other one is for a studio. So I am especially worried that the person with the studio who doesn't have storage and he will use the balcony for for storage and it's going to look messy from the street. So for that reason, I definitely like more the the design that you have uh in the in the balconies that have the terracotta where where where the bottom part of the balcony is solid and the top is glass. Do you know what I mean? like like here like if you store you know stuff in the balcony I'm not going to see it from the street. So to me that's uh you know that's preferable to glass only here but >> or maybe the glass will discourage storing stuff in on the balcony. It should somebody should right to make the building much more solid because all of a sudden you know you're dealing with this separate issue. >> Maybe it could be frosted glass or you know something that >> Well, that's a possib Yes. Okay. >> Hide the mess. >> Yes. Rather than solid frosted glass. >> Frosted glass would solve it. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I feel like the thing that most people will store on their balconies is bicycles, right? Like even though there's storage, I just know a lot of people that are I I totally understand that, but I know a lot of people are like, I just want to bring it to my own apartment. >> Um but yeah, I'd also say anything we can do to discourage storage on the balconies is probably a good idea. >> Maybe maybe you could take care of some of this with a lease arrangements. You do Okay. You know, it seems to me that that's the place it has to happen because the city can't do it, you know. So, it's up to you to have a good-look building. >> But frosted glass isn't a bad idea. >> Okay. No more comments? >> Yeah, I I do. the the two balconies that you have on the north end of the facade on San Antonio Road are the two closest balconies in the whole project. And it would be nice if you could figure out how to split them. They're they're they're a few feet apart. It seems to me, isn't you know, >> look at your elevation. >> They're very very close to each other >> different. If you know it, those almost require a side panel of some sort to create privacy between those two units. If you're going to keep them that close, for sure. But still, if it's possible to separate them by a few more feet, I think it would be better. Maybe the side panel, like if they keep the balconies as is, but they put a side panel, maybe that could be interesting architecturally, too. >> So, that would be another another possibility to explore. >> The corner one is A8, which has a in a bedroom further back. So, even if they adjusted for the bedroom to be at the corner, the balcony off of the the bedroom, some something like that, that could help separate the two balconies, which might be nicer than adding a wall in the on the balcony. >> I think that architects are very capable to study that one. May we just um may we just note that uh cons consider separating the two balconies on the north end or east end of San Antonio. Thank you. If no additional comments then we will just close this item. So I move to continue this project to a date uncertain. Do I have a second? >> Second. Thank you. Can we have a call for vote, please? >> Yes. Um board member Rosenberg. >> Yes. >> Board member Jar. >> Yes. Board member Hirs. >> Yes. Uh, Vice Chair Adcock, >> yes. >> Chair Chen, >> Motion carries 5-0. >> Thank you. >> And we have two more items here. Do we want to have a five minutes break? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we have a five minute break and we'll come back on 11:16. Okay, everyone is back. Shall we continue? So, we will move on to our action item number three, election of chair and vice chair. We don't have staff presentation for this or do we? >> I just have two quick slides. >> Okay, go ahead, please. Well, it's that time of year again, so let's jump into those elections. I just wanted to kind of orient ourselves here as detailed in that um staff report. It is in the architecture review board bylaws uh to hold the chair and vice chair elections. So, we're there and the recommended process just to kind of speed things up is provided on the screen. Before we jump in, I would just like to note that we can accept public comment on the item and then proceed. >> Are the public comments open to what twice like one for chair selection and one for vice chair or is just open now? >> Just one item. >> Just one. >> Okay. Do we have any public comments for this item? >> Yeah. And to the chair, I've not received any public comment cards and no raise hands on Zoom. >> Okay. Thank you. and then we will just open the floor for nominations for the position. We will start with the chair. So I will take the advantage and I will nominate uh vice chair atcock to be the uh chair for the next term. >> I'll second that. >> Rats. >> All right. So also brief statement. Do we need to or >> Yeah, let's make this quick. I accept the nomination. >> Great. >> Yeah. So, yeah. So, as everyone can see, um she she has the knowledge to do it and she has been as vice chair for the last year and she knows how the board runs and she is qualified for this. I'm looking forward to hand it over to her. If I may say a few words as well, I think that you're smart, competent, and ferocious, and I think that that will serve uh very well as chair of this uh board. So, looking forward to it. >> Thank you. I especially like the ferocious. >> All right. So, >> then I make a comment, too. So, I had the pleasure uh of working with Musam uh on the California Avenue activation project. And uh I don't know if that's normal for sub uh for sub uh sub committees but we met at least five or six times um two to three hour meetings and um and it was such a pleasure to work uh with Musam like she has so much um such a deep expertise and um you there was also a lot of work reviewing the plans uh you know between meetings. she always provided uh you know that the the written feedback. I was really I was really impressed and I learned from you a lot as well. So that was amazing. Thank you. >> Yes. So shall we proceed with the roll call award? >> Yep. Um board member Hirs. >> Yes. Yes. >> Board member Jojart. >> Yes. >> Board member Rosenberg. >> Vice Chair Adcock. >> Yes. >> Chair Chen. >> Yes. Motion carries 5-0. >> Congratulations. >> And next we will move on to the vice chair. Any nominations? I'll move to nominate um Kendra um uh board board member Rosenberg who has been vice chair and chair previously and uh ran our uh board very effectively and um I think she can totally handle one more round of that. So I am going to nominate her. >> I'll second. Do we have any other nominations? If no, we will do accept. >> I gota make a statement. Well, thank you. I uh I appreciate your continued faith in me and I'd be happy to serve as your second in command. That would be great. So, thank you. >> Any other comments? >> No. >> Good choice. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Very good choice. And can we have a call for a vote, please? >> Yes. Uh board member Jart. Yes. Board member Hirsh. >> Yes. Bo member Rosenberg. >> Yeah. >> Uh, Vice Chair Adcock. >> Yes. And yes. >> And Chair Chen, >> yes. >> Motion carries 5-0. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations to both of you, >> guys. I appreciate that. >> And we still have one more item for this meeting. So that is approval of meeting minutes for uh April 16th, 2026. Do we have any changes adjustment for this meeting minutes? >> And if I may just note for the record that all of the board members were present, so there's no need for any abstensions from voting. >> Okay. Thank you. If no, I move to approve the meeting minutes as it is. >> Second. >> Can we have a call, please? Um, board member Rosenberg, >> yes. >> Board member Jar, >> Board member Hirsch, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Adcock, >> Chair Chen, >> yes. >> Motion carries 5-0. >> Thank you. And next is board member questions, comments, announcements, or future meetings and agendas. Do we have any announcement at this point? >> And I have a question. Uh, with board member Chen being absent next week, does that mean board member Adcock is just hitting the ground running next week? >> As the new chair? >> Yes. >> All right. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. Thank you for the clarification. And next is I think it's really last item is the virtual public comments. This time we will open our floor to our virtual public who wanted to speak a general comment. Yeah. And to the chair, we have not received any raised hands on Zoom. >> Okay. Thank you very much. and meeting a journ.

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the Finance Committee of the City of Palo Alto, May 19th, 2026. Clerk, please call the roll. Council Ryu? Here. Councilmember Bert? Here. Chair Lee? Here. All present. Okay, thank you. We have two items today. Um the second one is a training session in acronyms uh that will take a little while. Uh and the first one is an update on the the budget. So, we'll turn over to uh Director Lee. Right. Uh Clerk, are there any public comments at all? We do not have any requests to speak on items not on the agenda. >> Awesome. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair committee members. Lauren Ly Chief Financial Officer. This item before you, as you mentioned, is full of acronyms. It relates to the city's uh retiree health benefits. Every 2 years we do an um actuarial report. Um and as you may recall um Chair, we were on this committee a couple of years ago and I just want to acknowledge with you and for staff that we really took note of a process improvement 2 years ago when this report came later in the process. So, we have advanced it, did it earlier, worked with the consultants, and have incorporated the updated figures into the proposed budget. So, this afternoon you'll hear uh a summary of the fiscal impact from staff and then also the consultant will do a brief summary of the actuarial report. So, uh our presentation is fairly brief and so with that I'll turn it over to uh Kayla Shapiro. Good afternoon. Are you able to hear me? Loud and clear. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Kayla Shapiro. I'm an analyst in OMB. Um and as Director Ly said, I'll run us through just a quick high-level summary of the financial implications mostly of this valuation. Um can we please go to the next slide? Great. So, just a little background or reminder since we only do this every other year, um this report basically gives us a status update on the health of the funding status for retiree health benefits um and tells us what we can expect to pay for the next few fiscal years. We do have projections going out a full 10 years, so we do incorporate this also into our long-range planning. This most recent valuation is as of June 30th, 2025 and it is informing the budgeting for FY27 and 28 in addition to providing those outer forecast years. Next slide, please. So, now that we know what we're dealing with, let's talk about results. Uh between fiscal year 26 and 27, we're seeing about a $3.5 million increase in costs for these benefits. Uh this cost escalation and, you know, overall funding for this benefit flows through the departments and funds via allocated charges. Um as Director Li mentioned, I'm just going to repeat cuz it's important, the costs for this valuation are already included in the FY27 proposed budget before you. This is not an action that requires additional appropriation. Um and the other items to quickly draw your attention to are although the unfunded liability or the debt on this benefit has increased, the city's funded status improved since the prior valuation. So, the plan is better funded than it was previously. Our ratio of assets to liabilities basically has improved. Next slide, please. So, there are a few factors um that influence our funded status like investment performance, city contributions, and how our liability grows compared to our assumptions. In this valuation, what stands out pretty clearly is the positive impact of the council's direction um through the retiree benefit policy to fund this more aggressively to reduce our long-term liability. So, similar to the section 115 funding on the pension side, council has also directed staff to use alternative assumptions here, like a lower discount rate to guide OPEB contributions in excess of the actuarially determined contributions. So, here instead of a 6.25 discount rate, we are funding based on a 5.75 discount rate. And with that, you can see in this table here, the very last row, we are on track to meet our goal of 90% funded by fiscal year end 2036. Next slide, please. Whenever you have a moment. Thank you. So, for this item, our recommendation is just that the finance committee review and accept this valuation and recommend to city council funding the ADC for 27 and 28 and incorporating this into our long-range forecast. I'll hand it over now to Drew Ballard of Foster and Foster for his presentation. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, we can. >> Yes. Awesome. Well, I was uh good great intro by Lauren and Kayla and I've worked with them quite a bit over the past several months to go over some of the details in in our in our long report and what we wanted to kind of do today was just go over some some highlights from this valuation report. If you want to actually you can skip the next slide. I think Kayla pretty much Actually, one thing on here that Kayla didn't mention, just when we determine uh in any actuarial evaluation, you know, we're looking at a snapshot of the the census information and the assets as of June 30th, of 2025. We do these valuations every 2 years. When we're developing those recommended uh contributions to the trust and the actuarially determined contribution, uh similar to your CalPERS pension, they're really comprised of two main components. The normal costs uh and the amorti- amortization of any unfunded liability. And the normal cost is really, you know, I like to think of it two ways. What's the cost of the benefits being earned in the coming years uh for your for your active employees as they get closer to retirement and receiving that benefit. Uh it's, you know, if you were thinking about CalPERS pension where the formula is based on service and a percentage of your compensation. As peop- as your actives continue to earn that service, what's the cost of that benefit that's being earned? And the other way I like to think about is, if I were hired at the city tomorrow, and we contributed the normal cost each year on behalf of my retirement, and everything happened the way we expected it to as far as retirement ages, uh life expectancy, the retirement would be fully funded at retirement. And the other component, obviously, is is paying off any unfunded liability that arises. We can go to the next slide. Uh so, we did, you know, I think just included a slide here 2 years ago when we did this, just kind of a a quick brief summary of the benefits provided. Obviously, when folks uh retire from the city and then have access to remain on the the CalPERS health care coverage, really, when we come up with that OPEB liability, it's what's the portion of the monthly premiums that are are paid by the city. And what we're trying to do is model uh those projected future benefit payments uh out in the future for each retiree, current retiree, and future retiree. Uh generally, you know, the city is is covering most of the premium for retiring dependents depending on the group. Uh group one I think is, you know, retirees before 2007 who are getting the full premium. Group two, they get the second uh most expensive non-medicare uh basic plan. So, you know, usually the the Medicare is still fully covered. And then most of your active employees are in group four benefit, which is the 190 formula from CalPERS. Um and those 2026 monthly caps I realized as I was uh reviewing this, those those are actually pulled from the wrong page in the report. Should have been about 1084 for the single. So, uh a little bit higher in 2026 than what what is shown there. Um that's for, you know, some of your retirees currently in that group four and then all, you know, most most of actives that would receive it in the future. And then there is that vesting schedule associated with with that group as well where they're become they're vesting into 100% at 20 years of CalPERS service to receive the full uh city payment. And you know, 50% at 10 years, 5% for each year in between. If you could go to the next slide. And I just kind of wanted to [snorts] go uh talk about this for a second. You know, this if you've seen any actuarial presentations at conferences or other meetings, this is kind of a fundamental equation just to think about the purpose of the valuation in the long uh long-term planning of the fund. So, you know, you have your your premium payments that the city is promising to future retirees. That's the benefits. And really the ultimate cost of this this retiree health care plan is going to be those benefits paid uh on on behalf of the city to retirees. And the way that we systematically fund for those those current and future payments is through the contributions you're making each year. Then you've got the investment component based on the investment earnings that the fund produces. So, really the valuation doesn't change the ultimate cost of the plan cuz that's really the benefits that will ultimately be paid, but really the timing of those contributions based on some things that happened between valuation dates. Uh premiums change. Uh people retire at different ages than expected and those things get updated. And you can go to the next slide now. So, I just want to talk a little bit about you know, kind of one important part of an actuarial valuation and what's important in our discussion with with the group this year is what changed relative to what we expected and you kind of had offsetting components here where uh on the liability side, liabilities went up a little bit more than expected or maybe a decent amount more than expected. And on the assets, the assets went up more than expected because there were two uh really good investment years between valuation dates. Uh the this the trust that you're invested in earned 11% in 2024, fiscal year 2024, and 12.3% in fiscal year 25. Our long-term expectation based on that trust is 6.25%. So, earnings higher than expected, assets went up more than expected. Um and I think that even the city, you know, based on your funding policy, are contributing more based on that alternative assumptions. Uh but on the liability side, it's important to understand what we were doing as part of this valuation is reconciling what happened relative to our expectations. And that could be from changes in the data, right? Uh did people retire at different ages than we expected? Are people living longer? But really what drove it this valuation is those CalPERS premiums in '25 and '26, uh which was what the most recent 2 years of known premiums were uh that we used in the valuation, increased quite a bit more than our expectation, uh especially for those plans that were not in non-Kaiser, uh and the uh Medicare uh eligible employees or retirees. And if you go to the next slide, we can kind of see this, which you know, depending on safety or miscellaneous accounts for 50 to 65% of your group. Uh you know, what I would kind of point your attention to is the the line at the bottom, the last three up, that PERS platinum. 2025 Uh you know, this is a very popular uh election for retirees age 65 plus. The premium went up 30% in that year. Okay? Our expectations usually, I think was about 7.5%. So, it went up 20 almost 20 25% more than what we were including in our previous valuation model. Next year, 14%. So, it really went up 45% instead of 15%. Uh so, you know, 30% higher than expected. That increased obviously uh the premiums that are re- paid being paid by the city on behalf of the retirees and increased that liability. Um Kaiser [clears throat] didn't go up as much, right? 6 and 4%. A little bit less than expectation, which is about half uh you know, maybe I can't remember, you know, 35% of your group for for uh age 65 plus. So, that's really what drove the increase in the liability was just CalPERS premiums going up more than expected, especially for the 65 plus group. Uh which the city's really paying, you know, the full premium for for those for for for most of those folks. So, we touched on that in our meetings, and I did think it was important to cover that here as well. Uh next slide. Um so, just kind of wrapping up, we all and Kayla talked about the the actuarially determined contribution that's already in your budget. We do show two different um numbers for uh the city in the valuation. The baseline, what we call, which is actually based on that expectation of 6.25% discount rate and an 18-year amortization period. And there you can see the the total actuarially determined contribution is about 19 million for the next 2 years um based on the most recent valuation results, up from 16 and a half 17 million. Um and if you go to the next slide, that what's important to keep in mind, different than your CalPERS pension, is that actual determined contribution is not the total contribution from the city that's recommended to the trust. You satisfy the ADC by the combination of the benefit payments made, which are usually made out of the general fund or or something similar, uh depending on on on the city. But really, you know, you're paying those premium reimbursement on a pay-go basis, that satisfies the portion of ADC. And then anything remaining would be recommended to be contributed to the trust to contribute 100% of the ADC. And really, what you see on this baseline basis in that bottom line is the ADC less the expected benefit payments is right around zero. So, if you were funding based on 6.25% in an 18-year recognition of that unfunded liability, we would basically say the benefit payments are are sufficient to cover the ADC. You don't need to budget additional trust contributions. But on the next slide, which is what Kayla showed, was based on the city's actually actual funding policy, which was, "Okay, let's give us an alternate uh budgeting, a more conservative budgeting, uh which is based on the 5.75% discount rate and actually spreading that unfunded liability over 11 years, where you can see the ADC, the actual determined contribution, is now higher. When you subtract out those benefit payments, that trust pre-funding uh column is really what we're recommending is allocated from the city's budget to the Section 115 Trust to continue to to pay uh the benefits that are being uh earned by your retiree health care members. And you can kind of see again the 10-year projection there. Um and this is exactly what Kayla showed at the bottom where 2036, you're at 92% funded. And that really wraps up what I wanted to talk about. Uh like I said, you know, Kayla did a good job providing summary. Just wanted to come over go over some of the more actuarial related concepts and and what changed, you know, since we did this 2 years ago. Well, I'll take any questions or turn it back over to you guys. Do you have any public comment on this item? We do not have any request to speak for this item. Okay, questions of I guess we should go in order. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Um, yeah, on slide I guess it's six of last presentation. Um Last presentation. The uh list of all of the um medical provider options, are those all uh stipulated by CalPERS? That That's the a set that is everybody under CalPERS is obligated to offer. Yeah, that's that's based on the health care options that you know, they're providing under CalPERS Pemko, the And so that >> I think those are the region one, you know, we're in region one here, right? Those are the the changes in the region one premiums by health plan. So, seeing the 30 and 34% increases for the PERS Platinum and PERS Gold, um are you aware of how CalPERS might be responding to those enormous increases? That was a 2025 increase, but Um I know that they you know, go through Sorry, I put my video back on. I know that they go through and actually I think this week they're going through their preliminary uh renewal, you know, their health care renewal. I mean, they do their I guess what would you call that? Negotiating with with the providers. Um and you know, I'm not exactly sure what they've done specific to those plans. Uh those are Medicare supplement plans. Um So, you can see the last 4 years, right, have been pretty high. But, 2025 was kind of the outlier. So, you know, they they I do I do I do not know specifically for those ones if CalPERS has made any changes. I just know that like right now they're going through their process of renewing rates and and, you know, discussing that with providers. And then in July usually is when we get the the premium uh the preliminary premiums for 2027 to see how those change. And hopefully, you know, we start to see some some more realist, you know, more beneficial increases from year to year. Okay. And then for our staff, um the the numbers that we have projected here, they they're all baked into the long-range financial forecast. Is that correct? I'm sorry, can you repeat your question? Uh the numbers that we have projected on our future costs, those are already baked into the long-range financial forecast. Is that correct? Uh Jonathan Rouers with OMB. Uh to answer the question, so we got this actuarial report after the LRFF. So, what we did as part of the budget is in this fiscal year we did update it based on these current costs. So, it's good that we're in front of it. We will update the next LRFF that will come to you in the fall with this updated actuarial report. And likely, since we're seeing kind of this $2 million dollar between reports, we will also include that bump each time we get an actuarial update. So, the next LRFF will include this actuarial report, actualize it. We will also likely include a little bit of a differential because we're seeing report over report that things are still bumping up between the prior projection. Okay, that uh answers part of my next question is um uh what what what are those changes and how are they going to impact our uh forecast? So, the FY27, it's included, right? >> Yes. But beyond that, uh um we have the old numbers, so how much more do we think per year we're looking at? So, we did increase uh in this we we included it's just if you look at the difference, it's just over $2 million. I think it's around 2.3 million. So, that is included. So, we've essentially actualized this report for the fiscal year 27 budget. Typically in the LRFF, we would just include the full actuarial report. So, there's probably a difference between 27 and 28 and it's probably closer than it should be. So, again, when we update the LRFF and come to in the fall 28 and the 10 years after, we'll include this report that you're seeing today. Once you accept it, we'll integrate it into the LRFF. We also are going to recommend and we'll talk about this when we get to the LRFF that these reports are still running higher each projection. So, we should probably account for that in a future LRFF. Yeah, I I mean, we we saw with uh the budget actions that we're taking that we've basically greatly reduced the future deficits, but then this jacks it back up. Okay, I just want to make sure we're all being aware of that. And then, lastly, can you just walk me through on our slide three um where we um we have an uh about a almost 4 million increase in the unfunded liability. Uh but the funded status uh is improved by about 5 percentage points. So, explain how those two things work in kind of counterintuitive ways. Kayla, did you hear that question? Yes, I did. Um I would be happy to give that a shot. So, it is uh seemingly contradictory, certainly, because our unfunded liability has grown. The key here is our funded ratio or our funded status is a ratio between our assets and our liabilities. So, what you're seeing here in the unfunded liability growing, that is true. Our liabilities grew, but our assets grew faster than our liabilities. So, that's how you can see both of those things happening. Okay, thanks. Chair and uh committee member uh Bert, uh Sandra is available, Sandra Blanche, to answer or attempt to answer the question regarding those retiring Medicare premiums, if you'd like. Sandra? Thank you for the question. Um as uh Drew mentioned, um CalPERS does uh reevaluate year to year um the rate increases and negotiates the plan premiums uh as the participation in the plans um increases or changes um with um the PERS plan, that is a PPO, um retirees are uh use that plan because they move out of state. Many of the HMOs are not available out Um Kaiser is only available in California, Washington, and Hawaii. And so, I think in Colorado. Um and so, that is the lowest plan that's available. But, you know, if a retiree doesn't live in one of those states, then they their uh only choice is PERS Platinum. And so, the rate of participation increases. Um and therefore, the premiums increase because of the number of participants. Uh but, they did make adjustments, and that's why in 2026 um we saw the premiums uh go down slightly. Or the participation in PERS Platinum go down. Oh, so now I'm have a follow-up question. Um where we're looking, and this is uh slide six of the um um Yeah. Of the Yeah, of the uh Boston Yeah. Yeah. Um where we have increases in the Medicare eligible, is that per- an increase in the rate or in the absolute dollars that would reflect participation rates as well? It must be the rate because I see the PERS Gold uh went actually um down slightly in the increase, but the Well, anyway, if you can explain that. Is that uh what's in those columns? Um Is that the participation rate or the dollar amount increase? No, that's the rate percentage increase. But on the CalPERS side, um they're determining the rates based on participation numbers. And so when they make their when the board makes decisions on the rates year to year, uh the participation numbers is a factor in determining those rates. Oh, in determining the overall rate, then you're saying, not the Yes. Okay. The overall rate. So, people who more people picking accounts that are going up in costs more is driving up the overall rate. Yes, and that's statewide, right? That's or all CalPERS health plan participants. Mhm. What is interesting that PPOs, whether it's because of people moving out of state or otherwise, uh are jumping up a lot more than, for instance, Kaiser as an HMO. Okay, thanks. Uh before you move away from that, back to that number one slide, uh what what what is the cost escalation? Is it just outside decisions or because I asked that for two reasons. One, I just want to know, and secondly, is there any way to help that we see uh hints of what it's going to be next year as we monitor things? So, when you say cost escalation, is that just fees that were being charged or what what's the components there? Sandra can respond. I see her online. Um I mean, usually it's medical treatment. Uh you know, the increases in medical Um and as Drew mentioned as far as um FY I mean, I'm sorry, 2027 this week um or I'm sorry, in June CalPERS um health committee, the subcommittee of the board uh will be reviewing uh the staff recommendations for the 2027 rates. So, we'll know uh in mid-June what the 27 rates will be. Okay, so the 3.5 billion in dollars means that um Well, overall, our retiree pool costs more to take care of is the starting point there. So, you're saying? And and somehow that got to 3.5 million. Well, I'll let Drew speak to that. Um you know, he outlined the coverage for our retirees. Um and we have various tiers as we've tried to um ensure a cost-effective retiree health care coverage. We have various tiers. He started by saying that our older retirees um our tier one retirees are paid 100% of the retiree health care premium. Um and that subsequently has been reduced. Um but if you could speak to the actual dollar amount, Drew. Yeah, I'm not What was it 3 and 1/2 million again? Was that from the city's summary of the change in the budget. It's under the first slide we got called valuation impact summary. Yeah. So, Drew, we're looking at the year-over-year cost increase of the ADC at the 5.75 like city policy level. Okay. Yeah, so really that's driven by the development of the ADC under that city policy with the 11, you know, last 2 years ago we were using a 13-year unfunded liability amortization. Uh now it's 11 years based on that policy. But, the unfunded liability as we saw went up a little bit, so you have the 13-year payment on a smaller loan, if you will, um debt payment. And now you have 11 years, so the unfunded liability payment went up and then that normal cost that I talked about went up as well because of those premium increases. So, that that's really uh that change of 3% of 3.6 million is the increase in the actually determined contribution between the 2025 uh I think the 2023 evaluation where we showed that 10-year projection and the updated evaluation with the new premiums. Um So, I think it's just the impact of the ADC between our two valuation dates. Okay, I might understand >> Okay. Thank you. And and then related to it I would I I mean I get the ratios and but the fact that we actually went up in dollars even though we got better in ratios, does that suggest that we should contemplate doing a an amendment to the next 2 years so that we start putting more cash in or we still just comfortable with the pace that we're at towards uh I mean, I look at the graph. Are you comfortable, I guess I'm saying, is staff comfortable? Um yes, uh great question. Uh I think these are the kinds of questions we should focus on it from a policy perspective. So, um, clerk, can you put up the Foster and Foster slide nine? So, as noted by Drew, um, this table outlines the implementation of the city's policy and in particular, um, calling your attention to the last row, which is in 2036, we're anticipated based on these assumptions to reach a 92% funded status. You know, we had that 90% goal. In order to achieve that, um, the trust pre-funding column, that's the amount that we would pre-fund the trust in order to get there. Um, so, so it's very important for us here to meet the numbers in the total column every year in order to get to that level. What we will do every two years is this report and get affirmation by the committee to recommend that we continue this course. And you may recall a couple of years ago where we we took two steps to implementing it. Um, at this junction, we're not recommending that. Is to, you know, let's implement the updated actuarial report. We've incorporated in 2017 based on the information we have so far and that you'll review later this afternoon, we've rebalanced the general fund. Right? Um, so, we're not recommending to not be consistent with this, but I think what we have also discovered that in two years now, the last two reports, this report and the last report, we've seen notable increases that we need to start incorporating in the long-range financial forecast. Every two years. So, it shouldn't be a let's wait and see, but I think we need to put in a factor for that. And then, above and beyond this, cuz typically what we do is we take this report and we build the 10 years based on this table, right? But then every 2 years, if we get a report that says, "Oh, it's a little bit more expensive." then our long range is tweaked out of whack. So, I think what we're learning from this is we need to get these reports sooner, so we can incorporate them into budget development, which we're doing now. And in addition, augment our assumptions in the out years. So, every 2 years, we have another bump for this. And then I think that'll help policy makers kind of decide some of the trade-offs in terms of this policy. Does that help? So, I think at this juncture >> Yeah, very much. I mean, the the the fact that we went up in total cash or in total liabilities is kind of a yellow flag, but but not a red flag or red flag with two exclamation points, so we can go another year. >> Right. So, we'll implement the policy knowing that there's some trade-offs cuz there are other services and other things we can attend to, but right now we recommend going forward with this. >> Mhm. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Let's go over to George. I sort of usurp you there cuz we're on the right slide and No, the that was helpful. I I will ask a question that I'm I think I know the answer for, but within healthcare we can't incentivize group one retirees or tier one retirees to pick Kaiser or gold instead of platinum or anything like that with additional payments or benefits or anything like that, right? Like I'm not sure if there's some active way to manage those costs. I don't know if Sandra, you want to respond on employee retiree selections and how that works. Well, selection, um, as I mentioned, um, usually depends on where the retiree lives and so um there's limitations to um their plan selection depending on where they live. Um and so there may not be an an incentive that um >> [clears throat] >> to make them change from PERS Platinum uh because that may be the only plan that's available out of state. Um and then um um there is um you know, an equity rule that PERS has and um you know, when um our our ability to you know, offer a retiree more than um uh active employees uh is somewhat limited. Um and I think is also a legal concern uh because then um what I've heard from um uh legal is that you know, we could be challenged um if it's seen that you know, we're not offering the same um retiree contribution that uh we had committed to. Right. I I mean, I I know not all plans will be available for all all people, but if the majority of people uh who are retired from Palo Alto live somewhere on the West Coast, they could be covered with Kaiser and uh maybe paying them $100 a month to use Kaiser instead of PERS Platinum could be a win-win. I'm not sure for at least those group one retirees. Um Uh I realize there could be a lot of legal issues, but there may be some active way to manage those costs. And so, how do the increased uh health care costs get reflected on the table on slide nine exactly? Is that um uh that I was a little bit unsure about because I see where the ADC is. I see how the contribution is uh calculated as a percentage of payroll, but uh uh the, you know, larger report was a little bit dense, and I can't quite see on table on slide nine how uh how health care costs actually in. So true. I mean, maybe >> Yeah, I should take that. Is that okay? Absolutely. If we can actually go back to slide seven, I think it'll be helpful because it's done under a similar mechanism, just uh you know, different different discount rate, different amortization period, but you know, what I talked about when I was looking at actually slide five with the gain losses, you know, what did we expect the liabilities to be if the premium increases from CalPERS were based on our expectation, which was uh you know, for non-Medicare 8 and 1/2 8% for Medicare 7 and 1/2 7%, but they went up more than expected. So, when we update our model with the new data and the new premiums, now that liability, and and just keep in mind when I say OPEB liability, right, is what we're trying to do there is model how much do we think the city is going to pay on behalf of uh retirees based on those premium >> [snorts] >> payments, right? So, those have gone up quite a bit than expected. Therefore, the benefits being paid by the city have gone up, the liability goes up. So, that's part of the unfunded liability calculation. And the other one is is the normal cost. And here you can kind of see the change in that normal cost uh from valuation to valuation based on those premium increases now being higher, which means and the normal cost is it only for active members, but now when they're projected to hit retirement, you know, their benefits are expected to be higher because uh they're expected we expect, you know, some percentage to elect Kaiser, some percentage to elect PERS Platinum. And now their benefits throughout retirement are higher than what we thought they'd be 2 years ago. So, we have to update how much needs to be funded each year essentially to pay for those benefits being earned or accrued as these active members get closer and closer to retirement. So, it's kind of two-pronged in the normal cost where you can see the impact there. Okay. >> And this is based on a 6.25% discount rate and 18-year amortization. Whereas last, you know, 2 years ago it was 20 years. And then slide nine is 11 years versus 13 years and spreading out the difference in the unfunded liability and then also the difference in the normal cost. So, we're adding up the same components under different assumptions to get the ADC. >> Okay. And then uh also we're we're projecting out those those those premium payments as part of, right, the cash benefit payment. That brings in the new premiums. So, those are higher than what we would have thought they'd be 2 years ago. And really the difference is what we what we would recommend the city allocate to the trust based on that policy. So, Okay. >> that's kind of how it all it all it starts with the liabilities, but then it's it's funded through the mechanism of the normal cost and spreading out that unfunded liability over a certain period of time. Okay. I think I can see the math. Um Yeah, and how that normal cost calculation gets rolled into those contribution columns. Um And so to the extent that the contribution columns, the total contribution is equal uh in EDC are equal to payroll times EDC percentage of pay, that's just because they're you know, two sides of the same uh Yeah, we're just dividing those columns. Yeah, two sides of the same equation, but they don't like they are sort of separate columns. Um so on the payroll side, I also saw that we were assuming a 2.75% annual payroll increase in total payroll, and that also seems like a conservative assumption. So are we comfortable with 2.75% total payroll increase just because we uh are being conservative in which is a kind of aggressive assumption because we're being conservative in our other assumptions? Do we think it just sort of nets out, or do we think that the 2.75% payroll increase is realistic? Um Curious about that part. If if you're asking me, I mean 2.75 um it can change, right? From from city to city or agency to agency. CalPERS, when they do your pension valuation, uh they use a two 2.8% um assumption versus 2.75. We use 2.75, but really that's the long-term expectation of how the total covered payroll will change, not in any given year, but over a 15, 20, 20 year period, right? Yeah. >> And really the only impact that has when we're developing the recommended contributions is that unfunded liability um payment we're coming up with as part of the ADC, we're spreading it over 11 years, but it's not a level payment like a mortgage payment. It increases with that uh 2.75% escalation. So, it's a little lower in year one, a little higher in year 11, such that if your payroll increases at the same rate, the percentage of pay stays level even though the dollar is increasing slightly. That's really the only uh in like impact it has on the valuation, that assumption specifically. Can you say that again? The payroll increase is yeah. It's really so that the dollar of the unfunded liability payment, if that's increasing at 2.75 and your payroll is also increasing at 2.75, when you divide, right, the payment divided by payroll, you get the exact exact 16. You get the same exact percentage of pay because and you know, a lot of a lot of agencies will look at it as what's the rate, right? What's what's the contribution as a percentage of pay, and we want that to be flat instead of maybe the dollar being flat. Okay. That's that's the only reason that assumption is even uh used in the valuation was is to spread out those those payments of the unfunded liability. Okay. Okay, I'm not sure if I can't if my next question will make sense in the context of that answer, but I think just thinking of what to what comes next, having a sensitivity table of what if the health percentage increases were 9% for the next X years instead of 7 or 8% and what if the payroll cost increase was 4% or whatever our actuals were, which are over the last few years, which are more than 2.75%. Um and then seeing with you know, some different plug values, at what point uh do our conservative assumptions around the discount rate and amortization period start to break. Um because otherwise I'm not quite sure how to process this because it seems like we have some headwinds against us, but we are also being pretty conservative, so we don't need to worry too much. So, we aren't necessarily advising any course of action. We're just sort of saying we'll monitor this over next couple of years. But, I think having a sensitivity table to understand um uh what what does uh a scenario where we have to worry about it actually look like would be helpful. Um let me see if I can attempt to um answer that. I think um I always find, to be honest, actuarial reports and the mathematics very complex, and I appreciate the field of work that Drew's in. It's a very technical body of work, and there are very prescribed standards for actuarial reports and studies and projections, and I think one of the important premise is this long view. You know, we see the volatility in the nearer term, but these reports are designed to look over 20-30 years. Uh so, I I I think, you know, if I understand the concerns, the concerns is are these assumptions precise enough? Are we going to meet our goals? Do we have enough contingencies in there? I think a couple of reassurances is that we do these reports every 2 years. So, they're very frequent enough for us to actually benchmark. And slide nine, it's very important because slide nine shows us as a local city, we have a policy where we pre-fund. Right? And so, we have a lot of local control and agency over some of these things where we said, "Ah, we feel maybe we want to roll some of this back, or we want to contribute some of some more." So, we're not just simply contributing based on the standard assumptions of 6.25. We're actually contributing at the more assertive standard in addition amortizing over a more assertive standard of a remaining 11 years. So, we have these additional standards that even if some of these assumptions were a little too conservative, we've layered on certain things because we have certain objectives we want to meet here. So, I hope some of that is reassuring. Yeah. Uh uh the takeaway for me still is just that we have enough padding and safe alternative assumptions that we can afford to monitor things year by year. We don't necessarily have to worry about uh the sensitivity tables for all the potential uh really problematic scenarios uh until we get a little bit closer to the scenarios. Um I think True, maybe you want to speak. Yeah, I just want to add one thing, Lauren. You did a great job, but when we what I wanted to mention uh specific to the question is part of this two-year cycle, right? We're looking at the valuation that helps determine the budget, but this summer, this will be used as a basis for your GASB 75, which is the OPEB liability report that will go into the city's financial statements. And as part of GASB's requirements, we are required to add two sensitivity figures to those reports. One being what if the increase in the premiums is 1% higher or 1% lower than our assumption for all years basically indefinitely, how would that impact the liability? And then also on the on the asset side of things, what if we earned 1% more, 1% less less on our assets, how would that check change the net liability? So, uh there is some sensitive figures that are required to go in the city's financial statements that does show you the impact on the liability, right? Um which um I don't have in front of me, unfortunately, cuz it's not part of the valuation, but um, we do have those fixed figures readily available and they're included in the city's financials. Uh, so I just wanted to to point that out. The other thing I would say is like what we're looking at this year with those premium increases from CalPERS and I realize maybe even the couple years before that things were higher than, you know, this I don't expect it to be the magnitude it was this last valuation that when we come back in 2 years, we're going to be having the same exact discussion that oh my, look at the changes in the CalPERS premiums and the impact it had on your liabilities. I surely hope not, but um, you know, we we have no control over that and uh, you certainly wouldn't expect you know, year over year over year increases to be 20 to 30% on average, right? That's kind of Lawrence's point. We're looking at what do we expect the assumptions increases to be over the life of this plan or the life of the uh, retiree receiving that benefit. Okay. Uh, yeah, all uh, fair points. Um, and I appreciate the uh, the patient answers. No, go ahead. Thank you. Um, so the deeper we dig here, the more questions. Um, on that slide six again of the CalPERS premium increases, uh, I realized that I we don't see the average there. Is that somewhere else that or averages for the total based on I assume percentage participation and that's based on Cal- all of CalPERS participants as opposed to Palo Alto's? I'm I'm trying to understand what this um, set of percentages is even applying to. So, just to kind of make sure that we understand the percentages um for first platinum for 2025, which is the increase from '24 to '25, that's a 30% increase in the premium that's charged, right? Uh so, if it was $500 in 2024, basically saying that for first platinum coverage for a single is now $650, right? That's the 30% increase in in the in the dollar in the premium. Um I think to answer one of your other questions, the the way that those, you know, the claims experience is not specific to Palo Alto. That's that's being used to develop those premiums. It's It's uh based on the CalPERS group in total. Yeah. So, um those are the percent increases in premiums. Um but what's the average increase for all of the um uh the premiums combined, which would be a combination of what portion of the participants choose a given plan and what the cost increase is of that plan, right? Or those plans. Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure that we have that really available for your specific group. Um I know when Cal- CalPERS announces the premiums each year, which is coming up, for example, in 2025, I just pulled up the uh their website, and the total basic weighted average change was 9%. And this is across the board, not specific to region one, which is what we're showing. And the Medicare weighted average was 22.3%. Again, that's a little bit might be a little different distribution than the Palo Alto retiree elections, but that is I think it at least gives you kind of a barometer of of what the average is for the entire group. And and do you know why the Medicare is so much higher? No, I have no idea. Um I would probably have to go, you know, possibly go back and listen to one of those CalPERS board meetings, which you know, uh I don't know if they go through that much detail on their renewals and their renewal process. Um You know, uh it might be worth Let me ask um Sandra, Director Blanche from HR, to describe how the cost is split between the employee and the employer for the various plans uh because I I think um uh essentially, the city's costs are fixed. Uh now, it varies by the tenure of the employee when they retire, um but uh our cost does not go up based on the plan that the employee or the retiree chooses. Sandra, could you expand on that? Yes. Thank you. The So, we have four tiers uh currently for active employees when they retire, uh we're paying um I think Drew mentioned 100% uh for those who are vested, uh which means that they have at least 10 years of uh CalPERS service credit. 20 years, then? Uh well, minimum 10 up to 20, and a 20-year um an employee who has 20 years of service will get 100% of a fixed or Well, I shouldn't say fixed, a rate that CalPERS determines year to year. And then for their family, it's 90%. And so then the retiree um pays a contribution uh depending on their years of service. Um I'm >> [clears throat] >> So and I I see you struggling a little bit, Sandra. So in in back in the San Jose system, we used to refer to it as the city would pick up 100% of the lowest cost plan. Now, I I recognize that's not exactly the way it works with PERS, but isn't it analogous to that? And as such, when a employee let's say buys up, purchases up for a more expensive premium, that they pick up the delta. Yeah, it's I mean, it's it's set by government code, and I think it's it's the you know, weighted average of the four most common plans. Um I'm vaguely recalling this a while ago. >> and so so the contributions city contribution amount is set by the government code. Um you know, through the bargaining process, we have some ability to influence the vesting schedule that that we were just talking about, but but but the amount the city pays in is not something the city has a lot of ability to influence. Those I think the council, or at least this committee, understanding those things is valuable, but I don't think we have to dive into it today, and maybe we can schedule follow-up uh maybe even just a study session follow-up on this item to really more fully um appreciate what's driving this, what what things we have control over, what things we don't, what we should expect for the future, uh that kind of discussion. Good point. Can I can I just make one remark? If it's helpful. So >> [laughter] >> let's see. I don't know how I'm bad at >> Helpful for clarity. That's That's the way we should >> I did I did just want to clarify. It's like for example, the group one retirees, which anybody except for the the PAPOA that retired before 2007, the city's the benefit for them is that the city pays the full premium up to family coverage. So, if we see the PERS Platinum go up 30% from $500 to $650 per month, the city is bearing that entire cost. They are paying that entire increase in the premium on behalf of the retiree. The retiree is not paying anything on behalf of themselves, right? So, I just wanted to make that clear for that group and then even really group two, especially for the the Medicare retirees, cuz the the they're the city is It's not a fixed cost. It will change as the premiums increase and the city's paying the full amount on behalf of the retiree throughout retirement. That sounds a little alarming in that, you know, it's a Medicare supplemental plan. And so Medicare does There is a portion that it's a Medicare rate. Um so and because of, you know, the age of those retirees that far back, um they're mostly all Medicare age and so it is lower than like a new retiree, right? And that is a closed tier, Okay, I just want to ask a question about the the discount rate or interest rate um the the city funding city policy funding goal right now has a 5.75 discount rate. But that that's a look forward based on a look back or you is it change every year or two based on new assumptions or new information? How often does that change and how is it changed? That's set in the city's um retiree um benefit funding policy. So, that policy prescribes um the goals and objectives and the pre-funding standards for pension and also for OPEB. So, that's already prescribed. Okay. George, anything else? No, I have nothing else. Thank you, guys. Okay. We already checked on public comment on this one, right? All right. So, I think that is it. Which means we need a motion. I move the staff recommend recommended motion. Do we need to put that up, or we can all read it on the first page of the staff report, right? On slide five. Here is staff report page one. There we go. Chair Lowing? Yes. Councilmember Bird? Yes. Councilmember Lu? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much to all staff who presented. We all came up the learning curve as fast as possible. Now, we'll shift to our other item called the 27 budget. Yep, back to you. Wonderful. Um good evening again. So, this item relates to the fiscal 27 proposed and operating and capital budget. Um this afternoon, we're hoping uh committee will wrap up the budget discussion with formal recommendations to the council Um and that relates to the operating budget, capital budget, and then also the municipal fees. We'll go through the short deck of slides and also as committee can understand staff's approach, we attempted to incorporate the feedback from council and then also attempted to rebalance the general fund so we could be more efficient in our session this afternoon. Okay. Um next slide, please. So just as a reminder, we've had a couple of sessions with this committee and then also two with the council most recently last week on the 11th wherein staff presented the outcomes of the committee workshops and for the most part council really concurred. There was very limited feedback and we're hoping this afternoon we can incorporate those as you deem appropriate. So we will go back to council on June 15th to adopt the operating budget, capital budget, and then also the municipal fees for fiscal 27. Next slide, please. The format of these workshops is to go through our tentative motions, our parking lot, and then also referrals. So at the end of the today we will move things from the parking lot to what we will formally call recommendations for finance committee budget adjustments. Also seek to get from you a listing of what we are going to call referrals, works that we want to recommend to council for consideration. Okay. Next slide. Um this afternoon we'll talk about the feedback from uh review the parking lot, uh share with you our rebalancing attempt, also talk about technical adjustments, what are they, why did you get this memo, uh and then also considerations of referrals. Right? Next slide. As of May 6th, this was the motion committee took um JMZ um asking staff to look at that and reducing the costs. Um school crossing guards, so there would be no reduction starting on July 1st. Consistent service level uh with the endeavor that um PAUSD would match um at 51,000. Track watch, similarly, uh we would continue that service through June uh with the 50% match continuing with PAUSD as an assumption. Um I think importantly there for that is that we would want to come back to council by December to talk about contract extension. Um so we don't want to wait until mid-year on that one. So want to call your attention to that. Uh OSV, committee wanted us to appropriate 384,000, so that'll run it through um um I believe this whole rest of the fiscal year. Yep, through June. Um and then also nonprofit, the additional direct allocation. So that was 802,000. So we'll explain in the next couple of slides how we rebalance that. Next slide, please. So these are the parking lot items in your agenda package. We have taken the steps that committee wanted us to take, in particular on the quiet zone. Uh the direction was to uh accelerate the design and construction. So um if committee agrees this afternoon, we would amend the CIP plan to have the design in 27 and construction in 28 and that's being funded by measure K. In addition Shamalas right of way the direction there was to incorporate it in the CIP so the memo includes a recommendation for your consideration of using measure B money 600,000 would be funded in 208 for project management and planning. As it relates to OOT the discussion there was the incremental benefit staffing in that department. Memo includes a item for your consideration which is converting a half time assistant engineer to full time. The funding there would be measure B but to be transparent that funding is still not solidified long term. We're still developing that plan so just want to make a note of that. Also the discussion about you know the police department vacancies staffing recruitment and laterals the memo includes discussion about the current incentives that we have for recruitments however want to call your attention that the police department does recommend having more flexibility on these different programs we have a a variety of options but we would like to seek flexibility to pursue other options that may be more attractive and in doing so we would need to revise the the labor contracts to incorporate some of these options. And from a financial perspective we're hoping that we can just observe the fiscal impact and not actually need to increase the appropriation. If at mid-year we think we do need a additional appropriation, we can handle it then. I think our immediate concern and request is for that additional flexibility to adapt incentives that may be more contemporary and attractive. On the non-profit, um I think that captures what we conveyed to council, which was any additional appropriations should go through the his rep process. And then looking at CIP for rebalancing. Next slide, please. So, let's jump right to rebalancing. Um you have an app places memo and in the memo we talked about technical adjustments. So, why are we presenting that to you this now? Typically, our technical adjustments would come to you when we adopt the budget. And it is very common to have technical adjustments because the budget is so large, right? We're talking about a billion-dollar operating budget, which incorporates the capital and this 5-year CIP is 1.2 billion. Um so, technical adjustments are common. None of the technical adjustments here are significant enough to really, I would say, materially affect your policy decisions. Some of the numbers may look large. I think we talked about the most significant one on May 5th with you with you, which was the utility one. My other incentive for bringing the technical adjustments to you is because I want to rebalance this with technical adjustments versus making further reductions on programs, projects, or any CIP. So, at this point we feel that we have been able to rebalance this and I'll just kind of quickly walk you through it. So, the top portion of this table relates to the committee actions from May 6th, right? The 802 there. The lower portion here, the quiet zone. So, to advance the project, we are going to take measure K funding for quiet zone. And then we are also asked to look for funding to fund OSV, so that way it's not general fund. We're also recommending measure K funding there. Um and then if we look at Chamales Parkway, that will be measure B and that's in 2028. So, this table here only relates to the general fund. We were challenged to look and review uh TOT again. So, when we took a deeper dive, we decided it would be reasonable to increase the TOT by about 542,000. Now, you may recall we also have um the allocations to CIP because of the new hotels and how we allocate certain dollars to capital. So, this TOT increase looks at the total TOT in the budget, which is about 30 million, and looks at that mix. So, 100% of this is going to CIP. Now, you did ask us to reduce CIP. That was in the parking lot. So, to balance this budget, we are also going to reduce CIP by $402,000. In your attachment A, we have a lot of technical adjustments, but the aggregate of all of that is about $16,000 for the general fund. This would then balance this budget if you just took all this into consideration. Okay? I know you'll have questions. Thank you. We've worked very hard. I get the and have the privilege of representing this body of work, but lots of people have worked behind the scenes. So, again, our effort to present the technical adjustment is recognizing we do want to preserve services programs and projects. And I know you might have questions on the app places memo, but if I may, I'll proceed to the last few slides and then turn it back over to you, chair. Next slide, please. So, the revised 27 budget would look like column two. So, revenues would increase by about 600,000, expenditures 200. The 1.4 million is really an accounting treatment of the measure K money since we're using a million for quiet zone and about 380,000 for OSV. Budget stabilization reserve, our projection is that it'll land between 17 and 18% in fiscal 27. Okay? Um next slide. I'll speak to these quickly. They are in your memo. There are additional clarifications and items for your consideration. The employee child care program, we heard that we should incorporate that in long range, so that'll be funded by the general benefit fund for the next three years. Um and then thereafter um programmed into the various funds including the general fund. Heritage Park, we heard there should be a notation regarding the park drainage improvement related to the Roth building water intrusion. Document transfer tax, we had a discussion about that revenue at risk. There's a larger discussion on that relative to it in the memo. Important to point out that um should this initiative pass, it would also preclude the city from re-upping the DTT before the voters. So, that's very important to note there, okay? So, Can you say that again? It would prohibit us from going back to the voters? Correct. Correct. So, we'll we'll definitely follow up on that. Um but I wanted to call that out. Um I've got but one more slide because I'm sure we'll have more discussion on that. But, yes. Um, the administrative assistant to the council Heather heard the discussion on May 11th, the concern that the 30,000 would bring us to December, but the mid-year report is in February. So, something for your consideration is we could fund it through the end of March, which is carrying over another 15,000, and that'll allow the council to deliberate it at mid-year to determine if that's something we continue or evaluate that the pilot was informative, but discontinue. So, that's something for you to consider is another 15,000 to carry that over through March. Tree trimming and canopy, we have in the report additional information. Important to note here is the collaboration between the city and the nonprofit, and also to continue to focus on tree trimming, and also as our priority, and then any impacts might be on some long-term plans. Um, last but not least, discussion regarding the irrigation at Foothill. While we've had a lot of discussion, we want to memorialize it in the memo, um, just for ease of reference. Next slide, please. So, in your packet, you have the At Places memo. Keeping in mind that on June 15th, when we go to council for the full resolution, we'll have the formal technical adjustments. The formal technical adjustment also includes the CIP reappropriation process. So, this is a preliminary look for you because it is our focus to rebalance the budget. Um, and um, in at likewise as well, we have different committees that, uh, support us relative to our budget. So, storm water management oversight committee reviews the storm water management fee, and also PTC, which reviews the CIP. This year, the timing of the uh, PTC meeting will happen on May 27th. So their review and letter will come to the council directly. Typically it would come here if the timing worked out, but this year it'll come to the council directly. So next slide. Slide 11, we heard on the 6th that committee wants us to work through this. We can certainly receive this as is. We could take some of it and recognize some of it is in fiscal 28 budget adoption. So there is really isn't a specific work plan, but if you wanted to clarify this any further, we're happy to also include this in the council memo on May on June 15th. Next slide relates to utility rates. Column fiscal 27 is the proposed rate. However, I want to call your attention specifically the finance committee voted unanimously on the electric rate going from six to four and a half. So what we did in the technical adjustment and rebalancing the budget, we revised the figures on the four and a half rate increase for electric and we flowed that through for our utilities user tax rate and the also our appropriation for costs. So the rebalancing that you see before you and some of the technical adjustments also incorporates the assumption that council will ultimately adopt the electric rate at 4.5 given that you know, finance committee did unanimously approve that. So we wanted to flow those through so we can make the adopted budget as accurately as possible. I think with that next slide is just reminding us that we want to move things from the parking lot over to the recommendation so we could carry that to council and very last slide is to see if uh chair and committee have questions and we're happy to bring this to the finish line. Bet we have questions. See. How about uh public comment? We currently have one request to speak. Our first speaker is JPR. Hello. My name is JP Renaud. I'm the executive director of Canopy. And first and foremost, I want to thank the city staff and acknowledge how hard this uh budget is. And I want to acknowledge that ultimately we're so in partnership together. Um thank you all again for taking the time to hear all of us throughout this budget process. I know you've heard a great deal already about Canopy, community forestry, and the importance of politics urban forests. So I'll keep this brief and leave you with this one final note. A 10% cut to our contract is a 10% cut. Even if those reductions are ultimately directed towards parts of the contract perceived as less directly tied to tree planting and care, the impact the impact reverberates throughout our organization. These systems These systems are interconnected. Outreach supports stewardship. Stewardship supports survival. Community engagement supports volunteer mobilization, long-term care, and ultimately the success of this city's own canopy goals. And most importantly, these are not just cuts to services. These are cuts to people and organizational capacity. The city itself acknowledged an important principle in its own budget presentation when it emphasized efforts to largely avoid layoffs through vacancy management and reassignment strategies even as it made difficult decisions about the budget. The city recognizes that preserving people and institutional capacity matters because once capacity is lost, it is difficult and expensive to rebuild. We should be treated the same way. And when combined with other proposed reductions impacting the city's own urban forestry operations, I respectfully ask that these cuts be viewed viewed holistically. Especially at a moment when Palo Alto is working to grow housing in South Palo Alto and across the city, disinvestments in urban forestry is ultimately a disinvestment in the long-term livability, resilience, and health of our neighborhoods. Our sincere hope is that these reductions can be fully redu restored. But if that's not possible, I respectfully ask that you advocate for the least severe option available to you. Again, I want to thank you for your leadership, for your service, and for your partnership in taking this matter so seriously. Thank you. That concludes public comment on this item. Okay, thank you. I just just had one formatting question first. >> [clears throat] >> On the What's this called? Budget adjustments, technical adjustments. You got A2P as a second step after FC. Um And are we going to go through that as well or No. No. So the A2P is amendment to propose. That's our little acronym, but you don't need to go through these. We're just trying to be transparent about the technical adjustments. Okay. And so I think this afternoon if you it might help to say for the record that there's concurrence and that'd be good because we will bring these technical adjustments back to council for formal adoption on June 15th. Okay. Let's go back and try to take these sort of in in order starting with the the 800,000 incremental, which is page six, and then going through the the true up to get the balance, which I guess is the uh Well, seven really. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Clerk, can you pull up slide um seven? Seven, yeah. Yeah, let's just review that to make sure that that we're in sync with that and with the methods that you've used. Sure. Sure. Shall I walk through it again or or >> just let's just see if we have some questions from colleagues or Or would you want to go ahead? Uh the main question I had was the implications for the CIP. Can you clarify what, if anything, has changed about projects that would be delayed or uh um uh otherwise less funded? Since our May 6th workshop, is that the question? Uh yes. Super. So, if we look at this slide, the good news is we have avoided that. We will not need to uh defer any projects from the proposed CIP plan as published. Um so >> Okay. No additional projects with a couple of baseline cuts or delays for uh um like a bike route and couple other things as discussed last time. Those will continue. Um I'm sorry. Please repeat so that way I make sure we're >> Oh, so on the CIP front, uh the baseline that I started with uh before this packet was that we were going to delay a few projects. Um uh And now we are not only going to delay a few projects, we're going to cut $500,000 in terms of transfer. But we're saying that despite the smaller transfer, we won't need to make any more cuts than the projects we've already delayed slightly. Oh, got it. So, um I think the signs are a little backwards. So, in this case here, we're actually going to have a net increase to TOT of 140,000. So, the 540,000 should be a plus. Oh. So, you're going to see a net gain in CIP. Oh, oh, okay. >> From the technical adjustments. I Oh, I see. Okay. So, you have the TOT revenue uh >> And then 100% of it goes to CIP. >> Right. And then the general fund based transfer reduction is offset by that. Okay. Okay. Um Okay. Uh that is helpful. That's my only question for uh this slide. Um That So, um one thing is the various uh prospective uses of uh Measure K and um we had had a discussion about trying to understand what are the revenues since it became active. Um we've had Now, how many was it 2 and 1/2 years of revenue? Yeah, I think it was a fractional year the first year, yeah. And then through the end of this year. And um what has been expended to date and we're In this case, I think we're we're talking primarily about the transportation uh but And then what is allocated through this budget. And we we we're kind of all over the map with the last meeting with different understandings and I still don't have any clarity on that. Uh you talking about the Measure K by the three buckets? Well, and I think the what we're really mostly talking about here is um Oh, no. I actually by the is both buckets, right? The OSV is on the housing bucket and the um quiet zone is on the transportation bucket. So, do we Do we have what what has been collected what will be projected to be collected through these fiscal years and what has already been expended and what is being allocated? All right. Gus Manorbert, uh as part of the meeting that we had on May 11th to the council, we have a link in there that brings us back to one of our pages on the web where actually provides a comprehensive review of all those separated out between public safety, administration, as well as transportation, and affordable housing. Um to the extent that you want to see a actuals of where actually it all went per year, we might need to come back with you with a with a better summary of that. Okay. So, on the first one of the um the quiet zone because the narrative in the staff report addresses this. Let me pull that up. Um You know what might help is if we take a moment and go to the budget book and the transmittal um and also the budget general fund overview. There's a extensive Measure K discussion. So, let's take a moment to get there and it might inform this conversation. So, let's take a moment. Yeah, and what I'm going to be want to understand better is this uh using a portion of Measure K, uh it says that it would uh reduce our local contribution toward the grade separation designs. >> Can you pull that up? Yeah, there we go. Okay. Let's start the conversation from there. Is that okay? Yeah, good. Oh. Okay. Um So, we've been expending toward the grade separations. And so that's why the balance is only what it is. Um but we're saying that for the FY 27 even Let's see. Does this include the quiet zone expenditure? Yeah. Okay. So, that was going to be how much? A million? Is that in FY 27? So, for fiscal year 27, this table does represent a $400,000 for Measure K cuz that was the initial one that we had allocated for. We're adding another million, so it'll be 1 >> additional million. Correct. And that 1.4 will cover the full design for the quiet zone. It's expected to >> Okay. And so, then we'd still have an ending balance of 4.3. So Less one. Uh okay, less one, 3.3, excuse me. So why would that impede uh our contribution for the final design and the grade steps if we have that much in the balance? So for the grade separations, um there's still a significant portion of funding that was going to be identified or to be identified through some other source. And so what's happening is in the outer years as we're transferring funding for 28 to fund the entire construction of the quiet zone, we'll be um leveraging some of the allocated funds that were going toward grade separation. Yeah, but we we we've got a 3.3 million balance there. Um and the staff report says that uh uh the change by using the additional million for quiet zones would reduce the city's local contribution for the final design. Um but why isn't that 3.3 million enough for that local contribution? Just to clarify, the 3.3 would be the remaining balance we'd have here for the Measure K. Right, regarding transportation. >> Through 2027. In terms of the reference to the terminology in the staff report, the city's contribution would be 100% now through Measure K. So I think to answer your question, we're going to have 100% of it funded for the design through Measure K. So there's no like other general funding coming But it says it would reduce our contribution. Does it really mean that that we would just have to draw more from No, we're we're basically in we're taking the funding that we had identified in 2028 and basically expediting it. So, when I say we reduce it, we're just not going to need it in the future years. So, we Correct. Uh Pat's asking about the grade separations. Yeah, so on page six, the first paragraph under quiet zone, says, "Okay, we're going to take a million additional million from Measure K transportation for that, which is what reduces the ending balance down to 3.3." The second paragraph says, "The change in use of Measure K above uh reduce the city local contribution for the final design in FY 28 to the grade separations." Um and it that the way I read that, it says that there aren't enough dollars to do both. And uh it says it reduces it, but is it instead that it would reduce the balance available in Measure K or does it actually reduce the contribution? I will attempt to answer your question using transportation talk. So, there's planned, programmed, and allocated funds. The amount of Measure K available for transportation is absolute, which includes the amount you're seeing as the fiscal 27 balance. So, that's that's what we have. Um we have future plans to allocate those dollars to the grade sep. So, that's in that amount. You still have an absolute amount of money. So, we only had enough to deal with the cash flow of both projects at a particular time, and we allocated that in different years. So, all we're saying is by taking the cash balance today, advancing it for quiet zones, there's going to be less future cash balance available for the grade sep. So, it it's really a timing issue, when we're using the balance, when we're putting it into a budgeted project or taking it out. So, the money that we were building up for grade sep is now going to be reduced by 1 million. The cash we have available today, that additional million, is going to go to advance the quiet zones. >> part of what I'm wanting to understand is the amount that would be our local share, are are are we short? Uh or are we just going to have less money? >> in FY28 we'll have an additional contribution from Measure K. >> Right. So, I think the question is really what's the impact to project delivery of grade separations? And Ria, is that a question you can answer? Um so, I think that our plan is to see how things go in the coming year and then to reassess um what our what our sources are at stage. So, um it is really >> anything. It is it is potentially moving it out by a year for the grade separation in order to make it work for the quiet zones. >> Why? I mean, what what is the amount that we're projecting we will need in FY27 and 28 for the grade separations for the local share? That's not I keep hearing this kind of generalization and I'm trying to understand what are the numbers. Uh that what we were expecting was a million in 28. And so, that's Okay. So, why if we've got 3.3 million in the balance at the end of 27, even including the additional million going in the quiet zones, and then another 2 million plus going in in 28, why are we short? I'm so not understanding that. What I think If I could rephrase, Ria, you're saying it's not certain that we're short. It depends on how quickly we need to draw down funds for the grade separation. >> Correct. And what what is the local share proportion and what do we Right. relative and largely maybe dependent on the Caltrain expenses for the design work that they're doing and how quickly they exhaust uh those funds. >> It's 10% right? Is that >> 10%? Uh 10% measure K I mean 10% local share. Is that correct? Out of those funds. >> Against the measure B funds from VTA. And the grants that we have for We we have a couple of different grants. So I can check what the what the I got Bottom [clears throat] line there's a mix and the question of whether the million dollars for measure K is actually a constraint on our ability to deliver the great separations. It sounds like that's a analysis we haven't reached a conclusion on at this point. Okay. So maybe it's a correct then in that paragraph to say the change in use of measure K may reduce the city local contribution as opposed to that it does. That sounds correct unless Riya you believe it's certain that it will have an impact. And if you're certain you must have the numbers. Um so it reduces what we had projected but that might not be 100% accurate. Um Okay. >> Let me check if if Ruben has the has better words. Okay. And then uh one other uh thing on the quiet zone funding is whether that is actually eligible for measure B Caltrain funding. Caltrain uh is actually what uh I got uh Caltrain and VTA to agree to to pay for the Was it 4 5 million for the safety improvements that we are currently uh just completed at our our locate our four locations. Uh the real sentry and the anti-intrusion mats um and um uh that was for safety measures. And the question is whether uh the way we're now addressing quiet zones and particularly the urgency at Churchill uh we've come to recognize that that's a safety measure. And um and so that may be eligible for uh VTA Calmod dollars. It basically requires both Caltrain and VTA to agree. Uh but they've been collaborative on these things. So um so that we don't have an answer to that right now, but I want to put that on the table. Um and then on the Chamalis uh you have it down for FY 28 and the narrative had talked about um a combination of planning and uh seeking grants. Mhm. Um so one question is why FY 28 rather than FY 27 to even begin this process? Um we think that this project could score well in some some of the grant programs available for transportation planning. Um and so we would like to seek those grant funds and we didn't have another source for this coming year. And presumably we can apply for those grants really without a a CIP allocation. Yes. >> That'll be done through operating funds from staff. Yeah. Okay. Um Uh I think it'd be helpful if if we're saying that we're proceeding on the project this year and the first step is to pursue the grants then I think that would be helpful to get that down on paper. Right. I think as a operating matter that would be part of the staff work plan as as opposed to a CIP project. So we wouldn't typically list the CIP project until we're we're spending funds on the planning itself. So uh I think we'll want to find the appropriate place to document that. >> Uh I I think that's fine if if that's the sequencing uh just to be clear that we're we're we're going forward. And um just one of the grants that I I didn't see noted is actually Valley Water and initially and their their grant level may not be at the the same level and then um uh you know, this might be eligible for grants other than uh the Caltrans sustainable transportation grants, too. Um including um Measure B and and MTC grants. Okay. Um Let me see going through that list. Um The TOT uh we're saying all of that increased revenue is going to the CIP. That's not by formula, uh right? It's uh so a portion by formula and a portion discretionary. So that basically um that's pretty close to washing against the uh what we were previously saying to to find funding to address additional general fund expenditures that we've gone through here. Uh we had discussed pulling uh slowing down uh certain CIP projects and instead you're saying because of the increase in TOT, we no longer have to do that. And those two things pretty much wash out. Is that correct? All right, I'm going to try to respond cuz that sounded like a riddle. So, I'm going to try to unpack it. >> [gasps] >> So, um I didn't mean for it to be a riddle. I'm trying to simplify. Yeah. >> it was a It was a long word problem. That makes it sound so much more legitimate. Um and Kayla is also on the call. If I misspeak, please chime in. Um when we took a closer look at the revenue, um now keep in mind on that slide, we have two lines, right? We have the TOT allocation and then also the reduction of CIP to balance. Um when we looked at TOT in the last couple of weeks, uh we decided that we had room to increase the TOT, but we also look at looked at the complement of revenues by operator. And so, we took a deeper dive not only at the top line numbers, but also looking at the different operators and revenue trends. And so, when we looked at it at from that level, we had to look at the mix of the underlying assumptions, and that's why even though this technical adjustment looks weird, we had to rebalance it to your point. So, 100% of it went there. Um To add >> I'm sorry, by operator, are you referring to the commitment that we have that the new hotels would be all toward the CIP? That's what you're referring I just want to make sure I'm very Yes. Yes. Yes. And so, we looked at that mix and then we trued up not only the aggregate revenue, but then also the mix of what should go to CIP based on that past practice. Um Uh I lost my train of thought there. Um and then oh, for CIP as a whole, now you may I in September of 26, we reduced C by CIP by a million. We carried that into 28. So, that base reduction was already reduced by a million. In the 27 proposed, we reduced it by another million and a half. So, the aggregate reduction of our CIP base is actually 2.5 million in 27's budget. This 542, I guess you could argue, offsets. Yeah, I'm I'm comparing to when we had our last finance committee meeting. >> 6th. Yeah, and we uh we said, "Okay, we want to tentatively propose these increases in general fund expenditures. And that was going to be, I think, tentatively funded by a reduction in CIP. And what I'm trying to just get at is the simple bottom line, which is uh the increase in TOT has pretty much offset what we were proposing Yes. >> would be a an additional reduction in the CIP. >> That's correct. Okay, that's what I was trying to say. All right. Um I think I have other questions, uh but less focus on this thing. I appreciate that summary very much, Pat. So, thank you. Yeah, so I just want to comment on the top part. I I I'm I'm still comfortable with that um as recommendation. And uh that specifically when when you stand the risk in the school crossing guards and track watch uh by [snorts] booking 50%, but I think that's quite reasonable given the cooperative uh relationship we want to have with the school board. Um and the OSV numbers, as we talked about last time, are are sufficient relative to what we're doing now. And there's no new even recommendations yet to council on anything else. So, um those numbers I think are are solid. Um I'm delighted that you found revenue uh to help with this. I always like to hear about the revenue more than the expenses. It's my old business background. I like to I like the revenue better. Um So, so I think um as you put that here in this whole slide of the second half below the gray line, I think it's it's quite good. I would I was expecting some bigger number in technical adjustments one way or the other. So, we're all pleased that it's only 16k that we have to that we have to talk about. Um You we you you did dip a little bit into some of these other areas of uh parking lot and so on, but let's first see if George has any questions on this slide. Um I I I'm okay, Brian. Okay. So, I think we can go on to the parking lot items to date. We touched on a couple of those already. And what we touched on already was quiet zones, right away, um but the next one up is this OOT staffing. So, so this would obviously be an add. >> [clears throat] >> And it's a 50 It's it's a half-time add from a full Adding a half a person and it costs 190k. So, did Did you want to elaborate on the text here in the staff report? So, um we have actually rollover from um my understanding is that we have some rollover money from uh the original conversation to do with OS fees. Uh and so we can apply some of that to this as well. So I think this amount will be lower. Oh, you mean it's in the three 84? Uh the number we have in the budget now I think new for 27 is 384 including King Road and additional towing capacity as it's listed here. So let let I'll go step by step through this one. So the the current half-time position is a temporary unbudgeted position. So if you were to accept this recommendation, we would add one FTE to the table of org which is a plus up of the current temporary half position. Plus we would have to account for the budget the cost and revenue which is about $190,000 a year. To pay for it in fiscal year so that's the cost side the the total cost that's the 190. To pay for it what um Rhea's referring to is there was an original $150,000 as part of the initial implementation of the oversized vehicle program to support engineering striping and signage. That was applied to this temporary position. So Rhea is proposing to put that 150,000 at least for 1 year cuz it was a one-time funding. It's not ongoing. Apply it to this position. That leaves about a $40,000 difference that would be supported by measure B and other associated work that this position would take on. Is that Is the one Is the 150 in the 27 budget now? So this is the carryover money that Rhea's referring to. So that money was already appropriated with from the BSR for one-time use. But in 26? 20 I could have been even before 26 before I got here but it it was $150,000 one-time from the BSR. I still think I'm hearing you say that it's like 350 or 400 that's going to hit the 27 budget then. It will So it's a 190,000 a cost. if we use this one-time money from the BSR, that's 190 in cost minus one-time 150,000, which leaves a $40,000 balance, which in fiscal year 27 would be measure B. The year after that, because we're just using one-time funds to cover the salary, would need to be covered from measure K, measure B, other transportation sources in future years. However, I don't think the measure B will be able to be used for OSVs, so that would be for a different portion of their work that's related to congestion relief. You might want to clear that in the clarify that in the staff report because I that raised a flag for me when it indicated measure B was being used for the OSVs. And the again to the text, um continue to provide essential essential technical engineering support and field verification verification, sorry, for design installation of signage and striping required to implement OSV program. So, are you is this an anticipation of a new program or No, this is this is part of what we're currently working on. At the moment we have um a an hourly staff person working on this part-time when they can. Using salary savings. Okay, let me get it another way. If we if we didn't do this, what wouldn't get done? You couldn't do the striping or you'd stay with the hourly person? Um we are able to afford the hourly person in the current fi- fiscal year because we have salary savings. My understanding is that that kind of goes away at the end of the fiscal year. Um but yeah. Well, if you did not move this item from the parking lot, OOT would still have a temporary $150,000 half-time engineer. When the $150,000 is exhausted, the position will go away. So, this particular request was level of effort and how much work can OOT get out the door? So, what's the marginal benefit? The proposal is if you take a half-time one-time engineer that's currently only doing OSV, you make them a full-time ongoing position, they will complete the OSV work as part of their assignment of work and be able to take on other bike ped engineering type projects within OOT. I would add one more thing. So, as we were were going through the process to try and bring on a part-time hourly assistant engineer, we hit a an obstacle in terms of um uh HR and how that relates to um unionized positions. So, uh our advice had been the advice we received that was that we needed to bump it up to a full-time position. It union? Y- yes. SEIU. Yes. Sure, go ahead. Uh related to that um uh is it that the going from a half time to a full-time position causes a 190,000 increase including salary and benefits? That is the full cost of the position. Because this is a temporary off-budgeted position, it is not in the proposed budget, both salary and benefit costs. So, the the proposed budget would go up by $190,000 to account for this position if you accepted it. But um w- we have a an existing half-time FTE assistant engineer. Correct. So, I was assuming that the the budget impact would be the difference between what we currently have budgeted and that and and so It is It is in fiscal year '27, so you're correct about that, but it's a if you recall in the table of organ the org charts you see, we always show a box of the temporary part-time positions as a total. This would change this position from just one of those in there that again once funding is exhausted, it's gone. It It's not an ongoing position to become one of those 1.0 full-time positions that would end up in the org chart. So, for that we would add cost. So, that's just the cost expenditure side. The revenue side, you are correct. The for fiscal year '27, the difference would be about $40,000. Oh. But but it would be a FTE, so if we didn't want it in '27, we'd have to do a layoff. I don't >> Yeah, I don't I don't >> depending on what workload there was cuz I'm still having a hard time figuring out like a 3-year plan and how important it is to have this person for 3 years to do X, Y, and Z. That's my problem. Uh so so the other things that they would be working on are some of the traffic calming uh deliverables and also traffic control devices and red curb. So, that's all it's all signage and striping type work. Yeah, I mean, we we don't we did have some signage that had to be done for the OSVs. Um it's probably a good possibility that we're going to have more signing to do. So, I don't I don't disagree with that at all. I was just trying to get a feel of, you know, what's the overall JD look like for for this job. Go ahead, Pat. Well, I I'll just add at least anecdotally, you know, since it's come up in both committee discussion and council, you see a reference in here to daylighting. And so daylighting 200 intersections more than what otherwise uh be done. Uh again, this is over the the year. So, that's an example of the kinds of really bread and butter work that uh Ria's team does and the increase in production that you can expect with this incremental add. Uh very helpful. So, just as going back to this question of uh when I read this paragraph, it indicates that we've got a net increase of 190,000. Uh so, if there's a better way to uh make it clear on what's the budgetary impact for FY '27, that'd be helpful. Um I think we should determine that now if we can or soon so we could wrap up this session if the committee desires to make it a recommendation. So, maybe Right. We've heard 40. Yeah. John is a So, between 40 and 190, do we know? Well, the reason I keep saying it's 190 is because the 150,000 for this position was appropriated in '26 and is being carried forward, you know, 1 and 1/2 fiscal years ago. So, at least for for my perspective on the general fund, if you add this position as a permanent ongoing position, the salary and benefits will go up by 190,000. We're just paying for it through carry forward dollars. >> dollars. It's been carry over dollars from the current fiscal year into the next. So, the net impact on the proposed is the full position. But the cash net net cash is $40,000 cuz we'll carry forward that that money from the priors to pay for the first year. So, the general fund impact is $40,000. Should be about in fiscal year '27, correct? But we're anticipating But we're anticipating that it'll go up to 200 and something next year. In future years, it will increase, yes. Um I think the other question is to what extent we're confident measure B can fund it in 27 and in future years because that would be relevant to finance committee's questions. Um, do we know that or should we come back to it so staff can research because it would uh, matter in the budget balancing. Uh, we'll need to get approval from VTA for that. And uh, so we'll we'll need to give them a Yeah. >> priority to those tasks that are related. I'm kind of surprised that measure B would fund kind of ongoing staff positions as opposed to projects. But remains to be seen. All right, I have a couple of questions about this position as well. Um, So, uh, overall appreciate the work on OSVs and the work on daylighting. Um, the OSV work, I think I picked up there was an illusion or mentioned that this work is actually limited scope work for the transportation department, that this is not ongoing work. Um, that they've been working on it part-time this year and work on it part-time next year, but they can move on to uh, the sort of more quality of life uh, work like daylighting and will be fully off of OSV work as of FY 2028, for example, unless we add a bunch of new scope. Okay, that is important information. Well, I think he need to give a little more nuanced answer to that. I think we expect OSV work will continue, but hopefully at a lower level of intensity. Right. I mean, if we know where we put the signs and where we painted the curbs and we don't need a lot of changes, then that work could theoretically fall to zero for the transportation department, not necessarily uh, police or public works or other enforcement on that, but it would get pretty low. >> Well, to to a certain extent. And the nuance is simply that the focus is where there are currently uh air parts of town that are currently experiencing issues, and that is something of a fluid uh a dynamic situation that is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The The only alternative would be that high number, I won't quote the number, you had multiple millions of dollars in order to blanket the city with signs. And since that's not the approach we're using, uh this incremental uh expenditure is uh more manageable alternative. Okay. Uh I also just had a question about like how we're managing our staffing here. Are we just going to convert the current part-time assistant engineer directly into this full-time role? Uh I ask because I want to confirm that we are having a good sort of hiring bar and like open process for applications. The person that we hired to uh part-time hourly to put some signs up may or may not be the right person long-term to engage with the community on daylighting and traffic calming and all of those steps. So, I want to make sure that we Yeah, it would be an open recruitment um that would be posted on usual place where we post jobs. Okay. So, yeah. Good. Um right. Uh I'm happy with that point then. Thanks. So, to close on this, we need to get funding sources sorted out before we can do so? Um and if we don't this afternoon, then it may not make it into committee's recommendation, in which case um I guess uh if we have time and we want to bring it back on June 15th, otherwise it would need to be something we bring back at midyear. Um just depends on some of the urgency. Uh we are reacting to committee's comments regarding wanting some um OOT projects to be accelerated. So, um you guide us on the next step. You know the connection. >> one other option is depending on if anything else comes up, if there's three or four issues, we could do a 1-hour Finance Committee meeting 2 weeks from now or something. It also seems like we also need to get some clarification from um for Measure B, and we may not be that's not so much in our own control. So, >> Um so, I do have clarity from a staff member that um the VTA is allowing the use of Measure B for projects that are reducing traffic congestion. So, we need to just make sure that the position is allocating that specific portion of their time to those projects. Yeah, congestion relief. I I know that that is in fact what the focus that position is is congestion as it not as it was laid out in the staff report. Okay, so I think we're as far as we can go on that one. Um the next one is relative to these uh it came up in terms of lateral hiring bonuses, and there's some discussion here about wanting to have some flexibility on recruiting. I don't know if Ed, did you want to clarify that anymore? Um The I think [clears throat] I think the impetus here is that if there are small numbers like 5,000 or 10,000 that can get us a sergeant from Redwood City, um you know, we got to do that next week, so. Yes, and and uh let me be uh perhaps transparent on this. Lauren has been managing the conversation between the police chief, HR director, and I believe the conclusion is that we believe we do not need an additional appropriation at this point, largely because salary savings is the the source used to do these uh types of incentives. And uh so, I think the only immediate step is for staff to determine if there's any additional policy flexibility that's needed in order to to exercise the strategies in already in mind. So, they're working through that. But then there's also going to be a meet and confer just to for implementation if there are any additional tools that are not currently available. But I I would assume that that would be pretty easy cuz we're talking about spending a little bit of money to get our get our staff positions full. I would hope so. Yes. Yeah, just can never uh uh count on it. Yeah. Okay. If I Yes, go ahead, Chief. If I may, I think our goal with the Finance Committee and with Council on this item as the city manager pointed out is not necessarily to get additional funding allocated, but rather to have um some authorization at this point to utilize existing salary savings with some flexibility to come up with some creative options for incentivizing laterals and to the council members point, we're not talking we're talking about modest amounts as far as these lateral incentives. For example, as you say $5,000. Um and but I think uh what we're looking for here is there are some ideas that have come up that we've not necessarily done before. For example, while we allow laterals to accrue vacation commensurate with the experience they're bringing with them from another organization, we don't necessarily seed their vacation pot when they come on. So, they come on with zero hours. Versus there are a number of other agencies that as part of a lateral hiring incentive will pre-seed some vacation hours in that laterals um uh bank. So, we're basically just trying to give ourselves the uh ability to be nimble and have some uh variety of different incentives that we can use to best fit the needs of the individual candidates. So, whether that's relocation expenses, vacation hours, etc. And ultimately, we're just looking for the committee, hopefully the committee's recommendation that we have the authorization to use salary savings for those purposes. I I I think if we can build that into our recommendations, that's terrific way to go. Well, I think the sequence of steps going forward and and perhaps our HR director can correct is consultation with bargaining Well, first being clear with the department on here are the tools we want to put in the place, consultation with the bargaining units, and then uh council approval. And we could do that uh last step ideally through a consent item, but if necessary, we would arrange a closed session. I think that'd be fine on consent. That's my opinion. Okay. HR director agrees. Agrees. So, then maybe part of the motion, Chair, uh would be to incorporate something to that effect. So, then we could carry this to council. Yes, it's really authorizing staff to bring forward specific recommendations for incentives. Okay, I'm saying what I think the next thing that came up on the slide is [clears throat] the nonprofits. And where we left it last time was >> [clears throat] >> any finance committee, sorry, any additional funding would be authorized by council and processed through a his rep. Um but on the baseline, the sort of longer-term partners, um, we passed along kind of as is. Uh, and then we have this sort of outlier now with uh with Canopy situation. Um, so we have to do some housekeeping on that one one way or the other. So, how do we how do we approach that? Yes, um, I think I'll pick up on this. Appreciate that uh quick uh intro uh chair. I think it might be helpful to have uh our public works director review the particulars of our agreement or perhaps just an overview on our agreement with Canopy to uh describe how the services uh are described within the agreement and the anticipated approach uh to discussions on uh how the uh uh budget uh reduction would be implemented. Good. Good afternoon, chair and committee. Brad Olsen, uh director of public works. So, without going too deep into this and reading from uh pages that are in the staff report from when council approved Canopy's most recent contract, which was last December, and information that's uh in that contract. So, there are some uh principal goals is the way the scope is laid out. There's a a goal A on community education and outreach. It includes things like the mayor's annual tree planting, the um Arbor Day events that Canopy helps us uh organize, community tree walks, website, and communication, uh and another of a number of other services related to community education and outreach. So, that's one principal area. There's an area of tree planting, which includes planting trees including volunteers, replacing trees where needed, and community planting events, as well as planning that that relates to canopy disparity between North and South Palo Alto. There are tasks in our goal C that relate to tree assessment and tree care. So, those include some specific items there, a young tree care survey, a digital tree health survey, and then a kind of catch-all category with some fairly significant budget that is called other services related to tree assessment and tree care. And then the last of these sections, goal D, is urban forestry program assistance. That includes as discrete items maintaining and managing an open data data portal, and administering the city's right tree right place program, which which that piece of it is more related to the utilities department. So, I guess the the point of that is that in each of these goal areas and kind of breakdown areas, many of them have goals in terms of the number of different types of events to do. All of them have broken down budget items line by line. So, we talked about this I think at um the city council check-in on the budget last week that the urban forester and public works had initially called out some specific areas that we were thinking could be the places that we make those reductions. And what we're thinking would be the best approach now. Uh if finance committee recommends and and council decides to proceed with these reductions, that we would essentially sit down uh with uh JP from Canopy, Canopy staff, uh and work through what are the areas where we think we can make some reductions in what we're doing, uh you know, with the least negative impacts to the programs. What What are the implications for these um reductions? I mean, we heard last time there's less tree cutting. I mean, sorry, tree trimming. I don't really know what that means. If it means they're going to get all shaggier, but Well, [clears throat] I And let me just sum like uh summarize off the top of my head what I think is in your memo. Public Works, we had a a reduction target to to meet uh for the budget. We proposed reductions in a number of areas, and there are several of them that are in urban forestry. This the Canopy contract piece of it is only one piece. So, um we're proposing to eliminate an administrative associate position that was dedicated to to um supporting urban forestry. We're eliminating an in-house tree trimmer position that is part of the uh team of of tree trimmers that do uh work throughout the city. We are proposing to reduce the West Coast Arborist uh contract for tree trimming by $50,000. So, that's our contract that does the tree trimming throughout the city for street trees. And we're proposing the reductions here with Canopy. So, they're really part of an an an overall package. No, I I I get the process. I didn't ask the question correctly. I want to know what residents are going to see as the differences based on these cuts. And I've got urban forester Peter Gallinger on line, so I'm going to let him take a crack at that question. Peter, are you there and available to speak? Uh I am here. Unfortunately, I'm still mobile, so I won't be on video. Um in terms of overall impact, um I think the West Coast contract would result in uh 200 to 400 fewer trees being pruned annually. Um I think the the impact to canopy, um depending on how it is distributed among the work types, is going to reduce uh the overall scope of that contract, so we'd have either slightly less events or slightly less support uh for urban forest master plan programs. Again, it would be determined based on where we actually put the cuts. Um the cuts to staffing is going to impact our response times and work backlogs. On this question, colleagues, if you want to ask other questions. Yeah, George. Uh I'm just curious about the tree trimming point. If there are 200 to 400 tree fewer trees being pruned, what Can you give a intuition or a rough percentage of how much fewer that is? I'm assuming that uh we are not going to uh cut in a way that actually damages the long-term health of our uh canopy. Instead, we're um making cuts where maybe there are minor aesthetic benefits or things like that rather than safety and long-term health, but I want to confirm that. So, our our target um for our current tree population um is our 7-year pruning cycle. So, ideally we return to each tree at a maximum of 7-year intervals. Uh to meet that, we need to prune a little over 5,000 trees per year. Um in recent years, we've trimmed about 4 and 1/2 thousand trees per year, so we're a little bit behind on the uh schedule. I believe our current uh is at 8.3-year cycle. Um we won't really know overall impacts until we get um bids to come in for our new tree trimming contract. Um which is set to go out for bid here in the next probably 2 months. So, until we get those bids back, we won't really know what it looks like long-term. Okay. And uh yes. Can I add a little bit to that? Just to say that both the reduction to the tree trimming contract and the reduction of the tree trimmer position impact this. And so, what I think I had mentioned during the initial hearings, we're going to be um keeping an even closer eye on our our annual production and kind of the average over time of of that cycle and uh trying to make sure that we're not seeing that slipping away that would be problematic. And a tree trimmer position is vacant, just to clarify. That's correct. Okay. Um I mean, on balance, I think it is reasonable to go from maybe an 8.3-year cycle to a 8.5-year cycle if we uh uh trim a couple hundred less trees per year. Um uh you know, I assume we know our trees and we're not going to have damaged utility poles or uh um you know, uh uh uh bunch of trees that suddenly die uh because they weren't pruned somehow correctly in 10 years or something like that. Um on the canopy side, could I ask through the chair what specific impacts there might actually be to the canopy programs for a $40,000 cut? Yeah, that's fine. If you Yeah. Um you're just getting a sense of are you going to lay someone off? Are you going to have X less planting events, you know, just give us >> to still have a discussion about the those two, you know, what's really going to go on, but you're but maybe some of the just the specifics and your concerns for your organization. My concern You're right, Councilmember Lawing, that um what we're talking about here as as Director Eggleston spoke about is the number, right? The percentage that you're cutting from the contract. Um as the director said, we would then talk about where it would be least damaging to canopy. But at the end of the day, every service that we provide in partnership with the city requires human power. It the digital health care survey that that is on the table is powered by a human being. So, 45 So, to be honest with you, our our foresters make between 60 and 70,000 starting salary. So, cutting 45,000 is a human being. I'm not saying I'm not sitting here telling you that we're going to cut a position. We're going to have to find another way. We as the city also has as a measure of last resort laying off people, which the budget doesn't uh proudly declares is not uh a a major uh damage to the budget is to lay off people. We're going to try to do the same thing. We share the values of not laying off staff. But what I'm saying is that the more you cut, the more we're going to have to spend our energy trying to fill in that gap and fill in that energy that would be better suited to serve the city. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. Did you have another? Uh is there any sort of speculation possible in terms of what that means for the community like X fewer outreach events, X fewer trees planted, um things like that? So, one of the most measurable uh items that is that has been verbally proposed is the cut to the digital tree health survey. Um the digital tree health survey is not an extra program layered on top of tree planting. It is a mechanism that ensures planted trees survive long enough to deliver environmental, public health, climate, and infrastructure benefits. So, in last in the fully published most recent survey it shows that approximately approximately 84 to 85% of the trees surveyed are alive and thriving. That is an incredible number. We would never know that if it wasn't for the survey. We would never know which trees to prioritize, where to prioritize them, how to care for them if it wasn't for that survey. And we would be engaging communities who are accepting those trees in their own private property if it wasn't for that survey. So, that is the most quantitative uh example that I have. Again, as proposed verbally as one of the cuts, but as the director spoke about it sounds to me like the specifics of the contract cuts are negotiable and what we're talking about here is a percentage at this point. Madam Chair, Commissioner. Uh yeah. So, um that last um uh discussion on the digital uh tree health survey, is that what it is? Yeah. Um, uh in part addresses a question I had, which is you know, we've got uh a schedule that's saying we're going to try to go through this percentage of trees every X number of years, um but that's not really a a focused approach and that may be the best that we've historically been able to do because we didn't have technologies to be able to tell us basically what what trees should we be trimming and when uh as opposed to well, this tree hasn't been trimmed in 7 years, we we trim it. Um, and so I don't know where we are on emerging technology that would help inform that, but um the digital uh tree health survey uh at least on the on the aspect of tree care uh does apparently allow us to have a more focused approach, but I I my understanding is that doesn't apply to the tree trimming. It's just the uh care, is that right? I'm going to ask Peter to speak to that, but but before he does, I just want to add one other point, which is that in Palo Alto 311 tree care requests are I think the number one uh category of requests. And that is a way that we're getting requests and going out to many many trees every year. >> Makes sense. Yeah, and I mean I I I would just add that that part of the program is is probably more critical from a liability aspect than whether you're talking about 8.3 years or 8.5 years for the you know, the the maintenance period. It's it's identifying you know, problem trees and responding in a timely way. Um and know, and so that that that's the critical thing to focus on from a liability perspective. >> And and before you go there with Peter, I I just want to follow up. It's It that's a great concept, which is that 311 reporting isn't just an expense, it reduces our liabilities in a lot of places. So, I just want to kind of highlight that. Peter Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, so um there's two separate uh surveys that Canopy performs for the city. Uh the young tree care survey focuses on city trees that were planted in the previous uh 3 to 5 years. It depends on the budget and the number of trees available. And that is a comprehensive survey of how those new trees are doing. The digital tree health survey is primarily focused on private trees that citizens have planted in their yards. Uh so it it is very valuable information. And it definitely informs efforts to uh like like JP said, it confirms that uh the efforts are working based on the survival rates that have been reported, but it doesn't directly uh um report back on maintenance of city trees. Thank you. And I'll just say one other thing is uh when we had this uh the kind of very cursory discussion of this back um a couple weeks ago, and the staff reported said, "Well, these are the functions that would be cut or uh reduced as result of the canopy cuts." I had assumed that that was based upon a discussion with Canopy in advance. And what I'm understanding now is that if we go forward, then those discussions would occur. Um I think going forward in the budget process, it's important for us to understand especially when we're dealing with with community partners, have we had discussions with them or not, or we acting unilaterally? And there may be times where we we can't do those discussions in advance, but I think it needs to be really transparent to us where where that happens and where it doesn't. I would I would say that based on the clarification on the digital tree health survey um that sounds like a value that I wouldn't want to cut. Remember that when a couple weeks ago we thought we were going to be taking about a half million out of um CIP projects and now we've actually been able to offset that with additional TOT revenue, which I'm glad to hear. I've been hearing anecdotally similar things from hotels that they're they're they're doing pretty well. Um and so we we have some latitude that we could recommend to the council on restoration because the half million we thought we're going to take out of CIP, we don't have to take out right now. So I just want to put that on the table and I would I would support um giving some direction on on what level of of reduction in the canopy budget we would like staff to discuss with canopy and work out the details on. If And thank you. If If I could just comment customer Herbert, your points well taken in terms of consultation and appreciate the way that you phrase that. I did want to just perhaps elaborate a bit and use the survey as an example. I think it's similar and again this is not my area of expertise. So my point is really that the more detailed discussions, especially as it relates to multi-faceted services as we're discussing here, really is where the details get worked out. In the case of something like this survey, I think it is in some ways similar to the frequency of maintenance we were just talking about. It's really not we're doing it or we're not doing it. It's a question of the level of extensiveness that occurs over the course of a year. And I'm just looking at that attachment that Director uh Allison pointed out and in each of the next 3 years, the digital tree survey is budgeted at roughly $25,000. And the young tree care survey is each year has about $50,000 allocated to it. So, a question that would want to work out with Canopy in this case is is it necessary every year? Is there a way to modulate that expenditure to let's say hypothetically every other year? And again, what volume is it citywide in each year that that the survey is completed? Again, that's the type of consultation that would be necessary in order to just ensure that the again, the resulting services reflect the resources that are available. >> [clears throat] >> Yeah, I was going to say something similar to what both of you just said, which is that >> [clears throat] >> I think we do we we need to know the specifics of what are going to be reduced and obviously so do so does Canopy, but you know, this I mean, I'm concerned about you know, South Palo Alto and you know, we don't want to back off on rebuilding that canopy because um cuz by definition it's a younger part of the town and it doesn't have as much canopy. Canopy There was no there's no bias there. That's just a re situation of history. But you know, we don't want to keep we want to keep working on that, so um And I think the idea of negotiating the budget uh the budget with Canopy after our budget is done is, you know, not ideal. So, we still have a month uh before we're actually approving the budget, so hopefully we'll be able to get a little bit more specific on that. And then there's also just the notice period in terms of how much time they would they would need to react to making the reductions. Um but but I'd like to see more of the specifics uh stamped out. And I you know, overall, I'm I'm comfortable with having a a lower number than about 40,000 uh that's cut from that budget. Um It's not just that trees are sacred in this town, it's that they need maintenance. They need We know that, right? They need planting and trimming and so on. And and I don't disagree with what uh city manager has said that it's not like we're not going to do it. It's a question of the the frequency. Um do you anticipate that this level of service that you're sort of reducing to would be permanent, or are you just doing a very good job of responding to, you know, cutting expenses in a tough year? We would hope that it wouldn't be permanent. I mean, that the way it was described and our task with providing proposed reductions was that it would be ongoing, which in this instance meant, I think, at least 3 years. Uh but I know in talking with the urban forester about some of the areas that he uh had proposed, as you point out, without the consultation, they were some areas where he thought that if we temporarily suspended some activities, it could be less harmful overall than others other areas, um such as the plantings in South Palo Alto that you mentioned, Chair. >> [clears throat] >> Yeah. Th- Th- This just feels like it's getting a little bit past the meat and getting towards the bones. Uh it's something that we actually want to do, but we're gritting our teeth, and I fully understand why that's the process, and I'm not at all critical of the process. And I'm just going to say again that by no means with us proposing these cuts is this public works saying that we think this work is unimportant or that there's budget that that is extra or Yeah. fat on the bone or anything like that. >> Yeah. Uh all of these cuts we're proposing are are difficult. >> Yeah, and I think we're all on the same page. Yeah. Other other comments on this? Uh on the canopy partners. >> Yeah. Uh I want to see George's. Uh I agree with Pat. I think we have the budget for this. Um I think uh Uh I take the city manager's point as well that some parts of canopy's services maybe we can't do the survey every other year. Maybe we uh you know, I've gone to multiple several tree planting events, and um uh Uh maybe there are some sort of efficiencies with just the fact that there seem to be like 20 people trying to plant one tree at a time at the events that I've gone to. And so so so that maybe there are some like operational tweaks. Uh we can't dictate that uh the specifics right here. Um but maybe we can direct uh staff that to continue discussing programs with canopy and that the cuts be no more than uh um uh here I'll just pull a number like 15,000 uh corresponding to uh basically making one of the monitoring programs happen every other year or something like that. Uh so if there are no cuts if staff can sort of justify all the programs and find that the monitoring isn't duplicative of the city's own tree monitoring software and the city's own like don't we have some satellite like uh tree health We do for the overall canopy coverage. Right. And but that doesn't tell us like where trees are growing or the individuals. Okay, yeah. Yeah. Um But like if there's any This is a part where it's hard because I can only speak in hypotheticals, but like if there any redundancies or theoretical savings, uh maybe we can pursue up to say $15,000 of those. But if not, then we just keep the budget uh flat or something like that. Um I think that's uh uh Obviously, we would not want to have any cuts, but I There's something just in the fact that we are cutting positions and we're cutting other contracts to tree maintenance where it feels uh um less ideal for staff if we are cutting a staff position, but then not touching the equivalent canopy contract at all. Um Okay. Move on to some other items. I think we're on the additional clarification or consideration page. And the first one up is employee child care. I think the issue there was more of the long-term forecast, I believe. >> Just noting that a committee coming out of the two-day discussion wanted us to incorporate this in long-range financial forecast and remove this idea that it's pilot. So, wanted to affirm that and also affirm that it's being programmed in the general benefit fund for 3 years. And after that third year, it'll start hitting the funds more directly cuz we have fund balance in the general benefit fund. So, wanted to confirm that again. And if there's still support, then I think we'll formalize that in the recommendation going to council for the June 15th. Okay. Then, next up is the Heritage Park's CIP. Yes, so this is where committee wanted us to notate that uh to prioritize the park drainage improvements related to the Roth Building water intrusion. So, um we're happy to do that, and wanted to see if there's any further discussions in that regards. So, so there there is that CIP that's identified. Correct. The CIP is a preexisting project called Heritage Park. There are seven It's about 75,000 that's held in that fund, um and we're just notating that, um and also I think the concern was that we'd have funding available, and that there's some expediency to being able to use those funds when the need arises. And we're affirming, yes. Plus, we don't have full bids, so we don't know what the right number is. Correct. No, but uh I think it's reasonable to assume that the 75,000 is not adequate. So, I don't want to confuse those two. It's good that we set that aside, uh but the question is if we don't yet know the number, um how do we make sure that uh there won't be a hold up if uh there's an urgency to resolve the issue before the next winter, uh what would be the best mechanism to uh to have a placeholder of some sort for an uncertain number? Right. And And what I could add to the discussion is that staff has been having meetings with the uh Palo Alto Museum. We met a couple weeks ago. We met again yesterday. Uh there's a waterproofing study, consultant study that they've had done with some recommendations. There are, um, initial cost estimates that they've obtained coming out of that. We have another meeting next week to continue discussions with them on what the approach could be. Um, if the city was to have a meaningful cost share in that work, 75,000 would not be enough. Uh, in some discussions, uh, this week, we we've identified that a particular project, the Mitchell Park Library repairs project, that's proceeding now, and that a construction contract was recently awarded. There's $250,000 of savings there, and if the committee was interested, we would suggest recommending appropriating that, actually not into the Mitchell Park Library repair, but into the existing Roth Building rehabilitation project. And that could be some additional funding that would be available, if we have these discussions with the museum about the approach that could go honestly either towards museum or building repair work or the work, um, in the park area, recognizing that it's all related to the basement in the building. That that sounds good. I mean, that that gets us close to the ballpark of what it may end up at. Yeah. Good. I think having that buffer is great. I think continuing to negotiate is important, continuing to get more bids is important. Um, uh, not fully understanding the history of, you know, whether, uh, drainage and, uh, waterproofing was part of the original plan and then cut, uh, in various ways that uh uh were obviously regrettable in retrospect. Uh I don't want to um uh for lack of a better word, cast any blame or say how we should split the cost, but I think we should try to have a productive conversation on that. Do we have any any idea yet of the timeline once we put a shovel in the ground till it's fine? I mean, it's it's months, not years, but do we have any idea? In the in the discussion we had with the uh museum representatives and Vance Brown, the contractor that they've been working with, uh I think there was discussion that the the work could take place on the order of a month and a half. Um And there was even in that discussion, design work that was needed. There's the city processes, there's permitting, probably some other things. But the the length of time if all the work was to be done at the same time by the same contractor was relatively expedient. Okay, thank you. And that's good news, uh but we uh we have that winter closure on construction window for for some of these things, right? So, it sounds like uh we we do have enough time, but not a lot of extra uh between now and late October whenever that window closes. Right. And part definitely part of the discussion has been to to recognize that and identify ways that we as our teams could work together to make that move along as quickly as possible. Okay, good. Do we need to talk really about the DTT? Um yes, I believe earlier um committee member Bert had a couple questions uh when I clarified the initiative would preclude charter cities from re-upping the same tax. So. Yeah, I I ended up seeing that in the staff report after you pointed it out. Um and I don't recall this issue coming to the council on our legislative or advocacy program that we've had any discussion on it given how significant it is potentially to the city. I I was struck by the uh the uh uh virtual pseudonym of save prop 13. I don't know what DTT has to do with prop 13. Um and I'm surprised actually as at the um it's the AG that approves the ballot language. I can't remember or Secretary of State, but I'm surprised they're able to get a a ballot proposition on under that kind of language. Nevertheless, um where are we on uh us and others stepping forward on advocacy on on this issue? Yeah, um let's see. It's my my understanding first off that this is not a legislative issue because it's an initiative and to your point uh perhaps the city attorney could comment on how the title gets finalized. Um but uh this is increasing just in terms of uh engagement among the cities, but at this point there's not a specific to do other than uh really try to mobilize uh well, a campaign such as the case may be. >> Well, and we we uh haven't even taken a position like we have on the regional transit tax. Right, so it hasn't come to the council at all and and this [clears throat] and and our we have our legislative advocacy, but we have broader advocacy that we do beyond legislation. I would want to see this come to the council as soon as possible. The city can definitely take a position. There's limitations as to what the city can can but from an electioneering perspective as far as using public funds to support or oppose an initiative. >> Now, what we for instance on the on the regional transit tax, we we took a position and that uh is a communication to our our um electorate uh why it's important to our city. And you know. Okay. Um Let's see. Uh Did you have more on that one? Not on that one. Sorry. >> Oh, yeah. The next one down is this uh 2026 admin assistant and uh It's supposed to be a 6-month pilot originally. And we're going to start it when? Um in June, I believe. And so we were going to run it through December. But the concern there is that um council would need to reconvene on the subject to determine if the pilot would be, you know, suspended because we learned that it was not as you intended or would like to extend it. In which case, you know, the most likely uh time would be during midyear. So, if we extended the contract or the hire through March, that'll allow the council to deliberate on this with other budgetary considerations in February. An alternative would be to keep it at December cuz that's where it's timed out to be. Um and then address it via the council contingency fund. Which is what we did originally. Right? Correct. Um I think then, you know, Cuz that's already budgeted. >> Well, I think procedurally, I'm going to try to work on the fly here uh to make a draw of, let's say, 15,000 from the council contingency would require a colleague's memo or something effect It's essentially like that and and concurrence uh from council members for that expenditure or the lack of objection. But what Is the assumption here we're putting it in the 27 numbers then? That was my assumption. Is it after December it would have to be in 27 numbers? It would be in 27's number already chair because we're going to carry forward the funds. So the committee's budget would be kept whole but you know the hire is really in the new fiscal year. Um I think the balance is do we go through procedurally the colleagues memo process and then have it very clearly coming out of this committee being terminated potentially December. Right? So I think that's the first indication that we would need coming out of committee. Is the desire of the committee to recommend that we hold to the six month and then use the colleagues memo as a pathway for extension or out of committee extending it through March? Um because either way we would need to evaluate the program and then also look at the fiscal impact. I'm still back on is this an expense in 27 because I thought it was actually an expense in 26 that we're just using so it probably doesn't hit the general fund in 27. It's funded through December of 26 without impacting the 27 budget. Correct. Yes and I suppose if we wanted to stretch it a little further we could carry 45,000 from 26 over into 27. Right now we're only carrying over 30,000. Does that make sense? Now keep in mind that also impacts the remaining balance in council contingency for 26 and I believe our last math there was about 20 or 25,000. So if we use another 15, which is being considered right now, right, to extend it from 6 months to 9 months, the 26 budget that you all have available for different appropriations would be limited. So, I wanted to make sure you know >> lot of that a lot of that budget was spent on this pilot. Yep, 30 out of the 125. Yeah. Um so, I I I'm at this point comfortable just ending it because in December because that's what we authorized in terms of a budget. Uh colleagues memo, that's no that's no problem. We can type that up and get it approved. So, that's where I come out. Well, I'm I'm glad to hear you thinking that way. Um uh first I'm I'm not quite clear on why we would do something like this for just 6 months or whatever and end it. Um uh I don't think we ought to do it at all. Um and I made that clear previously. Our council contingency funds have been historically, we can look at the whole record over decades, they've been to really serve community needs that arise during the year uh from nonprofits and special events and serving the community, not serving ourselves. And this is for the council to serve themselves. Uh and I I think it's a complete break with the principle of it. And um I don't I I when we look at cutting other functions uh around the city uh or not being able to fund nonprofits, we didn't do that uh supplemental phase one and a bunch of nonprofits uh that were had a lot of merit are not going to be funded this year, uh but instead we're prioritizing this. I think it is um uh a a choice and I wouldn't want to answer to the voters uh to uh um uh to really justify that. But I mean my my point though is is really not a 27 budget item. It's a leftover from 26 and when the 26 money is funded the council voted for then that part should end. If we if we decide we want to extend it after the pilot, that's just a whole new >> Well, interestingly though this week we had a brief discussion last meeting and did I I haven't heard the clarification but um it was used the FY uh um 26 council contingency was what was used for that. And I I do I should make one other reminder. We had requested the city clerk that she evaluate uh how clerk's offices in the area support council needs of different sorts. Uh like uh travel support or whatever incidental need might be there. And she was nearing completion of that when this suddenly came forward and uh really uh uh uh uh usurped the the process that we were near doing of hearing her report on how that support would actually occur and do so within her budget. Um but the notion that we can take 2026 council contingency funds and spend them in FY 27 I don't think is permitted under current policy. Uh so the hire hasn't happened and uh if it happens it'll be nominally in this fiscal year. Uh so I don't understand how we can even do that. I thought we I thought we were cleared on that. No, we uh staff had referred to it as a practice and I had said it back in May 5th that my memory was that it was an action that council had taken, but I didn't recall for certain and there was going to be some research and I haven't heard any follow up on who's correct on that. >> So so I mean I I did I did do a fair bit of digging. I did not find an adopted policy. Uh, that does it not mean it's not buried um somewhere in some budget resolution, but I did a I did a fair bit of of looking. Um, you know, that said um you know, it's it's it it it's whether it's a practice or policy, it's really council's decision, you know, in adopting the budget ordinance. It certainly has discretion to carry forward those funds if if if if it wishes to do so. Do you have anything on that, George? Uh, I don't have a strong perspective. I think uh I'm pretty ambivalent about the need for the role. Uh, you know, AI is getting pretty good at doing a lot of these things. Um, happy to share my setups. Uh, but this was the uh I mean, I don't remember how the vote went, but we did vote or at least had some consensus in the study session to move forward with this item. So, I think we should fund it through the calendar year and that or sorry, uh uh yes, fund it through the calendar year and uh do another colleagues memo which you know, maybe it turns out we all love it in the pilot, right? Yeah, maybe it turns out turns out we do love this and I can certainly imagine ways where my workflow could be significantly more efficient. So, Uh there's a lot >> Yeah, I I think there's a lot of things that we would need to evaluate including can one person serve seven? Yes. Or does it end up that one person is serving one person, you know, whoever the mayor is? You know, we don't know that yet, so. But yeah, so it's that I'm still in the boat of I don't think this has a whole lot to do with the 2027 budget. Um Yeah, I'll just add that when we all were elected we had a certain understanding of what our compensation was. And this council has added in the last couple years international travel which was taboo or compensation uh historically. Uh and you know, I I have uh traveled to visit our sister cities a whole bunch of times. Found it uh fulfilling personally. Uh learned some things that I brought back. But never had an understanding or uh um uh that that should be compensated by the city and that our taxpayers should be paying for my international travel that is discretionary. Uh and now we're adding this on top of it so that uh council members uh supposedly uh need help in maintaining their calendars or submitting their travel expenses or answering their emails. Uh I really think this has gone down two steps down a a bad path uh that I don't think the our residents understand and have paid attention to uh these changes and that they would not uh like it as we're cutting all these other things um including we're looking at uh on public safety and and at what pace we're going to be able to add back uh fire staffing. And instead, the council is prioritizing this. So, that's my thoughts on the subject. I think we should rescind it, recommend to the council that we rescind it. Any other comments? Okay. So, I think the next one down is irrigation at Foothill, and I think we got clarification on that last time from Director O'Kane. That's right. We wanted to put it in the memo, um, just so it's quick reference. I believe committee and council seem to be fine, um, but there was still public concern, so we wanted to take an opportunity to make sure it's captured. Here to answer any questions, but I don't believe you might have any I don't think there's anything that's different than what we've previously represented. Yeah, she had perspective that it was a [clears throat] lot less and than suspected, and that we had already come back up from the to to full strength, or your the cuts were down from full strength, not down from already already cut strength. Uh, I'm not saying that very articulately, but um, so I don't think I don't think there's anything new there. Okay, so then the referrals, moving over to the referrals. >> [clears throat] >> I want to raise the question of this, um, consultant best practices narrative, and get a status on that, because we still almost every week get resident input, and it's budget time, and they're looking at the number of dollars spent on consultants, uh, and they have questions about it. So, I'd just like to know what the, um, you know, feedback is going to be, so we have something some at some point public to discuss. Sorry, you caught me flat-footed on that, because I know we talked about it last week, but, uh, to give you a quick recap, uh, after the break, we'll be coming back to the council with a readout on uh best practices we've developed both with our internal staff team uh as well as uh some uh actually with the city auditor's input and uh few other sources as well. So, um that's on the the practices themselves. That said, uh I let me ask uh Lauren to elaborate on the actual contract contracting uh steps that we've implemented through this budget process. Well, I'm also sure you you scrubbed those contracts to see what could be cut in the context of if we're stopping trimming trees, I'm sure we're looking at trimming consultants. So, I want to give you credit and opportunity on that point. Yes. So, um because I erred earlier today in understanding the question, may I ask you to repeat your question and concerns? Uh just the I guess it's twofold. One is let us know that you did scrub the existing consultant contracts for '27 and and beyond uh and make sure that they're appropriate uh that if we don't have to spend all of them, we got a better way to do it, we're not doing it. Uh and then secondly, I know there was this consultant best practices coming forth from the um city manager and just wanted to uh get an update on when we would hear that in in the context of uh the public. Okay. >> The [clears throat] second one's been answered. Thank you. Okay, super. I'm glad I asked uh the question. The answer to the first question, which is have we scrubbed um our um consultant contracts? And the answer is yes. So, as a part of the budget development, we we've been at this for almost a whole year since last budget development when committee and council made it clear that we're going to do reductions. So, it's not just been in in this spring, but we've been at this for a whole year. Um and so, in this process, um we've run multiple reports about like what contracts by what department for what purpose. We've sliced and diced it a variety of different ways. And then also between the departments and city manager briefings, we review all of the major contracts that support the budget appropriations. We say, "Okay, give us a top line of all the large contracts. What are their names? What are they for? Have we thought through whether or not you know, we can provide some of these services in-house? Have we switched from 5-year contracts to 1-year contracts?" So, we had all of those conversations. And so, I do feel and represent to you that we've done a very thorough job. Thank you. So, I appreciate that update and we've heard, you know, portions of of the progress reports on how we are uh tightening up our approaches and that they've had some uh fairly significant impact already and will going forward. The problem is that we've we've got and then the city manager said that we're going to have this report on best practices. And that's kind of a framework on how we are doing things going forward. But that really doesn't answer the the questions that um okay, so what is the progress that we have done? How do we uh demonstrate the progress that has already been made or the anticipated progress? How does that translate into dollars or um or other performance metrics? And I appreciate it's hard to quantify what you didn't do. um Or how much better it was That's right. That's right. And so, some of that may even need to be a more qualitative description. Now whether that would be part of the best practices report and not just how we're framing how we're doing things going forward, but what has been done and whether it's examples or estimates or some combination of that, I think that's what's being yearned for by the council and the community. However real it may be what's going on behind the curtain and it's behind a curtain to the public and the council. It's a big open curtain once you go up in and you guys are debating everything. But how do we get from you guys working in this direction to the council and the public and the press understanding and respecting that that progress has actually been made or is being made. I appreciate the challenge and I do think to all this extent this will have to show itself in what we present again after your your July recess. If I could give one specific example and the it's always a little challenging because with any specific project you especially our high visibility projects either loved it or you hated it. But I will use the example of the turf study. And while you know there were certainly some criticisms of that work, I would say as a couple of examples the the consultant we used there implemented one of the practices that we're now institutionalizing for high visibility high scrutiny projects which is detailed documentation of comments and responses to comments and how that's reflected in their product. And that one in particular, I know was very voluminous because of the volume of comments, but also very valid and technical comments. But they were very meticulous in in ensuring that those were responded to and documented as to how that then reflected in in their final product. And I think that's an example of how one area of I'll call it pain point in consultant work not reflecting the feedback from community members has been in this particular example was reflected in in the product. Another example of what we are building into our best practices is post engagement evaluation, which has been a sensitive topic because documentation of a negative rating can actually create some problems for us with claims or or you know, again, the consultant themselves feeling that that was unfair. So we've tried to strike a balance in how that's done, but has now also been incorporated in our practices. And so examples like that to Councilman Burbert's point is hard to quantify how much that saved us or what how much better a product and and what that means in terms of dollars, but again, I think are are examples of what you can expect to see and that we are are putting into place to reflect the fact that there's a responsibility on the city staff in how we're reinforcing accountability as well as the consultants themselves and how the work itself is conducted. Well, I I think you touched on an area that I wasn't thinking about so much, which is uh not just cost savings, but qualitative improvements. And I agree that that's there really two halves to this. Um and uh uh on the on the cost savings and we've got you know uh right before this item is the AI strategy and I think it's been perceived that um this is one of the components of um our future on on how do we obtain uh domain expertise that we historically paid consultants for uh and with a concern that they they sold the same expertise multiple times. Uh and with AI we we really are seeing that um I albeit with the necessity to scrutinize, but we are seeing real value being generated highly efficiently in particular in that sort of area. What's the generic information that is there? Uh and then we build off context and other uh more specialized information. So, I would I would really encourage embracing that uh and to what extent is staff being trained to be able to do that themselves and examples. That was That's an area where I would think we we can find examples whether it's in legal department or uh other areas where we are already seeing staff um being able to obtain that. I could tell you as council members, we have issues that we want to understand a context on and a background and what happened over the last 10 years in this area. 60 seconds later, we've got it. Uh and it's informative. Uh and then you go to the reference documents. You don't blindly uh assume that it's uh it's all uh hallucination free. Uh but but uh it's you know, it's it's really progressing at such a rapid rate. I would encourage those two items of referral to have an interconnection. Yeah. I'll refer to the clerk to capture all that. Okay, any other of these items on the referrals on table three that anyone wants to chat about? Well, I I I didn't see approximate uh uh time frames um on all these. Is that do we have that? On when we get the referrals coming back? Um starting at the top all the way down to number seven or anyone in particular? Well, really it's a whole set and maybe what we would If you have it now, great, but if we have as this uh a column on this table is uh when when when's this at least going to next have a next step as opposed to necessarily completion, but >> Yeah. I I think that's part of the process. As we move through the process with council, like council we usually and again, I have a more formal understanding of our use of the word referral. I know um uh committee member Bert, we have you you have a different interpretation. So, the way we've done it before was we take these referrals to council. Council uh may agree that these become staff work plan and then we indicate kind of some next steps and timeline and whether or not some of them come back to finance committee. Some of these are obviously coming back in the next budget development or some of them might come back to P&S. So, um we don't necessarily have a timeline on each one of these specifically. Um if you want, we could attempt to like at the top, you know, AI strategy. I believe that's already underway and I don't recollect all of our council committee uh council priorities and objectives. Is that one of them? >> no. Okay. >> It's not formally at this point and so that again is something we're working through with IT. So we don't have a specific deadline. I mean certainly it'll be this calendar year, but um not anything more specific than that. >> Let me ask under this question of are there ones among these that you are under the understanding need to go to council for their endorsement in order to proceed on? Um I don't think so, not the way that they are written. Okay. >> And so, um you know, I think we're already working on the AI strategy. The consultant best practice is currently being captured by council priority work plans. The golf course P&L is something we're going to want to incorporate in fiscal 28's budget development cuz every year we look at all of these enterprise funds or quasi enterprise funds and make sure that we're looking at the revenue side and so that's really important. I think what we heard from this committee is there was historical context to a senior residential rate, so we need to evaluate that more. Um you know, so that one there um will be interesting to see because the next time we bring that back might be in the next fee setting, which will be spring of next year. So that's going to be in the course of our budget development exercise. Uh I think the Carberry lease stuff is going to come out of the Carberry ad hoc and the work plans that comes through all those committees anyways. Um and I think that number six and seven are already identified as 28 budget development. So, I think in May on May 5th and 6th committee was adamant that we capture these. So, staff focuses on this work. And so, that's I think why Pat you and I had a difference in understanding about the word referral. So, I don't see at this junction any of these are what we typically would refer to as formal referrals. And if committee agrees, then we can just make a note of that. Yeah, I think that's right. On Coverley, I actually had that circled. I forgot to bring it bring it up. These were emphasizing the short-term repair that would be soon. I'm not saying it has to be 27, but there's some things I had a a prominent citizen say to me the other day, "Could you just fix the bathrooms at Coverley?" You know, and so I don't know where that is if it's in maintenance instead of capital improvements, but some [clears throat] of those simple things to make it a more pleasant place in the real short-term is what's refer it's what's being referred here. So, it's correct. It's not a formal referral like give us a budget for next week, but uh it's short-term. Yeah, just speaking to the Coverley repairs uh in the the capital program, we do have a Coverley repairs project. I think it has relatively significant funding in it. Um currently the way it's being used is just repairing things that that need immediate repairs as opposed to going out and proactively identifying projects to do there. Um I think it may have come up during the initial uh general fund capital program uh discussion. But we are currently looking at some uh cost estimating on renovations to existing buildings that would not be replaced as part of the Coverly master plan. Uh part of that also includes looking at the number of bathrooms that would be needed. Um site utilities that are uh serving those existing buildings that will remain, and trying to identify well that will help us identify whether there are some of the those things items that we should prioritize to start working on sooner. Is that starting up already? Or is that in the 28? The the cost estimating work is is starting about now. Okay. Again, I was just wondering if there was I'm more familiar with PRC stuff than I am with your stuff cuz I was on PRC and I worked on CIPs a lot. I'm just thinking if I mean if it's replacing a toilet, that's not remodeling a bathroom. So maybe that becomes into a repair, not not a CIP. I don't I don't know, but I I mostly think that I think somebody should take a tour, maybe you and and and uh Director O'Kane and just say is there stuff we should really be looking at now. Yeah, items like that would would probably be relatively simple to proceed with. Um But what I've heard about the restrooms is that they're overall in bad shape with uneven floors and cracked tiles and you know, problems with walls and things like that. Uh where we where we thought it would be a a significant project to renovate them. Mhm. But I I agree that if if there are um small things like replacing faulty equipment. Yeah, and there's always this question of, you know, what's that scale? You got bad bathrooms uh and maybe everybody recognizes they're going to have to be completely redone. Does that mean we don't do anything until we completely redo them? And I don't think we know the answer to that, but anecdotally I've heard from a number of users at Coverley they point to the restroom situation. I'm going to immediately go down there and see it myself to know what they're talking about. Uh but I will say when it was said well that the the Coverley ad hoc had talked about this. Coverley ad hoc a year ago had asked for uh nearer term we'll call it sprucing up measures there. And to our knowledge nothing has happened. Um and so uh we don't need to go back I to the ad hoc I think to get that direction. For some reason it hasn't translated into practice. And I'll just remind everybody that you know, we're we're maybe in some ways wanting to look at do we take that Coverley infrastructure fund and allocate it toward major things and um but if you'll remember it was just what two years or so ago that I came to realize that that fund had been raided to be used for routine custodial work there. Well, half of that annual dollars was being used that had happened uh six or eight years ago and that was contrary to how that had originally been set up and we've since corrected that. We didn't recapture those dollars. They were used for maintenance over I don't know how many years, a few years. But we just haven't been spending that fund as it was designed uh in 2014 um for finally having funds to do some significant things at Coverly. And I we're we're accumulating dollars in it and accumulating disrepair at the same time. Okay, I think that's it on that slide. So, do we want to look at open items that we have to come back on um or at least maybe if we don't come back and have an extra meeting then we have to list them as open items when we go back to uh finance committee we have the uh um some sort of recommendation on flexibility for police to May I make a suggestion? >> Go ahead. Super. So, typically in these wrap-up sessions we move the items to the formal finance committee budget adjustment. So, one option is um you know, on slide seven staff attempted to rebalance and and incorporate what we felt committee might want. >> Right. A few of those items from parking lot went on that already. So, um coming out of this committee you could finalize the budget adjustments. Um and it seems like we cleared everything from the parking lot so far maybe with the exception of Coverly where we had a lot of conversation about and the referrals seem like we've clarified that um those are really a part of fiscal 28 budget development or they're already incorporated in the council priority and work plan. And then the AI strategy is work already underway. So, I think in the conversation about referrals it kind of sounds like there are no specific referrals. So, I feel encouraged by this conversation that we as a committee can move forward with a recommendation. Yeah, I think we can. I was just going to go to the open items because we don't know yet about the transportation staff cuz we have to get the funding number for that. >> Okay. So, you want to by process go through the open items and then solidify the recommendation. Okay, I'm fine with that. Yes, it seems like we heard that that we need more uh clarification on the ongoing funding of the conversion of the half-time to full-time. >> Mhm. Um and we don't have that at this time. So, yeah. And then the second thing was however you want to characterize canopy, but we need more specificity Mhm. on the um you know, proposed proposed cuts and Well, I I got the cut no more than $15,000 uh pending discussion with uh canopy. Um Yeah, that's that's we haven't acted on that as a committee. >> We need Yeah, that was not a motion. That was uh uh the the last idea in the >> to make a motion? Um Sure. Uh Do we want that now or do we want the list? >> characterize uh some of the parameters around the reduction and we can try to capture that um to the extent we could capture it in the conversation and the negotiation then that would be helpful. Uh just to be clear, what should the scope of my motion be cuz I have a laundry list of notes including about the admin the administrative assistant funding through the calendar year, other things that we talked about and we just touched on and maybe got a consensus on, but we didn't actually make any motion. >> I'm trying to get to that now cuz these things that weren't in their original started at $800,000 loss, now we're balanced. I want to talk about the things that we still have to talk about that could affect that balance. Chair Lowen, if it's helpful, I have a a running list that I'm happy to put up on the screen and then if folks caught things that I missed, I would really appreciate that input. Thank you. Great. Thank you for keeping track of us. Okay, so on on the first one the X's are appropriate because we don't quite have that yet, right? Because it's not funded. So we I got clarification that we can actually fund stuff for traffic congestion relief using the measure B local streets and roads. So I think in terms of this coming year we have clarity that there would be a 40,000 difference in that that could come from LSR. It come from what? Local streets and roads measure B. Is that what you guys are doing? The 40,000 and My preference would just be that you say because we also have to change the table of org that you say you know, add 1.0 FTE assistant engineer to be funded with an additional $40,000 of measure B in fiscal year 27. Sounds good. And we'll remove the temporary half-time position. So minus 0.50 temporary plus 1.0 FTE full-time. Mhm. Um I think I just want to clarify, is this only for fiscal 27? Yeah, that's a good question. I I I I I I think it would be uh Uh oh okay. I I uh my hope is that it's an ongoing role that can continue to be funded with Measure B or potentially general fund. Um but uh Um yeah, it's just a role that prioritizes uh traffic safety and calming type projects. So, in terms of using including the words Measure B local streets and roads, then I think that we need to clarify that it can be partially funded by local streets and roads. For example, the OSV portion can't use that funding. But that we still think that the net impact on 27 is zero, you know, or 40? >> in fiscal year 27. Okay, so that should be up there. With the funding mix in future years to be finalized. On the broader motion, there were also uh a short list of items like the Chamales uh bike right-of-way where uh we expressed the desire to clarify for council uh uh that work was going to happen in 2020 uh FY 2027, for example, and uh that the uh grant work was going to yield um uh capital and planning costs in FY 2028. And I think those are really just clarifications and communication tweaks. Uh I'm assuming we don't need any of that in the motion. Correct. We heard that. We'll include it in the memo. Yep. Uh but there's a short list of that, like including four quiet zones, including four uh AI inefficiency, uh how that gets brought back. Um uh And that's what I have on my short list for that. Okay, on the second one could we do a little bit of a different wording um just uh whatever, adjust can be contract with the a target of 50,000 cap of reduction or something like that. Cuz it might come out 17 or 20 or, you know, I mean >> [clears throat] >> we don't know what Yeah, we could just say it a target of uh $15,000 reduction in county. Councilwoman Chell Aaron, would you like me to get rid of the of no more than? I just want to make sure I'm capturing your intention clearly. Yeah, it would omit the no more. Yes, good question. And the answer is yes. Yes. Does three work Ed for the police? Is it any or do you want something more broad? >> impact. It's kind of once again a clarification. >> about flexibility in budget dollars. It's fine. Um Oop, Mike. I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. To bring the subsequent actions on consent. I I don't see this as precluding that. I I was actually stuck on number two. I want to make sure that staff is clear that it's a reduction of 15,000, not 15,000 less than the 40,000 that was already in the proposed. So, we're we're clear it's 15,000 contract reduction. Okay, good. Correct. So, in this case here, because this action should be relative to the proposed budget, we're adding back 35 30 1,550 dollars. Approximately. Um because originally, not yeah, originally the reduction was 43,550. And now we're going to reduce it by 15,000 only. We're amending the proposed for the difference. >> And add that, right? >> So, I don't know. I just got the math real quick, but clerk should be putting that in. Yeah. 550. 28,550. Oh, 28,550 is the the fiscal impact. Well, not exactly, because we're saying a target, but yeah. I mean, I just what the whole thing was there was it was going to be approximate. I'm not a math person. What should I change? It was 45 and now it's 15. >> It was 43,550 was the original reduction amount. And so, if we're reducing by 15, the the net reduction would have been 28,550. From from what we proposed. >> Are you okay the way it reads? I think it's accurate the way it reads. It's fine. Yeah, fine. And you know, on three you don't want anything about flexibility of No. recruiting effort. [clears throat] I think it's it's clear. We know what we want to do and But but you definitely think this needs to come to council? Well, You can't just work this out with the chief? The future actions need to go to council. This recommendation from the finance committee, I think it's is discretionary as to whether you want to include it or not. Okay. And I I think on number four rather than terminate it because it sounds a little more definitive than you intended. It's uh make no change to the administrative assistant. Well, I'm I'm still wondering why this is even on here because it's a 2026 item that's a carryover. I I don't really understand why we're addressing that as part of the 27 budget proposal cuz this isn't 27 budget. But I mean you could you you to to to Council Member Apologies. Would you turn your mic please? Thank you. Sorry about that. Uh to Council Member Bricker's point, you you could in this motion authorize the the carryover of the 26 funds um to to fund this position through December. Oh, is your opinion that we need to authorize it? I I would recommend that just because of the the the past practice and yeah and and that that yeah the the budget ordinance would be appropriate vehicle to to authorize that carryover if if Council elected to do so. And if that's case, I'd like to separate that as part of the motion. Okay. Well, I think wording is a little bit different. Um fund the approved administrative assistant to city council with 2026 funds through December of 2026. And that latter part, did you want to include the and evaluate options or just leave that off at this time? You can say evaluate the pilot at that time. You feel that off. Yeah, I want to see if there's more than just these. Uh yeah, there were two others. One uh Brad had spoken about um transferring, if I understood it right, the 250,000 unexpended for the Mitchell library repair to a is to the Roth building funded you say? It's a Roth building CIP project and I can provide the CIP numbers for both of those. Um and then uh just I don't think this needs to be in there, but I did want to make one more comment on this quiet zone funding um because um qualifying for the measure B Cal Mod, I think is dependent on whether it is a can be demonstrated as a safety improvement project. Uh and uh or largely dependent on that. And Caltrain has not historically viewed quiet zones as safety improvements. Uh I think we need to actually include the references to the FRA wording that my understanding and recollection is that quiet zones are approved by FRA as safety improvements over uh uh horn blasting. That's their view. Uh and so I think that strengthens our argument that it's a safety improvement. So, referencing the FRA requirements and I can't remember that where that is, but uh that I believe that is their premise in a quiet zone. Yeah. Which Michelle doesn't agree with. Oh, so yeah, thank you for the next uh short follow-up. Um Brad, I think you were on number five. Yeah, I'm working on that. On five, I also thought that we know the money is there. We know that we have a buffer, but that we uh want to see how some steps develop with bids, with uh the museum's ability to partially fund uh before uh uh dedicating funding in such a uh visible and committed way. Um though of course we would want to be partners and uh support waterproofing. So, I'm I I I I'm ambivalent on whether five is explicitly listed as a motion, uh but that was in the back of my mind uh and uh I hadn't anticipated it would be added. But I think Brad clarified that this is kind of a placeholder account. It is not committing us to spending it for that purpose at this point in time, but it's created a placeholder. To say if needed. That that's correct and that was my understanding that I mean there are discussions we need to have about even how this work would proceed. Uh who who would manage a contractor? It could be the city, it could be the museum, it could be both for different scopes. so there's a lot there to to still work through. I I'm not even sure you need to put the 250 in there, right? Cuz it's the fund number, but do we just want to show that there's enough? Is that why we want that? If necessary, access up to 250,000 from the Mitchell Park Library. Do we want to go that far? Do we Is that change our negotiations or anything? >> Well, I think I think it is helpful to to really do the budgetary step of putting it in the proper project. And and again, the if nitty if needed gives us sufficient flexibility to come back and give you a specific recommendation. Okay. So, if needed comes after 250,000. And we want up to 250, Ed? Or do we care about that? Moving the 250, uh again, this doesn't >> Okay. uh Yeah, it commit. Yeah, if I can make one clarification, Roth building rehabilitation as a CIP project is not an account that belongs to the History Museum in some way. It's a city capital improvement program project where we have discretion about whether or not to expend funds. So, just putting funding there doesn't mean we committed that we're putting it into the project. >> Yeah, we can pull it out uh for some other project if there's a good reason. Yeah. Did you have another item, Pat? Yeah. Okay. George? No. Lauren, do we miss anything of stuff that we are still open items? I I just want to make sure we're clear and Pat mentioned the uh seeking uh the Measure B Cal Mod funds. Uh uh we have clarity that we will follow up on that with Caltrain and VTA. Okay. I think we should um what was now number four? Five? Uh but I would ask if you'd separate that. >> Yeah. No, I will I will I'm still trying to fiddle I'm just not loving this language here. I think it's it's uh fund the approved um city council administrative assistant pilot program. Yeah. Yeah, I think that states it more clearly. And for voting purposes uh as member wants that broken out as a separate vote. To clarify though, um the motion I'm assuming should also include the prior committee recommendations. So, um >> Yeah. Yeah, Lauren, I I mean I would suggest that you add in kind of, you know, B1 and two from the staff report recommendation, and then the these would be the modifications to that. What what is the I'm sorry, did you say >> adopt the adopt the 2020 the recommendation to adopt the 2027 budget um and approve the 2027-2031 CIP program um with these modifications. Correct. However, as typed, those are only additives to table four. So, um table four um needs to be incorporated in the motion. And then also it's slightly different because we wouldn't want to rebalance. So, if we refer to table six four uh or you know, slide seven from this morning this afternoon, slide seven includes the prior direction from committee, right? That includes JMZ, crossing guards, track watch, OSV, quiet zone, Trammellus, and the technical adjustments. So, um Okay. So, I think clerk is incorporating it by way of the reference up there. Um and then committee, because we modified the budget for the engineering position and then also for canopy, I would recommend that the motion also includes in there that the rebalancing comes from CIP. That'll enable us to expedite this without having to retype everything. Does that make sense? Because we just modified it by by by those two two appropriations. So, if you're okay with that, clerk. >> Where do you want that to go? Uh probably number seven underneath there, clerk. And I think that's okay for us. Um and rebalance the additional appropriations above uh rebalance the general fund additional appropriations through reductions of transfers to CIP. So, that's about 70,000 or so based on the two items above. And then >> And there's Are we on the same thing? On number six? >> Yeah. We're we're going to suggest that the if needed move back to the end and in fact perhaps better in case needed. So, the transfer will occur, but the expenditure will only occur if in case needed. Does that make sense? Yep. Um if committee is okay under 1A, um clerk if you don't mind um the technical adjustments in parentheses to date because on June 15th we will have technical adjustments for like reappropriations and such. So, that would be helpful. It is silent about the referrals and I'm wanting to confirm that that's because I think we've talked through all of them. Some are coming back as finance budget development items next year. Um so, I have see that's good. City manager, you mentioned in case needed for the transfer of 250,000. At what point is that decision made? After scope is defined. So, the transfer The transfer will happen, but the actual utilization of the funds on said project will be based on the work ahead. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. So, that the transfer will occur, just the work will happen until further approval. And the defining of the work is yet to be done. Okay. And scope to be defined. Okay. Thank you. Let's just go over four again. So, the original cuts to the CAN B relationship were 43,550. And now it's potentially going to It's targeted to go down by 15K. It's targeted to be 15K. So, instead of 43,550, 15K is how I'm interpreting this as opposed to reducing the 43,550 by 15K for a new target of roughly 28. >> I'm glad I asked. Are there adjustments you'd like to make to them to that uh number, Chair Allowing, to make that more clear? It's okay. Um and then also, to be technical, um Clerk, if you scroll down, do we have the recommended actions, such as the memo that talks about uh recommendations to City Council to adopt the 27 budget including the 27 municipal fee schedule. First line. Is that not number one? Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. I don't think we've left anything out that we talked about. I'm looking under the table and things to see if we lost something here. Okay. And let's have the clerk call the roll separately obviously for the second item. We do need a maker and a second. >> need a motion, don't we? I'm happy to move the original motion. And a second. I will second that. And you guys have to do the other one. Okay, we just vote on this one first. Okay. We we vote on the lower one first and then include that in the second, right? Maybe not. I I don't I don't know. That's how it's done. I think they're just completely separate, so. I think I think you could move this second the the last item separately. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. On the first motion. Right. So, taking action on numbers one through seven. Yes. Then let me for clarity, let me renumber one to eight. Really? Or would that just be one under the minute? Leave it alone. Just leave it alone. Right, one through seven. Councilor Lu? Yes. Councilor Burt? >> Yes. Council member Lawing? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Okay. >> And now the We need We need a motion. The second one. Let me get down to that. I will Go ahead. I I'll move the second motion. I'll second. Council member Lawing? Yes. Council member Liu? Yes. Council member Burt? No. Motion carries two to one, uh Burt no. Okay. Thanks, Christine. This has been a challenging session and you've handled it very well. As did staff. So, um next steps? Come see you in June? We come back to council on the 15th with these recommendations and um thank you so much for all the hard work and the deliberation. You've added a lot of value to our budget process and we appreciate you. Okay. Thank you very much. We stand adjourned. Thanks, staff.

I'm going to call to order the May 18th, 2026 meeting of the PaloAlto City Council. Would you please call the role? >> Council member Rectal >> here. >> Council member Lithcods >> here. Vice Mayor Stone >> here. >> Mayor Vinker here. >> Council member Lou >> here. >> Council member Lowing here. >> Council member Bert. >> Yes. For the record, all present. Thank you very much. It's now my pleasure to start with a special order of the day. We uh will be recognizing May as Asian-American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. And I will turn to Council Member Lou and ask you if you would kindly read the proclamation. >> Thank you, Mayor. Whereas Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month is observed during the month of May to recognize the contributions and influence of AANHPI communities on the history, culture, and achievements of the United States, and to raise awareness of important issues affecting these communities, including mental health. And whereas the month of May was selected to commemorate the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants to the United States on May 7th, 1843 and to mark the anniversary of the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10th, 1869. The majority of the workers being Chinese immigrants, including but not limited to Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities. and where citizens of Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander descent represent more than 35% of Po Alto's population and are part of more than 6 million AAHPI individuals residing in California, making these communities an invaluable part of the rich fabric of our city and state. And whereas for more than 200 years, A&HPI individuals have lived and worked in the United States and have made significant contributions across all sectors, including the economy, culture, education, government, the arts, law enforcement, the military, literature, science, and technology despite institutional and systemic injustices that have been designed to silence and cover up these achievements and contributions. And whereas May 10th, 2026 is recognized as A&HPI mental health awareness day, highlighting the need to increase awareness of mental health, reduce stigma associated with seeking care, and improve access to culturally and linguistically responsive services within api communities, which continue to experience some of the lowest rates of mental health service utilization among all racial and ethnic groups due in part to stigma as well as cultural and linguistic barriers faced by individual. uals, families, and communities. And whereas raising awareness about me the mental health of all individuals and this month, especially of Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities, past and present, encourages professional interest in health and human services careers and fosters a diversified workforce that reflects the community. Now therefore, Vicky Vinker, mayor of the city of Palo Alto, on behalf of the entire city council, does hereby proclaim May as an Asian as Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, and recognizes May 10th, 2026 as A&HPI mental health awareness day, encourage all community members to celebrate the contributions of Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities, and reaffirm the city of Palo Alto's commitment to fostering an inclusive community, supporting culturally responsive mental health resources and well-being for all residents. Thank >> Thank you very much, Council Member Lou. It is now my pleasure to invite Camille Chu to say a few words. She is the youth ambassador for the National Asian-American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association. Welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor Rinker, council members, city manager, staff, and residents of Palo Alto. My name is Camille Chu. I am a member of the Palto Youth Council here on behalf of the National Asian-American, Pacific Islander Mental Health Association. Thank you to the city of Palto for recognizing May 10th, 2026 as Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Mental Health Day. This proclamation is especially meaningful because it highlights the importance of mental health awareness in AHPI communities and the need to reduce stigma around seeking support. Although mental health affects people of every background, ahpi communities often face unique cultural and linguistic barriers that can make it harder to access care or talk openly about mental health struggles. A NHPI mental health day reminds us that mental health is just as important as physical health and that no one should feel ashamed to ask for help. It is also an opportunity to encourage more culturally responsive mental health services and to create communities where people feel seen, supported, and understood. As a youth leader, this day is important to me because it sends the message that conversations about mental health matter and that we can all play a role in supporting one another with empathy and compassion. Today, I encourage everyone to take action by checking in on friends and family, learning more about mental health resources, and helping create spaces where people feel safe talking about their experiences. Even small acts of support and understanding can make a meaningful difference. Thank you again to the Palto community for recognizing a NHPI mental health day. >> Well, thank you Camille. Well said. We're glad you're here. Would you like to come up and take a photo with council? >> Yes, definitely. All right. So, we'll move on to agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Mr. City Manager, do we have any? >> Thank you, Mayor. Just want to note for the public's awareness that we did issue an amended agenda that removed item eight uh from the consent calendar and there was also a supplemental report added for item number 12 related to old trace road and those are the only changes to your agenda this evening. >> Yeah, I would just note that because um we have moved the break to as is noted on the agenda to be taken after item 13 action item 13. Action item 13 should actually be noticed for 6:35. So, anyone who wants to give public comment on that, please be aware of that as well. Okay. And with that, um, we will move on to public comment on items not on the agenda. So, madame clerk, how many speakers do we have? >> We have one request to speak for items not on the agenda. And our first speaker is Larry M. Mayor Vinker, >> welcome. >> Hi. Thank you, Vice Mayor Stone, members of the council. I'm Larry Moody. I serve as the government affairs community leazison for one of your partner organizations, job train. I I'm here just to kind of give you an update and uh and also to make a uh offer you an invitation to one of our graduations since we're in the graduation season. On April 16th, John Job Train held their annual breakfast of champions event at the San Francisco Hyde in Berlin game. Dr. Naen Burke Harris, the awardwinning physician, researcher, and public health leader, and California's first ever surgeon general, was the keynote speaker. Personal thanks to Council Member Pat Burke for your attendance and support of our breakfast of champions event. Uh, congratulations to Stanford University and hospital as a recipient of the Paul Cook Alumni Employer Partner Award. Job train gives this award out uh annually to the employer that has best served our graduates out of job train. Over the last five years, Stanford univers uh hospital has hired 94 job trained graduates. Over the past five years, the university has hired 72 job trained graduates. We ex we um appreciate their partnership. Our graduates getting involved with the university and the hospital system are on a pathway towards economic mobility and we celebrate those partnerships. On May 21st from 4 to 7 p.m. we're offering career fairs at Bell Haven Community Campus. We're going to have 20 employers. We will welcome the opportunity to partner with the city of Palo Alto in hosting career fairs in the futures with your local employers. Uh once again being this of the graduation season, we wish to invite members of the council to the spring graduation of job train June 25th at 5:00 p.m. at Kenyatta College. We will be hosting our medical assistant graduates, certified nursing program graduates, carpentry, building maintenance, HVAC graduates, IT support, culinary arts, and our digital literacy graduates. That's on the 25th and you're all invited to attend. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. That's an that's an impressive list and uh we appreciate the former mayor V Palawalta joining us in our chambers. Thank you. All right. And so that I think you just said that that's that's it for a public comment. Okay, great. All right. So, colleagues, let's move on to council member questions, comments, and announcements. >> Council member Rectal. >> Yeah. Yeah. as the chair of the retail or I guess now economic development uh committee. I was thinking of perhaps pulling item six um because the downtown merchants do have a request for >> Are you doing consent calendar or >> Yeah, I'm I'm just giving quick comments since we don't have time before the consent calendar. Anyway, uh I really want to get that going this year to help the merchants downtown, but the city manager clarified the deadlines and it's unlikely that we could make those deadlines and so I will not be pulling item six. >> Thank you, Council Member Lowing. >> Yeah, we're still doing council member comments, correct? >> Okay. Um uh I I put my light on because all seven of us probably will to talk about um the wonderful celebration that we had at Homekey. Uh finally welcoming the imminent opening of 88 transitional housing units. uh just spectacular feeling for uh that day and days thereafter that we made that kind of progress from sitting on the sitting on approving it here in 23 and sitting on the dirt and watching the the ribbon cutting not the ribbon cutting but for the digging uh yeah right and and now the ribbon cutting it's just been it's just a great pleasure to experience the whole thing and um as I said I think to the mayor that's why we do this so thanks >> thank you council member Bert Yes. Um I uh just want to echo uh Council Mo member Rectal's comments on the uh business improvement district. Uh we got a response from staff that provided some clarification on what's happening in the process. But what as I read uh actually the state uh law more carefully the a critical step is the council appointing the advisory committee for this and so that I didn't see in the in the staff timeline at all and that looks like um that is necessary in order for that committee then to propose a funding plan which then would allow us to kick off the bid if we chose to do so. So, I want to get that on everybody's radar that that that's a critical path item. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Liths. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Well, um last week was a busy week for the city. A lot to celebrate as council member Lowing um mentioned um the the uh event, the ribbon cutting at uh Homekey. Um, I also want to mention we had a uh uh let's see, was it a ribbon cutting? Um, at the Canery uh on Portage um the SBO organization has opened uh a brand new building there which is just part of what came about through the NVCAP uh process in addition to a wonderful uh building uh with a commercial tenant. Uh there's going to be a retail spa space opening honoring uh of Thomas Funchu, the gentleman who had the third largest canery in America at the time. Uh partially on that site, there's a beautiful mural uh recognizing him and the history of his efforts um flanking the corner of the building. One day there'll be a park there and a re renaturalized creek as well as an affordable housing complex. It is the beginning of a number of exciting things that are happening on that site. Uh many of us were there to celebrate and just want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of effort on the part of the community over the years as well as staff to ultimately make that happen. Uh there was another exciting event um at the pro. Uh I could only see through the windows. The crowd was so thick. I was there on the sidewalk peering over taller people's shoulders to see um the excitement unfold at the Pro, formerly the Old Pro, uh right here on Ramona Street. Um very exciting to have um that bar, that restaurant there, sports bar vibe uh back on uh on Ramona. And uh the last thing that I want to me Oh no, there was another event at uh um uh uh Cogwell Plaza on Friday. It was our annual honoring of PaloAlto Police Department's three fallen officers, Lester Cole, Gene Clifton, and Ted Brasinga. Um which happened to coincide with National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Peace Officers Memorial Day. Uh there are three incredible redwoods that stand at the corner of Cogwell Plaza and uh very fitting that that we happen to have three officers to commemorate and remember each year. Um it was a solemn and somber event um but also beautiful uh really important that our city makes that effort every year to honor our fallen officers. And um finally, looking ahead, I want to remind us all that the city of Palo Alto is pulling off its first ever Pride event on June 7th from 2:00 to 5:00 right here at city hall. That's a Sunday. And um the event is really the brainchild of a number of volunteers in the community, most notably our youth. This event is youthled. It centers on our youth, but it is open to people of all ages and backgrounds. It will feature performers. It will feature speakers. It will have resource tableabling, a raising of the progressive pride flag, and it'll culminate in a party on our Carfree Street, Ramona, which I just mentioned as being the home of the pro. Um, I want to thank Director Kristen O'Ne. Uh it's been a tremendous undertaking on top of other things she's involved with in leading more of which we'll hear about tonight when we get to Coverly. Um but thank you so much. Um there's a beautiful sticker. Now I think last week we saw that the police department has put together a pride bad uh badge that the uh police officers will be wearing during the month of June which is known as Pride Month. And hot off the presses, this sticker that you can see on the screen, the PaloAlto Pride sticker established 2026, which is a lovely way of saying this is the first, many more to come. Very exciting. Get your stickers. Um there's going to be other fun swag at the event as well. Um, and I do want to take the opportunity in addition to thanking staff um, and all the volunteers who've been uh, meeting on Sunday nights to uh, work out the details. We have managed to garner a tremendous number of sponsors to help fund this thing. We have actually met our um, our budget goal. Uh, and I want to just thank the sponsors in uh, order of the level of sponsorship. So, um, our city council, um, has designated funds from our council contingency funds. Uh, Director Okane's community service department has, uh, made a budget contribution. Um, at the platinum level, we have PaloAlto Recreation Foundation, known as PARF. At the gold level, uh, the the platinum level is $5,000. At the gold level of 2500, we have Stamford Healthcare. We have Embaradero Media. at that level in kind donations. Um, at the thousand level, which is the silver level, we have Grocery Outlet, PaloAlto Community Fund, Rivian, Stanford University, Kaiser, Sutter Health, and Jennifer Drienza and Jesse Dorugger. At the $500 level, which is bronze, we have Bamech, Society of Hearts Delight, and Yudi Deng. And at the 300 level, we have PaloAlto University Rotary and Youth Community Service is our fiscal sponsor for this event. If I have left any sponsors off the list, I apologize. We'll be back next next meeting to list more if there are any others. But just a huge thank you to everybody who has come together to make this an exciting uh and fingers crossed successful uh first ever Pride event for Palo Alto. We can certainly be proud uh that the community has come together to do this. That's it for me. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh a reminder that on Thursday, May 21st from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. we'll be celebrating the replacement of the New Road Bridge. So that's a that's a key piece I know for the for the reach 2 project and a longtime capital project that we've been waiting to do. So excited to be there and celebrate with our neighbors in East PaloAlto and Menllo Park and everything that staff's been doing to prepare for that. So thank you. And then since we're not meeting next week, uh, on May 28th at the SFC JAPA meeting on Thursday at 3:30 p.m. in at the Menllo Park City Hall, we'll be certif Well, we'll be discussing certifying the Safer Bay final EIR. So, if anyone would like to weigh in on their comments there, that is again on May 28th at 3:30 p.m. at the Menllo Park City Hall. And then finally, just want to give a big thanks to the to the city and our police department for I know and and all of our first responders for all the work that they've been doing over time over the weekend and tomorrow with the BTS concert. I know we've been seeing tens of thousands of more people in our city over the last several days and um and and really making PaloAlto kind of just uh a a I guess PaloAlto and Stanford a a real hot spot for for global music. And so being able to welcome the BTS army has been a pretty exciting thing. And I will say definitely my my students up in Belmont and St. Carlos pretty envious that I told them that I was able to open up my windows on Saturday night and hear dynamite word for word from my apartment which was which was pretty cool. I guess it was because of the wind last night I couldn't hear a thing but Saturday night heard the entire concert for free. That was uh quite the experience. So I enjoyed it. I recognize probably not every resident did, but thanks to the city uh for to the city manager's office and all of our first responders for all the work they've been doing over the weekend, and I know tomorrow night we're not through it. So, keep up the good work. Thanks, >> Council Member Rectal. >> Yeah. Yeah. One thing I did not mention, the city has this series of neighborhood meetings and this Wednesday, the Baron Park uh and also a couple other surrounding neighborhoods will have a neighborhood meeting 5:30 to 7:30 at station 5, fire station 5, which is on Rostadero. So, we're looking forward to have Oh, yeah. And council member Latut Haynes and I will be hosting that. So, we hope to see community out there have their questions and comments for the community. and for both council and staff. Thanks. >> All right. Thank you. What a city. Um so much going on. Uh I just wanted to add that yes, when you look at um Mitchell Park Place, the Canary and Homeke all opening within one week. That is just extraordinary housing progress and we should be proud. And uh like I said before, we are redefining the PaloAlto process. We are getting things done. We are getting housing of all different kinds opening opened in our city. So it's uh it's a good moment to to be proud of that. Um and yes, the the thank you council member Liths for mentioning the uh police memorial. Um that was quite a moving and wonderful tribute that we had last Friday. Um I also wanted to mention um Avanitus and its uh award its lifetimes of achievement awards that were yesterday and uh council member Bird and I were there and so I want to congratulate the recipients. Michael Chang, PhD, former mayor I believe of Certino. Uh Kathleen Foley Hughes and Tony Hughes of Adah's Cafe. Sue Crumbine, Nancy Giddensburg Stern, and Rick Stern, and Kathy Torerson. I mean, they're all stars in their own right, and to see them all together, and to think of their bodies of work collectively was truly just tremendous yesterday. So, congratulations to all of them. Um, excuse me. Uh, and I am sad that I could not get to the the pro- opening because I was at a Northern California Power Agency executive committee meeting. And so, uh, that work goes on. Uh, and, uh, it was in Sacramento, but we are moving forward on selection of a new general manager. Um and finally I wanted to mention that uh neighbors abroad has uh most of the delegation has arrived in our sister city of link shaping Sweden uh where there will be cultural exchanges. I know uh council member Lowing's wife is there and uh leading a lot of that delegation and uh there are various exchanges. We also have our own uh sustainability director Christine Long is there uh on a special program uh designed uh for the sustainability fellow and and uh exchanging with the university there. Um and I will be joining them. In fact, I will be leaving tonight uh from this council meeting around 8:30ish or so to fly overnight and catch the last couple of days of that delegation meeting. So many many things going on in our vibrant city. It's very exciting. All right. So with that, we will move on to the consent calendar. Just one moment. Madame clerk, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar items 2 through 12? >> Yes, we do. Our first speaker is Charlie W. IL and staff Charlie Widance PaloAlto Chamber of Commerce and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce to express our strong support for item number six on the consent to calendar which proposes suspending the levy of assessments on the downtown PaloAlto business improvement district for the fiscal year 2026. 7. We appreciate the staff's ongoing business outreach efforts to discuss the future options of the bid with downtown stakeholders. This includes the renewal of the monthly meetings that began in April, which will continue to feature the bid as a key agenda item. Maintaining consistent engagement with the businesses, property owners, and community members is vital. Suspending this assessment for the upcoming fiscal year provides staff and business owners with the necessary opportunity to evaluate the future of our downtown commercial district, particularly the critical initiatives like the University Avenue streetscape project. Continuing the waiver for fiscal year 27 ensures that this important work can be moved forward while the city develops a comprehensive long-term approach to the downtown economic development and defines the future of the bid. We view this sus this suspension as a practical way to sustain economic development while we collectively work on broader long-term vitality policies such as the retail vitality and zoning updates on your agenda this evening. And downtown businesses have recently expressed the desire for enhanced services to address cleanliness and homelessness outreach. This suspension provides an ideal window for staff to engage with stakeholders and determine if a restructured bid might play a meaningful role in addressing these challenges. Thank you. Um, mayor, before we proceed with public comment, we just received an additional um, one moment eight speakers uh, to add to this list. So not sure if you are um interested in adjusting time and that's uh we have one group speaker representing five a group of five. >> So we have one group plus how many individuals out that are not in the group? I lost the math there. >> So one group and the rest are individuals. So I guess six speakers and one of those speakers is a group. >> So one group plus five and one has gone. Okay. So um let's go with the group. Um sorry 18. Let's let's go with let's go ahead and give the others uh two uh three minutes since we gave the first speaker three. Um and let's uh go with the group um of uh eight minutes. >> Our next speaker is Jeannie C. Are these all for the consent calendar? I'm going to need to recalculate. >> Uh yes, there's an additional um speaker for item 12. These are all for item 12. Um >> and I think it's to request that it's to be moved off of the consent calendar to the agenda. >> Sorry, you're unable to to speak. >> Yeah. Just So, madame clerk, how how many individual speakers do we have that are not in the group? One moment. Thank you. And I might uh just point out that uh to the extent these relate to uh item 12, I want to make sure that the public has seen the supplemental report that was added in our packet. I'll I'll let you start in just a minute. I want to Not if you've already spoken. >> Yeah. I I think it's a procedural question as to whether if if one speaks now and it gets pulled or I guess what you're asking is do you want to wait and speak after it's pulled in case it but it may not be. So >> well if you would need to request it now and then I don't believe there's a chance to speak a second time, but I'm looking at the city attorney. >> Yeah, I would No, those you are taking public comments on the consent calendar now. At at this point, no item has been pulled. So, it'll be public comments on all items on the consent calendar at this point. >> No, I understand. I think what she's asking is were something to be pulled and heard, could they speak again? >> U that would be at your discretion. and they'd have they're having an opportunity to address council on you know the all items on the consent calendar now so there's no Brown Act requirement to allow them to speak again. >> Thank you. Okay. Um because we do have a full agenda and uh I'm going to have to leave and would like to try to vote on the two items. Um I'm going to since I gave the first speaker three minutes before I was aware that this was happening. Um I will allow three but I would ask for anyone who can keep it to two. would be great, but we want to hear from you. So, please go ahead. >> My name is Jeannie Clancy and I live at 4146 Old Trace Road and I am speaking on or I respectfully request that you pull the 413 Old Trace Road off of the consent calendar and move it to the agenda. Because at the planning and transportation committee meeting, we were shocked to hear the city planner say that she did not evaluate the fire danger for the area when they evaluated the lot and so the fire danger was not even part of her evaluation and we think that this is deserves further communication and public comment. Old Trace Road provides the only fire emergency fi lane to Esther Clark Park which of course you know is a 21 acre nature preserve right at the end of our street. And so this proposed lot will be at the intersection of a rastero which is a critical east west evacuation route for hundreds of homes. PaloAlto, Los Altos Hills use Raststero, which is only a two little two-lane road. And so having it right there at that intersection, increasing the density without without the proper studies is going to be a real safety threat. This project is not SQA is SQA exempt and so it didn't go through the normal rigorous environmental, fire or traffic safety studies which they it would have failed. the project would have been denied. Um the I'll try to keep this short. My only thing is is Oh, oh, sorry, one last thing. Uh this this project is within the PaloAlto Foothills Emergency Management Protection Area and the Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Plan. These are specific designated areas of fire high fire danger risk and we have active mitigation for the fire danger and this neighborhood is the only re zone neighborhood within this district or within the fire emergency management plan that is not exempt from bonus density. Please consider this when looking at this project. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Heather C. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Charlie Leash M. Good evening. Uh my name is Shales Shmera. I go by Shaloo. I live on Mockingbird Lane. These are my neighbors. Um this is uh we're here to uh express our concerns about uh the safety and public uh the the public safety concerns that we don't think have been adequately addressed in this plan and that we don't think can be mitigated with the density that's being proposed. Um I and I just want to point out some basic facts about our neighborhood. As you heard, we um so we we're zone residential estates. Uh there's one Ingress Egress store neighborhood. It's the we're we're a rostero and old trace. Um that leads into you know 29 residences right now. Uh now this project is concentrated at that one ingress egress with there's going to be 16 homesteads there right uh we have already historically had uh issues with uh evacuation you know and when particularly when there's been fire hazards and with safety vehicles with emergency vehicles coming. We've had multiple incidents in our neighborhood where emergency vehicles could not get through because of the parking on both sides of of a rostered air or sorry on uh on old trays. Uh and that's with the density that we we have currently. uh we we there was a statement in this supplemental uh in this uh supplemental plan that said that somehow the plan is going to improve uh these uh these issues and I think that doesn't uh that doesn't stand to reason and I would ask that we actually take this seriously I one I ask whether it's forwardlooking if you think about for instance the impact that SB9 is going have on our neighborhood. We have 29 residences right now under SB9 that you know the the plots can be multiplied essentially by four and there's only ministerial review that's allowed by the city at that point. So that kind of growth is going to happen organically in our neighborhood right and the probably in the relatively near future. We also have any number of empty lots in our neighborhood, you know, oneacre lots. And I can assure you that based on the development that's being done all already based on this plan, developers already coming in and looking at those. So irrespect even even assuming that this plan was not to go forward we would have an issue with safety vehicles entering with egress ingress egress and with evacuation just based on organic growth with the president precedent that this sets there who knows what the number of uh of of homes is going to be multiplied by. Then we have all the cars that are going to be in this uh at this intersection. Now bear in mind the statutes that are being relied on here, all of which we concur are well-intentioned. Whether it's the state density bonus law, whether you know it's AB130, uh uh they all are centered, they're all intended and they expressly reference that uh transit considerations that they are supposed to encourage, you know, development by mass transit. We are nowhere near mass transit. This project is going to multiply car density in an area that's 100% car dependent and that's nowhere near mass transit. This is simply not an appropriate place for this kind of development. It's not what was contemplated by any of these statutes. We it's we are in a sem semi-ural area. By putting this number of vehicles at our single ingress egress, you are putting our safety at risk. Uh and you know there was a glib statement in the supplemental that said that as I was saying earlier that uh the study shows that uh the situation will improve particularly because there's a flashing light being proposed for Roststerero. I have asked members I have asked some of you for those flashing lights years ago long before this development was being proposed. That has nothing to do with the ingress egress issue. It has nothing to do with evacuation. The flashing lights not going to do anything for evacuation. It's not going to do anything for safety vehicles entering. It's something that we need just from a day-to-day perspective because of the amount of traffic that there is already on a raster arrow. there's no way that you can tell me it's not it doesn't stand to reason that that's actually a mitigation for the two concerns that I'm raising. Um so with that if you think about what we have 29 residents right now there's going to be 16 added at that single ingress egress as I said just by SB9 alone the number of residents that we can have is going to be multiplied by four I don't see how you can come can have a plan or a traffic study that doesn't take into account what's likely to happen in the immediate future and take into account the situation with the traffic and safety when the inevitable happens and it's it's coming it's coming down the pike unless you're planning unless the intention is to impose you know by imminent domain or whatever means a grid on top of our neighborhood that doesn't exist right now we have three culde-sacs one ent entrance uh one exit I would ask that we have a realistic study done about the real effects on our safety with the growth that's going to happen both organically and as a consequence of this project. >> Thank you. Our next speaker is Shosana L. Muted. Okay. Hi. Thank you. Um I am Can you hear me? I live at 940 Old Trace Court, which happens to be the third culde-sac. Um, as many people have said, I happen to have a member of my family in a wheelchair. It is an active concern that we have and we are actively working on fire evacuation routes, on preparation, preparedness, on everything that we need to be able to evacuate effectively. This poses a great risk to us and I know the the developers have advocated that it actually adds one more exit. But the exit that it may provide is the benefit that that will give us is detrimentally below what what the risk is going to be added. Now the one thing that hasn't necessarily been brought up yet has been the insurance concerns. We've already had our insurance possibly being revoked. They've threatened that several times due to fire concerns. We have not yet heard how much this will increase our personal homers insurance rates over time. This has not been discussed by developers what kind of risk this will put to us. There has already been concerns about our traffic ability to exit as I said the ingress and outgress of of this street. When the barriers were put up on Foothill Expressway to be able to have people turn right, it has caused a huge backup onto our street. It's impossible for people to understand the amount of impact that this will have when you add 16 homes, the amount of cars. But not only that, the amount of delivery trucks that will come, Amazon, Door Dash, UPS, you cannot anticipate how many times a day someone will deliver something based on the amount of homes that are currently on this street. You're going to triple the amount of people that are on the tiny corner that we have. And this poses a great risk. I would really, really, really urge you to give this serious concern about what is going to happen in the future. As my neighbor has said, each one of us can then split our lot and then the city is not prepared on how to protect us from each other doing this, how to make it so that we're going to be safe. Again, the developer is going to say that they're looking to beautify the area, that we need homes and housing, and they are absolutely right, and this would be very appropriate somewhere where it can handle it. This is not the appropriate lot. And I beg to state that it is PaloAlto agreeing to do this in the city is putting these people, including myself, in serious future danger. Future danger that I don't think should be ignored. So, I seriously think that the traffic evaluations and the fire evaluations and safety concerns need to be reconsidered. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ellen S. Ellen S. >> Hello. Um, my name is Ellen Shay. I'm the PAN representative for Esther Clark Park. Um, I've read all these things and I understand there's a lot of restrictions um on the council to intervene in these things. Um, but first I just like to remember to say it would be very wonderful if there was more apparent effort to kind of help um ameliate these things to soften them somehow. Um because you know this will really change the character of our neighborhood. Um for example, I've I've looked at how many parking places they'll planning provide that says 21 and how many bedrooms, how many ADUs, JDUs, and I predict there's going to be every day an average of at least 10 overflow vehicles. And if you looked at our road, you'd see that would that would not be and everybody always wants to park as close as possible. So, um I don't know how to make that better. Maybe we can only park on one side of the street or something. Um also on the new map there's a there's a question about they show their fire road being 30 feet wide. I don't that I don't know if that's really true. I think that would that's the easement. So, it actually be 20 ft. Um I mean there's a promise in these papers about getting the um the flashing light And I'm excited about that. Um I hope it's true and I don't know how that is gets managed if the it it seems to say that they're going to pay for it, but I'm just wondering if that's really true and how that'll work with the city. Um because the city obviously has to approve it. Maybe they pay the city to install it. I don't know. That just seems like something that might not work out, especially since there's been a traffic study that's denied uh the need for the cross plastic crosswalk in the past. And the fire risk um our our insurance has already um gone up, not from this development, but um my insurance company shows, you know, levels of risk. We're in the lowest one for increased fire risk, one out of three, I think, of levels. But, you know, our rates went up. They required us to um put in water shut off systems. And if you didn't already have a fire uh um alarm system, you had to get one of those. So, that was quite expensive for us. Um and they they set these things by now satellite photos and drones. So, they do they go around and look and see, you know, what your neighbor looks like. And I definitely does feel like they're looking for reasons to increase our insurance. So, um, okay, I think that was all I wanted to say. Okay, thank you very much. Our next speaker is Conoir D. >> Good evening and thank you uh for your time this evening. Um I don't have a lot of additional things to add you know in terms of the points uh our neighbors have made. Uh by the way I'm also neighbor of resident of the neighborhood live on old trace road. Um I wanted to just point to this particular uh map of of the subdivision. There are and these have by the way these things have persisted from the very first meeting like in the PTC meeting the one prior to that as well and it shows old trace road as 40 ft. It's not 40 feet, it's 30 feet. We don't know where this is coming from, but it doesn't seem to go away. Um, it shows the the new road that's being cut to be 30 feet, it's 20 feet. So, I mean, these are not opinions. These are This is a print out off off of the city's website. So, we'd like to There's so many open factual issues related to this project that have not been addressed. Yeah, you know, the applicants always had the last word on these and and there's a narrative been set that, you know, everything is like hunky dory. I'd love somebody to explain this. It says old road is 40. No production car can turn around in 30 ft. Leave alone fire trucks and that sort of stuff. So, we'd love to have this sort of stuff clarified before anything moves forward. That's all. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is John C. John C, you should be able to unmute yourself. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Well, first of all, thanks for for having me. Um, so I think this discussion is great um with these different perspectives and we're all learning from from one another. Um but again I was born and raised in Palo Alto, grew up in Baron Park and spent a lot of time visiting friends in Los Alto Sils and um you know Baron Park is a very dense area. We have very tight roads um like Los Silva, Kendall Avenue, Military Way, Baron Avenue by El Camino and even Los Robels if you go right up against Gun High School. And we've always felt safe. Um we've seen emergency vehicles turn through these areas. Um so you know our perspective coming from a much more dense area is that housing. We need more of it. We're excited about this project. We need more housing. Um and again I'm very familiar with the area and I don't see um any issues. It it's interesting to me though. I get the perspective of the people that are living there and they have acre lots and it's more of a Los Altos Hills perspective and I wish that they would uh spend more time going through other parts of PaloAlto and Baron Park and and other areas that are more dense where they can see that we feel very safe and um our emergency vehicles get around fine. So again, thank you for your time. Our next speaker is Chris B. >> Hey, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> I'm so with the pleasantry. >> Sir, you're kind of cutting in and out of the wildife here. Can you hear me better now? >> That seems a little better. Yes. But >> can you hear me better now? A little bit. >> Yes. >> Uh I've come to speak on behalf of the wildlife here. Very sensitive area and I have seen this coming a long time because this blood has been vacant for a long time. And um you know this housing hysteria has just reached such a point with you. I just don't get it with you guys. like first it's all we're going to stay near the train or only with the bus stop or whatever. It's only a matter of time before you guys want to put a skyscraper on top of Skyline Boulevard. I mean, good god, nine homes on It's not a big site. It's really not a big site. There's probably room for two homes, honestly. Four homes if you really wanted to slam them in there real close and stuff. I mean, good God. And to respond to what was just said here, I mean, Baron Park is is much more accessible than this place. This place is is off the grid in a way that Baron Park just is not. I mean, Baron Park is right next to El Camino. This place is just not as accessible. It's going to be a much longer time for people to get there. And it is more constricted than Baron Park. That is just a straight up lie. I don't know why someone would say that. But, um, it's a very beautiful area. Whatever is done here, I would just absolutely implore you to have giant trees ringing the entire property because otherwise it's just so sunny that all of the water will just be completely dried up and you'll just be creating like an ecological disaster. Whereas, if you had like a nice property with some nice houses here, you could actually improve the situation for the various wildlife that uh need this area. You know, I grew up on Miranda Road, not far from here. There is all kinds of stuff out there you wouldn't believe. Foxes and, you know, even mountain lions sometimes come down this way. I see coyotes, turkeys, all sorts of cool stuff. And it's just really sad that I don't know. I don't just don't get it. Like I heard some of the comments from the council about ah we're changing the PaloAlto process. Like we had the PaloAlto process here to protect the environment. That's why we do this stuff. That's why we stall the biggest moneyed interests. That's why we take so long is because we don't want to ruin everything for nothing. Because to tell you the truth, building more houses isn't going to lower housing prices. I've tried to tell you guys this. I'm going to have more about this later. I realize my time's up. And uh thank you for your consideration. >> And that concludes public comment on consent calendar items 2 through 7 and 9 through 12 as agenda item number eight was removed off of the agenda. All right. Thank you, Madame Clerk. And I want to thank all of our public commenters, especially those who took the time to come down here. I know this is a close-hitting and heartfelt issue for many of you. So, thank you. Um, that said, colleagues, I'll bring it back to the deis and ask for any no votes, requests to pull, recusals, or a motion to approve. And actually, I'll start with me. I will recuse myself on item 11 that involves Stanford University because I continue to uh provide legal services to the university. Council member Lowing, I watched much of the hearing when this item I won't comment. I'll say excuse me um I can understand the reasons for um pulling this item with respect to reviewing safety outside of the boundaries uh of the law. So I would I would vote to pull it. >> Council member Lou uh I uh for uh similar reasons we'll need to recuse from item 11 that relates to Stanford. Council member Bert, >> I support uh pulling the um item 12 for public safety reasons. >> There we go. Council member Liths, >> I will also support pulling item 12 for public safety reasons. >> Okay. So, I understand that that for a variety of reasons needs to be heard tonight, right? Do you want to go ahead? >> That's That's correct. Uh and uh perhaps I'll check with staff to see if we could hear it either at the beginning of your action items or at the end. Your choice, uh mayor, but I'll double check with staff. >> Okay. Thank you. Um yeah, and let's confer. All right. So, that action will be pulled and will be heard tonight. So with that, we will move on and to a vote on the other remaining consent calendar items uh with uh council member Lou and I recused from item 11. >> So madam clerk, if you >> I'm sorry. >> I was moving the consent calendar. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Thank you. Thank you. All right, madam clerk. That's a complicated vote, but if you could lead us through it, I'd appreciate it. >> Yes. Um I missed who the second was. Vice Mayor Stone, please. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Yes. >> Council member Bert. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Yes. >> Council member Lethod Hayes. >> Council member Lou. Yes. >> Council member Rectal. >> Yes. >> Council member Lowing. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Thank you. And with that, we'll move on to city manager comments. >> See Mayor, would you like to address the order of the action items now or or perhaps we should do that following my comments? Your >> Yeah, we have a what looks like an extraordinary number of people here on the coverly matter. And so I think we ought to at least take that item first on action and then where we splice this one in we perhaps we can confer before >> okay happens. >> Very good. All right. With that in mind I will be very quick with manager comments. In fact uh many of the items I'll uh mention have already been mentioned by council members under your uh comments. So uh first off just wanted to uh flag for council and community awareness uh that the city will be applying for a pro housing designation from the state and part of the process involved with that uh designation is a public review of our application. The uh statement or the application that the city will be submitting uh I believe has now been posted. So we've got a web page here shown on the screen. It's peloalto.gov/proousing application, all one word. And uh we'll have information on that on the city's website. Next slide, please. Uh as was noted earlier, this Thursday, May 21st, will be the uh celebration for the uh initiation of construction of the new road bridge over the San Francisco Creek. 11:00 a.m. Next slide, please. uh also flagging and all all of the items I have this evening are related to upcoming items or issues uh for community awareness. uh here uh it's not an event, but we do want to na uh note both for members of the traveling public through our foothills as well as uh any residents in the area that uh the Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council as well as the city are working on annual uh vegetation management or really uh vegetation clearing in order to uh mitigate any fire risk. uh and that work has begun now uh began today and will continue through mid June uh during weekdays. Uh so again do want to ensure that uh people traveling through the area are aware of that work ongoing. Next slide please later uh actually on June 3rd. So just noting that your next uh city council meeting isn't until the uh first week in June. want to flag uh for your and community awareness that we'll be opening the Brian Street uh community center uh teen center as well as home of Lakome's uh senior lunch program. This will be Wednesday, June 3rd at 4 p.m. Next slide, please. Also noted earlier, the city's uh first uh Pelto Pride event is scheduled for June 7th. That's Sunday 2 to 5:00 p.m. here on King Plaza in front of City Hall. Next slide, please. Then uh just want to take a moment to uh review your upcoming agendas after tonight. Your next uh city council meeting is June 1st. We have scheduled a study session on automated license plate reader system, the annual community development block grant action plan, the follow-up action that was previously deferred on Senate Bill 79, and then a uh action item on the California Avenue outdoor activation requirements. F the meeting to follow that will be June 8th. Uh would be follow-up actions pending your action tonight or direction tonight uh on Coverly. Uh anything related to the ballot would come back on June 8th. Then uh the San Antonio area uh San Anton San Antonio road quarter uh plan uh next steps will be coming to the council also for action. and finally the urban water management plan following discussion at the utility advisory commission. Then your final meeting for the uh fiscal year uh currently planned is on June 15th and there you will be discussing uh potential adoption of your bicycle pedestrian transportation plan as well as your final budget actions. note that we had previously been uh listing the Crescent Park traffic calming item, but now given the heavy docket uh through the month of June, we've now uh moved it to a a date uncertain. So, pending action tonight, as well as actions uh really over the next uh meeting or two, we'll have a better sense of when that item will be heard. And with that, mayor, uh back to you. That completes my comments. >> Thank you very much, city manager. So with that, we will move on to the first of our action items, item 13, the Cberly project. And I will turn it over to the staff that is rapidly approaching uh their seats there. So welcome. I'll give you a minute to get set up and thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Kristen O'Cane and I'm the community services director and to my right is Christine Paris, who is the administrative services assistant director. And we also have several supporting members of our Cubberly team online and in the audience. Um so I first want to start by saying that tonight is really significant. It's a significant milestone in the Cubly project as we are here to present two items that are the result of many months of work from the community staff the council commissions and the ad hoc committee. Tonight, we're here to recommend that the council adopt the conceptual master plan and SQA document and to present the results of the fourth community poll and ask for the council's direction on next steps in advancing the project. If you could go to the next slide, please clerk and you can um go one more slide please. So before we start, I wanted to remind the council and everyone listening and watching tonight where we started and why we're here. We began this effort in December of 2024 when the city council approved a work plan to pursue the purchase of land from the school district at Cberly and improve the site. Following that, the council and the community created this vision statement that continued to guide us as we advance the Cubberly project. And I know it's here in front of you, but I'm going to read it out loud anyways because um it's just a really good reminder of the work that we've been doing and the work that we had ahead have ahead and why we're doing it. The vision is a vibrant, beloved, and adaptable destination that promotes learning, interconnectivity, joy, and well-being where all cultures and generations belong. So, if you could go to the next slide, please, I'll start to talk about how we see that um vision to reality. So this slide again a reminder as to what the city currently owns at Cberly and what we are intending to purchase potentially purchase. Um so the area on the right the purple is what the city currently owns. That's 8 acres and we um had a invitation from the school district to purchase an an additional 7 acres which is the area in yellow. So combined this 15 acres would allow us to really create something at Cubberly for the community and for the community to enjoy. What I wanted to point out also is the area in yellow is occupied right now by the Palo Alto Unified School District mostly their own uses but also some of their tenants. And as the school district would vacate that area of the Cubly site after the purchase, that would allow us to have more flexibility in the site to move people around, move tenants around to keep the site active and um to limit disruption of services and programs at the site. I'll be mentioning that a few times in this presentation because I really want to make sure that um that point is well understood. So, if you could go to the next slide, please. Excuse me. So, to demonstrate what we could do on these 15 acres, we completed a conceptual planning process with the community that resulted in a conceptual master plan and an environmental analysis of the plan. So in the next slide um I'd like to talk a little bit about what does it mean to have a conceptual master plan. This master plan represents a long-term vision for Cubberly. It includes a combination of renovated buildings and new buildings and it serves as a conceptual framework for a phased approach for future development. Phasing allows the site to be improved over time as funding is secured and like I previously said minimizes program disrupt disruption during construction. In addition, these phases could each be developed incrementally, meaning a part of a phase could be done at a time depending on funding availability and readiness of our nonprofit partners, many of who are whom are here tonight. The council has Whoops, excuse me. Staff um are exploring some funding options which will help shape the pace and scope of redevelopment, including a ballot measure, community partnerships, philanthropy, development fees, and grants. Overall, and in summary, the plan represents a concept. It should be considered adaptable. It should be considered dynamic and flexible as the project phases continue to progress and again as we identify funding and um our partners are ready to activate the space. So if you could go to the next slide please. So to go a little bit deeper into the phasing um again this is flexible but in the concept plan this is how the phases are laid out. They could be adjusted. They may not go in this exact order. Um, but phase one includes a mix of new and renovated buildings and facilities such as the recreation wellness center, a performing arts complex, and flexible spaces for education and visual arts to meet the evolving needs of the community. Prior to phase one, property acquisition is paramount in ensuring that we can move forward with these different phases. The next slide shows the concept of phase one. White buildings are new while brown represents renovated buildings. While this is conceptual, again, there are two areas in this phase that could advance more quickly with partner support. And these are the recreation wellness center circled on the right of your screen and the performing arts complex circled on the left of your screen. The city council has improved has approved letters of intent with these two organizations. Um and we will continue to partner on development of these two areas. On the next slide, this summarizes the increase in outdoor and indoor space between the existing site and phase one and then the final two phases. It also shows an increase in parking. So, for example, in phase 1, there's an increase in indoor space from 184,000 ft² to 232,000 ft. And if you go on the next slide, ultimately what this shows is an increase in square footage provides an opportunity for improved facilities for existing users such as our existing nonprofit tenants and our existing user groups like our ballroom dance, senior table tennis, sports clubs, education. It also provides an opportunity for new spaces for our new partners, the Friends of the Recreation Wellness Center, Theater Works, and Aanitas, Maker Nexus, and Palo Alto Community Childare. Those three have developed letters of intent that we will be bringing to council in the future. And then also new city programs and services similar to what we have at other community service, community centers in Peloto. So next slide please. So one of the aspects of doing a master plan and having it adopted by the council is to ensure that we have the appropriate environmental analysis completed. So we did do uh mitigated negative declaration in compliance with SQA and that document was out for public review um in the month of March for 30 days as required and we identified five environmental resources where impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. And um in that process we received seven written comments including one from VTA and we also held um some public meetings at the parks and recck commission and the a joint meeting with the architectural re review board and the planning commission on March 11th. And so I have one more slide if you could advance. Um what's important about adopting the conceptual master plan and SQA document now as even though it's conceptual what this does it is allows us to advance different phases of the project. This includes near-term improvements such as renovations. It includes any partner um projects that are on coverly. Um, for example, the recreation wellness center, the performing arts complex. This SQA document will ensure that we have analyzed all the potential impacts for all these different aspects of the project now. So, when we are ready and we do have funding available, um, we are ready to go. So, I know that was a lot of information and um, it was pretty high level. There's a lot more detail in the staff report on um, the SQA analysis and the master plan. You've seen most of the master plan before, so I kept it high level intentionally and um respectful of time. So I am now going to turn it over to um Miss Paras to present the results of poll number four. >> Hi, good evening council. Christine Paras, assistant director of administrative services. Um next slide. There you go. Um the city engaged with FM3 to develop and conduct polling for placing the potential measure on the November 2026 ballot. This is the fourth and final community poll and ran it ran from March 19 to 28. Um specifically the poll was designed to test a couple areas. Uh ballot measure language for a half cent and a quarter cent sales tax measure. um to evaluate whether partnership agreements or other additional revenue sources such as development impact fees, grants, or philanthropy will increase voter support for a ballot measure and to test whether the presence of a competing tax measure influenced voter willingness to support a a sales tax measure. Um we have on Zoom uh Miranda Everett, partner at FM3 to present uh detail of the fourth poll. So, I'll turn it over to you, Miranda. >> Thank you, Christine. Um, and thank you, counselors, and and mayor and staff uh for uh listening to my presentation today. Um, if you move to the next slide, we should have my title slide. Yeah, there we go. Um, and the next slide uh digs into our survey methodology, which I'll just recap briefly. Uh, as was just mentioned, uh, we surveyed March 18th through 26th of 2026. So these results are just about a month and a half uh ago. This was done using our dual mode approach which pairs landline uh and uh cell phone interviews with uh online methods uh generated by emails and text messages. So kind of every way we know how to get a hold of folks. You'll note we also have tracking data dating back to 2013 because we've been partnering with the city for many years on different projects and have some comparison data over time. What's important to note is the overall margin of error here is about 5%. For our half samples, and we'll call those out when we see them, our margin of error is 6.9%. And that's as a result of having 411 total interviews for the city. Um, and that's a fairly robust sample size for a city. Often for entire statewide projects, I'll do 600 to 800 interviews. So, um, that gave us a a fairly robust margin of error. So digging into the results of the survey starting on the next slide and the slide after that. Um one question we like to start many surveys with is to just get a sense of whether people are feeling optimistic or pessimistic in general. Um and you can see right now when we ask people are things in Peloto headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track. Uh they're pretty mixed. 36% say things are headed in the right direction. uh 38% say they don't know, 26% say wrong track. So um kind of you know very uh mixed views as as I just mentioned and as you can see that has been pretty consistent dating back to 2018 um that that level of uh sort of ambivalence um compared to 2016 when we had 61% feeling like things were headed in the right direction. I will note this compares pretty favorably to lots of other cities in the West Coast where folks are feeling even more pessimistic than this. Um, so that's just some context there. On the next slide, we have some questions more specifically about Cubberly. Uh, we asked folks uh whether they have visited the Cubberly Community Center. Um, on the next slide. Great. Thank you. Uh, whether they have visited the Coverly Center to participate in classes or programs there and whether they've taken part in workshops, community meetings, or town hall discussions about plans for the site. Uh you can see the answer to the second question on the lefth hand side, the first question on the right hand side. Uh just 15% say they have participated in town halls, community meetings, workshops, those sort of um participatory uh sessions. But 63% of voters have uh visited Cberly or have someone in their household who have. So for the most part, these voters are people who who do have that kind of personal connection to the center. On the next slide, you can see uh the answer to a broader question we asked, which is whether people believe that PaloAlto has a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds to provide safety, electrical, and other basic updates for community center facilities. Now, this is a question um as you'll see in a moment that we've sort of been tweaking over time to capture the things that voters are kind of most concerned about. uh just wanted to get a sense of before we give them ballot measure language or or rather the uh after that we give them ballot measure language but just to sort of set the stage do they see a need for funding at all and you can see fewer than half believe that the city has great or some need for these facilities 12% say that the need is great 34% say there is some need about 35% say that there's a little or no real need and then almost 20% say they don't know so there's definitely sort sort of an information gap um that's present in the community when its comes to the need for additional funding. The next slide shows a comparison of how we've been asking that question in the past. Uh so the first row there is the data we see um from that I that I just showed you from the most recent poll. Um the rows below that are from our prior polls in January 2026 as well as when we've asked that question um in prior years. And you can see this is a greater share um than those who believed there was a great need or some need for updated facilities to provide services. When we asked that a little bit differently, as you can see um this was more about services to for classes, camps, fitness programs, drop-in casual spaces, the degree of folks who saw a great or some need was just 29%. So when we really focus a lot more on the physical upgrades, electrical safety, those kind of basic updates, we do see a greater share of folks who see at least some need for additional funding. So just as a comparison point there, uh the next uh slide, two slides ahead, shows how few people feel about a ballot measure. Now, best practice in our uh polling world is to give people the 75 words that they may see on their ballot. And you can see what that looked like on the next slide. and the results of that. So, we gave people um basically what they might see on the ballot. It's got a lot of kind of legal ease, a little bit of uh the accountability pieces as well as some details of how the money might be spent, uh the amount of the sales tax and what it would raise, those kinds of details that are required by law. And we asked people whether they would vote yes or no. And if they told us they were undecided, we said, "Are you leaning toward yes or no?" And then counted that toward the yes and the no votes as well. And you can see we have support from a majority. 55% say they would vote yes. 37% say they would vote no. About 7% here are undecided. What's notable here is that that's right at the margin of error uh of the survey for passage. We've got a vote threshold of 50% plus one. We've got a margin of error of about 5%. Um so this right out of the gate here um is something that uh could be viable, but everything would kind of have to go right for you all. 55% yes. um it is better than some of the other measures I've been seeing especially given people's concerns about the cost of living and the war in Iran and you know sort of other things that are going on and making things feel unstable right now. Um so that's sort of where you are initially with just the ballot measure language alone and I think it's important on the next slide to uh talk about how that's changed since our prior poll. Now, we've provided the language of the January 2026 poll as well as the March 2026 poll and highlighted the places where we made little line edits based on what we learned from the last round of polling. Wanted to put our best foot forward and change things just a little bit. Um, and you can see we have improved in numbers there. We are seven points higher than we were in January when we were um sort of underwater at 48% yes, 41% no. We are now at 55% yes, 37% no. Um, so that is a a notable improvement outside the margin of error within just three months based on that slight change in language and the passage of time. Digging into the demographics, starting on the next slide, we can see nearly twothirds of Democrats support the measure. 64% say they would vote yes. Uh, independents are pretty split. 47% yes to 55 45% no rather. Uh, and Republicans 62% no. uh citywide we see by gender there's not much of a difference statistically speaking majority support uh in either case a little bit higher among women and then no real difference uh statistically among different age groups. We still have majority support across uh all the different uh age categories that we've broken out here. The next slide shows how this breaks out by whether people have that had that kind of experience with Coverly. they or them themselves or someone in their family has visited Cberly and whether they see a need for funding. And I think what you see is is really notable here. If you see a great or some need for funding, you are very likely to support a measure. 77% said they would vote yes. Just 32% who said they see a little or no real need for funding say they would vote yes. And among the share of folks who say they don't know whether the uh facility needs funding in principle, 44% say they would vote yes. So much smaller than those folks who um do see a need for funding. And then notably and interestingly, those with that um particular personal connection to coverly are no more likely than those without one uh to say they would vote yes on the measure. We also looked at differences by geography. On the next slide, we looked north and south of the Oregon Expressway. 55% yes. South of that area, 55% yes north of the area. Statistically speaking, these are identical results. Um so no real difference in support between those kind of when we kind of cut the city in half roughly. The next slide shows the results of uh kind of tweaking the language. We say the final structure of this measure has not been determined. If it instead enacted a quarter cent sales tax instead of that half cent we started with, would you be uh likely to vote yes or no? Um and you can see there's no real difference in support here. for 55% initially as I showed you before for the half cent 54% yes for the quarter cent um so folks are not necessarily sensitive to the overall rate it's more about the you know kind of being asked to to vote on a tax uh in principle um the next slide shows another follow-up question we asked which was about uh the potential for an automatic sunset of 30 years um as you may have noted in the ballot measure language we said that the the uh term of the measure would be until ended by voters. That's shown on the left hand side at again that 55 37 uh split. After we specifically said, what about a 30-year sunset? We actually see lower support. 42% yes to 43% no and 16% undecided. So, uh some folks moving to undecided as a result of that information. So, not necessarily gaining any points by adding that 30-year sunset. Now the next slide is where we start digging into adding that additional information um that was mentioned in the introduction. We wanted folks to kind of understand more about the partnerships about the other measures on the ballot just just more context. And the way we did that is provided a little bit of information about these kind of in sequence and then ask people if they'd be more likely or less likely to support a measure with that uh in mind. Um so starting with the next slide we'll show you um the first is uh knowing that a portion of this measures revenue would be dedicated to repairing the Cubly center. Um being more specific about that part of it because as noted the measure we asked about was general purpose and Cberly is just a part of it. Uh we see 48% of voters overall say they're more likely to support a measure knowing um that Cberly is a big part of it. 12% less likely to support it. Um, and then you can see on the three lines below it, uh, we looked at the yes voters. For a lot of them, it makes them more likely to support it, but they're already supporters. Um, so that's important to keep in mind. Among our no voters, they're pretty split. 22% say they're more likely to support a measure knowing that it would fund coverly upgrades. 21% less likely. 57% say it really makes no difference to them. They're not going to change their no vote as a result. And then for our undecided voters, it's more of a positive. um 37% of them said they would be more likely to support a measure with that in mind. On the next slide, we looked a little bit more at the partnerships involved um and the the way that would help reduce taxpayer cost. You can see in there italics in kind of the middle of the slide here how the uh the way we phrase the question uh said the city is currently developing partnerships to bring tens of millions of dollars from private donors to the Coverly Center uh for performing arts, wellness, maker space, and recreation facilities. Would knowing that these dollars would be leveraged to reduce overall taxpayer cost while keeping the public uh the center publicly owned updated um that sort of thing, would that make you more or less likely to vote yes on the measure? And you see that's overall pretty positive. 66% say they're uh more likely to support a measure with that in mind. Notably, looking at those no voters who we might have to win over, 43% say they're more likely to support a measure with this in mind. And 62% of our undecided voters say they're more likely to support such a measure with that in mind. So, um this is an important piece of information for folks and something that seems to um actually potentially change minds as well. On the next slide, uh we gave people a little more context too about the sales tax mechanism itself. We said if you knew that non-residents who shop in PaloAlto and businesses will pay a portion of the sales tax, meaning that close to 40% of the overall amount raised would be paid by non-residents, would you be more or less likely to support it? 47% of voters say they're more likely to support a measure with that in mind. 62% of yes voters, so those folks who are kind of already with us. 25% for the no voters and 45% more likely among the undecided voters. So this is also something that's um somewhat powerful but not quite as much as as sort of the partnerships angle as we saw before. Now we asked one more question in in this series as you can see on the next slide. This is about the uh regional uh sales tax transportation sales tax measure. Uh we let people know that there is potentially a regional transportation sales tax of 1 half cent on the same ballot and ask them if they'd be more or less likely to support the PaloAlto sales tax measure as a result of that information. And you can see for voters overall 34% are less likely to support the measure with that information. Just 13% say they're more likely to support it. Um and where that had the biggest uh difference was among our undecided voters. fully 63% of them with just that single piece of information in mind say they're less likely to support a measure than they were initially. Um so that is something that's definitely uh worth looking out for. So starting on the next slide, we have a section where we dig into the messaging and and how folks kind of move back and forth as we provide more information about the measure, how the funds would be spent, that kind of thing, just to see whether uh opinions are really sticky and people kind of stay in their corners or whether they shift back and forth with uh uh information. Uh and as you can see the patterns on the next slide. So, the big picture conclusion here is that support for the measure does decline as voters learn more about it. Uh, it's important to note we start at our kind of high point, 55% yes, 37% no based on just the ballot measure language alone. After some additional information, including that that piece that's really important there about the transportation sales tax and positive messaging, that does decline a little bit. It's within the margin of error, but we're at 51% yes to 37% no. And then after a brief negative message, which we'll show you in a moment, um we are below 50% at 46% yes, 42% no. Um notably here, our uh definitely yes share um never exceeds one quarter. Um our definitely no share gets a little higher than one quarter. So a little more intensity on the no side than the yes side as people get more information including that factoid about the transportation sales tax. The next slide shows uh messaging in support of the measure. We've got two slides in this series. Um we kind of worked from some of the things that had tested relatively well in past surveys and also wanted to test um some new themes to just see what kind of information we can provide. Most of it very coverly focused um would actually motivate people to vote yes on a sales tax. You can see relatively speaking the highest ranking messages are around the the kind of basic safety uh upgrades just reminding people that coverly center buildings are more than 70 years old. So, they're of course in need of some upgrades. Um the idea that we have to protect outdoor space as our city grows and changes and then a message called without which kind of reminds folks about um kind of the alternative to uh finding more uh coverly funding. Relatively low ranking um 24% for both is a broader message about streets which was intended to kind of address the general purpose uh piece of the puzzle and then about affordability. So, kind of coming at it from the other angle and saying these free and lowcost programs at places like Cubly um are a great opportunity um that doesn't resonate quite as much as just the basic upgrades in the outdoor space. Moving down the list a bit more on the next slide, you can see things that um kind of fell relatively flat. Uh this is talking about acting locally to protect our quality of life. um a message about the partnerships uh didn't work as well as just the kind of factual information that we provided earlier. Um a broad accountability message and one talking about children and kind of keeping them out of trouble. Um relatively less persuasive. Um, as you can see on the next slide, these are the shares of folks who called each message either very convincing or somewhat convincing on our scale of very convincing, somewhat convincing, not convincing, or don't believe it. Um, typically we like to see something in the 30s or 40s for uh very convincing to be a highly persuasive message. and the one that's really focused on uh meeting current earthquake safety, disability access, those kinds of standards with those 70-year-old buildings um is the message that kind of met that bar. The rest of them um were a little lower ranking and as we saw earlier, it didn't necessarily goose uh bring up support uh as much as we'd like. So, we also showed voters a brief statement opposed. Um showed it to them if they watched it on or read it online. Uh read it to them if they took it on the phone. You can see that on the next slide. Um, and this kind of threw everything at the wall. We said the cost of living is going up. We don't need to raise our taxes. We've got another uh sales tax increase on the same ballot. So again, reminding them of that transportation tax and saying we have higher priorities than the the coverly center. Um, so as a result of this information, as you can see on the next slide and as we showed you earlier, um, after negative messaging, we have support from 46% of voters. uh the the yes vote there is is lower than where we started. Our no vote is higher at 42% and we've got 12% undecided. Um so that is uh the information I'm here to share. Uh happy to hand it back to staff. Next slide please clerk and one more. Great. Thank you. So again, our staff recommendation and also recommendation from the planning and transportation commission, architectural re review board and parks and recck commission is that the council adopt a resolution adopting the final initial study mitigated negative declaration for the project and associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program and adopt the coverly conceptual master plan. And then we would also um ask council to provide direction to staff on next steps for the project. And if you could advance one more slide, clerk, I'll share some examples of what next steps might look like. Um it could be to direct staff to pursue a ballot measure for a new quarter or half cent sales tax in November. Um, and if that were the direction, staff would bring forward a resolution and other required documents to the council on June 8th. Another next step could be to direct staff to engage with the school district to purchase 7 acres from the school district using existing funding sources. So with that, that concludes the staff presentation and I believe um the chair of the ad hoc chair cut or council member Lith cuts would like to say some words. >> Yeah. No, I just want to thank you director Okaine and Miss Paras and our friends at FM3 and I was going to ask uh my colleague, the chair of the ad hoc committee whether you have comments. >> Thank you so much. Uh uh y'all were here. Tonight is big. And the saying it takes a village was never more apt. And the village deserves recognition tonight. I want to start with gratitude first to the thousands of members of our community for asking council members and council candidates repeatedly over years. When are you going to get Cly done? Your persistent insistence is always on our minds. You've repeatedly told us it is time. So then, thanks must go to the Palo Alto Unified School District board for initiating a conversation with the city back in 2022 about selling their 7 acres of buildings to us, which is the only way we can get it done. Without the school district board in place in 2022, led by current President Shaukdara, we would not be in the position we are today. We are grateful to them for opening this conversation with us. With the negotiation over purchase terms behind us, we then set out to re-engage you, the community, around what you wanted from Cubly. Hundreds of you engaged in robust conversations about what a conceptual master plan might entail. We appreciate you coming out and making all that time and effort. Also want to thank our existing tenants for sharing their views, needs, and concerns. We have heard you. It's exciting that if the district does sell us the land, that is if we can afford to buy the land from the district, they will vacate their current usages, which means we will have more space with which to work and allocate, not less space. We see no reason why we cannot continue to serve and support our nonprofit tenants, and we are excited to continue collaborating with you. Next, I want to thank the boards and commissions that engaged on the conceptual master plan. That's the ARB, the PTC, and the PRC. Your input has been vital and we are grateful to have your green light tonight. Next, I'll thank my ad hoc colleagues, council members Bert and Rectal. We've met regularly with staff for more than 14 months. And I want to thank our four other council colleagues for the faith you've shown in the ad hoc and staff and in this process and for choosing in this go nogo year to make the Cubly acquisition and renovation one of just four council priorities for the entire year. And finally, to the dozens of city staff who have worked on this tirelessly. From legal to land use to finance to the city manager and his office to the community services department led by director Kristen Okaine and her deputy Amanda Deml. You have brought us to this point so aly bringing your brains and your hearts and time. So much time. I now want to give you a sense of how I see council's vision statement which director Okaine read. how I see council's vision for Cubberly manifesting itself in the new buildings and renovations. In these times in which we live when humans are globally connected through technology, we are nevertheless more isolated from one another than ever. And as a result, people in any in every generation are struggling with their mental health. our youth and our seniors in particular. I envision a future Cubberly that is a physical manifestation of our city's commitment to wellness and belonging for all where the buildings and grounds will offer and reflect what humans have quite frankly always needed to thrive and which we need today more than ever. The imperative to move our bodies, the imperative to make things with our brains in our hands. the imperative to engage in the arts and to participate in activities that aren't about a resume or college admission, but that support us in simply being a healthy human. A renovated Carbo will be a place where everyone matters from all cultures and backgrounds and ages and can do these very things. I am therefore so grateful to the community organizations that have raised their hands to say, "We see what you're trying to do, city of Palo Alto, and we want to join you in doing it." in the order in which they joined our team. First, the friends of the Palo Alto Recreation and Wellness Center, which intends to build the city's first public gym. The theaterworks, which wants to reinvest in the arts in their home city of Palo Alto, refurbish the community theater already there, as well as build a new main stage for their own productions, and bring greater educational offerings to the community. maker Nexus of Sunnyvil, the largest maker space in the United States, which wants to bring a larger maker space than is already there to Cubberly. Avanitus, our city's leading provider of senior support services. Palo Alto Community Childare, which recognizes the need for more child care in South Palo Alto, particularly as more housing is built there, and a potential sixth partner focused on providing space to support the Chinese community. Your partnership with us, whether you're bringing muchneeded dollars, did I say muchneeded dollars, muchneeded boots on the ground, or both, will be vital in an effort to pass a ballot measure and ultimately to renovate and add to a community center with an incredible array of offerings. The entire conceptual master plan is years away, depending on funding and community support that we can only dream of right now. But phase one is in our sights. Through so much hard work, we have gotten to this point, all of us. If the community is willing to come out to support and do its fair share, and only its fair share, to help with funding to purchase the land from the school district and commence work on renovations, we will bring this dilapidated yet beloved old place into the modern era with the utilities and wiring needed for the space to be safe along with the programmatic improvements represented by our partners and tenants. As council member Rectal can explain next, the polling numbers are very close. But I do believe that together and dare I say only together, only with all of us, we will do this for us and for future POW Alton's and for our children's children's children to quote Jane Stamford. Now I want to turn to council member Rectal for a little bit more detail and explanation of the polling numbers. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I want to highlight just two things. uh one. Yeah, >> I'm happy you're happy, but uh we generally don't have audible responses if you want to do like the sign language one, but that way people with contrary opinions aren't uh feeling that they can't express them. So, it's just a a practice that we observe here. So, if you could help us with that tonight, that'd be great. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. I I want to highlight two things. As uh Kristen mentioned, we've been working on this now for about a year and a half. This latest evolution of Cberly and we really have evolved our plans. I want to talk about that. And I also want to talk the latest polling. There are a lot of a lot of data there in that polling report and there's a few things that we think are important. So, I'm going to highlight those. Um and so, you know, if you have if you haven't noticed, the current buildings are a little rundown. And so, we talked to developers and said, you know, what do we do? Should we just knock it down or do can we remodel? And they said, you know, in Palo Alto, it's it's almost always for private homes more cost effective to remodel. And Cubly isn't any different than that. It the bones of the buildings are good. They're just a little rund down. And it's going to be much more cost effective to remodel. And it all not only will be more cost effective, it also will be faster. We'll get our new coverly faster. And so by doing that now instead of having a billion-dollar uh development, we can have something much more modest and that means less taxpayer money and faster schedules. So that's all a good thing. Uh council member Lith Katames mentioned these partners. These partners are critical because they not only will bring money, they'll bring boots on the ground for the election, but also they'll bring programming. These are experts in programming. We don't have to reinvent reinvent the wheel. They have expertise in providing active programming and this is what make Cubberly so it just won't be a quiet community center. It'll be active. We'll have all these partners uh providing very valuable programming and hopefully the community realizes that and makes it much more attractive to to vote for the tax measure. So yeah, we believe we have strong plan. It's both cost effective and also valuable. Uh but as you saw in the in the polling we have good good support but we still have work to do. Uh the things I want to highlight the initial response when we first said would you be willing to pay money for Cberly it was 18% margin yes. So the out of the gate the community said yeah we not only want a new coverly we're willing to pay for it and that's really good. And then we asked about partners. If we had these partners would you be more inclined to vote? And it helped across the board. The supporters became more supportive. The opponents became less uh oppositional. And so these partners are very important. It makes us much more credible. And now after the negative messaging, we fell. Uh our margin of 18% shrunk to 4%. And well, it's still we're above water 4%. And so we think that that you know, the glass is half full on that. Uh we think that we have a viable approach here. We think that it can pass, but we have work to do. We need the community to be engaged. We can't just sit on our hands and expect the Cubly is going to pass. We have to get out there. The community needs to be engaged. The community, we need a grassroots support. But with that, we think we can push across the finish line and that will bring a new Cberly to the community, which will be a huge asset. So, we're really optimistic even though the polls are tight. Council member Burke, did you want to add any >> only briefly and thanks for um uh both of you to frame this uh have framed this issue uh so well. Uh just to reiterate that the polling is really tight and ordinarily pollsters would not recommend going to the ballot unless you have a a clear majority of support. What we have different in this community is what's reflected here tonight. So many supporters and supporter groups who can really do the grassroots effort that actually works in our community. When we have uh ballot measures that are led by the community, uh they tend to do well and that's what it's going to take if we're going to prevail here. So I'm glad everyone has that uh great commitment. I also want to um just emphasize uh one of the points that uh Commissioner I mean director Okaine made um we have existing tenants. We're going to have a net increase in space if this goes forward. So all of our community nonprofits and user groups that are uh clubs and uh the like um there will be opportunities for them to continue uh to u use their space at Cberly. uh change may have some adjustments but the notion that um that we shouldn't go forward with this because we have to have adaption period I think overall the community believes and we would expect if if uh users want to continue to use coverly they need to be partners with us on this even if it might mean some inconvenience. So, um I look forward to the further discussion. >> All right. Well, thank you staff. Thank you colleagues. Uh we will now turn to public comment. I'm excited to see so many people whom I suspect are here for public comment. That's a great thing. Um however, that will mean we will limit public comment to one minute per speaker and six minutes per group. And I would ask that uh what the clerk typically does is to say to name the next speaker and the one after that. So please when you're hear your name, you're on deck, be ready to come on up uh so that we can hear what you all have to say tonight. And thank you for being here. Madame clerk and turn it over to you. We currently have no identified group speakers. If that is incorrect and you are um have a group of five, could you please come um and see me? If not, um we'll start with our first speaker uh Ken H. >> Good evening, Kenitz. I've been a resident here for over 40 years. I just want to say um want to be supportive of this. I want you to go forward. I want you to do the halfsent sales tax. Uh the city has acquired um cover the Cubberly 8 acres since 2001. It's been 25 years. The timing is right. Let's do it. Let's get it done. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Paulie B. >> Okay. We're trying to get our group of five together here. Can I can speak, but we we want want a group of five next to let our executive directors. >> So, if you're speaking as a group, would you like to pass and and come back to that? >> I'd very much like to pass for a minute. >> Madam clerk, do you know who the five are so that we can skip to the next? Is Tony a member of your group? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. Moving to Tony S. Go ahead. >> Um, normally I do talks at Stanford. This is very much different the first time for me. But all I can do is share from my heart. And what good does it do to have a pretty building? We continue to see uh depression and and uh un unbalanced lives and the suicides and things like that. What what good does it do to have a building that's pretty? Um what I suggest is the health benefits of dancing which uh number one is cardio and it's good for the brain and it's good for depression and um um one in five people that are sitting right here is going to have a fall in their life. And that's one thing that dancing does is it teaches you balance. Each step you take, you're making a fall. I just saw a lady pushing a a walker as as I came in here. Um so um it's so important. That's one of the greatest benefits uh of dancing. We meet every Friday at Cberly at 8:00. >> Um your time is up and we recommend that. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Brian S. >> Go ahead. >> Moving to our next speaker, Betsy B. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, clearly you need to get moving. I'm Betsy Beal. I was on the council, believe it or not, from 1980 to 89. We were dealing with CO then so adopt this resolution. I'm now a part of and this group and some of these will speak briefly to you part of Heartfit, which leases 5,000 square feet. Now, we provide as help for people who have had heart issues as I have had and uh to about 300 people. Our director is here and I believe she will speak to you briefly as will these other two if that's okay. That's our group. >> Go ahead Robin. >> Hi, I'm Robin Wedell. I'm >> Madame Clerk. Do you are you are we doing them >> very confusing? >> Are we doing them individually or as a as a group? >> Um I'm going to just move to the next individual speaker as I consolidate the group speakers and then I'll come back to you. Um, our next speaker is >> uh Sonia R. >> Good evening, city council. My name is Sonia Bradsky. I've been nextdoor neighbors with Cubberly for almost 30 years. There's been complete paralysis with getting anything done with Cubberly, having two owners. The school district is now willing to sell their portion to the city. Now is the time to have one owner. Let's please implement phase one of the Coverly plan. I'm willing to help with Coverly. I have an excellent track record of helping. I got the money for the libraries. I went doortodoor to get the money for the libraries which Allison Cormarmac was leading. I'm willing to help you. I'm good at this. Please move Cberly forward and and get Cberly done. Thank you so much. >> Okay, moving to our group speaker, Robin. Speaking on behalf of Paulie, Katie, Gary, Teresa, and Gary. Hi, I'm Robin Wedell. I'm the executive director of Heartfit for Life. Cberly is already the heart of Palo Alto. Now we must secure its future. For 56 years, Heartfit for Life has served the Palo Alto community and 23 years at the Cubly Community Center. As a cardiac rehab, rehabilitation and supervised fitness nonprofit, we have helped rec people who recover from heart attacks and serious health events. Every year, more than 300 participants from their 30s to their 90s walk through our doors, excuse me, 20s to their 90s uh walk through our doors seeking physical recovery, encouragement, and connection. If you live in Palo Alto and have experienced a cardiac event, Hartford has likely been part of your journey. For many families, Cubberly is more than a campus. It is where people rebuild their health, find community, and ex access access programs they depend on. That's why its future matters. Running a nonprofit in Palo Alto is difficult. Space costs rise while community needs grow. Making stable, affordable facilities essential. Cubberly matters to Heartfit and the 30 other nonprofits, arts groups, wellness organizations, and child care providers calling the campus home. Residents trust these organizations because they see their impact firsthand. Recent polling shows support for redevelopment increases when residents learn established community groups are helping shape the campus's future. But anyone spending time at Kberly sees the reality. facilities. Facilities are aging rapidly and buildings are increasingly dilapidated. Plumbing failures, outdated infrastructure, and seismic concerns can no longer be ignored. I think we've heard a lot of that about that tonight, right? We've experienced these challenges firsthand. Several years ago, major pipe failures caused mold issues that shut down gym A and B for nearly two years. While we kept our primary cardiac rehab space operating, several participants as intended became extremely difficult. Serving participants, excuse me, we had to scramble for workarounds because our programs depended on the gym space to safely support recovery. That experience made one thing clear. Postponing major investment is no longer sustainable. Importantly, this effort is not just about buildings. It's about protecting the vital community services people already rely on and trust. Now the city has an important opportunity to place a funding measure on the November ballot so residents can decide the future of Cberly through a transparent public process. Coverly is already the heart of comm of community life for thousands of residents. Now we have the responsibility to secure its future. Thank you. Our next speaker is Donald B. Donald B. Moving to our next speaker, Evan A. >> All right. Good. All right. Please move forward with the Coverly Development. It is an opportunity to transform a local space into a citywide one because a crumbling coverly serves no one. By way of example, when I was younger, I absolutely loved going to the Mitchell Park Library. When it was under construction for several years, I was concerned. It was expensive, local, and a vision that took a long time to produce. But if you visited that new library, you would know that the project has created a new community center that serves not only the direct surroundings of Mitchell Park, but provides services for the entire city. In terms of support, the primary negative messaging focused on taking land away from the school. Powell Alton value their schools greatly, and if they understood that PAUSD could just move those portables, they'll be much more willing to support this measure. And like the polling showed and council member Rectal observed, private buyin that only city commitment can secure has a significant effect on public support and should be emphasized going forward. So please help the kids who love and use Cubberly like I got to love and use the new Mitchell Park Library. >> Our next speaker is Lee P followed by Carmen R. Lee Fab from PAC. 52 years ago, there was a community need in PaloAlto and that was for affordable child care and accessibility to child care. Today, we have a new need. We as PAC grew from one center to 18 centers and serving over a thousand children a day. We're now limited by space and we know that our community will be growing. We believe that it's time to address our future residents and find the space that will bring them into our community and bring us together in a sense of belonging. We're ready to help support this measure and we look forward to working with our partners. Thank you. Our next speaker is Carmen R followed by Phyllis B. Dear city council members, thank you to all of you and all the city staff for all the work you keep doing to keep our ch our town safe and vibrant and a place we all love to be part of. I want to also thank the ad hoc coverly committee for bringing this efforts uh and this topic to us today. I have been a resident at Green Meadow for the last 15 years and through these years I have seen coverly deteriorating. It is time that we get a nice community center that serves this part of town and that is a vi as vibrant as the residents in the area. We need a coverly that serves our children, our families and our aging, our aging parents and our youth. South Palo Alto seems to be forgotten or so say a lot of the residents I have talked to in the last few months. The city doesn't care about us. In my mind, I know this is not true, but I cannot tell you how many times I've heard this. There are many cities around around us like Los Altos or Campbell. >> Your time is up. >> Whoops. They have nice centers and we don't. So, we deserve at least to have a nice place for a community to gather. >> Our next speaker is Phyllis B followed by Penny E. >> We need Coverly to be renovated. So, we need the city to buy the acres from the school district. I strongly support a ballot measure on the November ballot asking for a half cent increase in sales tax, a general tax that will prioritize coverly, coverly purchase and renovation. We need coverly now and will need its services even more as the PaloAlto population grows. I'm thrilled that local nonprofit partners strongly support the purchase and renovation and I will work hard to get out the vote in November to pass a ballot measure. I've lived in Green Meadow right next to the coverly playing fields since 1982 and have depended on it. My family and I have depended on it for many resources and I have seen the buildings deteriorating, the hallways, the outdoor space deteriorating. So, we need to move on this and I strongly urge you to pass. Your time is up. Our next speaker is Penny Penny E followed by an C. Uh, good evening. I'm Penny, a Green Meadow resident and former Coverly Advisory Committee member. Thank you for the important work council and staff have done over many years to get us to this point. We are excited and ready to help. Um, we already have organized a team in my neighborhood to support the ballot measure campaign, trusting that because this measure was initiated for implementation of Cubberly, new tax revenues from the sales tax will be prioritized for Cubberly, possibly through an advisory resolution. neighbors, local nonprofits, arts organizations, musicians, seniors, families, dancers, athletes, and many community groups all helped shape the vision for our sadly dilapidated but well-loved community center. Coverly improvement will come in the nick of time as the city rolls out plans and approvals for thousands of new statemandated housing units, ensuring that citywide community service facility capacity will not be overwhelmed by increased demand as our population grows. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is an C. >> Good evening everybody. I can't tell. I'm Ann Cribs, a 1960 Olympian who values exercise and wellness. I can't tell you how happy I am to stand up here tonight and hear all of the people and all of the council support what we're doing at Cberly. This is a one once in a-lifetime opportunity. We're never going to have it again if we don't move quickly. Cberly is going to continue to be dilapidated and fall apart. And we're not going to let that happen. We can do better than this. and we can do this for our seniors, for our population, but most of all for our kids and the future. So, thank you very much to the staff and to the city council for having the vision to do this. Let's get it done. >> Our next speaker is UD. >> Good evening. It is UD. I moved to Palato 8 years ago, raising two children here and serving on the parks and rec commission. Tonight I'm speaking on behalf of a local nonprofit, Society of Hearts Delight, as well as friends of the Recreation and Wellness Center and the Ballot Measure Campaign Team. Society of Hearts Delight is dedicated to empowering the Bay Area Chinese heritage community through civic engagement, cultural collaboration, and fostering a deeper sense of belonging. In the past, we proudly supported Palatoto's first pet parade, helped refurbish the Cably track and field, hosted bilingual mental health and civic engagement workshops, and will support the first ever Pride event. We strongly support moving the KBY project forward and hope to see the measure placed on the Novin ballot. Society delight is currently working on a letter of intent to help fundra for a potential Chinese heritage community center at Ky not just for the Chinese community but for everyone as a bridge to truly bring people and communities together across cultures, generations and backgrounds. And I want to echo Julie, let's make Kabia a center of wellness and belonging for all. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Amy L, followed by Sharon H. >> Hi, good evening Mayor, council members. Um, I'm a member of Maker Nexus in Sunnyville and I'm super excited that you're entertaining the idea of a Maker Nexus here. Um, why a maker space is so important. Uh, people after work, they get a place to experiment and build their dreams and ideas that they've seen online. Kids camps, we have so many kids like hundreds, thousands of kids coming through. They have a place with great instruction, safe, well-maintained equipment, and also for the public benefit. You talked about not being isolated, coming together. So, we have meeting spaces for clubs, we have public repair clinics, we have uh battle bots in the back parking lot. I mean, who isn't excited about that? And on my personal journey, I used to work in tech for for many years and I was looking for a place to build things and now I'm able to build my dreams. So, please make this a reality for Palo Alto. Our next speaker is Sharon H, followed by Jennifer D. >> Hi, I'm Sharon Helm Holtz. I'd like to express my appreciation for all the time that you guys have put into this and my complete support for the goals. I would however like you to take another look at one component, which is keeping the Cubberly Pavilion as a gym. There are many reasons to do this, but I would like to speak personally as a member of Palo Alto's aging community. I'm 80 years old and studies have shown that there are a couple of components that will help me continue to age in a healthful, happy way. One is exercise. The Cubberly that exists right now does a beautiful job of providing an opportunity for exercise in a safe, supportive community. The second is a supportive social network. And because of Cubberly, there's a large group of us that I like to refer to as my dance community. We are always there for each other, providing moral support. And the space to do that is beautiful. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Jennifer D, followed by Christina L. Thank you, Madame Mayor, council members, um, and staff. Thank you so much for getting us here. I know it's been years and so much work has gone into it. We are so, so grateful to be here today. My name is Jennifer Deanza and I am one of a growing number of Palton as you can hear who are very very excited to work to move this forward once you approve it to move forward. Um, we are very very grateful for the very careful thought you have put into it in so many ways. Um the fact that you have decided to vote on putting forward um a sales tax um makes a lot of sense to us because we've heard from the community a lot that because Palo Alto and Coverly are a regional destination, the bill for renovating it should be for reason uh regionally. So people are really excited about that and the partners as you know is a very very big deal. Not only does it help us financially but it helps us get it over the finish line with the voters in November. Um although this room is full, there are hundreds of people online watching that are from Theater Works and PAC and Aanita and all of our partner organizations to support us. So thank you so much. We're excited. Our next speaker is Christina L followed by Kai F, also known as Pinky. Good. Uh hi, my name is Christina Lugo, president and CEO of Avanitus. Um, when Avanitus was located in building I during our remodel, I remember walking in there and just seeing this beautiful community, not just in that building, but also throughout the corridors. And now that we're at building H, little less than that, we're on the outside, but um truly feel like uh Cberly is this beautiful community location that we want to continue to be a part of in a more expanded way to bring the senior activities, to bring more exercise, really building that interconnectedness. Oftent times when people are leaving Avanas, they're going to Heartfit, they're going to other nonprofits located there. and just really excited um to hopefully get this on the ballot in November. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Kai Followed by DCJ. Hi, good evening. My name is Pinky um Kaing Fong Aanita's founding program director at Avanita's Chinese Community Center ACCC um in many spaces um at Cap since 2019 2018. At ACCC we offer intergenerational all inclusive culture um celebration events, educational health and wellness classes, technology, health and workshop um foster um the social connection to the community member. We're one of the kind of triilingual program managering Cantonese English in the Bay Area for older adults. We want this program to be continue to thrive um to respond to the growing needs in the changing demographic. For us um this mean envoting our space in our participant um can continue to be healthy, active and engaged in this safe environment. Many of you are familiar with the magic that happens at Avanita Chinese Committee Center. Thank you Mayor Vanker, Vice Mayor Stone, Council Member Louu and Laoing and Red Doll for coming our Chinese Committee Center. Um let's celebrate AAP Helitage Month and I encourage you guys visit ACCCC. Thank you. Our next speaker is DCJ followed by Ignosio C. >> Hi. Uh, thanks for your time. Thanks for your service. Thank you for the great service, community services. I love the diversity I'm seeing here. Uh, my name is DC. Um, I'll tell my story. I landed on Stanford campus about two decades ago. Uh, today my wife and I are raising two kids, 8 and 12. We in fact live next to Kabali, so we still use Kabali quite a bit with the smelly toilets and all that. Um so couple of years ago I was asking my wife right where is the sort of spirit of innovation or the diversity that we looked forward in PaloAlto right uh we were really concerned whether even move out given the sort of the what we've seen decreasing over the years but then we met make a nexus right it's a gem of a place for us right for all the summer camps all the other community events they put together and the kind of the diverse crowd they bring in from the staff from the volunteers and everybody meets there make has been a great experience for us. Uh so as uh pack we are part of pack as well beneficiaries. So uh this is to kind of show our interest enthusiasm. >> Our next speaker is Ignosio C followed by Phil S. >> Good evening council members. My name is is Ignafio Cases and I wanted to speak as a Palato resident and make a Rexus member in support for Kubberly. Me spaces are not luxuries. They are one of the few places led where people of different ages and backgrounds and professions can come together to learn by doing and feel they belong. That kind of crossgenerational learning is incredibly rare today beyond learning and definitely hs for innovation. These places serve a profound social function in a time when so many people feel isolated and disconnected. Maker spaces create real human community. Believe me, I I I I know this uh from from from my own experience. People collaborate face to face and they teach each other. They solve problems together. They build confidence through creating things with their hands. They experience joy. Kubly can continue to be that kind of place. It is good for us. It is good for the city. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Phil S. followed by Elizabeth H. Hi, uh, Phil Santo, executive director of Theater Works. I have a bunch of Theater Works folks here tonight, and I am here to say that Theater Works is ready to go. We've done our homework. We've retained fundraising council, and we're ready to begin the capital campaign to help make this performing arts center for so many groups a reality at Coverly. As someone who likes to geek out on numbers, I recently did a little dump number diving into our database. And I learned that over the past 3 years, 12.5% of the households in PaloAlto have attended a theater works show. And that's just a ticket to a show. The proposed performing arts center is so much more than a place to see a play. Education programs, community engagement activities, new works development, they're all just there on the horizon. We expect the full breadth of this program to engage much more than 12.5% of PaloAlto. Theaterworks has the vision. We have the capability. We have the supporters. We have the audience. As I said, we are ready to go. We look forward to taking this next step with you. And I wanted our board chair to reinforce that statement. Katie. >> Hi everyone. My name is Katie Blahett and I am the board chair for Theaterwork Silicon Valley. As you may recall, Theater Works expressed our support and our desire uh to partner with the city of PaloAlto on Cubberly several months ago. Prior to doing that, we conducted a feasibility assessment related to our potential support of this initiative back in the fall. Should this initiative move forward, we remain committed to launching a capital campaign to bring significant funds in the support of our shared interest in the development of an enhanced performing arts center on the Cubberly property. Thank you all for your thoughtful exploration of this initiative to date. And on behalf of the Theaterworks Silicon Valley Board of Directors, I want to reiterate our enthusiastic support of this initiative and the potential future partnership this initiative opens up for continued collaboration between the city of PaloAlto and Theaterwork Silicon Valley. Thank you. >> Go. Hi, Nancy Ginsburg Stern. I'm a board member of Theater Works and I've been a longtime uh subscriber of Theater Works. We moved to PaloAlto in 1975. In 1977, we attended a show that Theater Works put on in the courtyard of the Stanford barn. That would be just a and I've been a subscriber ever since without fail. It would be just a quirky thing about the history of of theater works that we have performed in so many different places around this community, but what we really need is a permanent home. And one of the things that I'm supporting is this entire community center for all the good programs, but I'm particularly here to advocate for uh theater works. We know how to engage uh communities. We know how to engage audiences. And I think we can engage voters. I'd also like to suggest that we stop asking voters if we should raise your taxes and say to them, would you pay I don't know what, $200 a year, $500 a year to have a worldclass community center in PaloAlto? Our next speaker is Elizabeth H. Hi, I'm Elizabeth H. Um, I am here to talk about one aspect. Thank you for all your work. This is a phenomenal program to to what you're doing with Coverly. I did want to speak on the importance of keeping ballroom dancing in the pavilion on Friday nights. And I'm actually an annual subscriber to Theater Works. They're great. Um, for many years I've been going there, but it is very important. The ballroom dancing that happens in the pavilion has been going on for more than 40 years. It is completely volunteerrun. I am one of the volunteers that helps every Friday night. It's an important part of our social uh fabric in this community. Sharon spoke earlier about um older people who are still dancing. Ballroom dancing is one of the best, most joy and well-being things that you can do. So, I'm speaking to to please let's keep the ballroom dancing going. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Harold J, followed by Rosalie H. >> I've been uh dancing at the Cubberly Pavilion for maybe 15 years now. It's one of the finest facilities for dancing in the entire Bay Area. I'm concerned that the master plan would have us move into a gymnasium. Periodically, we do that now because things happen where we can't use the pavilion, like the floors being refinished and the gym acoustics are just terrible. So, if you go forward with this plan and it's approved by the voters, I'd like to make sure that there's acoustic engineers involved in in uh making sure that the any replacement for the pavilion uh is has adequate or even really great sound quality. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Rosalie H, followed by Denuka J. >> Good evening everyone. Thank you so much to the mayor, the council members, the staff. Really appreciate the beautiful presentation you made. So, I started dancing in 1989. Oh, actually I I've I was born in Palo Alto. I haven't lived here for many years, but Palo Alto has my heart. So, prior to that, I had some serious um you know, personal situations. I'd been depressed, but I knew I'd always wanted to be a dancer. Well, a friend told me about Cubberly and I became a dancer. My life has changed completely and I dance frequently multiple places and all of us as the prior speaker said, we really need the large space because we often have a hundred people or in a special event 200 people. So, and the sound and um situation is very um critical for us. But anyway, thank you all and all help. You know, I want to >> Your time is up a live place. Thanks. >> Our next speaker is Danuka J, followed by Judy K. >> Hi. Hi, my name is Danuka Danuka and um I'm a third grader at Hoover. I I I think Maker Nexus should come to Cubberly because it's a it's a great place to bring together community and um Silicon Valley and Silicon Valley's um greatest maker space. Uh thank you for the >> Our next speaker is Judy K followed by Gary S. Not fair to make me follow children. Um, you can see everybody's got a story here. This is amazing. When we redid the airport, Pat, when we redid the other things, when we did the Junior's Museum, you never had a group like this willing to get out there and make it happen. This is extraordinary. So, everybody's got a story. Here's my story real quick. Uh, 35 years ago, and I'm 80. I'm not the only one in the room. 35 years ago, my son broke into Maples Pavilion to play gym to play basketball because there was no public space. He's okay. He's turned out all right. 20 years ago when I was the mayor, we were talking about this. Betsy mentioned that we need to do it. You've got you've got the resources here in our community and this will be a worldclass community center for the entire community. I'm so thrilled here uh to see everybody here and I'm glad to see all these smiling faces up there. Let's do it. >> Our next speaker is Gary S. followed by Phil M. I am Gary Smith, resident of West San Jose. I've attended the ballroom dancing since about 2008. I encourage you to keep the gym as an anchor. Um when you do a major remodel project, uh the California Title 24 will be triggered automatically. The the project will have to meet the standards. Um and the the the city of PaloAlto is sophisticated enough to make sure that it's earthquake that that the ceiling tiles won't fall down. You have the capability to do that. I encourage you to keep the anchor gym for the dancers, for the high school, junior high school basketball players. keep one thing that's iconic. People will come back from the class of 1978 of that high school and prior and played in that gym. They'll see something that's been there. I encourage you to keep the gym. Thank you and thank you for your efforts. >> Our next speaker is Phil M, followed by Katie W. >> I'm Phil Mast, a Baron Park resident and longtime theater works season ticket holder. As an arts lover, I look closely at the proposal to convert the coverly pavilion into a theater. The honest answer is the arts community doesn't need it. Watching a production at our existing Lucy Stern Theater will remain equivalent to watching it at a converted pavilion. This project offers no real upgrade to the arts. However, the damage to youth supports will be severe. Palo Alto otter already suffers from a critical shortage of gym space. Even with the gyms in the new recreation center, if the pavilion is preserved as a gym, it will be heavily used. It makes no sense to spend millions in additional taxpayer dollars to destroy a vital for sports facility for an unnecessary theater. Please protect our scarce recreational space and reconsider the theater works portion of this plan. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Katie W followed by Katherine P. >> Good evening. I'm Katie actually Katie R not W but that's okay. So I've lived in Palo Alto for over 30 years and I would say I'm a heavy user of Kberly. I've been a heavy user as a dancer. I'm part I'm a ball dancer. I go to soccer game, basketball game, you name it. puppy classes as my new thing now at Koly which is fun. I'm also a fitness instructor for Heartfit for Life and you can tell we have a huge group here. I've been instructor for nine years and I was here I was there today and I just want to reiterate the safety concerns that I have. I mean I was there the bathroom there's only uh one sink that was open. There was leakage on the ground only like two toilets were out of order. I mean it was just like crazy. Uh and also we had a member that uh fell of his bike because there was a hole in the in the pavement. So I think from a safety standpoint we need to really move forward and I'm really really encouraging everybody to support and move to the phase one as quickly as possible. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Katherine P followed by Jackie W. >> Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Um, I kind of have to throw out what I brought on my piece of paper and what I submitted earlier. Oh, so I have to start over again. Uh, thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. I need to kind of throw out what I brought with me. I've learned a lot during this present set of presentations. Uh, I wholeheartedly support, you know, revamping Cberly and the conceptual plan is so many exciting things and thank you for all your hard work on it. Um, my Cberly time is primarily at Zohar Dance Company. I've been there since 1984 and um currently there are three dance studios in building L and while I have no great love for building L um it has served the three organizations there Zohar um dance visions and dance connection uh performances, classes, master classes, rehearsals, children come in and out, seniors come in and out. adults, you know, all ages. Um, so my concern is not with the overall >> Excuse me, >> your time is up. >> My I mean, one thing, you need to have a more explicit plan to plan for transitioning these types of non for small not for-p profofit long-term leasers. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Jackie W, followed by Richard P. >> Hi, Jackie Wheeler. I've been a over 60-y year resident of Green Meadow. So, I've seen a lot that's gone on at Coverly and I applaud you also for what's happening and I'm very excited and as many of you know, I will support it and I'll work hard. Um, I want you to know that for community members that are interested in learning how they can get involved, there's a a email that they can send a note which is pa [email protected] and um we'd love to hear from you to help out. Thanks. >> Our next speaker is Richard P. >> I'm Richard Pescat. have enjoyed public dance parties at the pavilion for 30 years since 96. If you're going to do anything to the pavilion, please remodel instead of replace. Um the pavilion is the largest dance floor that I've ever seen. Um with property values as high as they are in the Bay Area, there are very few large dance floors. Um why does a large dance floor matter, such as the one in the pavilion? Well, one of the values mentioned in the Cubly vision statement is joy. and the ball ball room and Latin dances at the pavilion are a reliable source of joy for hundreds of people including me every time I go. Um the size of the dance floor is an essential part of that joy. The traveling dances including cha foxt trot tango samba and walts are much more fun when you can travel across the floor without worrying about bumping into people or the walls. Another way the pavilion provides joys relate to how it let dancers use choreographed routines that involve an artistic and long sequence of steps. You can enjoy such choreography if you're worrying about bumping into people or the walls. Avoiding collisions while dancing leads to well-being. The larger the dance floor, the fewer the collisions. Cardiovascular exercise, the pavilion helps me do it. The acoustics and ventilation open are wonderful. Thank you. Our next speaker is JS followed by Chris B. >> Uh to add to uh to what was just said, the majority of people who attend Cubberly Ballroom Dance are senior citizens. Now, why is that important? It's important because the combination of the mental acuity acquired for dancing with the physical uh uh physical aspect of it is tremendously powerful for the brain. It really helps people senior citizens as well as younger people. Another thing is the social uh aspect of ballroom dancing. I mean, as you know, a lot of people who are older don't spend much time with other people. And there's really not much better for the brain than socialization. It really helps. So, here we're talking about, you know, dealing with things like dementia, memory problems, etc. And finally, sleep. I don't have data on this, but I know from my own experience that after I do bar room dancing, I sleep better. And sleep is huge for the brain in terms of healing the brain. >> So, thank you very much. I hope you'll consider uh dancing at >> Cberly. >> Our next speaker is Chris B. >> You can hear. >> Yes. >> Perfect. Um yeah, I use Coverly every day. Walk my dog over there. And the best thing about it is it's totally free. I mean, I can just walk around the track. I can, you know, do a lot of things. They're a lot of fun. And here I am hearing all you guys talk about how you'd like me to pay money for your services. Like big surprise. I'm sure you're all fired up about that. Like I'm sure you would love free money for your ballroom stuff and your other things that don't use. That's why we had we don't do this kind of thing. Why would I subsidize your kids theater class? Like what what kind of economics is that? I'm sure you guys are all fired up about that. And did I hear a a billion dollars? a billion dollars for this project. Wow. That is I mean that is preposterous. Uh taxes are high. I don't know if you guys realize this, but the federal government's taking half my money as soon as I get my check. What? You're going to push sales tax up to 10%. I mean, I feel like threearters of my money is just being for other people's things. Wow, that was quick. But thank you. >> Our next speaker is Scott S. Scott S, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. Uh, good evening. I live in K in Greenell, right next to Koali, and I support this plan. My family has been using services at Kbelly ever since my youngest child, now a college senior, went to preschool at Kberly. It's a shame how it's been neglected. We now have our best shot at fixing this and it comes right at the moment that historic increase in the South PaloAlto population is being planned. Make this making this more important than ever. I'm counting on you to get it done. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Mark H. >> Hi, my name is Mark Holler. My wife and I live in Green Meadow and have lived in Peloto for over 30 years. While raising our daughter, we relied on PaloAlto Community Childare. Thinking of the future expansion of housing in South PaloAlto, I certainly would want those new families to have the child care resources that we enjoyed. An upgraded Cberly opens that possibility. Also, my wife and I are fans of local theater, but amazing opportunity an upgraded Cberly would provide to theater works. And as I move towards retirement, I can imagine taking classes at an upgraded community center, learning things that I never quite had the time for before. I urge the council to approve next steps that place a sales tax on the ballot. I'm looking forward to being able to vote in favor of that in November. Thank you for your time. >> And that concludes public comment on action item 13. >> All right. Well, thank you all for your comments, for your enthusiasm and all the work that I know you're going to do on this project. I can really feel the excitement, the optimism, and as the Cberly vision statement says, the vibrancy and joy in this room. It's really terrific. And you were really good at following instructions for not clapping and getting up to the mic promptly. So, thank you very much for that. I I greatly appreciate it. Yeah, right back at you. I also want to thank my colleagues on the ad hoc uh committee for all the work they have done to shepherd the process to this place. I know it was a big lift and I'm very grateful to all of you as well as staff uh that I know this has been a long a big major effort. So, thank you. Uh this is uh once in a-lifetime and based on former mayor Betsy Beal's comment, once in perhaps a lifetime uh opportunity uh that we have here before us tonight. And it's been many years coming. And you know, we as a council were pretty proud a couple of years ago that we were the ones that got a deal done to purchase the property from the school district and get this process going. um it almost didn't happen. We we hit a stalemate in our efforts to strike a deal and so a couple of us had coffee and one from each entity and we really shared the common interests of the two bodies to make this happen and we figured out a way forward. Um I was one of those and I was committed then and stubbornly refused to let it die and I'm feeling just as committed now and perhaps a little bit stubborn or as my mother would say persistent. So that is what all of you are too. I can see it out there. This whole community, you've really stuck with this. You've come forward time and again and given your great thoughts and efforts and creativity to to really get us to this place. I mean, this is one that we have to do together. We really need you on board with us. And I heard you tonight that that you are. You know, in uh January when I was selected as mayor, I identified Cubberly as a top priority that I wanted to support this year. And a couple weeks later at our retreat, council as a whole set it as a priority for the city and staff and all of us for this year. And now we have partners excited and all of you clearly see it as a priority for our community. So we can have as much discussion colleagues as any of you want, but I'm going to start us off with a motion. So I am going to move the staff PTC, ARB and PRC recommendation that we adopt a resolution adopting the final initial study mitigated negative declaration for the project and associated mitigation monitoring and reporting reporting program and adopt the Cberly conceptual master plan and direct staff to pursue a ballot measure for a 1 half cent sales tax in the November election. Is there a second? Second. All right. Thank you, Council Member Lithcott. Himmes. All right. I will open it up for discussion. Vice Mayor Stone. Well, thank you, Madam Mayor. I I can't pos possibly articulate a better argument for why we need to get coverly done than what we heard from dozens of speakers tonight who spoke so passionately about in support of this project moving forward. So I'll just say plus one. Let's get this done together as a community for all PaloAlton's past, present, and future. Thank you, >> Council Member Lowing. Thank you very much. I would also like to thank the public for coming out in mass. And I have to say that we usually don't get public comment that's 50 to zero. So you got your point across very effectively uh and your enthusiasm and your and your commitment to keep uh keeping move moving forward as well. Um I just had a couple questions. One is um what in terms of how the tax ends and how that's messaged to um folks, what what does it mean ended by voters? What's the definition of that in terms of the process? >> That would mean a future action would need to be taken to cease the increase in the tax. >> Okay. So it' be proactive on the part of the city >> or or the voters. >> Sorry. either by the city to place a ma a matter on a future election or by voter initiative. >> Sure. Sure. Definitely that. Okay. Um and then just just to comment on slide 34 which showed a little bit of fall off and support um what they were told about the regional sales tax. I mean that's just the facts of our lives that you know could be there. So there's not I mean that's just something that has to be there that we that we sort of do a work around. not uh not hiding the ball at all, just putting that out there and saying, "Yeah, fine. But this is what we want to this we want to do." >> Thank you. That's all. >> Council member Lou, >> thank you. I'm so excited about this project. There's a lot to be optimistic about and we have to move forward. I'm looking forward to voting yes on the motion. Uh there was sort of picking up and continuing Council Member Lowing's point this interesting tidbit in the polling where an indefinite sales tax actually pulled better than a 30-year sunset. Do we think that that is uh an holding that will actually stand scrutiny if people, you know, let that sink in and think about it? And also, when is the right time to talk about or consider details like this? Um, is it next time this comes back or should we have some of those chats now? >> Why don't we ask U Miranda Everett to comment on that from FM3? I think they've give they have some professional context that could help us on that point. Yeah, we typically find that in the 75word context, the until ended by a voters framing is um you know empowering. Um I think as compared to a 30-year sunset, 30 years can feel like a pretty long time. Typically until ended by voters does better than almost any sunset besides ones that are fairly short like uh 7 years, something under 10 years. So um you know that that's why we see that result and it's really not uncommon for us to see it. >> Oh, okay. And so that'll actually translate in the final voting results as well. >> Yeah, that's often what we see. Um I think the thing to to be mindful of is if there were um you know paid opposition and they kind of u hinged on the length of the tax as a piece of that. Um that's something we see sometimes, but I think given the kind of electoral environment right now, things like cost of living is just going to be a bigger uh rationale to vote against it. >> Okay. Um thank you. Uh the second part of that question, are those details we need to consider and discuss today or do we >> you you could if you'd like, but June 8th will be another opportunity to talk about the details of what would get on the ballot. >> Okay. I think uh that's a better time for me to hold my comments. Um I will also speak to the public. Uh the concerns around the pavilion are certainly heard. Uh to the point that council member Bert made, there is significantly more space. There will be opportunities to really design and make the space that we want. And so yes, there will also be opportunities to think about acoustics of spaces and making sure that this is a win-win for the uh entire community. Um so uh with that uh uh I'll wrap my comments and look forward to voting yes. >> Thank you, Council Member Are there any other comments? Seeing none, Madame Clerk, would you please call the role? >> Council member Lithods, >> yes. >> Mayor Vinker, >> Council member Rectal, >> yes. >> Council member Bert, >> Council member Lowing, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. Excellent. All right, I'll let you make a little noise now. >> All right. And with that, uh, we will move to our break and I will circle up with staff and come back and announce, uh, promptly after what the order of the next action items are. All right. Thank you all. This is related to 156 California Avenue. Then item 15 will actually be deferred off of tonight's uh agenda and in fact referred to the economic development committee for a first hearing and then uh the council will proceed to hear item number 12 uh which is uh related to 4103 Old Trace Road. Uh again, just as a reminder for members of the public, uh since public comment was received on that item, if you've already spoken on item number 12, uh you will not have the opportunity to be be heard again. >> Thank you, city manager. And with that, we will get started on item 14, an update regarding the builder's remedy project at 156 California Avenue and consideration of adding lot B associated with the development to the city's housing element sites inventory. and I'll turn it over to our planning director. >> Great. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, and good evening, city council. Jonathan Leate, director for planning and development services. Uh, next slide, please. Uh so um tonight uh the purpose of tonight's uh discussion is to provide an update on the application that was filed for 156 California Avenue uh to share uh with the public the uh negotiated revised concept project uh to talk about the uh implications of the recommended action to add one of the parcels to the housing sites inventory. Uh, and this is where I'll I'll make a note that um the staff report incorrectly cites lot B as the parcel in question. It actually is lot A. Lot A is the larger of the two parcels. Uh that's the one that would be added to the site's inventory uh or is recommended uh as a part of that consideration. Uh and then of course we would receive public testimony or public input tonight and uh ultimately looking for uh direction from the city council to uh staff as to whether or not to add the uh lot A to the housing sites inventory. Uh next slide please. So, uh this map just basically uh is a project location again showing lot A the larger parcel uh which is uh currently has um Molly Stone um Molly Stone's grocery store and a parking lot and then the adjacent um parcel across uh across the street. Um the application on file with the city is a is a mixeduse multif family development uh that would replace the existing grocery store. It would it would be part of the 156 redevelopment. Next slide, please. Uh this is uh just a slide to provide some legislative context to explain sort of the uh builder's remedy history, how it's embedded in state law and how it became came to be um effective here in Palo Alto. uh noting that uh the subject application, if we can go to the next slide, uh was filed during a period of time when the city did not have a certified housing element and therefore is eligible to um uh make requests that would otherwise go beyond the city's zoning code or or comprehensive plan standards. Next slide, please. This is an illustration from the application uh that is currently on file. Uh this is uh viewed from park um uh with the uh lower building uh at seven stories uh adjacent to California Avenue, the taller 17story building at about 177 ft tall and then a uh another uh tower element uh that goes to I believe about 120 feet. If we can go to the next slide. Here's a a rendering from that same perspective. And then the next slide is uh just a series of pictures that were um included in the project application. If we can do the next slide. And so this is just different vantage points of the um current application on file. Next slide please. Uh so the uh revised concept plan that the ad hoc had um uh worked with the applicant to um uh explore uh reduces the large tower from 177 ft to 144 ft. um increases the height of the podium tower from 77 ft to um 124 uh and uh slightly increases the height of of another um building component from 120 to 129. And you can see the number of stories laid out. So the larger tower uh was reduced in height while the other uh building elements were increased in height. The unit total is about the same slight slightly more for the builder's remedy 2.0 project and uh the affordable unit count is different and this is a um factor of what application type the project would be proceeding as a as a builder's remedy 1.0 development which is on file today. The project is required to provide 20% of its base unit project uh units toward an affordable um income level as a builder's remedy 2.0. And this is a reference to state law that uh allows for this variation of um builder's remedy processing. The requirement is 13%. Um the uh density is about the is about the same and the grocery store is also about the same. Uh parking is less with the revised concept project. Uh the next slides um will show some illustrations. This uh illustration is from a section of the building through park. And if we can go to the next slide, this is a rendering from California Avenue. You can see Molly Stone on the ground floor with the um uh I believe the 124 ft tow uh building uh at the corner and the taller uh 140 foot tall building uh behind it. Next slide, please. And again, a series of images that the applicant provided showing renderings of the revised concept drawing. Next slide, please. Okay. So, what does adding lot A to the housing sites inventory mean? It it makes this project um eligible for again this builder's remedy 2.0 concept. Builder's remedy 2.0 0 uh uh establishes um well, let me start off by saying 1.0 doesn't really establish any standards. A developer could propose whatever they wanted to propose if a city did not have its certified housing element adopted at the time. Builders remedy 2.0 know is is a state law where the state actually um codifies the the term of builder's remedy and it establishes specific development standards that um must be adhered to and they're generally lower uh than the free-for-all under builder remedy 1.0. But as a part of having a little bit more uh um uh boundaries around what could be built under builder remedy 2.0, know the affordable uh inclusionary requirement was reduced from uh 20% to 13%. It could actually be less than 13% if there was a deeper affordability provided but for the purposes of the discussion um 13% is what's um being contemplated tonight. Um so so when putting lot A on the housing sites inventory, it makes the project um from the applicant's perspective pencil out financially and allows the um the development to proceed under that revised or or that updated state standard um with this project uh or with the um ad hocs uh discussion with the applicant and the terms that the city council had had considered. the applicant would be required to submit an application within 120 days. Um, and the city would send the project to the architecture review board for a courtesy review, but the terms would uh specify that the applicant to the extent feasible take into consideration the comments that the ARB made and to incorporate those into the design. Ultimately, the project approval would be presented uh to the city council. Uh, this would be the case for builder remedy for either project. um adding uh the property uh lot A to the housing site inventory uh is a is a consequential decision. It it it signals at least to the to the applicant and and to the community that uh the opportunity to file a builder remedy 2.0 project is anticipated and uh would be processed. Uh absent adding the site to the inventory, um the applicant would not have the ability to um uh pursue the builder's remedy 2.0 project and instead would likely continue with its application that's on file. Next timeline or next slide, please. I I've already mentioned some components of the agreement. Um, importantly, tonight the council has not taken any action on uh either of the projects. Uh, and there's been no decision made on either of the projects. There's no predetermined outcome. Um, I mentioned that for each project, what regardless of what application goes forward, there will be an expedited processing review time. Um, that within 120 days, we would expect a decision to be made on either one of the projects. once we have received an application or um are are proceeding uh with the existing application that's on file. Uh one note that uh I'll flag here and get into a little bit more detail on the next slide is that uh um part of the agreement is that the uh development impact fees that are um applied to a project like this would not apply to the inclusionary units. uh this is uh not a uh unprecedented in the city. This is a uh something that was done or has been done for the housing focus area on El Camino. Um and so this is a policy that the council has uh implemented in the past. Uh but what that means is for the 50 units in the builder remedy 2.0 project uh no development impact fees would be uh assessed for uh for those units. Uh you can see on the screen how we estimate the project uh development impact fees would um play out. Uh and then noting that for the public art contribution uh there there would be some on uh on-site art but we don't expect the on-site art to cost uh exhaust the public impact public art impact fee. And so the balance of that unused uh those unused monies would then be uh contributed into the housing uh the housing fund. And based on that we would anticipate about $2.6 million um uh potentially being contributed to that that fund as a part of the builder remedy 2.0 project. Next slide please. So, the policy considerations for uh the council as you consider whether to add the uh lot a to um the inventory uh is uh you know considering the merits of the existing uh application that's on file to the revised concept that's been uh uh presented conceptually here tonight. uh the height and massing trade-offs between the two projects, the affordability trade-offs going from 20% to uh 13%. Uh the fiscal implications as shown on that last slide with under builder's remedy 1.0, all of the development impact fees would be paid. Um and then just the community uh sort of objectives. The council's heard a lot from community members, whether it's in support of or uh concerned about the the proposed development. Those are some factors that you would want to factor in as well. Next slide, please. And yeah, that this slide just summarizes the uh the discussion or um decision point for the council uh on whether to proceed um with putting that property lot a again on the housing sites inventory. And that concludes the presentation. Uh vice mayor, turn it back over to you. >> Thank you, Director Lee. And I will now turn over turn it over to council member Lowing to speak on behalf of the ad hoc. >> Okay. Thank you. Um yeah, thank you very much uh director light. That was very thorough and I can now condense my comments by 50%. Um, but I think as everyone knows in the room and those that are listening, you know, the builder's remedy is um was passed by the legislature during the housing element process and it was a uh tool to get get u those things approved and if they weren't approved then you could take an application you could place an application um for the builder's remedy at that time only 1.0 know and we have a number of of projects. Uh the so the law is statewide and it doesn't allow a city making to to make housing decisions on height, for example. Uh if we preferred that those new buildings be built in an area that looks more like the current neighborhood, um that's off the board with this kind of uh situation. So we have a number of them. This one actually had the highest has the highest uh tower of any of the uh um builder's remedies. So, builder remedy project. So when this came up originally, you know, I and others before before that bill was passed and afterwards talked to legislators and so on just to say, look, we want housing, you know, builders revenue could be fine, but we'd like to get some amendments and so on and um you know, we think there's some unintended consequences like the one on Willow Road in Middlefield, which is well, I'll just keep my comments to myself. Uh um and a lot of legislators that I talked with one-on-one standing in front of them said, "Yeah, we made some mistakes. We're we're looking to fix that." Um but at one point I even spoke at a Senate U housing committee meeting in Sacramento to just sort of say, "Look, we're willing to play ball here, but let's just kind of fix some of the wild things." Um anyway, I won't I won't go into the details of what we lobbied for and what we didn't get, but in fact, what happened is we went to a 2.0. Uh and as Jonathan said, the one of the issues there was that they reduced the affordable housing requirement. So, with this builder's remedy project here on the Molly Stone site, uh the bottom line is that we don't have any leverage to control what this thing looks like from height on down. But last year, um, as mayor, I thought, well, let's just sit down and have a conversation with with the applicant and the owner and see if there's a way we can just try to build a what I call a better project, which is obviously what we did. Uh, and the ad hoc was myself and then now vice mayor. U, we previously worked on the housing committee uh, together on council and u, so we kind of got the band back together to have these conversations. Uh we've had meetings and premeings over the last 6 to nine months uh with the applicant and the developer very active participation from our legal staff and our planning staff and the city manager. So at the very beginning of our uh I'll call it negotiations um we prioritized height reduction uh particularly of the 177 foot tower uh focus on affordable housing units uh and a sensible massing of the buildings uh from all street angles. So the staff report um shows you where the two sides ended up. Uh the tower height has been frankly a major objection on this project from a lot of citizens that I've talked with over the last sort of three years. Um it was a big campaign issue year and a half ago. I wasn't involved in that, but it was um and so this tower uh at its current size has been uh in this arrangement would be reduced by 33 ft in option 2.0. Uh this helps the surrounding uh residents with shadows and it also um changes the horizon for areas such as residential peloto that is just over the tracks there. Uh, Director Light gave a good job of recapping what we're doing here on the affordable housing units because yes, when you do the 13%, the new math comes out to be um 50 units, but we're getting we we do we do get to to have uh a developer honor our inclusionary ordinance which requires 15% of rental to be affordable. Um so that 2% difference is is made up through loo funds as were described that that plus a little bit of money left over from the um uh art fund gets about he said $2.6 million and I calculate that's between like six and nine units but they're going to be built somewhere else not on that site. That's how that part of that law worked. Uh and then thirdly, you know, city council uh and certainly the ad hoc is not uh the ARB. Uh but I think the architecture and the street facing presentation of the 2.0 option is really far superior because it faces Kell with the retail presence of uh the grocery store featured and just superior architecture. uh and the applicant uh stated to us that the privacy and flow, I'll call it flow, that's not a very technical term, uh but through the inside and the outside of the new 2.0 building uh is actually much better for for attendance. So, that's the summary of where we are with um 2.0. Um, and I'll pose the question um that you might ask us with with uh um with where we are, you know, are the vice mayor and I, you know, ecstatic with the outcome? And the answer is no, because we would like to have more. Uh but it's a negotiation. You don't always get everything you want in a negotiation. Uh do we think we're better than where we started? Yeah, we do. And um because lacking any true leverage in this, we still have the reduction of the 33 ft on the highest proposed builder's remedy site in our city and it's the only building uh that has agreed to drop some of the height. Um we've got affordable housing units that are still there. They're higher than what are required um by the uh 2.0. They're not as high as what is required in the 1.0. Um, and we can trust the landlord that it's a better place inside for the tenants, the 390 new PaloAlto residents that will be our neighbors. Uh, and outside uh from the street view for all who pass by. Um, so that's where we are and the vice mayor can join in and then after that it's time for the the public to weigh in and look forward to any input from residents uh on the two options. So take it back to the vice mayor. Great. Thank you, Council Member Lowing. Yeah, I'll just I'll I'll add first I just want to I want to thank Council Member Lowing for your partnership through this entire process to staff who sat through I don't know how many times we we met on this issue and and also an appreciation to the to the applicant and the entire project team for just their willingness to engage constructively with the city and the ad hoc over the past several months. And as council member Lowing noted, this was not an easy assignment for the ad hoc. The reality, as he stated, is that over the last several years, the state has dramatically eroded local control over land use decisions, and laws like the builder's remedy create a situation where, candidly, the the city has extremely limited authority to to deny projects like this one outright. That's just simply the legal landscape we're operating within today. And at the same time, public opinion here is is clearly mixed. We've heard from many residents who strongly support the additional housing opportunities that this project would create. But we've also heard from many, many others who view the original scale of and height of this proposal as really fundamentally inconsistent with the character and massing of of California Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods. And speaking to as as a candidate who did campaign in the 2024 election, uh, this was everywhere. And I'm sure council members Rectal and Lou and and Burke remember fondly how many times we were asked about this this project when we were knocking on doors or in forums or by the by the papers. And I thought over and over again residents were were really mostly saying the same thing that 17 stories just felt too tall for this location and heard similar concerns voiced from candidates and current council members, community stakeholders across the city. And so that was the core challenge that we were that we had to address as the ad hoc with very limited leverage. How could we meaningfully reduce the impacts of this project, particularly the height, while still recognizing the legal realities that we face? So, I think what's before us tonight is the product of roughly 6 months of difficult but productive negotiations. I I too genuinely believe that this is a better project than the 1.0. And that's really only possible because the applicant came to the table in good faith and because all parties really approached these conversations recognizing that we were trying to find a better outcome for the community. But as council member Lowing said with any negotiation, there are trade-offs. But I I do think that one of the most important outcomes of this process is that we arrived at a project that by the applicant's own assessment is actually superior to the original proposal. and it reduces the overall height. It increases the number of housing units. It improves sight lines, creates a more thoughtful site layout. I agree. I personally think the design is is uh a better fit for the broader context of the district. And also agree there is no perfect project here. But I think it's important that we frame the decision before us accurately. That the choice tonight is really not between this revised proposal and no project at all. Given the legal framework we're operating under, that is not realistically the decision before us. So the real choice is between the original proposal, the older remedy 1.0 and the 17 stories or the revised proposal negotiated through the ad hoc process. So I think no matter what happens there will be impacts associated with a development of this scale. Unfortunately those impacts are just unavoidable at this stage. So the question is whether we essentially accept a project that attempts to mitigate those impacts through the lower height, the improved design and better overall site plan or whether we walk away from the progress that we have been made and uh and the applicant would pursue likely the uh 1.0 project that's already on file. So my view the revised proposal represents a significant improvement over where we started and appreciate all the work that got us here. And with that now with the ad hoc presenting we'll turn it over to for public comment. >> And how many speakers do we have? >> We have eight requests to speak. >> Okay. Then we'll do uh three minutes each. No and no presentations. Okay. >> Correct. Our first speaker is Jeff C. Good evening, council. My name is Jeff Currant, um, architect with Studio Current. We, my firm is the architect for 156 California Avenue, and, um, we work on a lot of transit oriented development projects in the Bay Area. And I've got to say that this site is bar none the highest quality transit oriented site that we've ever worked on with a rail stop right across the street which is where transitoriented projects should take place and a pedestrian avenue like California Avenue right at the bottom of the building with an owner like Mike Stone and the Stone family that runs a grocery store um that will be on the ground floor of the project and a visionary developer, Chris Freeze from Redco Development. We've got a really amazing project here. Um, so I want you to know we work on a lot of housing projects, a lot of mixed use. This is probably one of the highest quality ones we've done. Um, the project itself, the 1.0 project, as was mentioned, was submitted a couple of years ago. Um, it was a great project, but I feel like as as the discussions went on, we were asked to do what we could to reduce the height. The 2.0 project not only reduced 33 ft off the building, it increased the unit count, it put the supermarket in a much better location, giving full visibility along California Avenue. It created automobile entrances separately. One for the grocery store on levels one and two of the parking, one for the residents that go down to the basement one and basement two. The sund deck for the building improved significantly with regards to orientation size and opportunity for the residents to have a quality outdoor space. The top of the building also has a improved restaurant space that's meant to be a full-ervice restaurant and bar open and available for public use. And so all that to say, the version 2.0 not only did achieve the height reduction that we were asked to do, but it did so many more things. So um with that, we not only think this is a good project, but we think the 2.0 was a huge improvement. So, thank you. >> Our next speaker is Dan G. >> Hello and good evening, council members. My name is Dan Gallib. I'm with the West Coast Land Use uh and environmental practice group at Holland tonight and we're council to the applicant team. Um I actually am primarily here to answer questions if they should come up during discussions with respect to the settlement agreement or the legal issues raised. Um, so I don't think I'll use anything close to the couple minutes, but please know that you're there and if your your council and staff um need any input from us about the legal issues, I'm happy to provide it. Uh, at this point, I'd just say uh to echo what's been said. We've been at this for about two and a half years. Um, we've been at the sort of settlement, the potential ad hoc conversations for the past 6 months. Uh, and I just want to echo, we think we've arrived at your urging or at least at the urging of staff and the ad hoc at what is frankly a better project. um probably wouldn't have been pushed that direction if not for the fact that both staff and and my clients and and the Molly Stones team uh were not intendant upon uh you know taking the most aggressive position but instead seeing if we could come to a compromise and I I think both sides have been willing to do that. Uh we had legal claims and we're proposing to walk away from them as part of this uh settlement agreement if the uh project's approved on the terms that have been set forth. Um, we think it's very consistent with the compromises and agreements that the city's been making and that the council's been approving. For example, the 3606 El Camino, very similar proposal at the end of the day with respect to going to 2.0 and and doing what the 2.0 uh provision calls for. Um, to date, the council's done a terrific job of navigating the complexity of builder's remedy 1.0 2.0. Um, staying out of litigation and resolving all these issues with the applicant teams that have come forward. We think this is very much consistent with and of a piece with that. I think the council should be congratulated and really appreciate all the work that the ad hoc committee and staff and council have done. Again, I'm here to answer questions, but we really think the the 2.0 option is is the better way to go. I should note, of course, the final approval is coming before this council no matter what. So, this decision is not fundamentally the project approval. Uh it is a decision about whether to add the site to the housing element. And I should just say we think there's solid policy reasons to do that completely irrespective of which way we go. Um the site is mostly on the housing element now. We think there's no real rational policy reason not to put the other portion of the site which is also owned by Molly's Doe's and Maidar. The sensible planning approach would be to put both those sites on the housing element. Uh and that just so happens to unlock a compromise and an agreement that's uh good with staff as well as with the applicant. So, we'd urge adoption of the of the compromise that we've come to and um look forward to answering any questions if if um council members have it. Thanks. >> Our next speaker is Sharon C. >> Hi, my name is Sharon Chin. I'm a resident of Evergreen Park and I've raised four kids in this neighborhood. Um, I'd like to know what protections will be in place to maintain safety along Park Boulevard, which is a bike corridor, and it's designated a safe route to school, and it's used heavily by kids, students, and commuters on bikes, as well as pedestrians throughout the day and night. Uh, the current project 2.0 know design includes parking and vehicle access along Park Boulevard and also ingress egress um along uh Cambridge and Park Boulevard. So those impacts should really be considered um with regard to safety and I also have concerns about the impact this project will have on the residents who live near the project. I greatly appreciate the work that you have done to decrease the tower's height. Um, I just want to point out that it is still going to block natural light from the families um who live in the neighborhood and in particular um the families who live in the apartments across the street which ironically is an affordable um housing complex. So, you know, who is advocating for them? Um and the uh parking spillover from this project is also directly going to impact these residents who really rely on parking um right along Park Boulevard across from this these towers. So I really appreciate the work that you have done um on this project. I ask that you and um Redco consider the impacts regarding preserving public safety and the quality of life for everyone who frequents this um area, including the residents. And I encourage you to consider making amendments to project 2.0 to mitigate these concerns. Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael E. Hi, my name is Michael Eager. I live on Park Boulevard just down the street from the Molly Stone site. Uh I'm active in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association where I'm co-chair of the our California committee uh Cal Avenue committee and uh I'm speaking on my own behalf, not as uh representative of the association. Um the design for 2.0 you know, maybe actually nicer. It is still a huge massive uh structure which looms over the neighborhood and we have several concerns. I have several concerns. One of them is parking. We've spent years addressing parking issues in the neighborhood. There are 390 units. There are 200 resident parking spaces. We have the assumption that people will take the train. We have the assumption that people will not have cars. I don't believe that that's borne out by any facts. We have will have an increased impact on the neighborhood with increased parking density. Um adding 200 more cars to the neighborhood is going to be devastating. We will have traffic issues. We've had uh sometime before I moved to the area about 30 years ago, uh part of uh Park Boulevard was converted uh to one way to avoid traffic cutting through. We will have traffic issues with an additional um 390 apartments. This is going to be a devastating impact on the neighborhood. Thank you. Our next speaker is Paul B. >> Good evening. I'm Paul Broofphy. I live on Channing, so I'm not in this neighborhood. However, speaking here as somebody who had a career in commercial real estate, I have a number of issues. I know you're all in a difficult spot and it's really choosing A or B. And under state law, you have very limited ability to modify what's been negotiated under each of these. My primary concern is the impact of is the insufficient amount of parking that is proposed here. Again, under state law, you have no ability to require any parking. The reality is this is a suburban apartment complex. The fact that it's close to the train station will not reduce the amount of cars of the people who would live there. A reasonable number that you would expect to have is um 1.5 cars per unit or about 600 up 600 cars. The under the what's being proposed is 200. And again, you could have nothing to do about the you can do about it at this time, but as you move forward on this, you might want to think about how this is going to affect the downtown California Avenue corridor. If you parked 400 cars in the commercial areas along the streets and in the municipal lots, what is the impact upon the the California Avenue district that you all have spent a great deal of time and money on? I believe it will be numbers of that size. It will be potentially catastrophic on that. And as you move forward, you can't do anything uh with the applicant. But I think you better start thinking about what the city will be doing to deal with the mismatch between the number of parking spaces offered and the number of cars that will actually be in this building. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Stephen L. Good evening. I'm Steve Levy. I think this, as the first speaker said, is a great place for housing. But I came here tonight to personally thank Council Member Lowing and Vice Mayor Stone for this incredible effort and to talk about it the ramifications for a minute. I don't remember in a contentious situation where council members have formed a committee, worked with the applicant, and reached a compromise. They may not think it's the greatest compromise on earth, but as Vice Mayor Stone said, the choice is between one of the two builders remedy options. I think I want to support their work and their recommendations. I obviously wasn't privy to all of the legal negotiations and discussions, but if two of the council members who represent me put in all of that effort, I think it's worth supporting their effort if they think this is a better project. There is a downside. I'd ask the council to think carefully about what happens if you reject the work that they put in, reject the compromise with the applicant, what future applicants might think about working with the city. I'm not a a mind readader, but I would think that would have a very chilling effect on the ability of the city to work with applicants to make better projects. Um, this is a great site. I know some residents are concerned about it, but apparently that is not a legal choice facing you. It's near the train station, but it's also near Stanford Shopping Center. It's near a shuttle to the research park. It's near Stanford University and the healthc care facilities. It's near an area that council has dedicated to make more vital. and these residents will bring the desired activity to the California Avenue area that we're all hoping for. So, please honor them and add this site to the housing inventory so the council and the community can discuss in more detail BR2 as it comes back to the council. Thank you again, council members Lowing and Stone. Our next speaker is Star T. Star T, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. Moving to our next speaker, Scott O. Hi, thank you. Uh, this is Scott O'Neal speaking for myself. Um, I want to align myself with Steve's excellent comments in their entirety. I won't recapitulate. And now, great job, Steve. Um, what I want to add is uh I'll add is I like the um I like the first for including additional housing, obviously. Um, I like the second for the design. Um, I usually don't comment on aesthetic issues, but in general, I'm just in love with second street zoning where you put the residential height one street behind a pedestrian friendly, you know, shared commercial space. And um, that's what I like most about option two. I think it's beautiful. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Chris F. >> Good evening, council. U, I'm Chris Fes of Redco Development. Um, I just wanted to step up and firstly thank the city's first proactive approach with us. Um, you over the last 6 to9 months. Uh, our team has sat down with you over two dozen times. We've gone through 15 design iterations. We really thought about the challenge that you put out to our group of finding a compromise of more units, more affordable units, less height. We thought hard and like all things, there are compromises that go with that. Um, and I'm thankful for well where we landed. In particular, I'd like to thank um, Vice Mayor Stone and Council Member Lowing for their leadership. Um, along with the city manager Ed Shicata, planning director late, uh, assistant city attorney Albert Yang. Um, all were kind of instrumental from our perspective in a win-win, which is the proposal that's here in front of you tonight. And it's very rare for a developer to negotiate and find that they like the negotiated deal better. But I can say that we are here today with that uh in fact. And here are the reasons why. Firstly, I I live in this neighborhood. I bike with my daughter. I like looking at buildings that I like that we created and I'm proud of. And frankly, I think that this is better architecture. This is architecture that meets the moment of being a mixeduse stop on transit with the glass design, the wood articulation that Jeff Currant from our team, uh, the the renderings you've seen, this mixeduse transit meets the moment for a site this proximate to Cal Train. Um, it's better functionally, architecturally. Let me talk to why that is. So, the option one podium units, the five stories in the front, the U-shaped, there's almost 50 units of um not great light units that stare at close proximity to their neighbors. Now, we have setback towers with separation and views in all directions with the towers angled. And um frankly, I think that that is a much better living situation for both the market rate and the affordable units that will be clustered through the project. The big improvement was the Molly Stones grocery store. And I can speak to the reasons why. We oriented towards Cal A. We're loading is now more robust and set back off of our neighbor to the west. Um we have separate parking entrances. And you know, one of the comments that I heard uh several nights tonight from the public comment, which I I can speak and represent as the applicant, is by the time we show up next time for you, we will meet or exceed our current parking that we're um proposing for option one, we we're looking at evaluating stackers. We're evaluating valet systems. We will come back with a solution that meets parking demand. Um I'm running out of time here. Lastly is consistency and the consistency of the project to >> your time is up >> to match what this what council has done on prior pivots to builder remedy 2.0 on fees affordable housing and just good spirit negotiation is why we believe that this is a great compromise and we support I I'm I'm around our team's around to answer any more questions. Thank you for the time. That concludes public comment on action item 14. >> Thank you. We'll be bring it back to the dis for discussion. Council member B. Thank you. So, first I want to uh thank both the applicant and our ad hoc committee for really conscientious um and uh good faith and diligent efforts to come up with a second alternative for us to uh consider. Um and I'll just say that um I've been a supporter of transit oriented development for a long while. uh even when we were uh selecting our housing element sites, I was probably the strongest voice for uh that more of them should be in our greater downtown areas. We um uh last year initiated um in the university area, Avenue area, uh downtown housing plan and uh it's really to try to figure out how we can um uh promote through zoning changes um uh more housing downtown and a greater proportion of our housing supply there. Um, I do want to just address that for those who think that the choice here is between this project or either of the alternatives that we have and achieving our housing goals, that's far from the case. We've we've already zoned for 6,500 units in just eight years. Almost a 25% increase in our housing supply in the community in just eight years. And that was before SB79 came forward, which de facto upzoned a whole bunch of other areas uh thousands of additional housing units even beyond our um our housing element. Um so when I I look at the alternatives um first I agree with the applicant that the second alternative actually is a better design in many ways uh better for uh Molly Stones as a retailer better for the the residents and customers that you'll have at the property. Um but it's not better in several other ways for the community. It basically is um uh that the original project is 50% more affordable housing units than the 2.0 project. Um it's more units overall and fewer affordable units. Um, it's less parking in the proposal than the previous proposal even with more units. Um, and it's almost a million dollars less in or the impact fees. I'm not sure maybe I'm not sure if that's less net or we get it or not. Um, so when I look at those alternatives, when I hear that the applicant say the second design is better for them in many ways architecturally, for their residents, for the for the um uh retail that they're going to have. I agree. And I would like to see that they take that better design and retain the number of affordable units and the number of total units that they originally had and capture the better design and the benefits for their own project that they themselves said uh uh acrew to the project. um you know the the notion that was that we look at the trade-offs I think it's better designed but then the the difference between 14 stories and 17 stories across the street from a uh directly across the street from a two to threetory affordable housing project uh 100 plus feet from low density neighbors. Um this is a a large tower. It's high density. It's not medium density. And I've been long uh an advocate for um for human scale development and for new urbanism. And those tenants really would not embrace a tower of this size uh at this kind of location at all. Um I just think it is contrary to good urban design in our community. we don't have a choice. Uh we're going to have uh one of these two options. So the choice is not good urban design. But I just want to say that I I don't agree that either of these options are a good fit for the community or necessary for the density that we support in the community. Um and um I I would support one of the things which is uh transfer some of the impact fees from public art maybe half of that toward affordable housing. I think that would be a constructive approach. Um and um and I I did want to make sure that members of the public who were concerned about the parking understand that we don't have any prerogative to control the parking under an additional state piece of legislation AB 4 uh um 450 or >> 207 >> 2097. That's right. Thank you. Um uh the it's completely up to the developer how much parking they want to provide. Um so I I am um as much as I I genuinely appreciate that um bringing forward this second option um is a good choice for us to be able to consider um and that it was done uh in good faith. Um I'm not sure I I I don't think I support the second option. >> Council member Rectal. Okay. Yeah. I want to thank both the applicant and the ad hoc. You did a lot of work. I know you worked really hard, spent a lot of time, and the applicant spent a lot of money on this, and I appreciate that. Having two choices is always better than one. Uh unfortunately, in this case, the second option I don't find very compelling. As council member Bert said, you know, we're losing market rate, I mean, uh, uh, affordable housing units. Uh, we're using 28 and that's about 15 to 20 million cost to the city. Uh we're losing impact fees, that's 1.7 million. We're losing parking. And so we do have uh 33 ft reduced 17 to 14. It it's still both of them are going to have a huge impact on the neighbors. It's the massing really hasn't changed. Maximum height has changed, but the massing itself is roughly the same. And so the neighbors are impacted and our housing is impact. affordable housing is impacted, parking is impacted, our budget is impacted. Uh I think the 1.0 is the lesser of the two evils. >> Council Loop, thank you. Uh I will actually concur with the colleagues that have spoken. Uh, I'll say there is no perfect project, but this is basically a perfect location and I live several blocks from here. I really support the idea of uh dense housing on this site. I also really appreciate the ad hoc's work. I think uh 144 ft actually is a pretty significant uh uh visual or neighborly improvement for the community. I think 144 ft brings it just about uh or even slightly less tall than the Mark or Channing House or 101 Alma. They're all in that 140 to 150 ft level. So, I think given the size of the site and the massing uh uh I I think the ad hoc did a really good job negotiating there and it does pain me because I see how the the 2.0 is a better project. Um, I think the parts that uh sway me the other way as mentioned were the affordable units as well as the fees. Um, uh, I really hope that we can bring positive elements of the design uh, from the 2.0 project into the 1.0 uh, project. I think the applicant still has some decent latitude to uh, make some of those changes. Um uh and actually maybe one question as well that I want to confirm. Uh under the 1.0 project, there are no uh driveways opening onto Park Boulevard, but there is a driveway opening onto Calav. Uh so I'm just trying to be conscious of like traffic flow and uh pedestrians and cyclists under the 2.0 project. Uh, are there driveways that open onto Park Boulevard or Calav on Park? I believe, but not CalF. >> Okay. >> So, Park in Cambridge for 2.0, but you that might be a question through the mayor. You might want to confirm with the >> uh through the uh vice mayor. Can I Yep. That's the applicants. >> Yeah. So, uh, the current store orientation to park has our loading docks on the back side if you guys have bike biked past that or driven past that. And the 1.0 application had a lot of store loading on park. And so, you can think from a challenging standpoint. So reorienting that towards Cambridge and the alleyway which is now set back >> um necessitated moving the drive aisles over to park. So while there's like all all things in the podium there's sort of compromise and solving and loading and store loading >> and setting back off the twotory office building along California was a big part of the iterations with the ad hoc to get there. So yes, there are drive aisles only for carve passenger vehicles on park. in the second application. Um, but in the 1.0 application, there's plenty of loading. So, it's not like there's no And I we from a design standpoint, we felt that loading was a bigger um disturbance to park than >> than the driveoffs. Okay. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Um uh I I I'll do a little bit of mental processing uh in my off time about whether that makes uh represents a sort of back the envelope safety improvement between 1.0 or or sort of uh safety is not quite the right word. Uh but uh bike traffic calming improvement between 1.0 and 2.0 and actually think more about that element. Um uh but yeah, I'm also curious to see what uh other council members say. Um uh but I'm certainly leaning toward 1.0. >> Council member Lads. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to assure everybody I'm not sick. I've got asthma and I don't have my inhaler with me. Um so that's why I'm coughing. I think I'm going to be fine. Excuse me. If anyone has an alerol, please bring it to me. Okay. Um I want to begin um by acknowledging that the builder's remedy puts us in a tough position and an adversarial posture. And so within that context, I applaud the ad hoc and staff and the applicant for negotiating a significant what I feel is a significant improvement over the initial 1.0 project in the 2.0. As we are pushed to upzone to meet the housing deficits in our region and state, we are going to have to accept that there will be an impact on lower density housing including R1 and to try to make those decisions as thoughtfully as we can. Uh toward that end, I think the reduction from 17 stories near lowdensity residential to 14 stories is quite an improvement while actually achieving greater density on the site. In the 2.0 no project. We get a great new Molly stones. Um, front facing on Calab with dedicated parking. Sounds like it's better floor plans in option two, including window placement so they're not all looking in on each other and a pretty cool rooftop restaurant. All of this will serve to um better activate our beloved Calv accordingly, which is really starting to come into its own with Bar Underground and Gamelantia and Mini Cattown and the Cobbler with so many restaurants and maybe an entertainment zone coming. Continuation of live music. You can just sort of see how this street is going to come into its own in this new era. Um, I'm glad that we're planning to exempt the 50 inclusionary units from development impact fees as we have done elsewhere in the city and that we expect to have $ 1.5 million in unused public art fees going to the affordable housing fund. I very much appreciate that the applicant has said that they're going to come back with a way to meet the parking demand. It was great to hear. Um, as it stands, I feel that the better design is the 2.0. Uh, so, um, I plan to vote to add lot B to lot A to the housing inventory sites and if had to vote tonight, I would vote for 2.0. >> Thank you, >> Council Lowing. >> Thank you. Yeah, I just like to address headon this issue of affordable housing. First of all, um, the the math that Council Burton did is is exactly right. I mean, there are more units here and yet affordable went down and they could have come back with something else because it seemed like there was um room to do that. Um they haven't. That's a fact. Okay, we're just dealing with that. But but I want to focus on this thing because most of the most of the comments that I'm hearing from those of of you who have concerns is on the affordable housing piece. And this isn't I'm saying it's a little bit flipped. This isn't the only place in town we can put affordable units. Um, when you when you add back the inloo fees, as I said before, you pick up eight or nine units. So, we're down to basically minus 20. Uh, and the simplest way to solve that problem is to not take off those three stories, to add three more. I mean, I'm saying this facitiously and not disrespectfully, just saying that there are a lot of ways that we can, you know, work to get the affordable housing units. It doesn't have to be at at this exact site and on this exact project. Um I've said before, am I happy with everything that came back? I'm not. Um but at this point legally we have to pick one or the other. That's why to me the focus on just the affordable housing units here down by 20 units is something I think we could easily with the uh applications that we have coming in and the projects that are in the pipeline um you know find a way to bail that 20 back. And that shouldn't be the point is it shouldn't be the core reason to turn down 2.0 is the loss of the 20 units. That that's that's just my strong feeling on that point. It's sort of it's the wrong problem to be solving for. I think given all the other positives that have been discussed about the uh 20 council member, >> thank you. Uh just a couple quick questions. One for staff. What happens uh if there is a tied vote here? >> So, yeah. So, I'll start and then uh city attorney can can weigh in. So, uh staff needs direction to uh from the city council to add the item to the housing sites inventory. If it's a three-3 vote, that direction is not provided and no action would be taken, which means uh according to the terms, uh the city would have uh failed to add lot A to the the inventory and then the applicant could pursue uh builder's remedy 1.0 uh through the SQA exemption and that project would be processed within 120 days roughly. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Now, let me um if I could just refine that slightly. Um so the the there the the city has 45 days to act on the the the request to add the site to the housing element inventory. Um and so that's 45 days from May uh May 7th. So um so up until that time, the item could come back to council conceivably if if the mayor and city manager were to agendaize it. >> Okay. I have no idea how our mayor was thinking about this, but it uh you know, tied vote is maybe not productive. Uh and I think we do want to be at our full strength uh for uh a vote potentially in case that vote is pivotal. Um uh uh uh potentially that's something we could schedule later that the mayor could uh uh could work with staff to schedule if if it makes sense for this to come back potentially. Right. Well, given the time sensitivity, probably suggest you amend your June 1st agenda in order to simply complete the item. Again, that would require a motion and and agreement to continue the item. >> Right. I don't know where the mayor uh would vote, but if the mayor would vote in favor, um maybe it could be her prerogative potentially to decide whether we bring it back. Um uh can I ask one more question for the applicant? >> Yes. Uh can you talk a little bit more about the frontage on park on the 2.0 proposal? Because in the 1.0 no proposal. I can see, you know, nice staircases that are sort of like a like a mini public plaza. I can see that retail space on that uh third building along park. Can you talk a little bit more about what the park a uh frontage looks like under the 2.0 proposal, which we don't have any rendering for. Um I I want to give more weight to council member Lowing's point that um you know whatever we pick will be here forever. So we want the best sort of public space even if uh some of the afford even if it costs us something in terms of fees or affordable housing. So uh yeah with that aside, I'd appreciate some context on the park frontage. So, um, originally we had a coffee shop on the corner of Park and Cambridge in option one and now we have, uh, three grand entrances that give Park Avenue a sense of place. There are these twotory, in fact, the package that we provided to the ad hoc committee and staff show an image of it, but they are large. They have the wood articulation and they're the lobby residences are grand and a sense of place. We felt that retail on park would struggle and that these would were a way to activate those frontages and have a lot of vibrancy and residencies and amenity centers down there coming in off those. The other part of park that you're seeing there is a dedicated lobby entrance and separate elevator for the grand rooftop restaurant. >> And so we envision that that all those lobbies and activity actually add to the vibrancy of park and the pedestrian experience versus having retail that struggles to fill. >> And we know that on Calab that that has been >> challenging and particularly off the offshoots of Calab that's even more challenging. And so we do have an image. We happy to share it with you. But I think there was a lot of thoughtfulness that went into park. It wasn't like we turned our back on it. In fact, when you're standing in our park, I think you're going to it's going to be one of the most meaningful experiences of the project where you see the three entrances of the Molly Stones grocery store, the residents into both towers, and the residents on on the smaller lot across the street, plus the se you you have four activated sections of that frontage. So, um hopefully that gives you a little color there. >> Yes, that is helpful. Um uh and so in the 1.0 project there were these sort of articulations like these stairs or uh these like quasi public spaces. Is there anything equivalent in the 2.0 project? Uh sort of just thinking about the balance of uh um how most of Paul Alto will actually interact with the project. the the stairs were eaten up for the dedicated separate uh elevator shaft and lobby entrance for the roof. And the roof has 8,000 square ft of usable roof decks open to the public. >> Okay. That >> and in the 1.0 there was how much? >> Really? Very very minimal. >> Much less. >> Yeah. Cuz that was compromised with some of the residents uh amenity spaces up there. >> Okay. Um Okay. That's very helpful also to just think about how that improved public space as an option in 2.0. Uh, okay. Thank you. >> I'll just add as far as the I think the kind of the that public amenity of the of the restaurant and and rooftop bar, there's not too many rooftop bars in PaloAlto and those are so well activated. I mean, if you go to RH, the president hotel, the other well, I can't even think of others at the at the moment, but those are always packed and full of life and vibrancy. It's a great opportunity for Palton to come out and here it would be such an incredible view as as well. So, I I do see that as a true public amenity here to be able to liven up um Cow A that is not that doesn't quite exist to that degree in the in the 1.0 project. Uh, council member Burke. >> Yeah. The only thing I I wanted to return to this issue on the affordable housing and the question of whether we can uh shift that elsewhere. Our housing element requires 40% of those 6,000 plus units to be affordable. An additional 20% moderate income which in our market basically requires subsidy as well. So, we have the biggest pipeline of recently completed and affordable housing projects uh coming up of a total of seven um that uh we have had in decades and I think it's one of the the highest number of any city in the area. We already have tied for the second highest proportion indeed restricted affordable housing in the county. Um and yet um we are in all likelihood going to be in real jeopardy of meeting that state mandate despite all those projects and so are other um uh cities up and down the region and as a result lose uh uh a zoning and approval authority because of not being able to meet the affordable housing uh mandates. Uh so I don't agree with the notion that it's easy for us to shift those because that's our biggest challenge of all, even more difficult than meeting the market rate uh numbers of units. Um so I think it's a big deal that we're going to lose that many affordable housing units. I go back and say that we did hear from the applicant that the the second design works better for them. So I don't quite understand why in order to get us to approve um redes or designating this a housing site to enable it to be a builder's remedy one uh 2.0. Um the the city should have to agree to such a significant reduction in affordable housing and to an increase in the total number of units in order to get a design that they said and we agree is better for everybody. It doesn't make sense to me except that they they did a good negotiation and I don't blame them for it, but I don't think we came out um in the net for the community um uh with that tradeoff. Any others? >> Yeah, Councilman. Yeah, I I still think that that's not the right target to be talking about in the context, but I'll state it the other way. If we had them reduce the height substantially, the affordable units would have gone down substantially. So, would we have said, "Well, thanks, but now we want you to add height back because we're losing some affordable units from where you started." No, we'd be focused on we would get a better deal on on height than we have right now. So my first example was, you know, we can build more units up if you want more housing, but if we dec if they said, okay, we'll take a lot of height away, then we would get fewer affordable units, so we would still have the same 20. You don't you don't understand my math? >> No. If they built even the the project that there is in the uh option B, uh they have more square footage, they have more units. I know that >> there's no reason that they couldn't have the number of affordable housing units that were originally proposed. >> That's a choice, but it's not a necessity by any means. >> What I'm saying is if we asked them to reduce the heights, let's say on all three of the buildings and they took out 120 units, then the percentage times that would mean we would get >> not what we're asking. That's a false dichotomy. >> It it is what we asked for, but we didn't get it. So, so I >> that's not my point. >> I I I still think it'd be valid u to to vote on this unless you know you you think the um developer should answer any other questions relative to our concerns. >> Well, as I was going to ask, uh oh, perfect. Council member Lou, you kind of seem to be the most on the fence. Are there other questions that the applicant can answer to be able to help you? Uh just on the point that whatever project we choose we will have to live with uh forever. Um can I ask the applicant about the aesthetic decisions in the 2.0 project where I think the 2.0 project is much stronger aesthetically, much more calming, uh you know, not a big white facade, really nice wood paneling. Is that uh aesthetic something that you'd update the 1.0 0 project with anyways or uh is that uh or or are do do you really see 1.0 and 2.0 as pretty complete and separate projects for right now? I'm curious if the applicant or architect could speak to that. I >> I'll speak for Jeff current. Um they're both beautiful designs. Um, you know, to answer some of your comments on the skin design, if the city's position was we would like we like 1.0, but we want a better skin, then we had 2 and 1/2 years to discuss that and I think we spent 9 months working in collaboration together in good faith. Um, we're really happy with the skin and we would there's a lot of design effort that went into this second one that is not just skin design. It's it's the lobby lobbies and the ingress egress the loading the unit counts and how they orient. And and one thing I think is worth pointing out while the units there are more units market just total units for the project. We made the conscientious decision to reduce the number of two-bedroom units in the project. So then the total renable or the number of bedrooms in option two is less than the number of bedrooms in option one. And then what is not lost on council, but I think just needs to be reminded is that, you know, if I was to go comp out our pure sets in San Francisco or the related project in San Francisco, the rents in a market rate project as you tar up in those um are considerably higher when you go from the 10th floor to the 17th floor. And that is proven out in like the related project down at Levis's and some of these others. So, while you're you you want to say unit counts and affordable and you know this and that, it's not it's not that simple. And we did actually talk about that at length with the ad hoc committee about the unit sizes, what were the makeup of those bedrooms and what the rents were in the different sections of the tower. And um coming down on the project, we really felt like the rooftop amenity set kept those rents elevated. And on top of the the the the better amenity set on the podium helped offset some of that, but it's not a complete just unit forunit transition, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions or discussion? Well, I'll move the staff recommend the staff and ad hoc recommendation. >> Second. >> I don't need to speak to the motion. You want to speak to your second? No. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none done when the language is up. All right, we can take the vote. >> Council member Liths, >> yes. >> Council member Rectal, >> no. >> Council member Lowing, >> yes. >> Council member Bert, >> no. Council member Lou, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> Motion carries 4 to two. >> Great. Thank you. And um All right. Then not this specific item, but sorry. the then the is there something else that will then be coming back to the council just for the kind of the public's awareness of kind of next steps with this particular project. >> Yeah. So uh with this action uh the city will uh add that lot a to the housing sites inventory and then that unlocks builder's remedy um 2.0 know and sets forth the timeline for the applicant to submit an application to the city uh within the prescribed timelines but no other communication back to the city council the city council the next steps would be um uh to go to the architecture review board after the application has been filed for a courtesy review and then back to city council sometime uh later this year probably. >> Great. Thank you. I know procedurally this is very complicated so wanted to make sure that people were clear on that. Thank you. All right. Then we will now move on with our our amended agenda to item 12 that was pulled from the consent public hearing/quazi judicial on 4103 Old Trace Road. Turn it over to staff or likely a brief staff presentation. Then as a reminder to the public, if you already spoke to this item when it came up before on consent calendar, you won't be able to speak again. But if you did not have an opportunity to speak during the consent, you are free to speak to this item. And does staff need a little time? Are we >> just need one second to pull the presentation up? >> Do you have Okay, >> so uh thank you, Vice Mayor and City Council. Uh, I'd like to um introduce uh Nashita Kandakupa um associate planner with our uh program. This is her first presentation before the city council on a not so um on a potentially on a controversial item. So, uh, just acknowledging that as I know the city manager, uh, likes to highlight that as we get into these meetings, but, um, we're well equipped to answer the council's, uh, questions should you have them tonight. Turn it over for the presentation. >> Excellent. Welcome. We're nice. >> Thank you. >> Um, good evening. Um, I'm the project planner for the 4103 Old Trace Road um, subdivision map being presented in front of you. Um, next slide. Thank you. Uh just a quick project overview. Um this project site is currently um vacant and the applicant is proposing to subdivide this um into nine residential lots with one private street providing access to the nine residential lots. Um there's a separate planning entitlement for proposed housing um for nine single family residences. Um one of which will be a below market rate unit and lot. Um and seven of these homes will also have attached junior accessory dwelling units or otherwise referred to as JDUs. Next slide. Um I've included a quick snippet of the site plan. Um on the north side of this site plan is Arashadder Road. Um and to the left is Old Trace Road. Um and the area highlighted in red is the um proposed it should actually be 15 foot drainage easement. Next slide. Um a quick glance at the vehicular access and circulation that's being proposed. Um the vehicular right ofway is proposed at 20 ft which is the private street. Um the total right ofway including um pedestrian improvements with the sidewalk and landscaping um is proposed at 30.5 ft. Um this is a three-way street. So there going to be two-way traffic um with red curbs on either side to prevent parking and to also provide um fire emergency vehicle and refuse truck access. Um the right turn movement coming off of Arasadero turning right onto the private street will be restricted to reduce um any potential conflict um between bikes, pedestrians and vehicles. Next slide. I've also included um a list of requested waiverss from the applicant uh per the state density bonus law um including minimum lot size reduction um or I guess ranging from 1570 ft² to 6900 ft² approximately um reducing the special setback along road um from 53 ft to um 9'6 in at le 5 and then 15 ft for lot 6 and 9 reducing the minimum private width as required by code um for 32 feet to 20 ft um and reducing the site depth from 100 ft to 59 ft. The applicant is eligible for one concession which will be requested formally by the applicant at the time of the streamlined housing development review application. Next slide. Some key considerations. Um the project may not be denied based on inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan um land use designation. The city may deny or reduce density of the project only on the basis of a specific adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be mitigated. U and more information has been provided as a part of the supplementary report. Under state density bonus law, the applicant may request a waiver of applicable standards that would physically prevent the project from being built at the uh proposed density. And lastly, um AB130 um exempts infill housing projects from SQA and sets strict timelines for city review and decision. Um one of the reasons we're here today presenting the project. Next slide. staff recommends um the city council to take the following actions. Uh consider the project exempt from AB130 um and then approve the tentative map application based on the draft record of land use action that was amended as a part of attachment A in the supplementary report. Um, I also want to note quickly that um, we have transportation staff um, as well as a representative of the PTC who's here online and can answer any questions. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Very good first presentation. And because this is a quasi judicial, do we have to do disc we have to do disclosures? >> Yes, I would recommend that you do disclosures. >> Okay. Does anyone have anything to disclose? Okay, seeing none, we'll then move on to public comment. >> Our first we have two speakers to request to speak and our first speaker is Heather C. So, uh, so, um, Vice Mayor, I this is an applicant application, so I think we would hear first from the applicant. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you. Do we have the applicant? >> Yes. >> Oh, great. Thank you for reminding me. Hello. Welcome. And what is it? 10 minutes for the applicant. Okay. >> Good evening, Mayor. Um actually mayor it looks like she's no longer here. Council members appreciate the opportunity to address you. My name is Melanie Griswald and I'm land use council and I also represent the applicant Stilbridge Homes Palo Alto for the Old Trace Road development. We're here before you tonight requesting approval of the tenative map. Before I describe the project, a brief word on where the application stands. We have worked closely with the city attorney's office throughout the review process and the legal analysis supporting approval has been vetted at that level. The PTC unanimously recommended approval and staff also recommends approval. The project itself is straightforward. It is a modest nine lot subdivision on a vacant 1 acre lot proposing a total of 16 dwelling units including junior accessory dwelling units. It proposes on-site affordable housing which then entitles it to the benefits of state density bonus law and housing accountability act. It is not located in any environmentally sensitive lo uh in any environmentally sensitive areas and it's the exactly the type of project that state law both encourages and protects which brings me to the legal framework that governs the council's decision here tonight and I want to address that directly. Under the Housing Accountability Act, the council may divi deny this project or reduce its density only in narrow circumstances and only after making written findings supported by a prepoundonderance of the evidence in the record. The Housing Accountability Act specifically directs local agencies to interpret the rules in a way that promotes the production of housing. And court after court and the HCD has supported the developer in the face of challenges by neighbors or where local agencies have incorrectly applied these standards. The concerns voiced in the public record, however sincerely held, do not meet the threshold of a safety risk that would legally permit this council to deny this project. Even if every complaint about the pre-existing conditions on Old Trace Road could be established with objective evidence, which it can't. These conditions cannot support the deni denial of the project unless the record also established that this project would itself create a significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable health and safety impact that is based on an objective written standard that cannot be feasibly mitigated. The reality is that there is no such evidence in the record and certainly nothing that would allow the city to meet its burden upon judicial review. First, there is no evidence that the development would create any impacts on the up on the road of Old Trace Road. The subdivision itself is self-contained within a private road. There is no reason for any traffic related to this subdivision or vehicles to travel up the road. Second, the traffic analysis so shows a trip generation of one peak hour for vehicle trips every 10 minutes. This is not a significant traffic impact, let alone one that reaches the threshold of a significant health and safety risk. Third, as noted by staff, the evidence shows that this project actually improves existing safety conditions. Two means of egress is objectively better than one means of egress onto Rastaro. There are sidewalks proposed where there are none on Old Trace Road. There are intersection improvements that the neighbors have apparently been requesting of the city for years. Notably, none of these improvements are even required of the applicant by any objective safety standard. But with them, the ability to deny this project based on a safety risk does not exist in the law. This ultimately is not a close case. There's not a single objective standard related to safety that has been raised by any person including the neighbors. The fire department, the professionals who have been entrusted with evaluating and determining fire risk have blessed this project based on objective standards. On this point, I also want to note that the Housing Accountability Act requires inconsistencies to be raised within a timely manner. No inconsistencies have been lawy lawfully raised within this mandatory timeline and that is because no such inconsistencies exist. As observed by the mayor earlier, the applicant has not waved time. This project must be evaluated based on the evidence, standards, and record as it exists tonight. With that in mind, we respectfully request that the council vote to adopt the staff and PTC recommendations and approve the proposed map. And I am here to answer any questions. >> Thank you. >> Now, we'll go to public comment. >> Our first speaker is Heather C. There. Thank you for listening to us and hanging in there this >> actually this long. >> If if I might interject uh vice mayor just to confirm I believe you wanted to limit the public speaking to people who had not spoken previously. >> Correct. Yes. Heather did not. She put her name in and then sat down and and chose not to speak but anyone else would not be able to. >> Thank you. I'm here to bring up the point of uh the real world problem of the 20 foot private road being too narrow of a road for emergency vehicles. And they're having to block off part of the entrance and the beginning of and across the street from the development for um from parking in order to get the vehicles into the road. Well, this just pushes the problem down the road to the rest of the neighbors. It's like old trace road is a substandard road as it is as well as so we have a substandard road with a substandard with vehicles turning onto a substandard road. What will the emergency vehicles do farther up the road when the parking is blocking them? Will you guys come and mark the road so that our across from our our homes farther down the road emergency vehicles can get to us? Will you block parking or say no parking cuz there will be over overflow parking on Old Trace Road and it will be a problem. It is a concern. as somebody who's had to call emergency services to come or the you know the ambulance or whatnot to come to help us in our homes. This is a very real problem for us and we don't see a solution. There's nowhere else for people to park on Old Trace Road. So just pushing it down the road is truly a problem. Does the coun do you we we look forward to hearing the solution to this because it's a concern. Is there a solution to this? Is there something in the works and planned to solve the problem despite all the housing things and this and that? This is just real world. They can't get down the road with parking on both sides. What what is planned to help protect us? Or why why adjust Old Trace Road to accommodate this this development, this pro this subdivision when it's not safe as it is, I guess just what we're trying to say. And as my neighbors have all stated, valid facts for fire safety, evacuation route, all of those reasons. This is still a concern and we urge you to please, please consider the rest of the neighborhood. The fire department did not look beyond the project when they approved this project. Time is up. >> Thank you. Our next speaker is Star T. Star T, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. >> Um, hello. >> We can hear you. >> Can you hear me? Oh, I'm sorry. I um I was having trouble with the prior um agenda item for 156 California. So, I won't be speaking on this item. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Nishand D. Nishan D. That concludes public comment on item 12. >> And actually before we we leave that we have a three-minute rebuttal for the applicant if they choose to use that time. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. The applicant has waved their right to rebuttal and we will then return back to council for discussion. Council member Burke. Thank you. Um so first uh uh the council has very little uh discretion on uh the project. It's our state legislature who has set the uh series of laws in place that uh enable a project like this. I will say that I I don't agree with the applicant that this is uh just the sort of project that was intended by the legislation. Legislators have purported that uh the intents of the the the whole package of legislation is to have development that is more compact is more in areas that are uh transit and pedestrianoriented and that's not the case here. Nevertheless, this project uh in all but very narrow ways um complies with the law or laws. Um the main reason that I wanted to have uh an additional discussion here is related to my long-term time concern of our acute uh danger that we have in wild line wildfires and that this is in that uh that interface between the urban area and and the wildland areas. This neighborhood is a kind of a zoning in between uh our open space zoning and our lower density zoning, but it's in the lower foothills and adjacent to open uh really essentially open space areas. Um, so can staff speak to what considerations were made and and um well, first what considerations were made about the threat uh from uh the adjacency of this to uh uh potentially uh high fire risk zones. um and um both the risk to the development and the risk to evacuation issues. >> Thank you for the question. Um the staff has looked at the state fire marshals local responsibility area or LR um that essentially designates the wildlife urban interface or the WOI. um looking at that directly um there are maps been that have been provided on websites um that kind of show where the project site is located in relation to these um high severity zones. Um and while um the project site is located adjacent to a medium or moderate high severity zone um it is not directly located within the WOI. So when um fire was assessing their comments and providing feedback um they specifically based their you know comments based off of that um so while the development here um since the development here doesn't directly fall within the WOI they wouldn't have to comply with their list of regulations that other WOI um development would be. >> So I understand that it's not in or immediately adjacent to the zone. Does that mean that we lose and our our our fire professionals lose any ability to um scrutinize the actual risks of an area regardless of what they've determined at the state level, which they've they've adjusted those boundaries. This latest map was a new set of maps. It didn't mean that the fire risk changed between this most recent set and the prior one. And it doesn't mean that the current one really is infallible. Um I you know we we look at at the fires that have happened in in Santa Rosa in uh these similar transitions in LA and um those fires at those those boundary areas um uh don't respect a line drawn by the state. So has our fire department uh in do they have any discretion to exercise their own uh judgment of the actual risk independent of what the state has drawn on the map. >> U so so I I can try to answer that. Uh so you know the the fire department does retain discretion under the fire code. Um, and you know, an example of that are some of the requirements for um for emergency vehicle access that that are in the conditions that were imposed on this project. Right? Those those are not necessarily objective standards that um that would be a basis for for denying the project or reducing the project's density under the Housing Accountability Act. uh but you know they're still in the conditions of approval and you know if the project is approved they will be implemented uh you know because you know that those are are still within the discretion of of the fire department to impose for public safety. Uh where it gets challenging would be to impose conditions not based on objective standards that would you know uh result in denial of the project or reduce the project's density or render the project infeasible. Um in that case you would uh you would you could run into a conflict with the housing accountability act. So if we our department was to determine that um this actually is a high fire risk area, we nevertheless could not deny the project based upon adding significant additional development in a high fire risk area. So you so the city could could have additional development standards for development in a high fire risk area. Um for those to be a basis for denial of the project, you know, those those would have to be objective standards. Um generally speaking, um yeah. Okay. Well, I think that's something that we may want to evaluate and understand better going forward. Um because uh whether it's here uh other high fire risk transitional areas um do we do we think that this is a significant risk? Um, I can tell you that this coming summer uh and uh the El Nino uh and the the risks that are associated with with that like in 2020 are the thing that uh keeps me most worried uh about the health and safety of the community above anything else. Um, and yet we we maybe haven't really tackled that and how the the the conflict between the efforts we've been making to reduce fire hazards in the foothills are running up against uh what's being enabled by this set of state laws. >> Yeah. And and just for completeness, I should add that there I mean there is the exception in the housing accountability act that you know that you can you can deny a project based on a specific objective risk to public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. But you know that is that is a narrow that is a very narrow exception. Um you know and the city has a high burden of proof to deny a project under that exception. >> Yeah. And I I think that we're not in a position that we've established the groundwork for that for this particular project, but I think it is something that we may want to address on a policy basis. >> Councilman Lowing. >> Yeah, thank you. who uh as I started to say earlier, I watched much of the PTC hearing on this and they definitely approved it um unanimously and and reluctantly uh because they understand that by the law their hands are are pretty tied. But I was struck in this report by the specific reference on our package page 140 where the commissioners emphasize that safety issues should be further evaluated by council direction to us in the context of the broader community not just within the project boundaries uh particularly with respect to objective fire and safety standards which I think is well written according to what I heard on that on on that commission. And so my my point, I think it's quite similar to Council Burnt, is that this doesn't have to do with the project if it's outside the boundaries, but we need to protect the same folks who are going to live in that project from the fire sweeping across 10 ft and burning down their house. So we can take and I think there's somebody on from PTC if you want to get their comment but I think we the point is we should take action to make sure that that area is safe in terms of direction to the fire department as an example. So I don't know what city manager thinks about that in terms of fire department patrolling there more frequently or whatever it has to do to get sort of a policy of the area outside that boundary to be uh frank. Council member I'm not sure what action uh we might take or or direction you're suggesting. in the work that we're doing now, right? >> I'm not a firefighter. I can't answer that. But, uh, I'm I'm just saying that if there if there's high grass there that's higher, that's a fire risk. We ought to figure out a way to knock it down or specific like that. That's all I'm saying. >> Okay. and and we do have ongoing programs such as uh weed abatement uh as well as fuel management I mentioned earlier tonight uh that are ongoing in uh uh particular areas that to your point that have been identified as high-risisk. >> Yeah. >> I think not too long ago there was actually a fire up there. Um in fact it was it it was the day that we had an open house for that neighborhood and there was a fire up there. I remember that. >> It was the Miranda neighborhood. >> Miranda. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not thank you for the correction. I didn't mean this specific one downhill. Yeah. Uh and then the second thing that I want to ask about is also relative to the um this suggestion that I think essentially what they're saying is that there's going to be over parking on the side of the road there and is that something that we should try to prevent by having certain parking regulations there um that are because the cars are going to block emergency vehicles again that's something that we could take we could be proactive on if we wanted to quite quite distinct from approving this project. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh so that this project does highlight for us the opportunity to take a look at Old Trace Road to see if there are some parking regulations that should be um uh considered for that street. So we'll be working with the Office of Transportation and the fire department to see uh if there's some work that needs to be done there. >> Okay. And and then just just lastly, the transportation folks are comfortable that this is indeed really two uh wide enough egress and access egress and well two roads that you can get in and out on. >> So yeah, this has been reviewed by both fire and the office of transportation and the uh are you referring to the private street proposal? Yeah. and it's the minimum standard that is um could be supported uh given the need for emergency services to be able to access that private street. >> But I read that it's inclusive of the um median and something else. The median and the sidewalk. Yeah. >> Um inclusive of the pedestrian facilities including the landscape uh median and the sidewalks. Um the width is 30t 6 in. The vehicular right ofway is 20 feet uh which meets the fire standards. >> Okay. Thank you. It's all >> council member Lou. >> Thank you. Uh I will concur with my colleagues just uh their points on the broader legal framework and the uh difficulties there. I am all for infill housing. I think um uh infill housing the urban core is obviously exponentially better than uh infill housing in subdivisions that could almost resemble sprawl. I also take the point though that this is at the uh uh that this does not meet the objective standards for safety risk and that there are some mitigating uh factors like having that other uh private road and um uh just being at the base of that like series of culde-sacs. Uh similarly I'm having some questions about the larger policy options here. Um, I don't think the idea of just like painting red curbs on Old Trace Road is or at least in the vicinity this project is particularly appealing because if you uh the project is theoretically adequately parked if they have guests and the guests need to park, they'll just park further up on the road. I don't really can't really think of like a easy parking mitigation for the actual street. But one thing that does come to mind is um the sort of sidewalk situation. And so there are sidewalks uh including on Old Trace Road and Rashadero right as part of this new project or how are the sidewalks uh actually articulated? I am not totally sure from the drawings. So um the applicant had initially proposed sidewalks along the entire stretch of Arastoro as well as Old Trace. Um but upon further discussions with the public works department um urban forestry um as well as of course planning and fire um we and transportation um we did kind of consider the existing context of the neighborhood. Um the sidewalks, there's no existing sidewalk infrastructure along Arstero um off of um I guess outside of the project bounds on either side on Old Trace or Astradero. Um so adding sidewalks along the north side of uh the proposed lot 5 and to the west side of lot one um will not directly connect the sidewalk to any existing infrastructure. So that was since removed. However, there is a um 4 foot wide sidewalk running around a loop um between lot six through nine. So that's on the uh northwest um part of the property. >> Ah okay. Okay. So that uh sort of chunk will have a sidewalk around it. Okay, that's correct. I I I I think sidewalks and setbacks in general are maybe the only de facto way to uh widen the road. Uh so that if people want to park on the street, they can maybe park up against a rolled curb. Uh or if emergency vehicles need to need to move, they can uh take part of the sidewalk as well. Um are sidewalks able to survive? Um, well, I guess density bonus applied to this project sort of as a one-off, but in general, we should be able to apply sidewalk and set access and objective standards and certain high-f fire zones or things like that, right? That's a kind of that's the kind of policy change that we could make that could apply comprehensively to these kinds of areas and uh as redevelopment happens, as major remodels happen, actually widen the road in a de facto way, I suppose. So, um, just throwing that out there, uh, in case it's a productive thought, uh, because I would also like to noodle on, um, uh, ways to both make our streets more accessible and, uh, uh, more, uh, safe against fires, uh, and emergency eress. Um, so yeah, that could be, uh, a separate thread we take up. uh would be interested in talking more about that or forwarding it on for maybe next year's priorities or something like that uh when we have uh the right venue to talk about planning priorities. >> Council member Lift Cuts. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um I just have a technical question actually. Uh it was um stated in the earlier round of public comments that there's an inaccuracy in the measurement of Old Trace Road that the drawings say that it's 40 ft wide, but the residents are saying it's actually only 30 ft wide. I'm just wondering if you could clear that up, please. >> Is this specifically for the width of a raster road? I believe it was Old Trace that was um the drawings say that Old Trace has a width of 40 feet and one or maybe even two members of the public said it's actually much narrower than that and it's 30 ft. >> The vehicular ride ofway is 30 ft. Um but that includes a portion of the gutters on either side and those were included to be 40 ft. So it's still accurate based on the plans. I think the confusion is in certain parts of the plan set um they're referring the applicant has referred to the um right of way as right of way which includes all pedestrian gutters and vehicular right of way. In other parts of the plans it's referring to just the vehicular right ofway. So there may be a bit of a discrepancy between the 30 and the 40 ft but um that can be clarified in the plans. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all for me. ol and I think old trace road curb to curb is only 30 ft. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. >> Sorry, I thought you just said that it curb to curb it was 40, but when you take the little bits on the side into account, that's where you come down to 30. >> I'll backtrack. 30 ft um form curb to curb um plus 10 ft of pedestrian um a portion of the property that's set aside as public property which currently on the site appears to be on the property but it's actually just like the landscaped of the um grassy area. >> Oh so so grassy area on the property side of a curb counts as There there there's public there's there there's there's a public easement that's 40 ft in width. So you just p the path of travel vehicular path of travel is 30 ft in width. So there's there are are five feet on each side of the road. So you talk about the right access rightway not the current vehicle >> but you wouldn't want to drive a car over them if you could avoid it. Right. >> Okay. Uh I have a question about the it says if you if it introduces risks that cannot be mitigated. Mitigated by who? That be mitigated by us, mitigated by the builder. What what does that mean? >> Uh you generally mitigate risks through conditions of approval. Um I you could also mitigate risks through the SQA process but since this is an this project is exempt from SQA um they would be mitigated through conditions of approval. Um and that can range from any any everything to um complying with standard um you know uh municipal code or building standards code conditions to you know more sight specific remedies. Okay. Yeah. So, anyway, I'm sympathetic. This will really change the neighborhood. I think it does somewhat increase the fire risk, but I think the bar that we have to meet is too high, and I can't see that we're going to be able to uh hold overturn this. So, I think we're stuck. All right. Any others? Motions. All right. Well, I'll do the unpopular thing and Oh, Council Member Lou. >> Oh, I was just up the staff motion, but uh I uh I'll just recommend the staff motion. >> All right. I'll second. Do you want to speak to your motion? >> No. >> Okay. And I mean, yeah, I I share my concerns of of my colleagues that I hope we are able to mitigate some of these impacts, but this is ultimately the consequence of of ongoing actions by the by the state that continues to remove local control and really ties our hands on what we are able to do even when even when we believe that there are some some um safety impacts. Okay, we have a motion. Council member B. >> I just want to make sure for the record we had a supplemental uh report that uh said we uh needed to adopt an updated record of land use action. Is that in addition to the two items that are on the screen in the motion? >> I believe that is also the recommendation on the supplemental memo. Council member Bird, I took the motion from the updated staff presentation um as opposed to what was in the staff report. So >> number two, >> uh number two here is reflected from the supplemental report. Great. >> Oh, I see that recorded. Yeah. Land use. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Let's take a vote. >> Council member Lowing. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Council member Rectal. >> Yes. Council member Lou. >> Yes. >> Council member Bert. >> Council Council Member Lithcott Hayes. >> Yes. >> Motion carries 601. Um Mayor Vinker absent. >> Great. Thank you. And as a reminder, item 15 has been removed from the agenda and will be sent to the uh the economic >> development >> development ad hoc committee. Yes. >> Perfect. Thank you. And with that we are adjourned. Have a good night.

Let's have one announcement today. And it involves the Youth Climate Advisory Board and applications that are open. So, just to note the city of Palo Alto is now accepting applications for the 2026 through 2027 term of the Youth Climate Advisory Board or YCAB as we call it for short. The board is an advisory body of high school students that contributes to or provides feedback on the city's climate initiatives and conducts outreach to local schools. YCAB members have the opportunity to strengthen their knowledge of municipal processes and policy and practice outreach skills while strengthening partnership between the city and local schools and students. There is more information about the YCAB on our website. That's at cityofpaloalto.gov/ycab or YCAB and applications are due on June 14th. >> Okay, thank you very much. Alice, anything you want? >> George, no. I I'm not sure what >> Oh, no, it's just that uh we're on the committee member comments cuz we just finished the staff comments. If there's anything from MTC or anything you want. >> Well, hold you check them for the comments. I don't think we're on there. >> Oh. I did skip the general public comment of the night. I was so excited. Well, um we can do that now or we can >> Yeah, we're in the middle of this item, but um can >> We can go ahead. Do we have any general public comment for items not on the agenda? >> There are no requests to speak. >> Okay. Um ethics. Is there anyone in the room? All right, thank you. So, I just wonder if there's anything you'd like to report? >> No. >> Okay. And uh the only thing I wanted to mention is that actually from the county recycling and waste reduction commission, um we held a workshop to look at the structure of the TAC and the commission going forward, um in light of county budget issues and landfill fee generation issues, both of which are changing and trying to uh uh rethink a bit of the uh financial aspects of some of the uh recycling and waste reduction programs in the county. So, stay tuned on that. All right, so with that, then we can move on to our first and only action item, which actually I believe is a discussion item, um which is the residential electrification status update and proposed principles for electrification programs to assist with air district regulation compliance. And so, I will turn it to Director Eggleston or the staff. >> can and then I'll I will immediately turn it over to Assistant Director of Climate Action, Jonathan Adelman Stein, for this staff presentation. >> Good afternoon, uh council members. Um Jonathan Adelman Stein, Assistant Director for Climate Action. Um Can we have the slides, please? So, um our intention with today's meeting is to give you an update on our residential programs while also continuing a discussion we started last September on whether and in what form and at what level we want to provide assistance as air district regulations related to heat pump water heaters take effect. Um We still have We're We're not at the final decision-making point yet. So, um all we want to do is frame some questions for consideration and the principles we're going to present today are something that can evolve. Um We got some initial reactions from you in September, but we wanted to check in with this group periodically as the landscape of these regulations evolves and as the region starts to converge on what forms of assistance are right are right. So, this will not be the last conversation on this topic. Um next slide, please. Uh but but getting this guidance helps us um helps us plan and develop uh and adjust as we um as the the date gets effective date gets closer. Um so, currently we have a full-featured portfolio of programs for uh residential resident for residents. Um We have a full-service direct install program with fixed prices for heat pump space heating, water heating, cooking, dryers, and efficiency measures. In practice, we are getting to the point with water heaters that most people are starting to go through the rebate programs or our emergency uh our emergency program, um which allows us to reduce the overhead associated with a full-service direct install. Um, however, uh when people are doing a more comprehensive project, we do have water heaters through that program. Cost is covered for low-income residents on this program. We also have rebates for heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, induction cooktops, and gas disconnection, and we're seeing uh really robust uptake on these rebates. We have technical assistance for people who want to hire their own contractors rather than going through our full-service program, and then we have just recently launched a portable induction cooktop rebate and loaner program through the library. Uh the cooktop rebates through the utilities department and the loaner programs through the library, and we are exploring more residential renter services. And of course, we have our emergency heat pump water heater replacement service. We are working on pilot financing programs and on 0% financing and electrification of service are two concepts that um we are exploring actively. Next slide, please. We also have a comprehensive set of cost-effective reach code regulations. So, for new construction, uh our current regulations uh are just aligned with the state's, but the statewide there's an hourly source energy requirement for new homes and major remodels that takes emissions into consideration and puts all electric homes on equal footing with gas. Um in previous years, the city has had higher hourly source energy standards, but we're waiting on some statewide studies uh to see whether we're going to um uh uh be able to um adopt those in the future. Um those are nearing completion. Um we also have flex path requirements adopted in fall 2025. Still working through uh CC CVS C approvals on those. Um and, uh, it requires remodels over what 1,000 square feet to adopt efficiency or electrification menu measures from a menu of a menu of, uh, potential options. And then starting in 2027, they're also looking at, uh, either requiring efficiency measures or electrification, um, when replacing air conditioning. Next slide, please. Uh, we've had comparatively high levels of program participation. Um, I think last we checked in, it was five to 10 times the rate of our population basis than what we see through the rest of the region. Um, happy to answer questions about any of these statistics, but, uh, I think um, the really key statistics are that heat pump water heaters right now, uh, continue to re- uh, continue to re- be about 20% of annual replacements for water heaters, uh, citywide, and um, heat pumps for space heating are, uh, growing rapidly as we, um, as we've rolled out programs over the last year. Um, our heat pump statistics, you know, uh, they really start to ramp up towards the latter half of the year, and so, um, looking for the more robust participation this year. Next slide, please. We're also, uh, proactively helping affordable housing providers take action in advance of the air district regulations. Um, most of these providers will not be affected until 2029, but we're helping our providers gain experience in advance of the release of the of the space heating and the large water heating regulations. And most of these affordable housing buildings have central water heating that isn't subject to regulations until 2031. Um, and these types of programs also in just the large heat pump water heater program did they help provide um, data and then real world experience for air district staff in in developing and tweaking those regulations. Next slide, please. Our residential work plan priorities for 2026 and 2027 build on these accomplishments, uh, primarily pushing the transition toward more cost-effective program models in the single-family area, and then for multi-family and then uh, and also for multi-family EV charging while gaining experience with multi-family building electrification through our affordable multi-family grant program, and then eventually we want to add multi-family technical assistance. Next slide, please. So, all this has been helping us prepare for the upcoming air district regulations taking effect in 2027, 2029, and 2031. Um, these are uh, modifications to the long-standing um, uh, regulations of these appliances uh, for emissions of oxides of nitrogen, and we um, starting in January 1st, 2027, um, on the books there the um, the rule says that water heaters manufactured after January 1st, 2027 and sold in the Bay Area must emit zero uh, oxide oxides of nitrogen. So, these are referred to as a zero NOx regulations. Um, there was some indication in the meeting this week that um, that there uh, in the discussion about exemptions that are currently being developed by air district staff, uh, primarily focused on low-income and complex projects that it it may be necessary to delay the effective date to October 1st, 2027 to implement the exempt the exemptions. Um, regardless, in parallel there is there are regional discussions in progress among CCAs and utilities about um subsidies, incentives, uh and communications. Um the release of these regulations almost will will certainly inform uh how regulate how the space heating regulations are are released in 2029 and then the large central water heaters in 2031. Next slide, please. So, we've been doing a lot of thinking about the different type the different building types that people live in in Palo Alto and how different Palo Altans may be affected by these regulations. Um this data is not perfect. It's based on the best uh information we have from the census, uh the American Community Survey. Um and there's a little bit of uh interpretation, but our best estimate right now um is is that there about of the about 16,000 homes with individual water heaters, um we would guess that about 40% would likely be exempt and this aligns with estimates for the region that air district staff have uh come up with. Um and that's an estimated 430 water heaters per year assuming a 15-year lifetime. Um again, it's those low-income residents and residents with complex projects. For the remaining 9,600 homes, um that's a turnover of about 640 water heaters per year and um not uh uh um and and these are the folks that we would be subject to compliance requirements. Um although, you know, it's it's certainly possible that we'll see um you know non-compliance as well. And so I don't think we can expect that every single um that if we were to for example maintain assistance programs that every single one of these water heaters will come in looking for a every one of these people would come in looking for assistance. Um there are a mix of exempt and non-exempt people. So uh we have about we're estimating about 6% of homes home owners uh live uh qualifies low would qualify as low income. Um that would be either in single-family homes or in condos either dedicated affordable or just uh folks who have you know are perhaps have lived in their condo for a long time. Um we also have folks who don't have in-unit water heaters and wouldn't be subject to the regulations. So that would be um many condo owners and also apartment and condo landlords. And there are really significant number of multi-family buildings in Palo Alto. So a lot of residents may not be exposed to these. Um then that leaves um single-family homeowners and single-family landlords um as well as those condo owners and apartment landlords who have small in-unit water heaters. And those folks would have a compliance requirement um except if they have a program a project that meets the complexity uh standards for PA district. Um I just want to stop there for a second and ask if there are any questions about the numbers. So if they can first to take a few minutes here and then finish up the presentation. >> Yeah, I'll ask my colleague if they do but at some appropriate point it might be helpful if I just gave a little bit succinctly just a couple of minutes on specifically where we are, what we did, and what we're going to be doing. >> Is that okay? I just want to say is this a good time? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Okay. Um So, yes, uh as you said, we've been the air district has been um regulating nitrogen oxide emissions for a very long time and uh had some low what we call low NOx regulations on the books, and that is what the uh was amended uh when I first got on the board a little over 3 years ago um to zero NOx and with the compliance dates that you outlined. Um so, we built in um uh offering apps we built in uh processes for reevaluating them, and so just 2 days ago on Wednesday morning um we had a discussion item where we looked at staff's recommended amendments to the rules, which included three categories of exemptions. Um and yes, they came up with a number estimating that about 38% of Bay Area residents would be subject to those exemptions, so very, very close to the 40% that you've come up with here. Um so, those are and actually um Madam Clerk, I sent you a document. If you could share the screen and just scroll to the bottom of page 15 of the document. So, this is a regulatory overview document that's available on the air district website. I've shared it with staff. I think it's an excellent, very readable document explaining this in more detail than I will today, I promise. But, it's it just answers a lot of questions, and if you zoom in on the bottom of that's page 16. Could you go up one to scroll up a little bit? So, at the bottom of page 15 it talks about the certified exemptions for water heaters based on project constraints. And so, now if you just have page 16 showing, basically there's space, electrical, and income exemptions. And if you look at the Maybe you can make that a little bigger for the top half of the page just to show the space constraints. Basically, if you need to relocate a water heater and have any major construction that would be very costly, then the contractor who helps you with that will apply for an exemption based on one of two constraints. Yeah, go up a little bit to space constraints. Number one, there you go. So, one, if there's a ventilation problem, it's just not available, you don't your space isn't bigger than 700 cubic feet, nor is the one right outside, then so in other words, it can't be fixed with a louvered door or air ducts, that's a space constraint. Another space constraint is if you have a low ceiling. Too low in the garage, what is it? 7 ft 2 in tall, or in your house, 6 ft tall. So, if there are physical space constraints, then the contractor will, you know, so certify, you're exempt. Then similarly, if you just scroll down a little bit, show the rest of the electrical, that's mostly it. If you have outdated or limited electrical infrastructure, that also would trigger an exemption, and what gets cited often times as problematic and expensive is knob and tube wiring, so it's exempt. You That's what you have in these old Victorians and such, that is exempt. Similarly, if the electrical panel is less than 100 amps for a single family or less than 60 amps for multi-family, exempt. Uh if putting in a new 240 V connection requires more than 50 ft of wiring, which isn't that long, um you're exempt. Or if the electrical panel just doesn't have enough space. So, really looking at the actual physical constraints. Um so So, there's space constraints, the electrical constraints, and then the last is income. If you could scroll down just a little bit more. Yeah, up to to the next page. So, low-income property owners, that staff recommendation paragraph, if you could get that up on the screen. Basically, what that is is there's two categories of low-income property owners. Um one is if the person's already participating in a federal low-income program, such as the ones uh food stamps and others. That's one way of showing it. Or, which I think is in pretty pertinent in a town like Palo Alto, if your housing cost burden. So, in other words, if your mortgage plus property tax you're paying is more than 28% of your gross income, that reflects less of just an income-based standard, but more of the real standard in the home that you're trying to uh to which you need to put in a new water heater. So, that those are the categories. You can see why the breadth would add up to this estimate of 38 or 40% um of people. So, I think that's a a good thing. Um and then in terms of the timing, because these exemptions would require certification, either self-certification in the case of income or contractor certification in the case of space or electrical constraints, we would need to build out a uh a website for that, so that you can get instant certification. You don't have to wait when these things are happening. And in order to do that, need to hire the right people and test it and make sure it really works. Um and we can't do that till the board actually votes. So, what happened on Wednesday was the board reacted to all of these recommendations to give direction to staff as to what to come back with in the fall for the formal vote. So, the majority, but not by a big margin, uh liked these amendments and asked staff to bring them back. So, there will be, in my expectation, some form of amendments along these lines that will come back for a vote, a formal vote, in the fall as to whether to amend the rules or not. And the date that staff is thinking they need, just to make sure they can get it right, is October 1st, 2027. So, that is kind of the background against which we are operating here. So, thank you for letting me share that. You can stop screen share. >> Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions about the numbers before I move on to the principles and working group feedback? All right, so what we have here is a first draft set of proposed principles that we're introducing for feedback in the committee. Um they reflect our best interpretation of the September feedback adjusted for developments since then and for regional discussions, and we expect that they will almost certainly evolve over the next few months as well. Um I just wanted to note that already the discussion with the working group on Wednesday was very helpful in thinking about how to tweak and reframe some of these principles, and I do have some uh an adjusted set of the principles in the backup slides, um if the committee would like to see them. At a high level, though, the principles assume some continuation of our portfolio of programs into um the first year or potentially um I think this is where some additional flexibility could be valuable, either continuing the portfolio um or not continuing the portfolio or continuing it for more than 1 year. Um but with a long-term goal of transitioning away from incentives to financing in subsequent years, um although with potential continuation of incentives for low-income residents. As well as um a move towards delivering and I'll say subsidies uh rather than incentives via helping people repay financing rather than providing upfront subsidies. And then making sure that we coordinate regionally. Um we did consider not providing any incentives for regulated regulated appliances and I think philosophically that's where we want to head long-term. Um there are pros and cons to short-term incentives. Um the one of the I'll come to this one with with the working group feedback. One of the pros was that um incentives are simple, we have a complex regulation coming into effect and um if we're going to provide assistance, that that may be the mechanism that works best for people. On the other hand, uh actually providing any assistance at all does compete with other programs or you know, for a limited supply of funds and um Oh, I'm sorry, next slide. Uh yeah, it On the other hand, it does compete with um we have limited funding and it does compete with other types of electrification programs that are not regulated or potentially using those funds for rate reductions to deal with affordability issues. Um and you know, I think this is an evolving discussion and staying in touch with the CCAs is going to be is going to be really important. Um there are many people who will be exempt and may not participate without some some form of incentive or subsidy. And then there are folks there will be some level of non-compliance or people who have a choice between buying a water heater that was delivered before that was manufactured before January 1st, 2027 or buying one that's manufactured after and that may be the difference between them choosing electric or choosing gas. Um but we want to make sure that so this is an important piece of the discussion. Next slide, please. Um the working group discussion on Wednesday was really productive. I think it really helped help people start to get their head around the sort of complex landscape that we're dealing with here. Um like I was saying we will have some to to deal with these you know these this mixed landscape of people who are subject to regulations, people who are subject to regulations and they may not comply, people who you know are able to make choices that do comply with the regulations but that are still gas. Uh and people who are completely exempt. Um there were some comments in favor of so that the tension seemed to be between some there there seemed to be some general support for providing some level of assistance but the discussion seemed to be between simplicity versus looking trying to move quickly to something that was long-term financially sustainable, and I think that raised an interesting dimension about um to what extent we're trying to um align with the region or um uh to try to lead the region with new program designs or to lead the region with by focusing on uh you know, future electrification opportunities that are not yet regulated. Um Some of the points that were made during the discussion uh is are that many water heaters are changed out in an emergency and that having a very simple solution um is helpful in that sort of a situation. But conversely, uh subsidies, assistance, that that can raise and incentives can raise market prices. They're less financially sustainable. Um there were discussions about focusing um sub incentives only on those who are exempt. So, low income, uh complex projects, but those types of distinctions um could be challenging in early years. People may struggle a little bit to know how to prove until how to prove whether they're exempt or not until these you know, these um administrative processes become a little more routine. They were They said if if you do provide incentives or assistance to people who are not exempt, we should set the date by which the subsidies will disappear to give people some uh to so that people fully understand that it's just a transitional tool and um that it is and to provide them some um some incentive to move within those two years, maybe proactively. Um And then there was also the point that moving to financing quickly could establish a financially sustainable course early on, and we just need to make it as simple and as attractive as possible. So, those were the ranges ranges of uh feedback that we heard, but one clear acknowledgement throughout was that we really need to be able to adjust in response to changing conditions and be nimble. That whatever policy we choose, we should be prepared to make some adjustments as we see what happens on the ground. Next slide, please. So, this is a set of questions that we think would help guide the committee discussion, and um and these are um adjusted from Wednesday, when we shared some draft slides with the with the working group, and I tried to focus the questions on this um distinction between Well, I think one sort of preliminary question is whether or not to provide assistance at all. This is These are our regular you know, these are regular These are regulated pieces of equipment. And um we do have a wide range of ambitions and a limited pot of money. But if we're going to provide assistance, do we focus on simplicity um or financial sustainability? And you know, I think there are a lot of different ways to characterize those two options, but I I was I was looking for a way to try and create a little bit of a distinction there. Um when targeting or limiting assistance, do we focus Who are we focusing on? Is it just low income, or is it everybody? Is it just people who have exemptions? And um are we trying to align with the region, or are we trying to lead with our own proposals? Um and so, I think with those pieces of feedback, it could be we um it'll give us the information that we need to be able to move forward continue these regional discussions and think about how to direct both funding and staff efforts and uh and our program program designs. >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. Um let's go to public comment on this item. We have one request to speak. >> Um >> Stephen you may now unmute yourself. >> Yeah, hi. Good afternoon. Uh this is Stephen Rosenblum. I'm Um I thank you for allowing me to speak uh staff and council members um I first like to again express my appreciation to the council and the staff for their very forward-looking policies on electrification and phasing out gas service. I think Palo Alto is among the leaders in California in attempting to do this and it has the advantage of having its own utility so that it it has full control of the process albeit it's still very difficult. Um Uh I appreciated the difficulty in the last meeting of this committee where the gas utility talked about the the problems associated with phasing out service and how to do it and these are all critical problems. So, we're facing the same issue with our refineries for the same reason that they're going to eventually fall into a death spiral where a fewer and fewer users are stuck with the fixed costs. Anyway, um thank you again. Think about this. I just wanted to bring a couple a couple of things related to this discussion. One is the a service provider called Harvest Thermal, which I think you're probably aware of. It's a It's a a um an appliance which provides energy storage, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and hot water within the same system. And it offers the utility the advantage of providing storage so that you can create hot water when electricity is cheap. And then use that hot water for space conditioning or for heat hot water production. And it uses intelligence to optimize the the cost of the electricity. So, I think you all know about that, but I think as the air district moves on to rules rule 94 from rule 96, the HVAC portion of the change will become more critical. But we still have a few years to deal with that. Finally, in terms of the background in the state legislature, there are two really important bills now being worked on. Senator Stern's SB 1359 and Assembly Member Berman's AB 2313, which are both looking to how to manage the transition of our gas utilities and to make sure that it's done in a a way that minimizes the impact on ratepayers. So, I hope this the city will do what it can to support these two bills and doing its part locally to try and show the way to how to make it happen. Thank you. >> That concludes public comment for item one. All right. Well, thank you and thank you, Dr. Rosenblum. Um I'll turn it back to Colin, sir, unless staff has anything further. >> Nope. >> You want to share anything? You want to give us a start there? >> Okay. Um So, a few things. Uh first, I think one taking one step back from the um question of how do we use the dollars that we have for incentives is how many dollars are we going to have? And my concern is uh the change in the Cap and Invest program uh that appears like there's going to be a lot fewer dollars available uh for uh most of the programs that high-speed rail gets a billion off the top and and then there's another billion, I think that's >> All five. >> Uh no, I I I think that is part of what's in jeopardy. Uh I'm I'm trying to remember, but anyway, um what are you assuming in terms of Cap and Invest dollars versus what we've been getting? >> So, we updated in developing the FY 27 budget um and then uh looking at forecasts over longer periods, we took into account the declines in the Cap and Invest um and other potential funding sources as well, but it is a real limitation and it definitely did have an impact on what we projected that we could do. Um and it does, you know, it does affect what's available for either um for the for climate, for low-income programs, for, um, affordability. >> Okay. Last >> I'm glad you've already factored that in to the extent we can project. Um, and then on your question of whether we, um, align with the region or leave with our own proposal, uh, we had had you had put forward to us uh a few months ago these scenarios of do we kind of I forget how they were framed. And John, maybe you're even pulling that up. Is that what's happening or the >> I'm just looking to see if I have a a slide that's, um, that's helpful here. I think we had talked about I think we talked about a few sample programs, uh, 0% financing, low-income incentives, um, looking at middle-income incentives, and the annual city program cost was, um, right around a million dollars, uh, per year. >> And, uh, actually uh that's helpful. Actually, what I was referring to is when you came to us with a whole set of our programs and whether we wanted to take the moderate moderately aggressive or very aggressive approaches. And I can't remember how >> They're the policy scenarios from the S-CAP >> Yeah, that sounds like the policy scenarios from the S-CAP funding study. >> So, and we we recommended what again and where does it stand? Did the council adopt that? >> There was no recommendation. Those were preliminary, um, preliminary, um, assessments to understand the financial dynamics of community-wide electrification. And we're now in the process of creating updating our assumptions cuz the assumptions got outdated during the time that we were bringing this to the council. And working out a set of specifically actionable policy options for consideration later this year. So >> Later when? >> Later this year. >> Okay. My recollection was that there was a consensus around what I would the the medium aggressive approach. Is that right? >> some of the feedback that we heard was that the what what the study really did highlight was that 80 by 30 um with incentives with incentives upfront incentives only first off the adoption rate needed for 80 by 30 was very high was very high and beyond what could reasonably be expected. And the cost to the city of an incentive only approach was well beyond the resources that the city had available. And so there was a lot of openness and we've been hearing at multiple meetings to uh looking at the 80 by 30 goal and understanding on what timeline 80% would be uh within the city and and with what strategies would be within the city's resources. >> Yeah, and as I recall also it's it was what might be a future balance between incentives and mandates and >> That's right. >> Um and we had even said anticipated at the regional level um the mandates would perhaps provide that baseline uh without us stepping in. Um So I I was uh struck by that the comment you made that where we are in adoption of really transforming existing residential to electrification compared to other cities and and CCA jurisdictions is was that the comparison? >> Yes. >> Um So, on one hand is we we've talked about that we're probably going to need to revise our uh 2030 goal to a date that would still be aggressive, but um uh reflect where we are in the progress we're making and we we part of that discussion got framed as oh, somehow we're we're we're falling short and yet we're far ahead of others. Um and I think that uh in answer to your one question of do we want to align with the region or lead on our own? I think it's a hybrid. Uh you know, we want to utilize the um the regulatory baseline um which is going to be real challenging for the region as it is. So, I don't feel like we would need to be more aggressive there, but we're um uh other ways that we lead um actually to uh as as you laid out um so address some portion of the 40% 30% exempted at a minimum. But um you also alluded to uh something about meeting with the CCAs on understanding policy on that. And that makes me and I'm real glad to hear that it it seems like over the last year or two we are perhaps having greater engagement with the CCAs. Um and uh I'm real glad to hear that. Um it Has there been any discussion about creating or maybe it already exists but just an actual working group of the um uh uh municipals and utilities and CCAs on the peninsula or whatever? >> So, um I've recently gotten connected in with the um working group for the CCAs on their incentives. So, that'll be the first uh engagement with the publicly owned utilities and I think bringing in other publicly owned utilities will be valuable as well. There are two others. >> Well, I I frankly think that we we should have uh I'm glad that they have a group but maybe this point of the we haven't been more part of that uh but I think there ought to be one that is a combination of the public owned utilities and the CCAs and it ought to be um as as strong as possible um because it's tough for each of us to act on our own and innovate on our own. >> It is. I I think one of the complexities that comes in is is just if there if there are um behind the scenes discussions of financial positions and things like that that sometimes the CCAs want to have those on their own. Um >> So, on the incentives, um my um my uh inclination is foremost on the low income. At first, I was hesitant to do it uh for those that are exempted and not low income but exempted because of certain physical circumstance. But on the other hand, if the objective is to um uh get buildings electrified and they're exempted because they have more problems electrifying, not because they're bad guys. Um then maybe we should look at what incentives we'd want to offer them to the degree we we can do that. And within incentives is financing which you noted in the report. Um uh and you referred to uh on the let's see page three of the report um under financing repayment incentives. Can you explain what you are referring to on what sort of repayments would be incentives? >> Sure. Um that you you kind of have two models that you could use for financing. One would be uh using providing capital actually out of um the city's funding resources. That is expensive and another alternative is to is to provide funding funding out of a third-party program such as the no green program, but to subsidize the repayment such that um uh you know, such that it maybe is quote more closely aligned with the potential savings that that person's experiencing from the um >> Yep. >> the electrification. And it's also possible to you know, again, this is the electrification as a service discussion to if you were to provide the capital from the city's funding sources, um you could then uh seek repayment at a lower at a slower pace, which is effectively a repayment subsidy. Okay. They could be financially equivalent. >> And are you going to be doing some modeling that we can see on um what the dollars how many dollars it would take uh, from our our green funds, I'll call them, to be able to, for instance, subsidize the cost of financing through the go green program. >> Yeah, as we this this uh, the feedback that we get here today um, is we've already done some of that model modeling, but we don't have something to bring to you today. I think the feedback that you're getting from you today will help us create some preliminary assistance models. Um, and we have we did do a little bit of a little bit of modeling for the um, workshop back in December where we showed you some examples of what those programs might look like. Okay. >> Uh, one note on as we look at housing burden in that definition, um, it's it's a broadly used definition, but it applies to low income and high income alike. So, there's a drastic difference between the actual burden of a household with a $100,000 income and what 28% of that is, and it's generally defined as pre-tax income, versus a half million dollar household, which is going to be often the case in people have recently bought in Palo Alto. Um, and um, and so I I think uh, we we'd have people with just uh, say a $2 million mortgage on a $4 million home, um, the half million dollar an income, um, are under the definition of housing burden. So, I just want to put that out there for our policy making, um, if we incorporate that sort of reference that I would want to have um, that only focused on moderate and lower income housing burden. Uh, or predominantly. Um, and then lastly, this is maybe more a question uh, for Vicky on at the air board. Is there Was there any discussion about a concern that uh the deadlines will invariably, and maybe unavoidably, incentivize people to change out gas to gas before they hit the deadline? >> Yeah, from from inception we've realized that as you move toward whatever date it would be, there will be people who might race out to get a new gas water heater to extend that life. I think that's unavoidable in any If you have If you have a suggestion as to how to avoid that, that'd be great. But, yes, unfortunately, I think um there will be some of those. >> Um the only thing that comes to mind is to look at manufacturers and contractors uh and whether it would be legal to prohibit them from promoting that very thing. And I don't know whether it would, but uh rather than try to do it at the at the consumer level, um that would be the one area because I can envision If I was in that business, I'd I'd say, "Oh, yeah, I can jack up sales this year. Let me do a promotion gas to gas, your last chance." And that's where it's going to come from. So. >> There various adjacent concerns to that that I'd rather not enumerate to lift up, and but there's quite a few ways. Remember, this is a Bay Area only thing. So, if one wants to not comply, there's quite a few ways one could find. But, what we're trying to do is uh um you know, move it forward as best we can within the jurisdiction we have. But, no, you're right. Um and so, that's interesting to think about. Um George? >> Thank you. Um overall, I think the uh proposed principles make sense in terms of starting with uh moderate incentives. I agree with uh Pat that the area to lead on is those exceptions. Um uh on a similar note about lower income, uh about really focusing on lower and middle income in terms of financial assistance, and potentially finding a way to give technical assistance uh to more complex physical constraints. Um And also a way to uh sort of properly consider what low uh or moderate income incentives look like in a multi-family context with a bunch of renters who uh maybe have mixed incomes or a bunch of people in an HOA who have a variety of like high incomes and lower incomes, uh but still need to sort of have a uh just for workability purposes like consistent unified incentive that sort of applies across the complex. Um I had a similar question about budgets. So, this $5.3 million of funding was just for 2026. There's variability uh that's already modeled going forward. Uh I think it'd be nice to have a outline of what we think the potential sort of total level of uh of uh residential electrification funding might look like going out over several years, like what those projections um Yeah, I I I think that's pretty important for deciding uh where we actually go, and I think it's also useful to see where we've Oh, so okay. Yeah, it's also useful to see where we've already committed other funding like when we talked about subsidizing solar permit fees and HVAC permit fees meeting or two ago. That's also coming out of this 5.3 million dollar pot, right? So Yeah, getting a table of all the numbers would be useful before we make a final call. Uh there good points. >> There may be there may be a limit on what we can discuss in terms of the budget. >> Right. >> But what I was thinking to mention is so we're having this conversation that's that's really a lot focused on the air district regulations that are coming up pretty quickly. Um earlier we were talking about the SCAP funding study. Council member Bird, you had mentioned those kind of low, medium, and and high action. And as well on in the um two-year uh work plan that council approved. Uh what we talked about in there as uh some of the strategy was to to look at different policy objectives uh for community-wide electrification and how we might meet the 80% reduction goal. And as uh Jonathan was mentioning all of those. So I I thought I would just mention kind of more broadly um the topic that we're planning right now for next month's meeting is we're calling it status update on analysis of community-wide electrification and draft policy options. And this is really meant to be a discussion. We kind of kicked it off last month, but to go deeper on what are what are these um alternatives that staff is is going to study this year and bring back so we can make the bigger decisions that I think really ties into what Council member Woo was just asking about like what's the overall look of of how much it's going to cost to take different approaches in the residential sector over many years. And then I'll I'll just add that right now we're thinking that this would be really productive to have this as a joint meeting of the Climate Action and Sustainable Community and the Utilities Advisory Commission, which talks about some of these same types of issues and the interplay between how we use these funds and affordability and rates. And so we're trying to organize that as a joint meeting. >> And then I just want to note also that these analyses will help will talk about what we can do over the long term, which I think will help inform our decisions over the short term. Just with respect to the $5.3 million number specifically, that encompasses all of the different programs we talked about in the beginning, not just the heat pump water heater program. I wanted to note that for everybody. And so any modeling that we do on what a plan might look like will have to take into account potential impacts on other programs. Um and the venue for those discussions is a little complicated, but um it's something we do need to figure out. >> Yeah. Um yeah, the math just gets really tight because if that $5.3 million declines or even stays flat and we have 1,000 water heaters turning over and we want to have some light subsidy in some form at least for a temporary period for 640. Um you want to have a more aggressive subsidy potentially for the 40% or the 430 that are likely to be exempt. Um I can't quite do the math in my head about what that actually means uh if each subsidy will need to be in the ballpark of you know, low thousands or a thousand dollars or something. Um uh then then then actually maybe that's like a range we can afford, but I guess the point is it's just hard for me to reason about this. >> It's It's okay. We've done some of this modeling already and this feedback helps us refine the modeling. >> Okay. I think the other point I would make is making our incentives really defensive against non-compliance or malicious compliance where people self-certify that they are low income or have a contractor self-certify that there are constraints that aren't really there. Um uh And these incentives may look like permit rebates or even a little bit more than a permit rebate. Just for a from a messaging perspective, you can say that if you are going from gas to electric, you do not need to worry at all about uh permit costs. Um or even you get a hundred dollars back on top of your permit costs. I'm not quite sure what other incentives we can maybe apply to the permitting process in terms of beyond the kinds of incentives that we've already explored in the past. Uh but in my mind that's sort of the most trackable way to design incentives that um can be marketed in a way that encourage compliance. Um >> Just on that note, I'll note that to get any of our incentives, you do have to comply with the permits. You do have You have to have a permit, so um >> Okay, right. >> And then when we design the permit incentives, we do take into account the cost of the permitting as well. >> Okay. >> And so we look for a total cost that's going to make the project work, including permit and installation costs. >> Okay. Um Are there any disincentives that we could consider or enforcements or other things to encourage compliance? >> This is a topic that's come up before and we've had some um preliminary discussions with the planning and development services department. Um just making sure that people are aware of what their permit requirements are is um an important piece while simultaneously making those permitting options as streamlined as possible. The streamlined online permits that we have, for example, really help with that. >> Okay. Um all right, those are my comments. Thank you. >> All right, thank you. Really interesting discussion. Um I do look forward to more modeling and I understand that you want to get some narrowing of what you should model. Um and it is hard because things are changing so fast and you know that that that that the well on all fronts, but including the funding front. And the GGRF that Pat brought up. Um you know, we had our report out from our legislative advocate uh two days before the May revise and so I I I didn't get it, but at that point it was pretty um pretty bleak because uh of what was said about funds moving to high-speed rail and Cal Fire was just uh and and and budget was looking so bleak, but we got good news, right? The the May revise was very good uh in terms of uh the um the overall budget uh a lot of things um some cap gains came through and they're projecting the next couple years the deficits that they had projected will be better. So, you know, it's it's just a moving target for all of us. Um but um I wanted to think a little bit out loud about the the the incentives sort of versus financing question. Um I guess what would be what we're all hoping is that the uptake will get will increase the the voluntary uptake will increase, you know, people who are are people who are the the recalcitrants, the reticents will decrease as these things get more pervasive, the market, you know, brings on better appliances. We're already seeing that. Um people get more familiar with this is this is what you do. Um So, I'm wondering if we can sort of model out um decreasing incentives and picking up the balance with financing. Is that too complex? I understand the simplicity thing, but say say if in '27 um you know, we stuck with our 3,500 because it's not kicking in till late in the year and then we went down at 2,500 in '28 and a thousand in '29 and finally got rid of that up front, but but that balance could still be on bill financed or somehow. Is that Is that too complex? >> When you talk about so, I don't think it's too complex, but when you when you talk about incentives versus finance Sorry. I don't think it's too complex, but uh when you talk about the um the remainder, I may have lost the thread a little bit. Were you talking about uh some people receiving subsi- receiving assistance or incentives and others receiving financing or you talking about a split in the assistance between to any individual between incentives and financing. >> Yeah, that was a partial incentives partial Yes, that was not clear. I was meaning on it for one individual. So that you know, let's say let's say we decide as a city we want to be responsible for you know, 3,500 bucks. Yeah, so for the first year we could do it at all as an incentive and then you know, there wouldn't be any financing and thereafter maybe the incentive part goes down, but we would finance up to 1,000. I don't know, something like that. >> Yeah, that's that's definitely something we can model. >> It just might be helpful to have some more of that up front. Um that does though beg the question that you also asked about do we focus on low-income middle-income people with exemptions for complex projects etc. What's tricky about that? So So we um you know, at the at the air district it's just the the the low-income um it was done with this um uh federal low-income federal purchase participation in programs at 250% of FPL I think it is. Um or this house cost burden idea because if we did 80% AMI or some percent AMI it varies county to county and it varies drastically. I mean they produced um I think I showed you in the working group um the chart that had uh the AMI in Solano County versus the AMI in Santa Clara County. Ours is almost double theirs and so it's just all over the board. But here we're much smaller. We know what our AMI is so that we're a better measure and we didn't want to deal with um with cost the house cost burden. We could do that more easily. So, that's another option. In other words, we don't necessarily have to follow the same categories because the air district category was aimed at low income, and I think we want to go up to middle income. >> Yeah, I so I think so it's it's helpful to hear the feedback on, you know, who we're trying to provide uh assistance to and um I think one of the interesting things uh just to note is that, you know, um income qualification is a complicated and expensive process, and so to the extent we're able to rely on air district exemptions, that could potentially be helpful. Either air district exemptions or um uh or um our own income qualification for rate assistance, for example. >> No, that's exactly what struck me when I was listening is that a big part of what we did discuss is how we get that that's the that's the point of this extra year um from the time we finally voted on this until the time it is implemented is to figure out how we do the income exemption well and what documents people have to provide and and all of that. And you know, if this city gets into its own version of that, then we have to do all of that. >> Right. >> Um if we do what the air district is, it's not really aimed at middle income. So, you know, I'm hearing an interest here in middle income. So, that's what made me think we either have to figure out our own way to do that or we could do it a different way. >> It It also might be interesting to track uh the housing burden conversation because that may be a proxy for middle income depending on, you know, I I I could imagine a a strategy where the air district staff um you know, sets an absolute cap on housing uh on home value. >> Maybe a little >> calculating housing housing burden. >> Yeah, it hasn't discussed. Um and I think it's because we're not like every community. So, in other words, it might work here for that purpose. Um whereas uh it doesn't really include middle income as much elsewhere. >> Yeah, middle income is really a new frontier. Yeah, there aren't really people doing it and uh you know, the overhead is expensive. So, um yeah, the more that we could rely on on the air district the better, but we can we can definitely think about whether there are options we haven't considered yet. >> Yeah, and I I know there's been some discussion a bit among CCAs as well about how to tackle that. >> Well, and that's part of why I think I'm a little bit of an outlier here. Um depending on how the modeling works out, it may be infeasible, but um because I'd like to think that all 60% and the you know, 640 uh come to us, but I'm not so sure they will. All right, let's say we have 500. Um I'd like to know if we did everybody what it would look like because I think certainly in the early years we're still going to need to to incentivize people to do this. We used to do 7,000. If we stuck with 3,500 for 1 year and then ramped it down over the course of three, we're still pretty quickly reducing the subsidies, but hopefully that would be as acceptance goes up. Um so, I it and it simplifies it. You don't have to figure out, you know, if you qualify. You don't just miss the qualification and get sad. Um so, I I would be very curious to see what it costs if we did everybody um at some sort of decreasing level. Um Yeah, I do I also think that um I mean, we're we're we're fortunate as has been said that our rates are so low our our electric rates are so much lower here than in other uh, places, we should be able to get as good of an adoption curve as anybody because we both have higher incomes and and lower electric rates. And in uh part of the challenge for the whole air district jurisdiction is people have higher electric rates and lower incomes. So, um, I'd like to think that, you know, we can lead the way on being creative, but also, you know, we're we're fortunate that we have some of the backdrop that makes it a little simpler to do that. Um, and I think one of the questions would be answered. >> Oh. >> The, uh, do we do we align with the the the rest of the region? I think that was, you know, I've I've addressed that. It's a it's I I they're they're they're circumstantially different. So, I think we should really I would like to see, you know, more other regions follow our lead to the extent they can, but, um, they're just, uh, often in very different circumstances. So, I I think, um, we should model these options and see what would work for our community. I think what else did you need to want to know? I think I've answered most of the questions. >> What else follows? >> Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely come back to you. I'm just trying to see if there's anything else I've ever addressed. Okay, I will stop there and turn back to Pat. >> Good. Um, one I want to I follow up on what George was talking about on the permitting on the one level, if we subsidize the cost of permitting, um, with different funds, that comes right out of general fund subsidies. Um, so, that's a real expensive way to go. But, if we looked at what I'll call our green funds, um and said, "Well, we we might want to redirect some of those instead of rebates to permitting reductions. In the cases where we're getting bad compliance on permitting, we could uh fulfill two purposes. It would be the same dollar amount of subsidy, but we'd get it to incentivize people to seek a permit, which we've wanted. Now, that's more I I don't We we've heard that, you know, compliance on EV uh charger permitting is bad, and that changeout on hot water heaters is bad. is what I recall was reported previously. I don't know on furnaces and things like that. >> The sense that I get is the changeouts on just single appliance replacements for residential and commercial are just really low. >> Okay. So, I would be very uh interested in exploring uh a combination of subsidies and redirecting some of the same dollars that we would use toward um uh subsidies toward reducing permitting costs and simultaneously increasing the penalties for not obtaining permits. So, make the permits cheap and the non-compliance expensive. >> Interesting. Thanks. Can take that as a Yeah, as a piece of feedback. >> And on the Cap and Invest, I I double-checked and um yeah, the wildfire and housing and some other areas are are potentially going to get nothing. Uh and Steve the uh legislature will have a billion for the governor and legislature will have a billion for discretionary uh spending. That's the other only other lockdown amount other than high-speed rail. Actually, high-speed rail gets first billion. Assuming there's a second billion, it goes to the legislature and the governor for their discretion. And only thereafter tiers three and four do other things that have been getting funded for years still have funds. So, we may very well not just get reduced dollars from that, we may get zero. Unfortunately. >> That's consistent with cuz if the air district, we were excited we got locked in last year to that third category because for us it's like we're in, we're at, we're in. And now this year that third category was looking like zero, but that was before the May revise. So, I don't know if you checked after the May revise. >> Well, the revise is independent of how cap-and-invest dollars are calculated. So, cap-and-invest is is its own formula. >> But back then they were looking at new Let me ask you one question. I'm going to buy So, Hopefully we get some. Yeah, Jonathan brought me up. Alan Hertel, deputy director of air We are tracking this very closely on the changes. There was an initial proposal back in January we're going to see a significant reduction as you were saying. We don't think that is the case now based on the last the last version of this. So, we are tracking it. We're hoping actually to to receive somewhat similar to we had before. We might get actually a little bit additional just because of the way the portfolio and when they track the year. I don't want to go through all the detail of it here, but I just wanted to show you there's just not going to be zero as you go through your process of looking at how to spend those funds. >> Well, I thought the biggest variable was what they were going to do in the cap-and-invest program on direct dealing with it refineries and that was the the biggest variable. I'm not aware of what else might happen. >> allocations associated with electric utilities and our supply portfolio and what year of the that they're using. So again, we're tracking in but I wanted to share the the S-Cap committee that is not going to be zero and and what we're looking at and it's going to be more in line to what we have currently on our budget and bring forth any changes. >> I hope so. >> Yes. And it's just so everybody knows it hits us at least one other way which is the transit funding. So well in the transit district. So things that are tourism funding and otherwise come out of this too. So it's a big deal but it's encouraging. I'd I'd like to get a better understanding offline. >> All right. Anybody have any further comments? >> All right. Maybe try to summarize and repeat back the sort of key pieces of feedback that I think I received. Um I heard um an interest in um focusing assist in I think two scenarios being modeled. Uh one with where assistance is focused primarily on low income, maybe on those exempt for complexity of their projects. Um and middle income uh and some openness to middle income if the administrative issues could be worked out. Um the second piece of modeling um I heard interest in was for just to understand by contrast what the what would look like if we were were to provide incentives or sorry, assistance and incentives to everybody with a shift towards financing over years um to reduce complexity and drive uh adoption. Are these the two models that I heard interest in or or did I miss some nuance? >> I think in the first model you were just talking about not everybody. And >> That's correct. >> Yeah, I'm interested in modeling for everybody. >> So I was seeing two models. The second one being The second one being modeling for everybody with a gradual shift from all incentive to partial incentive partial financing to financing. So that was model two and model one was just focusing on low income and those who are facing complexity. >> And then on that one would you just do it as straight financing and no incentives or? >> Um I don't know that there was specific feedback on that. We might look at a couple options there. >> I I guess I'm asking cuz if you had a two by two matrix I I >> Yeah, I see you. >> I see what you're doing and I hadn't really thought of it that way. I was thinking of each thing. Um I'm okay with that. That may narrow it a bit for you. But I don't know about my colleagues. >> Um I I want to ask um on that if we had incentives for everyone um I think in the staff report one of the questions was whether uh or expressed it I think it an intention to continue it past when the air district deadline hit. >> Yeah, I think in the in the first version of the um principles it said for a year after the after the um >> effective date. Thank you. Um And I think the more flexible version that I don't that I don't think I showed you has has it has flexibility for it to be from uh no continuation at all to more than a year. Um so just to give the flexibility for for modeling different >> Okay. Uh I'm okay with the modeling. My at this point in time my inclination would be to conserve those precious subsidy dollars but and not have them continue past uh that implementation date. But you know, it's >> And is that for everybody including low income and those who are exempt? >> Um >> Cuz I I I had been thinking that that's what I was hearing was that we should focus subsidy dollars or incentives on those who were low income and exempt. >> Um so the low income and potentially exempt would continue but past the date indefinitely. >> So those subject to the regulation don't provide assistance is was essentially the summary there. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I think that's consistent with what I was thinking for the first one. >> Okay, great. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you. Uh so if we'll uh close up this item and talk about our next meeting that you mentioned at the top of the meeting. But do you want to >> Yeah, so I'll mention it again that the topic is a status update on the analysis of community-wide electric transportation, which is kind of part of what we have been discussing today but and draft policy options for staff's analysis. Uh and as I mentioned so we've got a regular meeting of the committee scheduled for our regular time on June 12th. Um the clerk's office is polling right now uh to see what time may work for a joint meeting of both the committee and the utilities advisory commission. So, what potentially the meeting might be at the same time or it might be at a a different time. As you try to accommodate. >> Okay. All right. So, the June 12th is one of the candidates for that and so we're checking that out. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Oh, June 12th might be the joint meeting you're saying? >> It might be. There is there are uh several dates. >> Okay. >> And if but this June 12th at the regular meeting time of this committee one of the potential dates. >> Right. But if we if this if June 12th does not work out, then we will not be having a June 12th casting meeting. Correct? It's depending on that. >> Um we we don't yet have a a topic to propose, but there may still be one. >> So, then you're proposing you'd have two meetings in June, one would be joint and one not? >> Awesome. >> Well, yeah. And it and it's possible it might not uh find a time in June given that the very week after that is the beginning of the council spring. I hope it will because the USC typically doesn't meet in August. So, to the extent it's it's helpful as we believe it is to have this joint meeting, uh it's really >> I see. >> beneficial to do that in June. >> I had forgotten we were looking beyond June for the joint meeting. So, if that's the case, then yes, I would like if we can stay keep this date for ourselves. >> Yeah. I'm not being clear. We're not currently looking past June. We're really trying to find a a joint meeting date in June. I'm just making the point that if we can't and and we still want to proceed with that joint meeting, it's likely I it won't happen until September, which is not ideal. >> Which is why you want to try and make it happen in June. >> Exactly. >> If that happens in June, we're fine. And I guess we're out. So, they're out in August, we're out in June. >> Exactly. >> Okay. I got you. Um and then the just a uh placeholder that that our council liaison to the UAC presumably would not be allowed to attend. What would happen? Is that right? >> That may be the case. We'll we'll definitely confirm that. >> Excellent. >> All right. Well, let's stay tuned on that one then. All right. Well, thank you everyone. We are adjourned.

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> 14th, it is 6:00 and we're calling to order the Human Relations Commission regular meeting. Would you like me to take roll? Commissioner Ansari. Here. Commissioner Stemler. Here. Chair Kraus. Here. Commissioner Rosenberg. Here. Vice Chair Causey. Here. Commissioner Baru. Here. Commissioner Karnam. Here. For the record, all present. Commissioner, would you mind turning on your microphone? Thank you. Minka, the ghost of Minka. It's only she always make. Are there people here that want to make public comment online or offline on items not on the agenda? We currently have no requests for in-person public comment. Um, just as a reminder for the commission, um, as a result of recent City Council action, we'll be hearing remote public comments at the end of the agenda and I will, um, I will let you know if we receive any comments for that portion of the agenda. >> Okay. >> Thank you. And Chair, before we move on, um, I just want to point out the obvious that we no longer have Elena. Um, she is no longer with the city. So, we're going to have a rotating cast of clerks, um, and other wonderful helpers with us. Um, Christine is with us today. Um, and we want to thank Elena for all her service, um, for the HRC and we're sad she's not here today. All right. Are there any agenda changes, additions, or deletions? Okay. Let's move to the approval of the minutes for April 9th, 2026. Do I hear a motion? Um I would move that we approve the minutes of the April 9th meeting. And I need a second. I'll second. Okay, please call the roll. Before we take the vote, I would just like to note for the record that there were no requests to speak for this agenda item. And now moving on to the vote. Commissioner Carnahan. I. Commissioner Barr. Yes. Yes. I. Chair Krouse. I. Vice Chair Kazi. I. Commissioner Stahlin. Commissioner Rosenberg. Can I abstain? Yes. Okay, I abstain. >> here. You abstained. Uh Commissioner Ansari. I. Motion carries 6 to 1 with Commissioner Rosenberg abstaining. Thank you. Now we're going We're going to go to business item is the first. We want to have a discussion of the rules of the road because we have so many new people. And Chair, do we want to introduce our new person really quickly? I would love to. Raizel, would you like to say a few words? Hi, I'm Raizel. It's really good to be here. Uh I don't know what to say, but um I'm an engineering manager at Beve, and I'm excited to serve the city however I can. Welcome. We're very happy to have you. We now have a full slate, and it will be so helpful because we have a very full work plan going forward, and a lot of responsibilities and more responsibilities that are coming our way. Now, in terms of the rules of the road, you have to, if you can, attend meetings. And if you're going to be absent, staff or I will talk to you about the way you can attend remotely. And when you've been absent more than two, we will have a discussion. Okay? Because we have a great deal of work that's uh on our agenda. Now, behavior. Unfortunately, we can't get up and walk off the dais unless it's an emergency. And then just signal me and we will stop the meeting. If you're in an emergency, we're always here and always willing to do what we have to do. Now, there are restrooms in the back, but there's a back door open. So, if you're having a health emergency, a bathroom emergency, just let us know. And then finally, discipline on speaking. Please look to me if I'm here as the chair or my vice chair, uh Katie Causey. Um we have to acknowledge you, and we have to have the quorum. We cannot just speak. It doesn't work that way. So, we're running like a formal meeting and we'll acknowledge and call upon you. All right? And let's go forward and have a good time. Our first item is Well, it's the second item. Is the presentation on the Pride event. In terms of introduction, this is the first Pride event held by the city. It is on June 7th from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. And we're really exciting. Um it's an opportunity to acknowledge, to see, and be seen. I'd like all of you, and I don't know how we work that out with the Brown Act, to be able to be present. And Recording in progress. I apologize, technical problems. And I'll take that offline with staff. Uh I don't know what that means and if we're allowed we have to stagger. I I turn to you. But we'd like all of you to be involved. Yes, Don. Um from past experience, my understanding of the Brown Act is that at public events, any number of the commissioners can be there. It's just that the commissioner should not talk to other commissioners, maybe one commissioner, but they should not talk to more than one commissioner about anything to do with the business. But we we are each welcome to come to public events. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> That is correct, Commissioner. Um thank you. So, we have our presentations coming from the organizers of the Pride event. I'd like to recognize the executive director of YCS. Would you like to go first? Or would you like Sure. Um we actually have some I can't hear you. Good evening, everyone. Uh my name is Mara Omen. I'm with YCS, Youth Community Service. Um we would first like to begin if we could with um uh our youth who have been on the planning committee for our Pride event. So, they are in a program right now, but they will join via Zoom. Are they in the waiting room as yet or They are not yet online. Okay. Um what I think we told them a certain time. Is that right or 6:10. Okay. So, um I'll begin actually. Could we pull up the dry drag brunch? >> [sighs] >> So, this uh so a preview uh leading up to our Palo Alto Pride event, we have an event uh this Sunday, May 17th, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. So, we do invite everybody everybody here, everybody in the community. Uh this event is organized by the Q Corner and it's called dry drag brunch and the flyer is up on the screen. It'll be at Lucy Stern Community Center. And they invite everyone from um to enjoy a free refreshments, resources, performances, and education about substance use safety, and all ages um and this and it's a space without judgement. So, there's a QR code where you can RSVP. And again, [snorts] it's on Sunday, May 17th from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. So, please join us for this event at Lucy Stern. And I'll be joined by um Reverend Tom Harris as well to share a little bit more about the Pride event. And we also have a limited edition prior to the event that we have uh for you. It's the wonderful stickers that were designed by the uh committee. So, I'll pass this on to It's for the commissioners. There will be more, but those will only be given out at the actual event. Um are our youth on this yet or I don't see them online. I'm happy to resend the invitation if you'd like. Okay. Um Do you want to go first? Okay. Why don't you go first? >> Good evening, commissioners. Hi. I'm Tom Harris. I'm uh on the planning team for Pride and I'm uh the pastor of First Presbyterian Church Palo Alto. Um we are just so thrilled that this event is happening. As Commissioner Klein said, it is the first ever Palo Alto Pride Festival. And it's going to be 3 hours of joy and celebration and diversity on June 7th from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. This has been a youth-led initiative. The adults are there to do the supportive work, but the youth voices have been privileged from the very beginning. And it's important considering all of the things that we know have been going on in our community that that be the case. We have It's intergenerational, but the youth are very much at the center of the planning process. On the day of the event, we're going to have a flag raising, a pride flag raising with uh Mayor Vinker raising the flag and some introductions. And then we have an incredible entertainment lineup. We'll start off with the Silicon Valley Gay Men's Chorus. And then we have two wonderful dance troops that are international in flavor and LGBTQ forward and affirming and celebrating. It's the Batuki dance group and the Folklorico dance group. School of Rock will perform and then we have a 30-minute drag show that will set all all about celebrating the incredible diversity of the human family. We have tabling that will be on Hamilton Avenue. Hamilton is going to be blocked off in front of King Plaza. Right now we have 30 different organizations signed up to table and those include service organizations, community organizations, advocacy groups, faith communities. We have five different faith communities that will be there letting the community know that we are supportive and LGBTQ+ community. We think we have room for another 10 or 15 canopies and tents, but we were just out there measuring. So, if folks want to get it information out about a organization they'd like to have table there, please let them know soon because spaces may fill up. There are there's no food vendors, so the local restaurants that are in that area are going to be thrilled to have all of this extra foot traffic to support them. And we have a great list of sponsors that Laura is going to tell you about. And I do see our youth online if we'd like to turn to them now. Iris and Alex, feel free to unmute yourselves. Hello, my name is Iris Blanchet. My name is Alex Abramova. And we're both a part of the of the planning the Pride Planning Committee. We're we're some of the youth leaders and we just wanted to to hop on and really just voice our support for this amazing amazing event. Yeah, Tom really exhausted a lot of our list of what we were going to talk about. So, so you for that, Tom. Thank you for being very informative about this event. Uh, but as um, on the on the behalf of youth leaders who are participating in the planning of this uh, event, I just want to say that um, our our role has been very um, centralized in the planning and we have um, a few different um, sort of subgroups of planning and a lot of um, the youth are leading those. Uh, which has been an amazing experience. Um, and we do have um, GSAs of uh, Gunn High School and uh, potentially Foothill College uh, joining us for the event as supporters. Um, and um, we are going to advertise to local youth um, high schoolers and college students. Um, yeah. You're you're muted. Oh, yeah. Sorry, we were we finished talking. Um, actually real quick I would Can they tell us a little bit about why they you think it's so important to have youth voices centered in the planning process? I was actually just about to say that, Tom. So, you're really we're we're synergizing here. Uh, I want to say that it's very important first of all because we have such a large youth LGBTQ community here in Palo Alto and I think we've experienced a lot of loss recently in this past year from members of the LGBTQ youth community and I think it's important for their voice to be heard. It's important for them to feel like they're not alone in the city and I think it's really important for them to have not just an opportunity to attend this event but an but an opportunity to be part of the planning process for this event because you know, at the end of the day, we're the ones who are going to be going to this event. We're the ones who really kind of spread the word of mouth for it. So, it's important to get youth involved in the planning process and I'm really happy to say that we're going to have um, multiple youth speakers at the event. We have a lot of amazing queer youth speakers lined up in the program for this event. And honestly, I'm just happy that this isn't going to be just a one-time thing. I'm really, you know, the reason why I signed on was because I realized, "Hey, this is an event that's going to be going on year after year." So, I'm really proud of the fact that we're giving youth an opportunity to plan this sort of annual reoccurring event. That's really important. Thank you. Well, thank you so much, Iris and Alex. And um I want to say that yesterday we were at a Project Safety Net meeting, and one of the things they said there was having one adult um trusted adult presence makes a difference in people's lives. So, I want to invite every adult in the community to please come out. Let's magnify that magnify that multiple multiple times, and let our youth know that we're here for them, and that they um they they matter. So, uh please, everybody, do come out to our event. We could not do this event first without the planning committee that has been meeting on Sunday evenings for many many months now. And so, I especially thank the staff who have been making time to join us on a Sunday evening, and we've had um many elected officials join us as well. So, we've had Mayor Vinker at almost all of the meetings. Um Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims has been coming to all the meetings as well. So has Chair Kraus. And uh we thank everybody, including Commissioner Rosenberg, who joined us at the May Fête parade, where we had a wonderful table for our event, and lots of community members came by and were interested. Uh we couldn't do what we are able to do in a short period of time without our sponsors. So, I just want to uh give a quick shout-out to our sponsors. Of course, the City of Palo Alto, which included every Palo Alto City Council member voting to uh money from the contingency plan put towards this event and then there were other pots of money that we were able to find and they were able to put towards this event. So, thank you so much. Uh a huge shout out to Kristin O'Kane that's sitting behind us who's made so much of this happen. So, thank you. Um the Palo Alto Weekly Foundation and I uh sit on the board of the Palo Alto Weekly Foundation. So, thank you to them for supporting this. Um we also are thankful to Stanford Health Care, uh Stanford University, the Embarcadero Media Foundation, which is the Palo Alto Weekly that is providing us with the gold level of marketing and promotions. So, we're I hope you'll um see our ads in the newspaper and online when you visit the news um their website. Um Grocery Outlet in Palo Alto uh has been a generous donor as well. Um Rivian uh also Society of Hearts' Delight, uh which is a nonprofit in the area. And then the Palo Alto University Rotary as well has um contributed financial support for this event. We've had community members who uh as individuals have donated money. So, Jennifer DiBrienza and uh Jesse uh Dora Gotsker and Yudi Deng uh have been the individuals who've donated towards this as well. And if you go to the website, which is on that uh flyer, there's more information about all the tabling organizations, including links to their websites, which are a wealth of information. So, if if for some reason you're not able to attend the event, please check out the resources that are available. And that website also will be updated as we assert um the the program is there as well. If you can only come for certain amounts of time, uh there will be uh an after-party as well on the street. We're working on the details of that. Um the street right in front of us Hamilton will be closed and that's where a lot of the table and organizations will be. So we're really grateful for all the different city departments that have come together to make this event happen as well. So may this be the first of many many more. Thank you. We're here to answer questions if that's how things are run. Thank you. One question I have is what is this going to cost to to make happen? What's the budget? Um and what do have to raise before June 7th? Um yeah, thank you. Actually have the budget up here. So uh our budget is $34,000 and so far we have raised $29,300. So we have 5,000 left to come in. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um as a former Stanford professor, I am aware that there is a substantial LGBTQ community among Stanford students. Are Stanford students involved in this event? Uh if not, I would really encourage to reach out to the Stanford students and encourage them to participate. Mhm. So we actually have a call with their the the department that oversees all the different uh student clubs that would be affiliated with the LGBTQ+ community tomorrow. Uh it is around graduation time, so things are a little bit busy for them, but we have been reaching out and we look forward to and it was actually one of the requests from uh our students here that they wanted to see more of Stanford students present. So thank you. This way. I just want to give a tremendous thank you to the youth who organized this. Um I just wanted to give a tremendous thank you to the youth who organized this. Um as a proud member of the LGBT community who grew up in this and who grew up in Palo Alto, this has been so deeply needed for many years. I remember floating this idea years ago, writing an op-ed for it and trying to find different pathways. So, the fact that so many youth were able to come together and and make this reality, thank you so much for all your hard work. Thank you. You definitely inspired us, so thank you, Kate. I leave it. Does anybody else have any Yes, Commissioner. Uh is there a way HRC can help in any way? Uh Yes, uh we'd love your support and you al- we already have your support uh with the uh weekly presence of your chair at our meetings on Sundays. Uh and also your more most recent member was at our event, but we did um fill out an app- a sponsorship form, so that is somewhere in the works, yeah. So, we'll we will formally be going after that af- over that after this. Thank you. I want to say thank you. It's so important uh to be seen, to be heard, to be acknowledged for all peoples, period. And particularly our children who have been feeling so disenfranchised. Uh it's time to come together and I heartily support the efforts that you've made. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks. Okay, let's go to item number three. If If I may, Chair, I apologize for interrupting, but may I just say for the record that we do not have any requests to speak for item two. Forgive me for that. And nobody online? Correct. We have no requests online or in person. Okay. Item three, which is the consideration of HRC support for the Pride event on Sunday, June 7th, at King Plaza at 250 University, a cute 250 Hamilton Avenue in Palo Alto. And do we have some discussion and then we'll go to public comment or public comment first? So, I think we just did public comment, so I think we're good there, but if everyone wants to turn to page seven in their packet. Just to clarify, that public comment was for item number two. We have We have not taken public comment for item three yet. I think often though we do the staff presentations first. Um so, yeah, if you want to pay turn to packet page seven, um you will see the HRC application to request support. Um again, this is for the Pride event. Um I'm not going to go through the entire thing, but if there if you guys want to take a brief moment to go through it and then have if you have any questions or concerns, um we can raise them after. And again, it's been submitted by Alex, which is the youth-led component of this event. >> And do we have a flyer that can be put up digitally? So I notice that there are two specific requests under the support requested. One is a request that the commission um Actually there's there's three. One is the HRC name as an event supporter. Two, that a commissioner would speak at the event our program. And three, a request for funding although there isn't a specific request for any amount of funding or the purpose of the funding. But this Yeah, it it would it would appear that the um the first the first one um I think that um it it would take a motion to for the commission to support the uh for the upcoming um we call it a the upcoming pride event. Is that Because uh I I feel strongly that that it's the type of public activity that our commission should support. So I would actually move that the Human Relations Commission um support the upcoming uh pride event in on King Plaza. Just give me one second. I just want to read what I wrote for the >> I actually have a question first. Um Please. This is such a technical question, but I know it will come up with future events. So, I know we've had questions in the past of Can somebody remind me when somebody submits a request for HRC support, do they have to have all the sponsors finalized? Can we just be kept in the loop about other sponsors, event sponsors? I don't think that's a requirement for our consideration, technically. Am I Am I wrong cuz we've had an issue in the past. Can you clarify the question? Is the question whether you'll be kept in the loop of other sponsors or whether you'll know them off the bat? >> Sure. So, let me clarify. Um in the past, we have had requests to sponsor events. The city has also had requests to sponsor events. They've sponsored it, and then other sponsors have joined on that the city did not feel comfortable having city HRC on the same branding as. Um so, I was recalling that if somebody had to submit a request for sponsorship, there was some some guidelines of they had to and they have listed some of the other sponsors here. I would just note keep us in the loop about any further sponsors. So, I think we could include that as part of the motion um or alternatively, because I am seeing that there's a request for funding and not a specific amount, you guys could push this off. We could ask for more clarification, and then we could move or we could move this to our next agenda. Um but we could do it either way. A motion with qualifiers or I would prefer a motion with qualifiers and to this specific the sponsorship issue the HRC did not support that event. It was individuals that were on the HRC Thank you. >> that individually supported and when the sponsors were brought on that were not acceptable the city removed their support and the other individuals removed their support. It was not an HRC >> Thank you for that clarity. >> Okay. Thank you. >> in any way, shape or form. Do you Katie do you have something? Yeah, but we then we did have issues even with a an event after that because they didn't have the full list of sponsors available. Oh, sorry. I just it is an important point and I'm glad that Katie raised it. Commissioner Vice Commissioner Kazi raised it because I do want to make sure we're being fair to everyone and in the past there's a time we revoked support but there's also a time that we required someone to have all of their sponsors because of that previous issue and in this case they don't have all the sponsors. So I think we should at least we should qualify the motion that the HRC should be informed of any of any future sponsors before the event. And the sponsorship deadline is tomorrow. Okay. It's the 15th of the month. So we could um support a motion with qualifiers for the final submission because our next meeting will be after the Pride event. So, do we have a motion? Uh we have a motion that's currently up. Do we want to do friendly amendments? I apologize, Chair Cross. Before we do that, um may we have a second, please? the motion. >> the motion. Thank you. Okay. Now, friendly amendments. I just answer I'd ask a quick question. I notice at the bottom of the sheet of the thing on the screen, um Palo Alto Pride is listed at the paloalto.gov website. Um how is it that the Palo Alto Pride got permission to be part of the paloalto.gov website? Christine? Hi, good evening, Commissioners. I'm Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director. So, ultimately, while this is a community-planned event, it is a city event and a city-sponsored event. So, we're hosting the website um and doing a lot of the, you know, the marketing and the graphics and things like that. So, that's why it's on the city's website. Which which offices of the city have supported it Um Community Services, City Manager's, Police, Fire, Public Works. So, Okay. And that's that's how you got access to the paloalto.gov website to have the Palo Alto Pride listed as a paloalto.gov event. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that question? Um, well, if on on the the flyer that shows the at the very bottom uh is the website of the Palo Alto Pride and it's on paloalto.gov/paloaltopride. Right, it's on the city's website. >> Right. Actually, the city has approved it being part of the city website. The only people who can put something on the city's website are city staff. So, and especially well, our chief communications officer is the one who manages that, so. >> That That That was This how I wanted to clarify. Thanks. You're welcome. Thank you. So, we have a first, we have a second. Do we have any other comments? Would we like to go to public comments, Chair? Yes, I would. Uh we currently have one request to speak. Our first speaker is Mora O. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. My name is Mora Omen. I'm the executive director of YCS and also on the Palo Alto Rec Foundation. Uh I just presented earlier. Since then, I just got an email that Kaiser Permanente is also supporting the event at $1,000. Uh and I also wanted to clarify uh that we did receive the form um from you all, the HRC application request support, and it came to me and there was a short deadline. So, I'm actually the one who filled it out. It wasn't Alex. I just wanted to clarify that. And um I would love a tutorial on it. There wasn't a place to ask for a specific amount that I could see, but perhaps I'm mistaken there, so um you know, we do have, for example, uh we want to get colored canopies, which are expensive, but if that's something you all would like to support, um it would be a cost of $5,000 to get those colored canopies, but I think it would really enhance and the cohesiveness of the event and the welcomeness of the event. So, that is an example of an expense that we have that would be a nice to have. So, um thank you. Commissioners? That concludes public comment on agenda item three. Okay. And commissioners, any other comments? Mary? Um does anyone I I I unfortunately we don't have any money to give them, right? I'm sorry? Just uh regarding the request for funding, I don't believe we have any money to give them. Are we Well, I mean the HRC doesn't. >> They've applied for emergency uh emergent needs grant funding, but I don't think we have any funding within the HRC that we could allocate separately. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's what they've come to us with. >> Uh it's an emergency emergent needs application. That's great, but we won't be deciding that in in this meeting anyway. Okay, and then the other thing I would just say is um maybe I don't know if there's like a checkbox, but in the form maybe we should make it more clear in the future that people I just don't want people thinking, "Oh, there might be a pot of money." So, maybe in the future we could just clarify um that funding has to go through the emergent emerging needs grant rather than through this form. And for the motion, I think we need to specifically uh comment on all the support requested. So, um we're moving that we're supporting the event, but I think we should also include um the request that a commissioner speak speak at the event, and then again that request for funding. So. But, as a citizen, does a commissioner need the commission's permission to speak at a public event? If you're speaking on behalf of the HRC, you would need to go through the you would need to go through this, but if you're speaking individually, then no. Exactly. Because we have the mayor who is involved, she is raising the flags in a formal ceremony. And doing, I think, a formal resolution supporting this activity for years to come. Um This is a joyous opportunity. So, let's call the the vote. If we're comfortable with this, or do you want to I do have one more thing. Is there any way, because I know we're talking about this as a one-time thing, but it sounds like they really had to scramble this year to get everything pulled together and to find the $38,000. Is there any chance of them Like, is there any way we could also do a resolution a motion around recommending that the city plan on this in its annual I know that the annual budget for the city is contentious, but something like a a motion also to support it this year, but also to that the city plan on this for next year, so that Absolutely. In in next year's review of the community development block grant CDBG funding uh we could certainly recommend that there be a fixed amount for a annual pride event uh in in the city. Well, but that won't be for several months. And to clarify, they would still need to go through an application process, but we could definitely add them to the bidder's list. Right. I'm sorry, is that the only way for them? There isn't a way to put aside money besides the community block grant process? I think I can get back to you guys on that. Um, I think you could make a recommendation to council to put aside money for that, but I think that's something you might want to think through a little bit more, but I can bring back more information. Yeah, that would be great. I mean, just now while it's on people's plates, otherwise, you know what will happen. It'll happen, people will be like, "That was amazing." And then like, next year, it's going to be the same hustle all over again. All right, thanks. What? Yes. >> one of the things that Alex probably started in their presentation is that it's not a recognized body or something. So, maybe uh, we should formalize that organization that's organizing. Is Is that how it works? In We are not a formal organization, but a group of passionate activists. Uh, does that make a difference or do they need to have some form of a formal organization within Palo Alto then they'll have access to funds, permissions, and Yes. Thank you. So, um, I think the city, our plan is to continue this event annually. So, this will be a new annual event that the community service department likely leads with support from our other departments, and then we're welcome to have our community members, our youth, um, collaborate on that planning. So, um, I think I don't think it's necessary to form a real, you know, established group that works on the event cuz we'll be taking the lead and welcome anyone to participate. >> Thanks. Mhm. Okay. May I seek clarification on the motion, please? So, Commissioner Barr um spoke about uh adding part of this to the next year's CDBG funding. Commissioner, was that something you'd like added to the motion? No, that's just a suggestion to the commission, but it wasn't actually part of the motion. Thank you very much. Uh likewise, that my recommendation that any HRC commissioner in support of this should go and volunteer to speak at the event, but not necessarily as a formal representative of the HRC. So, I didn't include that in the motion. If If somebody else wants to change that, that's fine, but I thought it was just it would be um to say, "Hi, I'm I'm Don. I'm a member of the Human Relations Commission. I'm happy to be here to support uh this event." is something that would be appropriate for for someone to do. I think we Yeah. We do have a formal program that we're working on with speakers. So, if it is something the HRC wanted to include, we would like to know that um soon very soon if you would like someone to speak cuz we do have our program that's pretty packed and don't have room much room. So, please let me know as soon as possible. And to clarify, I think in our motion, we will want to comment on what Commissioner Barr is talking about if you guys do or do not want to have a commissioner speak at that at the event. We've really deferred to the youth members uh in in programmatic development. So, if they choose to have someone [clears throat] speak from the HRC, we would be ready and able, but I think that's up to the youth members because they've driven the program. Um that's my two cents. You know, they want us, we're here. They don't want us, we'll be quiet. To clarify, that is their request. The support requested is a request for commissioner to speak at the event or program. So, are we adding that to the motion then? >> That's fine. Thank you. Before we add it to the motion, may I get the consent of the mover and the seconder, please? Um I would I would uh be okay to add um a uh and and that the HRC will request that one of its members speak at the event. I second it. Could we clean up the language of could could we be be informed of any and all sponsors before the event occurs? And is that all right with the first and the second? Yes, and not to be dis- seconded by Vice Chair. Mrs. Don, is that okay with you? >> Yeah. Yes. Okay. And did the um commission want to add um another section of the request was to use the HRC name as an event supporter? Well, that's that's the first sentence of the motion that the Human Relations Commission supports the Pride event. And then it should be plural. Supports. And then I think we need to add something about the request for funding. >> [snorts] >> Uh I I left that out on purpose. Okay. We we don't have any money. I think we should clarify that we are not funding it. I think we should speak to MS. I think you should speak to each of the areas of support requested. So, the third one is request for funding. Yeah. Uh at this point in time, the HRC is not financially supporting the event. Maybe okay. So, Not will not. Is not. Move to that though. You want to At this point in time, what they whether they get an emerging emerging needs grant is to be determined. >> emerging Yeah, but I think that those queries I got uh the first and second I I accept all the changes. Small correction, I believe it's emerging. Accept all. Correct all changes. Okay. Yes. >> Should we suggest the name of the commissioner that at the wish Uh I I personally I I purposely left out the name of the commissioner who's going to speak. And I thought that that was something that could be negotiated through the chair of the commission and the vice chair. I will. Yeah. Can you call the roll? Commissioner Rosenberg You guys, it's not grammatically correct. I'm really sorry. >> [laughter] >> What? It's just not grammatical. It's Can I read this out loud? Commissioner Barr, seconded by Vice Chair Kazi, moved that the Human Relations Commission supports the Pride event on Sunday, June 7th, 2026 at King Plaza, and the HRC be informed of any and all sponsors before the event can occurs, and a commissioner speak at the event, and the HRC is not financially support. It's just The HRC supports HRC be informed a commissioner speak. There's so many subjects in this sentence. Is there Is it Does it have to be a single sentence? Okay, so can we make it Human Relations Commission supports a pride event? Done. The HRC be informed of all sponsors before before the event occurs, period. And a commissioner speak and then commissioner speak at the event. >> [snorts] >> Or supports the event with a commissioner speaking or something like that and then the HRC is not financially supporting. >> [snorts] >> of a commissioner to speak at the event or program. Yeah, to speak. Yeah. Sorry, I'm just thinking. It'll be more clear. At you were Okay, we're missing a word. At to speak at Yeah, that looks good. And maybe the last sentence it it is still to be determined whether the pride event will qualify for You got it. These are friendly amendments and our first and our second have concurred. Can we call for a vote? Commissioner Rosenberg. I abstain. Commissioner Barr. I. Commissioner Stemler. I. Vice Chair Kazi. I. Chair Kraus. I. Commissioner Ansari. I. Commissioner Karnam. I. Motion carries 6-1 with Commissioner Rosenberg abstaining. And also oh no. I apologize. >> [snorts] >> Okay. Perhaps we will move to city official reports. Let's first hear are there any commissioner reports? I just wanted to say it was wonderful to walk in the May Fete parade with um city council members, school board members, and uh commissioners from other commissions. Any other reports? Um I discussed the safety commission today with our police chief because the numbers are quadrupling in the senior community uh for fraud and we will plan together another workshop and hopefully with some of the service providers specifically to address the senior community and the kind of fraud that's now escalating. It's becoming very difficult to stop funds transfer because of the modification of instruments. So, it's very important that they know and are instructed of how to shut it down before there's a chance of funds transfer. So, that's going on and again on the safety area I then had a conversation with uh the fire chief and we are looking forward to having uh a presentation at our next uh meeting on fire avoidance because the lessons from Pasadena, Altadena, Malibu last year is that it can happen anywhere. And at this point we'd like to work very closely in getting knowledge out to [snorts] the community going forward. And in the fall do a reassessment with the fire department working closely with us. Um and hopefully we will not have any fires of magnitude this summer. So, those are my reports. Council liaison Oh. we also for the RV dwellers and the homeless, we had I was present at the ribbon cutting of the Homekey project. And I want to thank the staff, Melissa McDonough, and all the work that she's done and Sophie Pigman for the work she has done and is still is to do going forward. Um There are 88 beds, the units, excuse me. There's more beds. Did I get that right? Okay. And they can handle 161 people, or am I wrong on that? It's 88 single units and Okay. >> 24 26. 24 26. It was an amazingly excited and joyous opening today. Uh everyone had a tour. I would welcome you to get more knowledgeable uh because Palo Alto is trying very hard to move the needle forward and their work on homelessness. Um LifeMoves uh is a management consultant of the operational aspect. Am I correct? So, LifeMoves is contracted by the county to run the operations of Homekey. Yes. This is very exciting. Commissioner Ensalaco J- just a Oh, I'm sorry. Did I interrupt? Uh I was looking that way. The other project Homekey in Mountain View uh has run up against a problem that this one may, which is I believe the housing is for 12 months targeted. >> And I would like to remind you all that this is not an agendaized item, so um we need to tread carefully with how many questions we ask here. Okay, anyway, just just um it's not permanent housing. It's it's It's long-term housing. I think that's the word. It's called permanent supportive housing. Thank you. Commissioner >> permanent supportive housing. I just have an anecdote to share actually. Um one of the projects that Commissioner Simler and I are working on is a is a wider services nonprofit convening in the fall, and it's on the community services um bucket. And I think one of the goals of that is to try to get the community kind built into the infrastructure of our and aware of the service providers. So one of the things that we're trying to do is understand the ecosystem, and because we've had La Comida come out here a few times and speak, um I had a lot of fun. I actually went and volunteered a couple of weeks ago to serve the seniors at Stevenson House. It's a lot of work. I was a dripping in sweat. I had no idea it was such an operation, so efficient. Um but as a result of that, my kids got really interested, and so now there's a whole group of high school kids that are planning to volunteer throughout the summer. And so we are going to be working seeing if we can work with the organization, but it's like a really great way of kind of like getting the community involved into the ecosystem and seeing if that can actually help the nonprofit. So it was super fun. Just thought I'd share that. It was a good way to get involved. And also the youth mental health subcommittee Commissioner Carnahan, Commissioner Ansari, we've got some plans coming forward and some possible dates. Um the August 19th or 20th to do a back-to-school parents-focused uh workshop at Mitchell Community Center. Would you like to speak to that? Sure. Um so I I think it kind of came up at Was it last session or the one before where we talked a little bit about maybe getting the elementary school kids involved as well or the parents involved and just kind of understanding more about things to look out for, understanding the whole landscape around mental health. A lot of us are just not versed. So we met, we talked talked about, you know, just we're going to split it up in terms of what we're going to do for it and um just trying to figure out the right timing with back to school. And um yeah, that's it. I mean, I I think it'll be an ongoing thing. Once you do the first one, you kind of understand how it's going to go and how to build upon it. But um it'll be fun. If we can help one parent, it's worth it. Yeah, um with with uh I I think we've planned to figure out, you know, the the overall agenda for it and we'll speak to someone who's an expert in in terms of how we coach the elementary school parents in terms of um you know, what they can do and not not do. And you know, learn about youth uh sorry, youth learn about youth mental health when the kids are in elementary and then proceed further. So we'll we'll figure out the curriculum, like what is the best way and invite the parents, uh do it in one or two places and see if it can be repeatable. Thanks. Yeah, and just one last thing on that. I think one of the ideas for the first event is to really hear from the parents and kind of what what they want to what they want to learn. I know I want to learn a lot. So, what what what we're experiencing, what we're seeing, what we're concerned about, so we can kind of build a program built around that. And bring in the right experts. Thank you. Anything else? Can we hear from our council liaison? Are you still there? Yep, still here. Thank you, Chair. Um yeah, a lot already discussed with a Project Homekey opening today, incredibly exciting. Uh the Pride event, we're all looking forward to supporting that this coming June. Uh 2 weeks from tonight, we'll be swearing in our new police chief, James Reifschneider. And so, that's an a an exciting opportunity as well for the city. He's been currently serving as our chief right now, but he has been our acting chief since the since the fall and has been with the department for many years now. We're excited to be able to officially kind of welcome him into this this role as as chief on the on May 28th. Uh there's some been I I kind of gave an update last time I presented on youth mental health and reference that we were going to be having the Churchill item coming back to council. Council voted unanimously uh to to keep Churchill open to traffic and pedestrians, but to to kind of to explore a more long-term contract uh to be able to keep Trackwatch there for beyond a year to expedite quiet zones both at Churchill and across the entire corridor and to really work with the Jed Foundation as well to really identify more clearer uh action items that we can that we could do to try to mitigate the risks at our at our four train crossings across the community. Speaking of the Jed Foundation, we're anticipating their initial report at the end of at the end of June and they'll be working with us again throughout the throughout the year as well on have additional policies to repose for the for the city to be able to implement. And then on kind of budget we're we're going through budget hearings now. The full budget is anticipated to be adopted on June 15th. As of now, it looks like council is not recommending that we would fund the kind of that phase one nonprofit work plan that that we were able to do last year cuz since we we had money to spare last year, this year we're looking at some pretty significant deficits and so that funding is likely to not not continue. But we're hoping that that is just going to go on hiatus for one year. This on Tuesday this week at our Policy and Services Committee meeting we we discussed what the future of that might look like and what the future of HIS RAP will look like and so the motion that came out of Policy and Services that will I believe go towards the full council in June is essentially for Policy and Services to to take a look at at HIS RAP this fall and to to try to identify ways in which the HIS RAP process can be improved for for nonprofits from the city side, how can we avoid any redundancies or or maybe just a process that takes too long for everybody. The HRC's role in that within that discussion there was an acknowledgement of the expertise that the HRC has on his rep process and wanted to make sure that your voices are elevated as well being able to weigh in on how can his rep be improved and um kind of a feeling that there's just too many pots out there of kind of of non-profit money and it would be nice if we can kind of centralize that maybe into his rep and if it doesn't work out, that's fine. But it's again just try to make the process a little a little easier for everybody. So that's I would say that's probably the the biggest issue that's going to be that we're going to be working on in in the coming months that I can definitely see a very strong HRC focus and and and request for support from all of you. So that is my update. Can we ask questions or Yes. Uh Council Council member Council member Stone, I have a question about um the city's approach to developing housing on downtown parking lots that the city approved potential housing affordable housing on parking lot T on Lytton >> Commissioner Burt, I don't want to interrupt you but because this is the liaison Council liaison report and it's not an agendaized item, we can't actually ask him any questions at this time. >> Oh, sorry. No problem. John, I had a question. Anyway, should we go to staff? And it was really nice to see Minka today at the grand opening. She looks happy, rested and as willowy as ever. Um so staff report it's very beautiful if you have a time to go by there. Um we're really excited for the actual opening when that happens. Um we are also in the process of planning the resource fair for our unhoused community. Um that is slated to happen in June. So when I have more specific information, i.e. a flyer, I will get that out out to all of you. And that's all for me. Commissioners, do you have questions? Do we have any virtual public comment? No, we do not. I sure. Do you want to remind people to meet with their subcommittees? Yes, I would. I'd like to urge you to move forward with your subcommittees. And that in the next meeting, I'd like to have everybody to come back with the reports. I'd also want to urge you to be more community involved wherever your interests fall. Uh we'd like people to be involved. Um I know you have busy work lives. Trust me, I have a quadruple calendar, but we make time for the things that we care about. Anyway, let's adjourn and have a wonderful next couple days in the heat. >> Mhm.

yourself. >> I will. Yeah. Okay. Good afternoon. I'm uh calling to order the council appointed officers committee for March uh sorry for May 14th of 2026. If the clerk would please call the role. >> Vice Mayor Stone >> here. >> Chair Lowing >> Mayor Vinker >> here for the record. All present. >> Thank you. and we have an agenda and also our consultant is here and our uh head of uh HR. So we're going to jump into the process and uh propose changes to CAO performance evaluations. So we all got these in advance and I'll just hand it over to Dan to kind of walk us through it. Chair, if I may, real quick before we start, um, just for the record, since public comment for items not on the agenda is first, uh, there are no requests to speak and no hands are raised on Zoom. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Chair Lowing. It's a pleasure to see you all again and kick off the process. Um, so attached to the staff report that Sandra provided to you is a draft timeline, drafts of the prompt questions, and drafts of the interview questions. So we can walk through them one by one. My suggestion with your indulgence is to kind of follow the suggested agenda on page two of the staff report starting with the timeline which is attachment A or one. Um and uh the mayor was not on the subcommittee last year but the other two of you were. So you saw this in our we had a debrief in November. >> I actually wasn't. >> So you're the one that was. Yeah, I knew only two of you were on. Right. >> I I was on the year before, >> right? Apologies. Well, all of you are more or less familiar. You're all familiar with it, but >> yeah, >> but last year's subcommittee, we did a debrief and and talked about some suggested tweaks to the process and the timeline. I've subsequently updated that. So, in the draft, you see anything in red is a a change from what you saw in November. really just trying to uh zero in more specificity and lockdown dates and and things. So, um so if you look over that calendar, we're starting the process today. Um the next main step would be taking whatever comes out of today's meeting to the full council as a consent item and then talking to Sandra, look like we'd probably shoot for June 8th. Um that's right if everything goes smoothly today. And then um again just filling in the dates. The process is pretty much the same. The one thing that's changed in the process from last year which we noted um the the debrief process was in years prior I would send the draft evaluations to all of you give you a week or two to provide written feedback to me and then I'd try to incorporate that and have a final draft to send out to you. Frankly, that has never really worked all that well because a the feedback I get from any one person is that one person's opinion, not the majority opinion, and people don't provide the written feedback or whatever. So, I'm suggesting we basically drop that step that I'll send out the draft to you. And if you want to share written comments with me, you're welcome to, but we'll use that first close session as a time for everybody, you know, to collectively provide and hear and decide on the feedback. So, it's not a it consolidates the process and b everybody's in on the decision-making and I'm not trying to pick and choose, you know, which which edits to include and which to not. um because it just hasn't worked all that well. So that's also again part of our overall goal. One of the messages we got from the appointees last year was to try to squeeze the process down. Last year I think we didn't end until um mid November. And this year I'm hoping we're essentially done with the process at the end of September if we stay on schedule. So uh to that point the interviews will basically be the same schedule. They'll start during your spring break for any of you or your summer break for any of you that are around, but they extend after you get back. So, those of you that aren't around can still come within the time period to keep us moving forward. And then the key change, and again something we talked about at our debrief last year, was to potentially hold the closed sessions nights that either only have a study session or our special meeting nights just because last year one of the big uh challenges was finding times for those close sessions and they would get bumped off for other agenda items or whatever. So what I'm hoping is that to today and then through the full council we lock into these exact weeks for the three close sessions. Um the first one would be the first week of September or um and that would be where you would review the draft evals and give me your feedback to finalize them. Then we'd take two weeks off for that process to happen, turn them around, get them back to you. Then we'd have the city manager's evaluation sometime the week of September 21st and the attorney and the clerks uh and the compensation discussion the week of the 28th. Um this is all assuming we are not doing an evaluation for the auditor this year and that's a later agenda item but that was discussed last year as well. So that's kind of the working premise >> for the auditor or the city manager. >> Audit. >> I mean the city attorney. No, we would do the attorney, but it would be slightly different since he's new, but it would still be more or less the same process. We talked last year about not doing it for the auditor >> because of the the timing issue. I mean, we were talking about her goals for next year in November. She already had an adopted work plan that she was five months into. Um, so it didn't really make sense. So the thought was let's skip over this year and then you know the the the feedback that you gave her in close session last November. It is intended to be built into her now being built work plan for the upcoming year. So there's really nothing concrete to evaluate this year. But again we can talk about that separately and you can um decide otherwise. Uh so that that's the main stuff. Again, just kind of tightening up the schedule there. And >> are you ready for some feedback on the reds? >> Yes. Well, the whole thing, but the reds in particular. >> Okay. Yeah. In terms of consent calendar, you can figure out when that fits, but it's just going to be consent to this. So, it should be pretty simple. 1st or eighth. And you noted that this does go through the break, but that doesn't mean that people have to do it at the break, >> right? >> Yeah, we we've I've allocated a three plus week period, 3 to four weeks for the interviews. So based on everyone's schedules, hopefully somewhere in that time chunk, um you're all available. So just take one of the people like the city manager. You're going to do interviews between the 21st of July and the 13th of August. >> No. Well, those are the interviews with the seven of you. >> Yeah. >> So, and I'll ask you about all the appointees. >> Yeah, that's what I meant. That's what I meant. So, we would give you input on the city manager. >> Right. >> Then, Right. >> Um, >> and then you submit a draft on the 3, >> right? So, I'll have all the interviews and then between August 13th and September 3rd, I'll somehow turn that into a consensus document uh and get that draft out to you in early September. >> But you're skipping comment on that and then we just go and do it all in a um closed session without the CEO in there, right? >> Correct. >> Sorry. >> Yep. The first closed session would be just uh the seven of you and me without them so that you can give feedback on the drafts and they will obviously have not have seen the drafts until after you give it final approval. >> Yep. >> For what it's worth, um I really like this. I think that it's better to have it condensed. I think that uh it's better for us because we can stay focused on it more. It's better for the CEOs because it's not this long drawn out process where they write something up in June or July and we come back and talk to them about it, you know, six months later, everybody's forgotten what was in the original. Um, but also um part of the reason you can condense it is you are skipping the stat step where you're waiting for feedback from us and I've been not good in terms of getting it back because it never seems like the biggest crisis in front of us and so it it um A and it did feel odd that those who could find the time to write up a lot of detailed stuff, all of a sudden all their stuff's in there and the others of us who have may perhaps just as detailed thoughts but haven't had time to put them give them to you. We got to figure out how to work them in around the edges and or do we It just puts you in a very awkward spot. And I I think that if we look at I mean you're a pro at this. You have you know us now. You know this the the CEOs. you've been through this with us a few times. I think you can put together a really good first draft and then to talk together because honestly when I hear what my colleagues say and share their experiences or their thoughts, it'll trigger thoughts in me and say, "Oh yeah, you know, that's something that might be constructive to address." And so we're actually I think by throwing out some of that time um we can can accomplish two good things. uh condensing the schedule and sort of co-creating what gets to the CEOs, which I think is fair to them anyway. So, kudos. I agree with everything that's been said and I I like as long as we can stick with this schedule trying to really get everything in September because that tends to be kind of our last that I mean nothing is light anymore but this seems to be one of our lighter se you know August and September tend to be our some of our lighter months before we really start to ramp up again in October and November. So I agree with everything they said and yeah agree. >> Well and a side benefit um which I actually did not think of when I was doing this is you know it is election season in November and you know frankly it is in everyone's interest to get this done before it's too close to election season. >> Thank you for that. I think that's an excellent thought because we don't want one to affect the other. Um, and ballots drop now in early October. So, getting it done before that happens, I think, just keeps them cleaner and separate. >> And I I mentioned this to Maha earlier, but the pressure is going to be on her and the city manager in terms of scheduling those. But I think the key is if if you and the full council commit to those three close sessions in those three weeks now, you know, we can lock in a date relatively early and get it on everyone's calendars because it's obviously harder to schedule the closer you get to to that time. I mean, I would defer to the or I would in invite Well, you've been mayor. You've been we've all been mayors and uh you know, you've been a city manager, so we can I think commit is a strong word. we can calendar them, but you know, crazy stuff comes up and that's kind of the thing that we're but but but we might add meetings or do something, but I think we should, you know, commit to getting them done in September and just, you know, those are the dates we've got now, but um we'll have to figure out as agendas evolve. >> So, we have consensus on this timeline, right? >> Yep. Okay. All right. >> Okay. very on. >> Um yeah, and just to just to reiterate on the closed sessions, you know, there was discussion and more or less agreement last year that you're open to having those on non-regular meeting nights. And I think that's an important point to point out in the the staff report that goes to the full council because I know nobody likes more meetings than they have to go to, but sometimes the only way to schedule these and to have the time to do it well is to do it on a different afternoon or evening. That's great. >> Okay. So, moving on to the next attachment, which is the prompt questions. And these I think really first started two or three years ago where this subcommittee asked um there be specific questions that the appointees respond to in their self-ealuation. So, each year we've tweaked it a little bit. This year I'm suggesting a few more tweaks you see in strikeout and red. Um, so, uh, the if it's not changed, it was there last year. And obviously the attorney, there's a kind of a note at the bottom there. Um, he will not be able to report out on, you know, adopted goals and whatnot because he didn't have them, but he can still report out on what he thinks are the accomplishments and what he sees as the issues coming forward and his suggested goals for next year. Can I may I >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Go. >> Okay. >> Um so yes uh with respect to the city attorney um the city attorney will be final you know have now have a feel for his staff. um the legal demands from the city, sort of the nature of you know how council at least this council behaves in closed session and um I I I I think this is what is intended here but the what are your observations so far in the organization it's more have you identified needs or perhaps new directions might be too strong, but um new uh organizational um ideas for the department, you know, needs, strengths, weakness, things because, you know, he'll come in and look at the staff. The staff's inherently different without Molly, um even though we have the rest of the same lawyers. And I would be very interested in hearing if he has any um organizational thoughts about how much we use outside counsel, inside council, is everything hunky dory, do we need another paralle? I don't know. I I just think that those kinds of organizational things since this is kind of his first shot would be very interesting to hear. Um, I don't know if you have other things on the city attorney because I have one other thing on another question, but I can hold it. >> Just just one to add to that. I know part of our concern with any new significant leadership change like that is what h the kind of attrition rate within a department and I know we don't really get those reports. So, I think that'd be a good opportunity to ask him about what type of turnover has happened over the last year and then and and I could go into that to the hiring question as well because I think that will give us really good insight too as far as what is the current department really how how are they all feeling about this transition. Yeah, I just add that um the mayor asked me to as the chair of this committee to meet with him, which I did early on, and remind him that we authorized, you know, coaching options for him, and he should think through what kind of coach he wants, and it doesn't have to be about legal expertise. It could be about X or Y or Z that supplements that, and um what whatever that is, he should put on the table and we'll fund it. But I also said we would expect you to be in a honeymoon period and looking at a lot of things here. Um, so we're not going to say give us a 30-day report on what your org should be, but when you're ready, we do want to hear that. So that's sort of the I sort of set up what you're exactly what you're talking about here. So it may be that we don't want to wait till midepptember if he raises the the hand on that but I think the content uh that uh Vicki mentioned is exactly right. >> Okay, great. Yeah, so I can enhance the questions or the prompts for him to get a little bit more specific about kind of his view of the organization, the department, how it's operating, any changes he thinks are appropriate. And that's you know it's a perfect time for that kind of input from him. He's He can say he can say none. >> Yeah, >> there's no good answer there, but he can say whatever he wants to say. >> But yeah, usually, you know, 3 to 6 months into the job, you're kind of like, okay, I got a feel for it. I know kind of what what needs to be done or what I think needs to be done. So, >> yeah. No, I'm actually excited to hear because um we all thought tremendously highly of Molly and uh the work product that that department provided. However, yeah, I've practiced law in a bunch of different places and I took some learnings from each of them and took them to the next place and this fresh set of eyes on how we operate and our legal needs, he might have some very interesting suggestions and learnings from the other places he's practiced law. So I think this is a great opportunity um for him to share those with us and for us to understand perhaps maybe there's a better way to tweak one thing or another in that department. I had one suggestion. I I I'm fine with all the changes. I just wanted to suggest that we talk about perhaps one other. So I'm looking at uh Yeah. So again just on the general ones on G, what is your characterization of the effectiveness of appointed official slasheleed official relationships, availability, responsiveness, communication, open-mindedness, etc. Um, and I want to um compare and contrast that like with D. How are your direct reports performing? Blah blah blah. Um, I would like to put a finer point on G. Um, and just say describe the quality of the AOE relationships and what works well and what should be improved, including what both the AO and the EO could do. So, I think we as elected officials, if there's things we could be doing that are helpful, it would be nice to hear that. if there I also would like sort of the self-reflection um from the appointed officer. So that would be my suggestion. >> It's interesting on uh on D I underlined productivity because to me that didn't give us a a qualitative metric. I mean, yes, we got through the week, we got through the month, we hired a few people, but you know, how are you feeling, CEO, about, you know, the the quality or the performance level, not just uh quantity of work coming out? So maybe that could be blended in there because that's what you're speaking about in G is sort of a quality. >> Exactly. Um I I think that it's not just effectiveness um although that's topline important um but I think the the quality the ease with which we achieve effectiveness um is is helpful um and I think there sort of in this 360 I we don't we don't do a 360 actually um with our city manager in particular I'm thinking about um So I I I just think that thinking together I I would like to hear more about the the relationships with us and whether we asked too much too little, how that could be you how our needs could be met, how you know his needs could be met better. Just just really outside of any particular um you metrics would getting you know checklist. It's more um what's the quality of the communication, what's the quality of the support both ways, that kind of thing. I'd be very curious to hear more about that. And I I don't know how appropriate this is, but we do we tend to do this throughout the evaluations in particular with the city manager. And it's kind of hinted there with with G uh sorry with D about the direct reports. It's like it's good to hear about how city manager feels about his direct reports but there's not there's there is a question in our evaluation nine. Is there any feedback you would like to provide about the operation of departments but not people specific? And I feel like that has been a a challenging area of these evaluations because direct reports to the to any CEO is a is a large reflection on them and the work that they're able to accomplish within the within the department. So I guess Dan, I'm curious kind of your your thoughts on maybe how can we revise that a little bit to cuz I know you've been in that room and you've seen how these have played out occasionally. um how maybe we can invite that. >> Yeah. Um well, let's uh so I mean these are crafted fairly specifically to walk a fine line. Um you know it's not uncommon for there to be concerns or questions about the performance or productivity of staff members. Having said that, you know, that is the city manager's job, not your job. Um, and so that's why it's worded that way to specifically say, you know, we don't want you to say, you know, Joe's terrible. You got to get rid of him or, you know, whatever. >> What number? I'm sorry, I just missed the >> nine on the >> This is But we're kind of on the the interview questions, but I think we can table this until we get there, but I think you were relating that back to >> D on on this line on this list. So, you know, I my experience is Ed's been I think he's done a really nice job the last few years where he would go department by department and say kind of not only what the accomplishments are but what are the challenges and you know he words it carefully um but you can kind of understand what he's saying. Um, so you know, I I think you get that. I don't know. I mean, I don't I don't know what else you would want to ask in the prompt. Um, so sticking specifically on this form for right now. Um, >> yeah. Yeah, I mean I guess if if it would be appropriate to kind of make it sound a little more like D in his own in his own questions. But I understand like you're you know there's an awkwardness to it of we don't control those direct reports but it's a part of >> the evaluation of any CEO the staff that >> yeah so moving to the to the next page in number nine there and feedback on you know the operations you all are not uh shy sharing your way >> your opinions I mean it's never you know outright on a person so to speak but you know I think you can convey concerns about an operation a division of responsiveness or lack of quality or whatever those kind of attributes that might be frustrating to you. Um, and you can convey that to me and and to the appointee without getting into the, you know, so and so by name is not cutting it. Um, because I think again it's a it's a fine line and I don't think we want to cross that line. Well, I know we don't want to cross that line, but I don't think we want to get too close. I mean, I guess the question is, you know, would you change anything in D on this on the prompt? Um, you know, that's that's pretty direct, >> right? >> Right. Um, you know, how are your direct reports performing? Um, and if you know, if if there are specific kind of examples that you that might articulate what you're getting at a little bit more, we could add that in there. Um, >> I guess I I mean if we were to just rem I feel it odd to kind of instruct council members to not like it says not people specific in question in question nine. Um, and >> well that I mean that's on purpose because >> I want to hear more about that. So here here's why. Um, I'm fine with D, but I have a similar concern on nine. I don't want to get in there and review a thousand people. I don't want to get in there and review all his direct reports. That is not our job. That is his job. However, if I were he and I was telling him that I wasn't loving um you know particular performance from a particular department, I'd want to know why. I don't know how we explain that if we can't ever use a name. I know we can be careful and whatever and it's not, you know, if it's Bob, he can, you know, it's up to him to then think hard about it and think, you know, I think they have a misperception about Bob. Bob's a star. Or, you know, I've had not thought about that. I'm looking at it now. I should go talk to Bob. Or whatever it is he does. That's that's his job, not ours. But if we're so vague, how does he really know what our issue is? >> Yeah. I mean, it is a fine line. I think yeah we could just drop the parenthetical not and just say provide um you know to the question to you it would be is there any feedback positive or constructive you'd like to provide on the operations of the departments and leave it a little bit more open-ended. I I like that because it is ultimately about the functionality, right? So it's it's it's he needs to provide the person and and nurture and their their development of his staff, not us. But if we're saying, you know, this this function isn't coming along the way we wanted or this function has malingered for a while or I've noted a sudden issue, maybe it's temporary, but just want to flag it for you. Um, I I think we have to be specific enough that he understands the feedback even though we're not directing him what to do about it or, you know, because he's accountable for the performance of his staff. >> Yeah, absolutely. And I think it's okay. Again, it's just it's a fine line and you don't want anything you say to be perceived as direction to him regarding a specific employee. Yeah, you can say I have concerns with the performance of this division and probably I suppose you could even say this person. Um, and you know, the way you framed it is appropriate. It's up to him to then decide what to do with that feedback. But again, it's just it's a fine line kind of the perception of interfering or telling him how to do his job. And I think you can ex in your one-on- ones with council members if they feel like they're going in that direction when we're in the closed session. I think for you to share that feedback is helpful. But definitely, yeah, I I like that edit of removing the not people specific. I just hope Bob's not watching and getting nervous. >> I'm hoping there's no one named Bob because I was not >> that was a hypothetical for the record. >> Total hypothetical, >> but for that that was my only my only one. Thanks. >> Okay. So, let's just make sure if we can just jump back for a second to the prompt any of So, I'll beef up the city attorney stuff a little bit more specificity. Um, one other thing I wanted to note, it's not on this sheet, but I was looking back at my notes and at the end of the process last year for the city manager, council explicitly stated you wanted him to report out kind of give updates on the areas that were identified for development in his performance evaluation. So, I would just add that explicitly here as a prompt so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle if that that's okay. Yeah. So, >> yeah. So, any any other U changes? We'll we'll make that one change on number nine. >> Well, we kind of we kind of went back and forth. manager elect. So it seems like um he and that. >> Yeah, I guess my response would be without thinking it all the way through, so just talking out loud here is that that kind of is what nine would be getting at. I mean, I think again, you're evaluating the city manager and so, you know, six is how does he in this case specifically give you what he needs? And you I mean I guess you could infer you know everything rolls up to him. So if again poor Bob who we're picking on um you know doesn't doesn't get you something you need ultimately you're holding Ed the city manager accountable. Um so you I would argue you still want to you know the question to you is how's the city manager doing? Yeah, that that's who you're evaluating and nine would get at how you know his people are doing. Um, but that's kind of my my gut reaction. >> Yeah, I I think to to echo Ed's point here, I I think the reason you're hearing us ask these questions about six is this is a big city with a lot of employees. And because of that um as I understand it, Ed has taken sort of the role of more of the outward facing and like Kylie is number two is more of the inward facing. So we are inward people and so when we're looking at you know services or interaction or getting information um from staff, it's it's essentially his delegate. um like sometimes he'll be the person but sometimes he'll refer us to a department and you know we copy him and all that um so we don't do the wrong thing but um that they are his his proxy they're his agent they that he is and so that that's why I think when if if we're then interacting and working and relying on that person and there is an issue the issue is that he's not there's an issue with the services we're expecting from him. So that's why I think it's his performance um in providing the service to us via Bob for Bob. Um so I think that's kind of what's underneath what you're hearing. It's not that we want to review Bob. I don't want to review Bob. But if if Bob's a proxy for Ed on task A and I'm h or maybe I think tax A is t task A is fabulous and I want to make sure he knows. I'm thrilled. I'm going to say Bob is great. So I it's just hard to do that without ever referencing Bob. >> Well, yeah. I mean, but I think we've taken care of that in nine. And yeah, we can we can tweak six. Absolutely. whatever you you you all want. But I would argue that, you know, if Bob, Mary, Kylie, whoever isn't performing or getting you what you need, ultimately it's Ed you're holding accountable for that. >> I had written >> I had written in as a suggestion just how does the city manager and his staff provide the elected officials with etc. If you think that's implied, we don't need it. But >> does a loner be a staff or something? Something but something to that effect that we're only talking about staff. Sorry. Something that indicates we're only talking about staff to the extent it's a city manager function that's being carried out or a service provided that he's in charge of. Correct. We're not allowed to go directly to them. Right. So, >> correct. But I I'll give you example because I commented on this publicly at the uh finance committee meeting. Um I stated that in the transportation department there is constant discussion about the fact that everything just takes too long under prior management and under this management and what can we do to speed it up and if that requires extra headcount then we need to know that. So, I was opening the door to say if there's, and I use the words critical, if there's a critical issue you can't get to because you don't have a staff person, then you should be telling the finance committee and then the council, I can't get it done, but I can with the staff person and then we'll make the call, but we shouldn't have to just put up with constantly slow uh deliverables. So, I would that that's another sort of example. So, we have consensus to add and his staff on that one. Okay. Uh, okay. So, we've got the two changes on that page. Anything else for those. All right. So, moving on to the attorney. Um, again, the red and strikeout are changes from last year. If anything pops out at you, obviously some tweaks just given that he's only halfway into his first year. >> Yeah, I thought they were fine, but I'm the only non- attorney on this panel. Would this be where where the mayor provided some already some thoughts earlier than I and I kind of weighed in with is that where this would go? >> Uh well those thoughts as I understood them would be in things we would ask him in his self evaluation to to be more detailed. Okay. >> These are the questions I would ask you to then >> write up the the consensus. Yeah, >> I I would suggest that we incorporate I think into item one I think is probably the best place issue spotting because we don't want just advice when people raise issues with us. We don't you know it's not just the quality of the analysis when it happens. It's the fact that you are watching what's going on in the city and you spot issues and you flag them and you raise them. So >> love that. Love it. So, well, how did how does that relate to number six? I think that was what we're trying to get at in number six, >> right? I think you were >> I see. But you're suggesting that item six might do that. >> Yeah. >> Um, so I would say I would say spot and anticipate because some are if you know something's coming on, you might anticipate that, oh, this person might have a problem with it. sometimes. Yeah. When when when just things come to council and you think so maybe just I think you're right, Dan, that that's a good that's very close to what I was saying. I would just want to say spot and anticipate issues. >> Other two okay with that? We can just add that in there. >> Okay, great. Uh anything else for the attorney? And moving on to the clerk. >> Hang on. I'm still I'm um You don't mind? I just want to check one more time. So, is there something to us about the city attorney's staff? And again, it's the same kind of, you know, different lawyers will show up at council and close sessions if there's an issue in their area expertise. That's great. Um, but I think in overall like our um our our issues explained to us during pub, you during meetings by the attorney and or staff because again, I I think that's a really important thing. Um, seven. >> Uh, >> no. >> Yeah, I think you want to be a little I mean, what you're getting at is a little broader. Uh, I don't see anything that's >> I think >> specifically about his staff. >> I think there's kind of two things that now that I'm thinking about it. Um there's support during public meetings because that's that's a tough one to do like legal analysis on the fly or you know answer our questions live um in in close session even. Um so I think especially for somebody who's new giving feedback on those two points um even a boy you know that that we're happy I think is is really meaningful at the the start. Um but then in addition um the and the staff piece would be just acknowledging the fact that when it comes to a specific uh expertise issue area expertise it is not always the city attorney but yet he's responsible for them and their performance. Um, I'm trying to see how did we word that for the city manager. I'm thinking if if we kind of modify number nine for the city manager which was kind of the feedback on his departments but you know basically for the operations of the staff or the staff attorneys >> um something like that >> something like that does that work >> yeah and and part of it is that I'm hoping that again being you know six nine months in it would be helpful to him to know that gosh Gosh, I'm going to make up stuff that we don't do. Gosh, the person that explains patent litigation is just not communicating to me in a way that's helpful, right? Like that he may not he I would want to know that if I was him managing it, but gee, the person who explains, you know, securities and emerges and acquisitions is fabulous. Um that would be interesting to me as a management, you know, as as managing that function because things that might be easy to take in and understand from his seat might be harder for counsel and that's part of his service delivery. So, um something that would elicit that might be helpful. >> Okay. So, we'll I think um I think it's probably cleanest if we add that as a freestanding additional question. So, we will do that. Uh okay, going once, going twice. Now, to Maha, uh the clerk's questions. Um there just a little bit of clean up here. wondering if we want a a a question that's a little since so much of the role is this kind of um kind of just the the help of managing of managing meetings and well there doesn't seem to be um a question kind of just focused on on some of those key responsibilities >> uh beyond what you've identified as her priorities. Um cuz like I see three is more how the clerk like on availability, responsiveness, communication. I feel like that's much more kind of our internal communications with the with the clerk's office. >> Uh well, we could beef up three to to specifically call out meeting management or or you know, meeting operations or organization and Maha may have some some thoughts on that. Um >> but what you know so I I will share my bias of this process having set on the other side of the table is you know trying really hard to have you focus on the high level kind of strategic priorities for that person. um you know we go through the process, we come up with their goals and priorities for the next year and then you hold them accountable for those specific hopefully relatively high level strategic things. Um so I'm always my bias is to not get too in the weeds but I don't disagree with your premise that meeting management is a kind of a critical portion of the of the job. So I think my suggestion would be to add it as kind of a parenthet part of that parenthetical there or >> maybe even under question four says the clerk's leadership and how she effectively meets the needs of council her team community and well I don't know like meeting management potentially or is it more so >> well I guess yeah I guess the question is is it more about how she supports you in your job or >> nice or effective. >> Yeah, three three is a little bit more specific about um providing the elected officials with the support needed to do your jobs and you know a well-run meeting is certainly a key part of that. >> I think it works well in three in the parenthesis. >> Hey Tim, >> okay so we'll just add in something about meeting management. Um what so one thing that I think I don't see reflected here that we talked a lot during the um recruiting process about um that I think is um a role that's in some ways different for the clerk's office than others is um the interaction with the public and the public facing role of the clerk's office. This is where they come to to get information and things. Um, I don't know that I have a ton of insight into that, but but since that's a part of the role, um, I don't really see us asking about um, you know, how how the the clerk interfaces with the public and represents us and that kind of thing. Um, >> I know you I know you care about that and I think that might be something good to elicit. >> We do have a guest speaker tonight that could maybe address that. Exactly. That's what I'm Yeah. >> And how big a part is that of the job and what is it? >> Um I mean I I do see that as a key I guess priority for my myself and my office. Not sure how how I would necessarily um report on that besides with city events or maybe other engagements that I'm invited to go to or my responsiveness to community members. I'm not sure exactly how I would um >> yeah that I I would argue that it's sort of alluded to in question four and maybe we can articulate it better but that's you know how is she doing meeting the needs of of you her department you know her leadership and the community so you know if she's not interacting well with the community I think this is where you would bring that up but we we might want to tweak the wording there. >> Yeah, I think you're right that it's um the same idea as what's called out in four. It's just I think it's the emphasis. I feel like it was emphasized so much more. I I maybe I'm just thinking back to the recruiting process and not just with you, but with the various candidates with what we put out that we supposedly wanted it feels like to have it one word out of nine questions feels disproportionate to what the emphasis that were in the hiring criteria. So it just because it it I hadn't really the reason it strikes me now is it hadn't really struck me before we did that and that was something we cared about and um so if we did and we still do just wanted to throw it in there or at least maybe lift it up a little more. So one idea maybe then would be to take out the an community in number four and add a new question is sort of what's your perception something along the lines of what's your perception of the clerk's effectiveness in interacting with the public and the community or something like that >> something like that and people may say I don't know and that's an okay answer for us but um I just think I don't know it just seems like something that we should talk about and if we want to know more and hear more then we should through this process, tell the clerk that next year we'd like to understand it. But I I it's just it's just something that feels like we had talked about and I'm not seeing. >> Yeah, >> I would appreciate hearing from the council on on that aspect of things because I do take that um part of my job seriously. So yeah, >> I'm happy having it magnified. I'm not sure it has to leave four there. You could just say her team and broader community interface or something like that. Yeah, I guess the only reason I'm suggesting maybe pulling it out is a it magnifies it, but b the the way for is worded now is kind of her leadership. Um, which I don't know in some ways to me is more kind of internal versus okay, how she interacts with the community. >> Um, but you whatever you all want, but my suggestion would be a new question that just says, you know, what's your perception of her effectiveness? It's because it's really more her effectiveness and responsiveness to the public and you know something like that. Does that work for you? >> Okay. You okay with that Vicki? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> The only thing I would add here is that um we just had in a couple other cases a discussion of the direct reports and we're not actually discussing that at all here. So, do we want to have that sort of built in? Um, because it's obviously so crucial to each one of these CEO jobs, >> especially if I might add, given that we are adding a new position that's reporting under myself, that that might be a topic that the council may want to weigh in on with a specific question. >> This a new council support position. >> Yes, it's a new pilot. >> I've heard something about that the last few years. >> Yes. Um, yes. Maybe we can >> revis. >> So maybe mirror what we come up with the attorney in terms of the performance of of your staff. Is that what we're getting at here? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I'm also thinking because um one of the things that the clerk's office has done is become fully staffed and that there are some new people and I think you know that perhaps feedback on that would be helpful. Um because Yeah. >> Okay. So, yeah, we'll parallel what we what we come up with for the attorney. Okay, great. Um then we can if you want move on. Um, oh, one one other suggestion that because Mahad in my opinion did a fabulous job and thoughtful job in her self-evaluation and that you then carried out into her formal evaluation on KPIs. In number two, we talk about, you know, she's going to report out or I'm going to ask about uh, you know, how she did in achieving her goals, but I'm wondering if we should call out KPIs in that question or is that maybe just too specific? I mean, she'll report out in her self-ealuation. So, I'm not sure now that I think about it that you all will have enough information to on the cuff of an interview to say how she did on her KPIs. So maybe we not do that. I'm just correcting myself. But either way, >> it's just >> has the committee talked about the KPIs yet or are we getting to that section? >> No, we we're getting to that. But this is just whether or not we call out in my interview questions of them how they think. We're going to, you know, I will ask how they think you did on your goals. >> Yeah. >> Which your goals were very specific and included detailed KPIs, >> but as I think about it, when I'm sitting one-on-one in the middle of summer, they're probably not going to be in a position until well, they will have read your self-evaluation that >> so I don't think it's a big deal either way. It's not worth losing sleep on. We'll just leave it the way it is. Okay. So that then takes us to the next agenda item, which is KPIs. >> Um, and this is really just kind of a clarification. You know, this was a pretty big issue maybe two years ago, and we've kind of tweaked it and fine-tuned it each year and every year. It's still a little bit uh not awkward, but not super smooth. and the city manager has some, you know, opinions on how and when and what KPIs should be. So, yeah, I think it would just be good if we all go into the process with clear eyes on a do you want them do you want to have KPIs at the end of the process, in which case we would ask them to draft some thoughts about them in their self-evaluation that you could then react to. But if the KPIs haven't been helpful or effective or meaningful to you, do we want to keep doing that? >> I just wanted to take a um moment for a time check because I believe Mayor Vinker may have a hard stop today. >> I have to be in Sunnyale at a meeting pretty soon, so I'll I can stay another few minutes. But are is this the last item? I mean, because it looks like I think I looked through that bullet point list. I think we pretty much covered the others. >> Yeah, we need I think the attorney we're in good shape. The auditor, we just need to confirm that we're not going to do her if if you're in agreement on that. Um but other than that, yeah, we're in good shape. So, yeah, KPIs and we don't have to change anything. I just want to make sure we're kind of explicit going in what the expectations so they know what the expectations of them are. My recollection for the city manager last year, the way it was left was um in your annual goal setting in January, he would come forward with KPIs related to the council adopted goals. So that's all I know. I don't know if that happened or not. >> I don't think it did happen. Did Did we have I'm sorry. I don't know this. Did we have them for you? We said >> she said something said >> or for your KPIs. >> Yeah. Yeah. The the clerk was very obviously Molly didn't do anything because she was leaving. Um and the the auditor hers are in her plan adopted plan. So Maha had some very detailed KPIs. I I don't recall that they were even changed at all. may be tweaked a little bit, but >> okay. So, we have them for the uh the city clerk. That's great. I I I remember now because the awkwardness with the city manager is that the uh city priorities, which should be his as well, are off cycle with the reviews, right? Isn't that because we do a calendar year of city priorities and he's on fiscal year for review essentially? >> Yes. I mean, that's I think that's the gist of it. when you adopt your priorities in January. I'm not clear on this step of it. Like when we did our council priorities, they would be for the next fiscal year. So I don't know when you adopt your priorities in January, are they effective immediately? Um so the fiscal year that he's working on now was two different calendar years. The evaluation that had his goals for last year, you know, was based on what you knew then. Yeah, >> I might suggest though that I mean I hadn't been very focused on KPIs previously, but the more I think about it, I I think it it would be good. And I think they have to be somewhat I mean certainly informed by and consistent with but separate than the priorities because of this weird timing thing. Um or you know perhaps there's a mid-year adjustment to them or something. So in other words, I would love to see as part of this review process that some KPIs be set for the following fiscal year. Um certainly informed by our current priorities, but there's also like just management and administrative things that should be there regardless. Um and um you know, police, fire, utilities, there's there's just a lot of stuff that's just going to happen. Um and we we we acknowledge that this year with our priority setting. we finally got back to what do we want to do this year understanding that there's still big goals and and bodies of work that are going to and must be moved along. Um so it would be interesting I think to see some set for the next fiscal year and then if needed following the 27 council priority setting we would welcome tweaking them in some sort of process. >> Yes. as as my bogggginess of this process un unwinds and and Sandra and Maha may remember better my recollection as part of Ed's concern or premise was you adopt this list of you know these council goals all of which have milestones and metrics and things that generally are measurable on them and that those should therefore essentially be his KPIs versus something that's done in this close session kind of confidential process. Um >> that got all convoluted because we told him that those are I used the word a bunch of objectives that are important and we're going to strive for them. And then this year we changed it even more because we're not using those objectives as goals for the year. We have very actually quite specific ones like Cubberly as you mentioned in one of your speeches. >> Yes. >> Recently and so on. So that wouldn't even be maybe too huge for him. I don't know. >> I it it's it's um and it's certainly not comprehensive what we're doing now. >> So in other words, he could hit it out of the park with our council priorities and drop the ball on being city manager. >> Exactly. because we don't touch much probably most of what does happens in this building with with our priorities because they're because that's what they are. They're not how you run a city. They're what we really want to make sure doesn't slip to next year. >> It's an annual priority is the new focus there. So >> yeah, we we've kind of tweaked that a little bit. And now that said, I would expect the city manager to also prioritize what we have said as as city prioritize priorities, but like there's no climate thing in there. There's not really a public safety thing in there. We sure as heck have to do those things and I would hope he would help oversee them to be done well. >> Yeah. I mean, obviously, he's responsible for the gamut of everything that happens. I think you know and when we go through this process the end of the day you come up with three to seven you know kind of priorities for the next fiscal year for him to report out. That doesn't mean he's still not responsible for doing everything in the organization but you've given him the things you want particular focus on. And so you know remember at the end of his evaluation is your priority and and you know he makes suggestions you tweak them and then it's adopted and I don't have them in front of me right now but um >> that's a good way of putting it because that matches with what we're doing. >> Yeah. So, so for example, and maybe it's I'm not understanding what KPIs are, but um I would think um like I think one of the things we've emphasized is um vacancy rates, right? That's across the city. That's not that's not like Cubberly, right? So, it's not a project. It's more how you're managing this business this this, you know, city as a business. Um, I would think that, you know, if we wanted to say improving vacancy rates or balancing the budget or you know, fiscal something, those are those are those are different than saying we need for you to close the negotiations with X or or get a capital project done. You see what I mean? Like as opposed to just a project, it's more of a how you manage. And are those not KPIs? Well, so I think we are mixing our termin or yeah, our understandings of the terminology. So, you know, again, he'll have three to five or however number actual goals. And I believe Cubberly might have been one of them for this year. But, um, you know, so make progress, close the deal, whatever it is on Cubberly, and he'll report out on that. He did that for all those things. But the but the KPI is and the intent behind them a few years ago when this conversation got started was specific measurable things. So it's not just you know we're doing a great job on Cubberly. It's like you know and I'm making this up of course but you know by X date we will have a ballot measure done. we will have you know I mean think they have to be things within his control right it's not the voters will approve because that's not his control but specific in the intent of a KPI and this comes from you know the business folks on the council who wanted measurable indicators of success so you you would take your goal which is fairly broad and then say okay how are we going to break that down into something that we can quantify and that may or may that's why I'm raising this subject is is that next step of specific quantifiable metrics important to this process or not? >> And I think I was asking the question about and giving examples of KPIs that might differ somewhat from the council priorities to show that there could be some value in setting them for a fiscal year that they don't have to tie 100% to that year's priority. They they might, but they don't. Like, in other words, reducing a vacancy rate or something could be something we we we see as more in his Bailey wick and we want him to do, but it ties into perhaps our um government efficiency goal. Um so, it's under our broad priority, but for him, it's a measurable thing. Um >> yeah, I mean I think if if reducing vacancy rates was one of his, you know, identified priorities for the year that you gave him, then it would be very appropriate. I mean, frankly, whether you gave him a specific KPI or not, my guess is he would report out this is how we, you know, numerically this is how we did on that. But not all goals always line up super well with a quantifiable thing. Um, so that's part of it too. But again, I think kind of the bigger question is do you want to ask them to draft and do is the assumption that you want measurable things through this process. Now after you know they do their self-ealuation after I write up the report. you know, and you decide what the priorities are. It may be like of these five priorities, really only these two we're going to do something measurable on. And that's fine. You don't, you know, I don't think you want to force a KPI if it doesn't make sense or isn't appropriate. But you could also say, you know what, we're going to let him give us a a narrative or them, not just him, you know, a narrative description of how they did versus a very descriptive or prescriptive you know, metric. >> You could ask the council members when you interview them if they think that we should have metrics as a guideline or we could just say each CEO can be different based on mutual uh decision like it worked for Megan and that worked for us too. Maybe it doesn't work for the city attorney. So, >> I agree. I I I think that there are some things that are very important that are very hard to quantify. And I'm okay if we had a mix if that's where we came down to. But as I'm thinking through this in terms of the timing disconnect, maybe this is just kind of a catch-up year. Maybe we try to work through this process. Although it is awkward because you don't end it till September. So then you only have a stub year, right? there's always going to be a timing disconnect to some extent. Um >> if it were half a year, like you could say, "All right, so here here we could for right now say here are the KPIs that we would like by the end of the year and and they're informed by the council priorities then in January when the council priorities are set, which although >> honestly that doesn't happen until a couple months later because we start them at our retreat and we don't usually pass them until a couple months later. So say March. Um and then as part of that we could tweak the um the uh sorry the the KPIs for the city manager and then those would be part of the evaluation process and could take us through to the next cycle. So it wouldn't it's almost like we need one catchup year somehow. >> Yeah. Where are we this year? Because I didn't know that he was supposed to come back in January. Was that a decision out of this committee last year? I should talk about an open session what was in his confidential performance evaluation. Um, >> but did he have an assignment of coming back with KPIs in January of 26? >> I I'd have to go back and look and and maybe you and I can talk offline. >> Sure. But my recollection was you there were no specific KPIs in his adopted performance evaluation and the thought was that after council adopted his goals um some could be developed >> or not his goals the council adopted the council priorities. Um my suggestion and we can have that conversation offline but my suggestion is maybe we um are more fluid and we ask them in their self-evaluations you know okay they're going to identify what they think should be their priorities for the next year. We can ask them to selfidentify as appropriate for those priorities. What would be some measurable things for them and they may say, you know, no on these two and yes on these three or whatever. And then when we're in the close session and reviewing um you know, you'll have their self-evaluation and you'll have my summary report. um we can decide collectively and in conversation with them, you know, whether or not c specific KPIs are appropriate for whatever you decide the goals are. But at this point, we would ask them to at least still be thinking about it and propose what they think might be appropriate. >> Okay. >> Does that work? >> Yep. >> I like that. Um I I I think that it lets us ease into it. it gets input from the CAOs as well as from council. And I would just add the uh preface to your question to them of in light of council's priorities. What KPIs do you think would be appropriate for your role? And it doesn't have to be limited to that, but it can be informed by that. >> That could vary as that could vary as well. You know, I mean, Cubberly because we're talking about that that it may be that Maha's life looks the same >> whether or not Cubberly has worked on this year or next year or never because of the underlying stuff that she does. >> 100%. Yeah, >> it could be. It could it can that's why it might not affect certain CEOs or affect them in different ways, >> but but it's informed by them because you can look and say, "Well, that doesn't really affect me." But, um, that way at least we're synced up to the extent we should be. And then as Dan says, through his process talking to us and then us talking together and us talking with the CEO, hopefully we could come out the other end with some that make sense and at least try it. At least get it going. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> We'll give it a shot, see how it goes. >> And the the working assumption on the consent calendar is the 8th, you said. Um, yes, that's the date we can uh work on the staff report to get it onto the council agenda, but we will need a recommendation uh from the committee for >> to do it that day. >> Um, >> well, not that day, just to do it. >> Well, you have to provide a recommendation to council >> on this report >> on this report, right? on the timeline uh the amendments to >> Yeah, let's let's go ahead and formalize that with a motion. >> Someone want to move recommendation? >> Yeah. And it can be just as modified by the comments made in this meeting and I'll I'll clean it up. I'll run it by you um Chair Lowing um before we submit it for uh the council report. Yeah. >> All right. I'll move that the um CAO committee recommends to council the um CAO evaluation schedule uh in the packet and the uh questions as modified during this discussion today. >> Second. >> Perfect. >> Mayor Vinker. Yes. >> Chair Lowing. >> Yes. Vice Mayor Stone. >> Yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Okay, great. >> Thank you. >> Dan, anything else? >> No, we are good. I will uh I'll get in touch with you on the cleanup of this and then Sandra will get a report to you for the 8th and then I won't see you again until interviews in July. >> You can always stop by if you want. >> You may, you know, may see you walking around the neighborhood, but >> Okay. Thank you. We are adjourned.

Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission on May 13, 2026. Um I am out. All right. Uh Mr. TA, could you please take the role? >> Uh Chair Chang >> here. >> Vice Chair G here. Commissioner Akin >> Commissioner Peterson >> here. >> Commissioner Hecman. Commissioner James >> here. >> Commissioner Templeton >> For the record, we have quorum noting that Commissioner Hecman is absent. >> Okay. Um, Assistant Director Armor, do we have any agenda changes, additions, or deletions? >> No agenda changes uh or deletions. >> Okay, great. So, right now, it's then time for in-person public comment on items that are not on the agenda tonight. For uh those people who may wish to comment on items that are not on the agenda via Zoom, we'll be doing that towards the end of the meeting. Mr. Diver, are there any comment cards? >> Yeah, through the chair, I have not received any public comment cards for general public comment at this moment. >> Perfect. Thank you. Okay, then we'll move on to city official reports. Great. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Um we'll just give you a brief update on upcoming planning and transportation commission meetings. We'll go to the next slide. At your next meeting scheduled for the 27th of May, we have three items. The annual review of the CIP projects. This is just checking to make sure that the planned CIP projects for next year are all consistent with the comprehensive plan. Then there will be consideration uh on of the pro housing designation that we are looking to submit to the state uh looking for your thoughts or input uh and discussion with the public on that followed by the parking programs update and downtown parking modernization initiatives. Both of those are those last two are going to be study session discussion items. Uh and then on June 10th, we currently have two items scheduled. One is a reszoning of the property at 470 Olive Avenue and the second is consideration of uh modification to the special setback on Hansen Way um at for the property that's right at El Camino Rial. Next slide. upcoming items or recent item for city council. On the 4th, uh there was scheduled to be a discussion of Senate Bill 79 in the downtown housing plan. Unfortunately, that was postponed. We are expecting to be able to have that discussion on June 1st. And then May 11th, there was consideration of a builder's remedy project at 3781 El Camino Rial. that project was approved and uh upcoming on May 18th, we have a very full agenda. Uh we have the tenative map for the project at 4130 uh Old Trace Road. Uh one note that is listed on consent. However, we do have um we've advertised it so that if it were pulled by sufficient number of council members that it would be discussed that evening. So, uh, for the liaison to to join us, um, or at least watch when they do get to the consent calendar item, um, for, uh, whether that would be discussed that evening because, uh, decision is required that night. There's also going to be discussion of the Cberly project, uh, 156 California Avenue, which has not come to PTC, but, um, is, I know, of interest. And um if the project at Old Trace Road is not pulled, then we would also have discussion of the retail ordinance. If it is, that will likely get bumped. >> So that is my update for this evening. I do want to um remind anyone who is here to speak on items that are on our agenda tonight, remind them to fill out a comment card and submit those as soon as possible um to um to Sam here, our clerk for the evening so that we can get those organized as we know there's going to be some interest. We can mention that again uh later in the meeting. Thank you. Uh, do any commissioners have questions for listen director armor regarding the staff report? >> All right. Uh seeing no lights, we're going to move on to the first action item of tonight, which is a recommendation on an ordinance that amends the Palato Municipal Code chapters in title 1618, and 21 to address changes in state law and also um following up on direction from the city council regarding ADUs and JADUs. Yep, that's the item. Um, so can we start with the staff report, please? >> Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gareth Sauls and I'm the one who has been working on the city's um can we just ask the members of the public to uh be cognizant of the fact that it's hard for us to hear if you are speaking uh hard for us to hear the proceedings of the commission. >> Good evening commissioners. My name is Garrett Sals. I'm the principal planner who's working on the city's edu ordinance update. Next slide. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to go over the changes in the state law that have occurred at the beginning of this year as well as to consider and discuss the draft ordinance the city staff has put it together uh with the tenative council hearing date of September 14th later this year and to discuss uh staff's recommendation and the next steps from that council feedback. Next slide. To go over a couple of the more impactful changes at the state level, Assembly Bill 1154 uh highlighted a couple of items that uh now no longer allowed for junior ADUs to be uh rented for short-term rentals. Uh it also changed how owner occupancy rules apply and that owner occupancy now applies only when a junior ADU shares a bathroom with the primary home. if it has its own separate bathroom and there's no longer now a need for the owner to occupy one of those two units. Senate Bill Nine uh reinforced a couple of items around the the reporting timeline for the city when it came to adopting any new ordinance as well as the responsiveness that the city has to maintain uh when it comes to responding to any comments or feedback from HCD. And it again reiterated that any ordinance that uh misses either of these deadlines is actually considered now uh null and void. Uh if we miss uh sending that adopted ordinance to the state within 60 days or missponding to the state within 30 days when they give us comments, the city's ordinance would be null and void in either of those circumstances not uh both of those if both of those circumstances apply. Uh there were a number of other changes mostly with SB543 about changing how interior livable space uh changing account floor area and lot coverage is calculated as well as impact fees are calculated for ADUs and junior ADUs. Uh required an appeal process for ADU and GDU applications changed the overall number of ADUs that are allowed now on on single family properties. Uh from previously there was an allowance for three units. Uh now there would be three ADUs and one junior ADU uh in addition to the primary home. Uh and then also lastly shorten the review time staff has from 30 days to 15 days uh for an initial review to determine completeness. Next slide. This slide represents an example of what the on the left side the current standard a previous standard of what the city had for measuring floor area and lot coverage for the structure. measuring that in essence for the second units to the exterior stud wall which was a similar measure we applied for we apply currently to the primary home. On the right hand side represents a uh measurement to the interior wall face uh for these units. Um and in the uh proposed ordinance, staff identifies that there are intent is to exclude the exterior walls of the ADU or junior ADU that are not shared with the primary home from counting towards uh floor area or lock coverage from the site in total. Next slide. The more important detail on this slide to sort of pay attention to is at the bottom of it which identifies that uh the distinguishing factor that's underlined for single family homes in that uh I just mentioned uh two slides before which is that there is now a no a new allowance for one additional ADU uh on the top end it just sort of identifies what was the the previous understanding and expectation for what ADUs and the single family and multif family setting could provide for uh but for multif family there has been no change to uh that standard. Next slide. To go at a high level of an overview of the ADU and JDU appeal process that the city put in the draft ordinance that put in the draft ordinance. Uh generally what would occur is when the application is submitted to the city staff will provide an initial review of it identifying what's missing and what they can do to proceed to be able to continue processing that application. uh that's this uh this 15-day period that the city has now. Um and and or if it got to a point where the city was actually denying the application, that would be another integral step in this appeal process. When either if in either of those two scenarios, the applicant is interested in appealing that decision. Once they provide that uh for that written uh formal feedback to the city requesting that appeal, uh that starts the 60-day time CL time frame that we have to respond back and provide a final written determination. In the city's in the staff's draft ordinance, the staff is recommending to have that go to the city council consent calendar initially uh placed on that consent calendar within 45 days and pulled if it's pulled by three, you know, members of the council. Uh that's that decision that final written determination still needs to be provided within that 60-day time frame. Next slide. The next two slides are covering uh aspects of the uh motion that council provided last Mar last May when they adopted the previous ordinance that's in effect now. Uh this was to the first item you see here is to consider increasing the maximum size for ADUs from 1,000 ft² to 1200 ft². The next couple slides you'll see we'll be talking about uh allowing for separate sale of ADUs. Uh and to just give a brief overview, the init currently the city's regulations allow for up to 1,000 square feet is the maximum size for an ADU provided they uh provide a minimum of two bedrooms. Uh state law allows up to and a maximum 1,200 square ft again with a minimum of two bedrooms. Uh the draft ordinance proposes that uh attachment C in the draft ordinance, which is again sort of a separate attachment that if the PTC recommends adopting could be easily incorporated into attachment uh B uh or A, which is the actual draft ordinance. Um that that increase could go from again 1,00 to,200. And looking through combing through a little bit of the data of what the city's received in the last five to six years, we've noticed that there hasn't been a substantial amount of applications that are uh in comparison to the rest of them that are looking to build a 1,000 ft structure or larger. In fact, only three applications have actually done so. And uh at least two of them uh all three of them, excuse me, uh were conversions of existing space where under city and state law now there is actually no maximum size for those conversions. Uh so there's no clear indication that uh 1,200 ft is a driving force for individuals building ADUs. Uh but as it's not an option now, people are not able to do that. So if there's an interest in pursuing that, it's something that could be incorporated into the draft ordinance. Next slide. This is the second item that council gave direction for staff to study and consider uh which is allowing for separate sale of ADUs. Back in 2024, the state allowed for cities to adopt uh certain regulations. They mandated that the city had to allow for uh ADUs developed by qualifying nonprofits. Uh if there was an interest, they could be sold separately. That is something that exists today. We have yet to receive any interest or an application to do that. Um, but there was an opt-in option for local jurisdictions to allow >> members of the public could just please silence your phones now so that we aren't interrupted in the future. Thank you. >> Cities could opt into allowing separate sale of ADUs. So far, there's been about 10 jurisdictions in California who have opted into doing that. And for my research trying to connect with them, the few that have been those early adopters haven't had many applications come through yet. uh but noted a couple of barriers uh as I was speaking with them that um I didn't that for them felt uh were reasons for why maybe maybe more applications weren't coming through and that was primarily that there's a requirement for lean owner consent uh so if your property is still owned by you know the bank and they're not interested in allowing this to happen until you pay off your loan that's you know a major hurdle that homeowners could face in pursuing this uh and separately was just generally the concept of you know application fees and process. How long or difficult or expensive is it for an applicant to go through that process uh from the city's standpoint once they've passed this first hurdle. Next slide. In the city's draft ordinance commensurate with this new change to state law allowing for up to three ADUs to be available built on the site. Uh the city's draft ordinance incorporates staff's draft ordinance, excuse me, uh incorporates the allowance for up to three ADUs to be sold separately from the primary structure. uh and the process would be managed in a similar manner to SP9 applications. Um generate one a couple things to note Junior ADUs uh cannot be sold separately from the primary home. They must still be a part of that uh or or connected to that structure. Um and then the second thing is that as this is an opt-in program, there are more uh ability for there's more ability for the city to uh have discretion with certain standards that they want to adopt. And a couple are highlighted here from the staff report about determining a different hearing a different application process requiring some units to be deed restricted uh to be you know s if they're sold sold at a certain AMI level um allow less ADUs to be sold separately or potentially even restricting that the use if it's sold separately must be for residential purposes and and some of the context staff had provided in the presentation in the staff report was about um semi-commercial semi-residential uses like daycare. Uh those are some options to consider if there's an interest for that. If not, they certainly don't need to be incorporated. Next slide. And staff's recommendation would be to uh approve the draft ordinance provided within the packet. Uh this is attachment A and B. Um and consider incorporating attachment C into the draft ordinance for council's consideration. Uh and just as a reminder, staff is currently targeting September 14th for uh that council hearing date. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Uh commissioners, does anybody have any clarifying questions for staff right now in advance of public comment? Okay, I've got Commissioner G, then Commissioner Aken. >> You want me to press the button? >> Oh, it doesn't work. Does it work? >> Yeah. >> Oh, it works. >> Okay. >> Um I just had one quick question which was on both slide seven and also packet page 14 you listed projects that exceed 1,000 square ft. Um but the ordinance as I thought that there you can't have more than a 1,000T ADU. So I was just I know you had mentioned that it's an existing conversion. So could you just elaborate a little bit more on that relative to the fact that the current ordinance as is limited to 1,000 square feet? >> Yeah. So currently and this is has been in effect since 2020. State law allows for conversions of unlimited size in a sense uh where there's existing structures. So you could in theory uh multi-step a process where you may be able to build a structure that's certain properties of certain sizes are able to build uh very large uh amounts of square footage on their property and uh you could in theory build a 2,000 foot structure today, get it permitted, final uh and then like a like a a a large garage for example. Um, and once that's permitted and final, you could come back and convert it into an ADU, and that would go around the city's maximum size limits. Uh, but it's really only for existing structures and conversions of those existing structures without any other exterior modifications to it. >> Okay, thank you. And I also think just curious on on bullet a of the slide, it's meant to be 690, not just 69 ft, right? Bullet A. >> No, sorry. That's a 69 is representing the number of applications. >> I see a Okay, perfect. I I got a little bit confused because I thought you meant like uh six. Okay. Anyway, thank you. >> Uh Commissioner Aken, >> thank you, Chair. Uh a couple of easy ones here. Uh about the computation of interior livable space. Uh on packet page 11, the illustration includes closets in the interior livable space. Um but the proposed language uh for the ordinance says that separated storage areas are not included. So could you elaborate a little bit on what the rules are for that? >> Thank you. Yeah. So one of the main distinguishing factors of that is whether or not that structure is actually uh accessible and intentionally designed to be a part of that second unit. when we talk about uh the intention behind what we were getting at there in the staff report was that when you have a um storage structure and actually uh Sam if you might be able to pull up the uh pocket slide the first pocket slide thank you that'll be able to help explain this a little bit. Um if you have a a a storage structure that's not directly you know linked internally to the ADU and can be used between the primary home or the ADU. You see this example here uh on the bottom left sort of corner of each of the struct of each of the diagrams. Uh that is what we're really speaking to as as something that's not included within the square footage of the struct of the ADU or the junior ADU. We've been treating those structures, this red box that you see on the right image as accessory structures and having those comply with the accessory structure standards. uh and they wouldn't also benefit from the um bonus square footages that we allow for for ADUs because they can be multi-purpose in that sense. Thank you. That makes perfect sense. I just wanted to make sure it was expressed uh clearly enough so that there were no surprises for uh applicants. Uh second question, packet page 30 mentions that parking is allowed in the for ADUs is allowed in the front and side setbacks. It does that represent a change or was that already allowed? >> This is in reference to the junior ADU section. >> Um on packet page 30. I'll have to take a quick look. >> I I believe it is uh that change was a a carry what we were trying to carry over. Thank you. uh was an allowance that is already in existence for ADUs and actually was previously allowed for junior ADUs as well except that the state required us to uh expunge every reference to junior adus last year in our table 2 section. Uh so we missed drawing that back and and so that's had some as you can imagine that's led to some confusion and headaches and we're trying to put that forward as a continuation of that uh incentive for people to use to be able to build junior radios where arguably right now um this eliminates a stu a two-step process requirement uh where they need to build it as a garage and then turn it into a junior ADU and go through that process which as you can imagine could be timely, not timely. >> Thank you. That covers my questions. >> Commissioner Templeton, >> thank you. Um I'm just trying to process the um the splitting of the properties. You're saying that that this can be done now. It's just not been done. What happens to the property? Does it does it officially become two different deeds or like two different property tax bills or what is what is the reason that somebody would would want to do this? >> Yeah. So, it's it's almost more like they're creating a condo air parcel. So, the the boundaries of the parcel don't necessarily change, but the ownership of the structures does. So more so uh in the context of council's thoughts at least at the time last year they were interested in studying whether they whether or not this might be some other drive or incentive for people to enter into the market so to speak the ownership market. Um it's its drive from the state I think is a similar approach in that way that it's really just trying to drive opportunity for ownership. >> But what happens to the designation of the structure? Does it remain an accessory dwelling unit? >> Yes, it would still be an accessory dwelling unit >> to what to some to the neighboring property. It wouldn't be on its own part of the property. >> So, it's still on the same parcel. It's just a condo unit. So, yes, it's unusual. It's the the nomenclature is a little bit awkward, but because it is still on that same parcel and there's just the allowance for separ separate ownership of that structure. >> So we still wouldn't start this factorial multiplication project where you change the ADU to a primary home and then they can build three more whatevers on it. It's not something like that. It's not a possibility. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then the property tax question, I'm sorry if if you answered it. Is that something that the county is capable of supporting? >> Yeah. Generally, my my assessment of that would be yes. Um >> if it's the same property parcel ID, how would they do that? >> Well, so as with a condo, it would be handled. Um, and in addition, well, so I'm guessing that, um, Albert Yang has turned on his camera, but other agencies within the county have already implemented a similar code. So, the county is capable. >> Mr. Yang, would you like to chime in? >> That's right. the, you know, the county is is capable of setting up separate uh APNS uh that don't have to have a relationship to, you know, legal land lots. Um, in this case, it it'd be similar to having a a condo building. Um, >> so so we can or what you're saying I'm going to interpret this back to you for correction. You're saying that through this mechanism, anybody can turn their property into condos? They can, if we adopt this change, uh, they could follow whatever procedure we set up to split off to sell separately an ADU as a condo unit. Um, but it would still be considered an ADU. It wouldn't be a new primary unit. Um, all the other rules would still apply. It's just that it can be sold separately. >> Thank you for uh clarifying. Thank you. >> All right. I'm going to chime in with my questions. Thank you, Commissioner Templeton, for asking exactly what I wanted to ask about fractalization. Um, so I did have a couple other questions. Uh, Mr. Sauls, you mentioned that some other jurisdictions allow for this already and in your research, uh, those jurisdictions had hypothesized that perhaps the uptake wasn't as wasn't very high because of leans. Um do you and you had said you know if the lean holder is doesn't want to do this then it would not be they would not sign off on it. Do you know if that particular issue has actually been like is it a known barrier or is it just a hypothesis? >> When I was speaking with a representative from the city of Santa Cruz that was specifically what they said to me when I asked them what do you think is the reason for why people are not interested in this? trying to drive to that, you know, central question. Is this going to be good? Is this not going to be really something that we will we create a process and no one takes advantage of it, right? And and that was specifically what she had referred me referred back to me when she had been speaking with their residents who were interested, you know, and ones who had been trying to go through that process once they had adopted it. They were saying that their lean holders were nixing it, >> right? And so to that end, that's why we trying to incorporate because it's so new. We wanted to try to get some sense of understanding from other jurisdictions about the challenges they were facing to hopefully preface our understanding of what that experience might be for PaloAlto. >> Thank you. That's super helpful. And do you have any sense of um say how PaloAlto might compare to other dur jurisdictions in terms of how many in terms of the proportion of our parcels that are free and clear that they've there are no leans? >> No, I don't I don't have that information. >> Okay. Thank you. Um related to this also uh condoization process. This might be a question for Mr. Yang, if you can't answer it, is there a decondoization process? Meaning, if I'm a owner of a property with all these J all these ADUs on it and I undergo this process and then I decide, oh wait, whoops, this is a big mistake, is it possible? Is it, you know, how burdensome is it to reverse that process? I think it's a you buy it back and then you merge the lots, but check to see if Mr. Yang has anything to add >> for members of the public. We got a thumbs up from Mr. Yang. In other words, you do just buy back the parcels and then merge them. >> Okay. Um, >> and maybe just to clarify, it's not so much a merge as it's an elimination, I guess, of that APN because they're not they're not really like split, right, in the way that a traditional subdivision might actually physically create like a a new lot line in some manner. So, it's it's a maybe it's splitting hairs, but >> but they would have to go through the parcel map process and everything again, correct? Because it's a new parcel map. Yeah, it would be sim a similar process to >> in reverse >> to reverse them. Yeah. >> Thank you. Um okay, so I don't see any other clarifying questions. Oh, one more uh one from Commissioner James. Um, just following on that idea, and maybe this is more speculation than um than is helpful, but I'm thinking if the lean is kind of the speed bump here for sort of um I wonder if this incentivizes uh developers to buy a property like that, wholesale cash. And um then it's if we're if we're creating an incentive here, maybe not for residents to be doing this, but for developers to be sort of buying properties clearly um and then sort of parceling it up and and maximizing, you know, their return on that property. I wonder if you have any thoughts or about that. >> Yeah, I think it's a good question. As you can imagine, you know, the the current state of state law and the city's draft ordinance doesn't anticipate that or doesn't create a a a limit to saying if you're a developer, whatever that means, you know, you can't do this. Um, I would imagine given that the city of San Jose, city of close to a million, has seen only two applications, four, excuse me, and only two have been approved. I would assume if that were something that was really happening, that we would, when I reached out to them earlier this year, they would have said, "Oh my goodness, we're seeing a lot of this and we're finding out that it's just somebody who's coming in and and doing just that." Uh, they didn't seem to convey that that sense of uh experience through their process. Thank you. >> Any other commissioner questions, clarifying questions? All right, we're going to move to public comment. Mr. Chair, do we have any hands raised or comment cards? >> Um, at the moment, uh, we have one public comment request for this item. Um, and if there's any members on Zoom that would like to speak to this item, I'd like to ask you to raise your hand so I can add you the queue. and and through the chair. Just a reminder for the future item that's on the agenda, anyone who is interested in speaking, bringing up those comment cards at any point uh is helpful. >> Yes, please bring up any comment cards that you may have if you're in chambers right now to Mr. Tar so he can get organized. Thank you. >> Um and so it is two speakers. Our first speaker and clarifying it will be three minutes. Okay. Our first speaker is uh John K. I'd like to invite you to the mic. >> Thank you, Chair Chang. Commissioners, my name is John Kelly. Uh I've spoken on these issues before, several times. Uh sometimes before the council, sometimes before the PTC, and in the limited time that I have, I want to try to focus your attention on the big picture here. You know, why am I advocating for this um some of these changes at least? It's because ADUs have, I believe, the ability to really transform our community in very, very healthy ways. I regard them as 21st century starter homes. I don't know the exact size of the home that I grew up in, but I estimate it was probably 1,400,600 square ft. There were six of us living in that house uh until I left. I think we have lost that kind of housing in Palto with the small exception of what are usually referred to as courts. Courts are referred to in the housing element. We have a housing element plan or goal, whatever it is, that says we should try to do more things that are like courts. And I think that what you have before you tonight, especially in appendix C, is the opportunity to effectively build more courts in Palo Alto, which would be a good thing. Why is that a good thing? It all comes down to money. One way or another, that's what's driving real estate in Palo Alto. We have a median price which seems to vary and it seems to go up generally over time. I don't know what it is for an R1 house, but I think it's probably over $3.5 million. That excludes many many families from our community, many of whom are are children of people who, you know, families that have lived here, their offspring. Uh there are a lot of reasons why we should have family continuity in Palo Alto. What you need to understand about this, the the connection between increasing the size of ADUs and allowing for separate conveyance of them is that this is a means of addressing a lot of the economic things that are forced on homeowners as a result of state tax laws, federal tax laws, and especially state attack estate laws. And the combination of those means that we have a number of units where there are older adults living in them and they want to stay in the property. They want to stay in the community. If you sell your house and you try to buy something new, you're going to basically pay a big tax bill and live in a smaller unit and that's it for you. If you are allowed to develop a separate ADU and separately convey it, you can realize some income whether it's as a capital gain or its rental income and you can continue to live in the community. And I can elaborate on all this. Uh the one thing I would uh say that I've tried to explain in my letter in more detail is I think that this process right now needs to respect the community a lot more and needs to respect homeowners a lot more particularly in the area of impact fees which is touched upon in the section of the report having to do with F. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Jeremy L. Jeremy you may now speak. Good evening, planning commissioners, staff. Thank you for some really thoughtprovoking questions so far. Jeremy Lavine here speaking on behalf of PaloAlto Forward. We're really excited about this update to the ADU ordinance. And one of the reasons that we're excited beyond the reasons that John Kelly cited about creating opportunities for family housing and restoring uh chance for people to own smaller homes in PaloAlto that they can afford is that ADUs have been one of the most successful housing programs in PaloAlto. The city is producing well above its housing element projections for ADUs. Hundreds of homeowners in just the last few years have tried to add ADUs. Uh it's it's a program that has had success and there's still opportunity for the city to to build on that and to go further. The success thus far has largely been because of state laws that have by the city's own permitting uh record been pretty popular. People want to provide this kind of housing. They benefit from multi-generational homes. They benefit from the rental income and they could benefit from the sale of separate condoized ADUs as well as larger ADUs. I wrote a public comment a few hours ago. I know it's a little late, but I I hope some of you get the chance to read it. I don't want to rehash everything that's in that public comment, but I just want to emphasize one of the reasons that state ADU law has been successful is that it creates a really clear predictable process for ADUs and it reduces some of the costs like fees that uh apply that don't apply to smaller ADUs and that's valuable to consider for larger ADUs. is it's something that the city may want to consider for the kinds of housing that it wants to see more broadly because ADU legislation has been more successful than any other kind of state legislation at creating housing. Uh the last thing that I can say in my 45 seconds is though San Jose has seen a small number of ADUs, uh ADU developers have sprung up all over the state and there's a lot of enthusiasm for how ADU condoization can help finance ADUs because the person who builds an ADU can recoup that investment much more quickly if they sell it than if they rent it. And so this is a a really powerful tool to make ADUs financable in a way that is sometimes a barrier to small home own uh property owners or or relatively newer homeowners. So thank you for your time. I'm looking forward to the rest of your discussion. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Scott O. Scott, you may now speak. >> Hi. Thank you. I'm speaking for myself tonight. Um I want to strongly support Mr. Kelly's comments and thank him for his leadership on this issue. Um, and also second Jeremy's comments. Um, I want to explore a bit the implications of John's suggestions, especially for aging homeowners. He pointed out that we have a lot of older folks living in the community in single family homes. I I know this from my experience, you know, canvasing um during elections. Um, I I think there's some they think we have a sentinarian um living in my in my precinct. Um, these people might not be willing to downsize into an 800 square foot unit. Um, but they might be willing to downsize into a unit and rent out. They also might not be willing to move away because of Prop 13. A lot of people feel trapped in their homes by these very low property taxes that they that they enjoy. But taken together, condoization and an increase in square footage gives these gives these folks who might feel trapped a lot of flexibility to stay, you know, to to stay in the area uh to earn some additional money that also helps them stay in the area. Um and while while potentially selling their primary home or the condo, you know, whatever. Um just a ton of flexibility as their as they're in their golden years. Um, and it's it's also flexibility and again if they don't want to live in, you know, in a place that's square 800 ft² or less to let their kids and grandkids move into the main house. I know that's a popular option with some folks. And I finally want to make a point that while sometimes people criticize ADUs for not always becoming housing, and that's absolutely true, um, but that's not an argument that applies to condoized ADUs, is it? No one's going to condoize their rumpus room. No one's going to buy it. Uh the marginal ADUs you create with a condoization ordinance will all be real housing and not, you know, offices and such. So anyway, uh thank you very much for your time and I look forward to hearing the discussion. >> Thank you, Mr. O'Neal. Okay, so I think that's it for public comments. So now the uh discussion moves back to the PTC. And before we start in the interest, we have a lot of uh public commenters here or we have a lot of members of the public here who I assume um are commenting for the second item. And so to be respectful of their time, I thought I discussed with staff uh in advance of this meeting about how to kind of keep us on target. And so I wanted to focus our discussion by first focusing on the changes that are in appendix A and B which are essentially required by state law. So, if we could first have our discussion about what I believe is going to be a simpler uh a simpler thing for the commission to arrive at a motion and a vote on and then we can discuss uh the options that are presented in appendix C regarding the 1,200 square f foot uh maximum as well as the condoization. uh and then we can see how our discussion goes because if it starts going really long, we can decide as a commission if we want to continue it to a a different day. Does that sound good to everybody? I'm seeing nods. Okay. So, with that, let's start discussing um the draft ordinance as uh as as proposed in attachments A and B. And if anybody has comments or uh discussion, please light it up. We'll start with Commissioner Peterson. Thank you, Chair. So, the ADUs, I want to make a comment that in general, um, I'm not in favor of ADUs overall, and I'll I'll explain why, but I think John Kelly uh made the argument, which I know we're going to possibly push off the condization uh discussion, but that the the fairness of allowing to separate the lots into smaller pieces and allowing people to continue to enjoy to live in Palo Alto was a was a a piece of the discussion that I had not uh had not realized. I want to thank Mr. Kelly for bringing that up. But as far as ADUs, um I think one of the concerns that I have, which I'm going to be supportive of ADUs, but is the energy analysis. When you have an individual detached structure, you have more exposed walls to it. And then a lot of times the ADUs are of course going to have probably lower quality construction, pre-fabrication, things like that, which usually is lower efficiency construction than maybe the main house. Where alternatively, if you focus on uh multi-use, multi-unit housing, you have shared walls, shared uh uh mechanical systems, and usually you can have a higher quality system in place. It's not going to be a prefab apartment complex, things like that. It's going to be actually purposely built. So, I wanted to just put that on the record that as far as from an engineering and almost like a physics standpoint, AADU is essentially an inefficient solution, but I think Mr. Kelly made the argument for why it's actually the efficient solution if you take a step back and look at it from a social economic standpoint. So, with that, I am supportive of the changes. Okay. Um, Commissioner Aken, >> thank you, Chair. Um, thank you for all the painstaking work of making the code consistent with the state law. U, I appreciate the level of detail that went into that. Um, the, uh, proposed area computations look good to me. The appeals process, number of ADU changes, all of that looks good. So I am also in support of uh attachment A. >> Commissioner G. >> Thank you, Chair. I had a kind of it's not going to prevent me from supporting attachment bay, but I just had a question about placing on the agenda for consent calendar within 45 days. How often do items that are u appealed to council actually get pulled off of the consent calendar? Sorry, we need clarification on the question. So your question was how often do items that get put on consent get pulled >> that are uh appeals of the of the a director's decision or something like that? >> Pretty rarely. Um, but I also we don't get very many of them that actually make it to that point. >> Okay. Otherwise, I'm in support of attachment A. Thank you. >> I don't see any other lights right now. I'm also in support of attachment A. So, sounds like it's not a hot item. Would somebody like to make a motion? >> Vice Chair G. I'll move uh attachment A as um staff has provided it here. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Oh no. Any discussion? Okay, then Mr. Divera, can you please call the vote? >> Yep. Uh Commissioner Aken, >> yes. Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner James, >> yes. Commissioner Templeton, >> yes. >> Uh, Vice Chair G, >> Chair Chang, >> yes. >> Motion carries 6. All >> right, that may be the fastest vote that we have ever done. All right, now on to what I foresee to be a little bit stickier. So, now we're going to discuss the um draft ordinance that is in appendix C or in attachment C. And so, this is covering two areas. the proposal for um increasing the maximum ADU size to,200 square ft as well as the condoization allowing the condoization of ADUs. So if anybody has comments about that, please light it up. We'll start with Commissioner Aken. Uh thank you, Chair. So, I have no objection to uh increasing the maximum ADU size even though it looks likely that there won't be many applications for that. Uh I still see little or no downside. So, I I would like to support that. Um I also have no objection to allowing uh the condomization process, though I would like us to consider adding the requirement that they not be used for short-term rentals. um because even if that's not done by um an individual owner, it may be attractive to a corporate owner to take that approach. Um just an aside, uh responding to Chair Chang's comment, uh an article in PaloAlto online recently noted that 35% of single family home transactions in 2025 in PaloAlto were all cash. So I suggest that the lean holder barrier that may be a consideration in Santa Cruz may not be as much of a consideration here. So we may see more conversions as a result of that. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Sauls had something that he wanted to say >> to thank you for your your comment. Uh to the question of whether or not ADUs can be rented for less than 30 days. State law is actually very clear that they cannot. They must be rented for 30 days or longer. in the state law from what I've seen doesn't change that aspect of it. If they're being used as if for whatever reason someone goes to that condoization process it I haven't seen it reflected as that nullifies the requirement if it is being rented to uh be able to be less than that. >> Okay. Perhaps I was confused. Let me see if I could find the reference. Um, >> pack of page 15. Want to make sure I get the one that uh had concerned me. Um, unfortunately my notes I didn't know the packet page. Uh so just as long as um we are satisfied that that's not an issue then or if any other commissioners would like to follow up perhaps that's a better approach. >> Chair Chang was noting it's on a packet page 15 and it was actually a reference that we included in the report as a bullet point item two. It speaks to I'll uh just restate it word for word require the units to only be used for residential purposes i.e. no short-term rental, commercial purpose, daycare. We should not have referred to that as a an option, short-term rental in the staff report. It was unfortunately sort of tied more so as I was writing, I was thinking more about this daycare component. Uh so I shouldn't have referred to that as an option. >> Good. Thank you for that clarification and uh I'm happy with that approach. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner Templeton and then Commissioner G. >> Vice Chair G, >> I appreciate you uh, clar clarifying that for uh, Commissioner Aken. I was also going to say that's should not be possible anyway, but um, good that we have that thoroughly discussed and documented because it always comes up. Um I also feel like um 1,200 square f feet sounds good to me. Um very moved by the public comments in general, but one in particular relevant to this part of the discussion is my first home here in Palo Alto in Ventura was 1192 ft. That was our whole home. Of course, we had the whole lot, but we also had a garage that if it hasn't yet been should be converted to an ADU. um and other uses of that property. So um you know that certainly would be a substantial size home for a starter family and that's what we need to add to PaloAlto. We're finding fewer and fewer um people in that situation uh financially are able to to enter into PaloAlto. So I think it would be good. Thank you >> Vice Chair G. >> Thank you chair. I'll join my fellow commissioners by saying that I'm also supportive of the increase to,200 square feet. I had a question about the ordinance as written in regards to bullet 2 on page 15 about the commercial uses i.e. daycare or something else. The one of the public comments said one of the reasons why condomization might be interesting is that people won't sell a rumpus room or whatever they said equivalently in the public comment. But hypothetically, is there in the language as is right now, could I sell it and then someone use it as like an office or something? Is that possible? I think to one end, if it's a home occupation, we have a very clear explanation of what that means in our code currently. So, that wouldn't change if they're using it as their personal sort of office space. They have a little area. The code defines sort of an area of how much that can occupy. Um, in theory, yes, that could happen, but it's limited again to the very instance of I own this ADU over here. I want to use it because I have my own little private uh, you know, firm that I'm running sort of through my house, through my ADU house. Now, um, that um, could capture, I guess, that example. Well, the point of raising bullet point 2 was to sort of highlight uh other semicommercial uses that this theoretically could be used for and if there's an interest in pursuing this as an option for homeowners. Uh it could be something that we include in the draft ordinance as well. A requirement that wherever this is created or made, it can't be used for some semi-residential, semi-commercial purpose, which a daycare often times tends to be. often times people are living there and using the home as a daycare and that can create tension with neighbors at times when there's this activity happening that's not usually anticipated. So as a followup, hypothetically, let's suppose I decide to open, I don't know, an optometrist or something. Is that something that as written could if that was not I don't live there, but I operate an optometrist in this ADU, is that possible right now? If I bought this condo land, condo ADU, >> we we can look up the exact language in the code, but in general, um, a home occupation is supposed to be something that's similar activity level to somebody living in there. So having customers coming and going is generally not something that uh is incorporated into that type of use. >> Okay. >> So no, >> thank you. Um and I think in general there's been a lot of changes with ADU law that we've seen from the state level. And right now I'm not totally certain how I feel about the condomization for the EDUs. mostly because I kind of want to wait and see about how all the laws that we've already passed or will have an impact because it does take a little bit of time before we see the impacts of what's already been passed. So, I'm not totally sure how I feel about the condomization as is and I'm more interested in a wait and see approach right now. Thank you. >> Okay, since I don't see another lights, I will give my comments now. I too am supportive of the increase to,200 square feet for the minimum size. Um, as Mr. Sauls noted in his staff report, it's not likely to affect a lot of parcels, but aside from that, it doesn't change the F rules for the parcels. So in my mind, whether somebody decides to make their ADU larger or to make the primary house larger, it shouldn't make a difference to anybody else. So anything that you know to to allow a slightly larger ADU would then just increase flexibility for the property owner. And I think that makes a lot of sense in addition to providing uh starter potential starter homes for for folks. Regarding the condoization piece, I like the idea because to me, if you are already allowed to have these ADUs, it doesn't the ownership structure, the underlying ownership structure shouldn't make that much of a difference. However, my one concern would be that we then incentivize a lot of developer activity. I love the idea of allowing a homeowner flexibility with what to do with their assets. In other words, if they want to pull some money out of the property, this is a way to do it. I've heard numerous people say that they want to build an ADU, but they can't do that because they don't have that cash on hand. But knowing that they could sell it would allow them to do so. But I also worry then that it would make it very attractive for some of the properties in PaloAlto to be then bought up by developers and the last thing we need is to have individual homeowners having to compete with developers to buy their houses. So, I continued thinking about this and um I do really like the second bullet that is suggested by staff on packet page 15 just to ensure that the units if we do allow the condoization um are really only used for residential purposes. I I think that we should if we do allow condomization, I am opposed to the third bullet point which is to require a hearing process for decision- making. In other words, to require a an owner to go through a hearing in order to decide if that particular parcel should be allowed to be conduitized. I don't think we need to add more administrative burden to something. Um, and then finally, the first bullet point I thought was particularly interesting that if we allow condoization to require units to be deed restricted to be affordable to a designated area median income. And I thought to myself, well, we are continually in PaloAlto really struggling to find a way to create affordable housing. And so I thought, wow, like this potentially makes a huge gives a huge incentive for people who own their house free and clear to be able to get some of the money back out of the property. Like if they're retirees living there, you know, they can build an ADU, maybe move into the ADU, sell their larger house, or vice versa, just sell the ADU. But how great would it be if we could in essentially changing our legislation to allow whoever the current property owner is to benefit quite a bit because you've increased the value of this property by allowing the sale. If we could also increase the public good a little bit. So, you know, if we kept it at say 80% of area median income, that would really generate some very, very much, much needed affordable housing for people who want to live in our community. And so I thought that might be an interesting way to allow the condoization but then maybe be a little bit of a disincentive for like the outright um I just didn't want to create this environment where all of our properties then become bought up by by investors instead of homeowners. So that's my perspective on on that. Are there other uh we've got comments from Commissioner James and then Commissioner Tumbleton. Sorry, I think my uh button is is not working particularly well, but um uh I agree that the uh the larger um uh ADU uh size is uh seems to have benefits and and no drawbacks that I can see. Excuse me. I also um uh I I share feelings with some of the my fellow commissioners that um I don't know whether I feel like an urgency for this. I there were some good public comments that that made it seem potentially beneficial to the to the community. I do agree um that if we move forward with that that we should uh bullet two uh require the units only be used for residential purposes. Um, I do, as I suggested earlier, um, I have some concerns about this in terms of, um, are we creating a situation where like first-time uh, home buyers now are sort of competing with developers for a property, um, and and probably not able to compete uh, particularly well. um uh Chair Chang's uh uh point about if you uh compel some of those to be deed restricted AMI, you might offset that. It seems to me um you know, we're we're kind of trying to predict what the what the um result of this would be. But if if it was a bit of a gold rush, uh let's say, um that that might the AMI uh deed restriction might kind of alleviate that a little bit. Like the first term home buyer that sort of loses to developer might be able to sort of then afford the the ADU, if that makes sense. >> Commissioner Templ, >> thanks. Um I want to weigh in on this. Uh I'm glad you brought it up. It's certainly going to be part of the discussion longer term anyway, but um you know putting my property honer homer owner hat on um I I feel very strongly I would not want to tie the hands of the homeowners and take money out of their hands especially if we are talking about older folks who have built their put you know invested their whole um uh life in this property which is probably their primary asset if we think about that if we're targeting that group of people um to to then say you can only sell it to people who can't afford to pay you the most for your money is really um going to be unsettling for them. I I have heard this from from people. So if we're if we're talking about the gold rush, the the gold rush is what happens when they pass away and sell this property and somebody comes in and buys it up for cash and does whatever they want with it, right? That's that's not what we're discussing. and we're discussing while they stay on the property, can they have some kind of financial advantage from a portion of it that will help them stay in place and and and live there for the remainder of their lives. So, I just want to throw that out there um as as part of this discussion because as enticing it as as it is because we do need more affordable housing, I want that to be the corporate built housing and not the the mom and pop built, you know, ADUs and places for their grandkids to maybe start um developing their own portfolio of real estate ownership. So, that's my two cents. Thank you. Do >> we have other comments? I'll just respond to Commissioner Templeton because it was in reaction to my idea. I don't think I have enough information on this, right? Because we've actually seen on this commission in the 5 years that I've been and I believe on the almost eight years that you've been on the commission very few um projects that are deed restricted but for ownership rather than rental. And so I don't and we've asked repeatedly like how does this work? How do you determine what is 80% of AMI? what the price is for something that's 80% AMI. And so, you know, as often happens on this commission, I'm not sure I have the information that I would need right now to understand if I would, you know, what the right area median income would be. But I would also say that given property values here, I mean, I hear you loud and clear that you want to make sure that we um you know that the current property owner benefits from it, but at the same time, I think that the benefit could still be quite substantial given that we are considering allowing um allowing the ADUs to be sold separately. But I hear you. So, yeah. Uh, thank you for for that response. I would suggest that if that's something the homeowner wants to do, it doesn't need to be written into the code, right? If if that is how they wish to do and they think it will be in their best interest, they can do it. What we're talking about here is what do we codify? Um so one of the so I think that we actually on the commission had agreement on um the 1,200 square ft I believe. Um so I would suggest again just to try and be expedient and document things quickly and in a readable fashion for for the future. Um if somebody would like to make a motion regarding that then we can vote on that and then we can discuss the conduitization point. Uh, >> so moved. I I'm I guess we're talking about staff recommendation for square footage and attachment C. >> Um, so Commissioner Peterson had light had gone on. So I don't know if he wanted to speak. >> Feel free. >> He's fine. Okay. So do we have a second? >> Second. >> And is there any discussion? Go ahead. >> Um I I will just make one small comment which is that the only small con I could potential see is that ADUs are allowed to be built with a 4ft setback and so that if you decide to allocate more of your house to the ADU, you could potentially get more of impacts against your neighbors relatively, but I think it's pretty minimal. Um and so I'm still in support of this. That's my only comment. Thank you. The motion was only about square footage. >> So not everything. >> No. So I was saying that if we were to extend to 12,200 square f feet, right, if you were like the,200 f feet would be allowed to be built with the ADU setback. >> Should we discuss that then? Are we premature for the motion? >> No. No. I No, I'm still supporting it. I I just wanted to make that small comment. >> We're discussing the motion now. So, >> okay, >> if anybody would like to opine further on that on the motion on the table, which is to increase the maximum ADU size from 1,000 to,200, please >> light it up. >> I I guess I'm just trying to can staff clarify does 1,200 mean 4 foot setback. >> That's correct. It wouldn't change the setbacks for the structures that are already allowed currently. It would be, you know, potentially a 1,200 foot structure at a 4 foot side and rear setback. >> Um, I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you said. >> Yeah. So, currently you could build a 1,000 foot ADU >> at a 4ft side and rear setback. >> Oh, so this doesn't change that. >> No, it doesn't change the setbacks at all in any manner. It just changes how large that structure could be. >> I misunderstood the vice chair. Okay. Well, that's fine. Commissioner Aken, >> I think my uh question has been answered, but uh yeah, it would seem to me that the likelihood of having a 4-foot setback depend depended on the nature of the ADU, whether it was a conversion, for example. So, we can't just say categorically that it will be a 4ft setback, just that it may. Is that correct? We can't require it to be further than a 4ft setback if they want it to be at that point unless there's a utility easement. That's about the only reason. >> All right. I think that answers my question. >> Thank you. >> Further discussion? There is none. So, Mr. Traver, could you please take the vote? >> Uh, Commissioner Aken, >> yes. >> Commissioner Templeton, >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner James, >> yes. Vice Chair G. >> Yes. Chair Chang. >> Yes. >> Motion carry 6. >> Okay. Thank you all for bearing with this process. Um so now we should discuss the condoization. Um and Mr. Sols, did you want to provide some context for you know why this is before us? Just like I mentioned earlier last year, council had asked staff to consider studying this topic and including it within a future update to the city's ordinance. Um, so as a part of that effort, staff was re, you know, what you see in the staff report is sort of our research on, you know, what seems to be some of the uh maybe some of the challenges that you might see or that we might potentially see when it comes to, you know, these projects coming forward. And did you get a sense? So when you reviewed the minutes in preparation for this meeting, was it was council saying consider this because we want to do it or just consider it? >> The latter just consider it and study it. >> So I wanted to ask for that clarification because it opens up what we as a commission can decide to do. We could decide to punt on it. We could decide, you know, we could So it's wide open. We are being asked by council to cons literally just consider this the pros and the cons. And so that means we need to come up with whatever we think is best. So if you have additional comments, you know, I think eventually we're headed for a we're trying to aim for a motion regarding this idea of condoization. Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Templeton. Uh yes, I I think for the PaloAlto community, we don't have enough information on that part yet because there's a very small sample size right now. You you said there's only two in the city of over a million. Um that doesn't give us a lot of information to base our recommendations on. Um, that said, I I hear from the community the appetite for us to to discuss it and consider it, but I'm I'm just not sure about the timing. I'd like to hear from the other commissioners about that. I I will say, you know, the the public comment was was moving. We do want to be able to um include more um lower income families, and this is a way to do it. So, I'm I'm sympathetic to that. I just want to make sure that we do it in a way that the community can get behind because I think that's really important. >> Commissioner Peterson. >> Okay. So, I have a quick question for staff first, then I'll make my point. What's remind me what's the maximum number of ADUs you can put on a lot in or ADU condos? >> In the draft ordinance, it would be three ADU condos. Okay. And that includes the main structure. >> That's right. >> So it's this, >> right? And in total, the total number of units that now can be built on a single family home is five. The primary home, three ADUs, and one junior ADU. The primary home and the junior ADU will always be linked together. If someone builds three ADUs and goes through this process, there are three ADUs that can be sold separate from that primary home. >> Okay? And then so what I'd like to just understand is um I think a good example is uh Ventren the owner was here a few weeks back where they had assembled lots together to build one large project. So now we're introducing a new proposal which is say rather than building one large project they could assemble lots and create individual lots each one of them with five units on it. Correct. >> I'm not sure that that's necessarily the case. What we're expecting would be an application is someone has a single family home today. They're not merging multiple lot properties together to then be able to do this condominium opportunity. It's that they have a single family home now. They can build one or up to three ADUs and then sold the sell those separately on that same again. It would be on the same parcel, but they'd be condo parcels. put it more actionable. There's a commercial lot somewhere in PaloAlto that currently has a condo type uh proposal. So, say if that commercial lot was divided into residential lots and they made the case to do that, each of those residential lots could have five units on it. >> That is correct. If they were made into single family homes, >> right? Okay. which just I just suddenly you know saw that this is a an entirely different approach to development than uh it's almost the reverse of what we saw Ventrren do which was assembled say a dozen lots into one large lot and one large project but we also have the example of one large lot now being split into individual lots with Jedus which I think we had an example of on the uh in the horseand I think they called So what is the position of staff on that? Is that that's expected behavior? >> Given the lack of information from other jurisdictions when talking about it, we're not certain that this is going to produce a a significant volume of applications. uh the context of Palo Alto being a city of 60 to 70,000 and San Jose being a city of closer to a million the in the inference there is that you know if they were seeing dozens hundreds of these applications we might see a similar volume but to a scale that's appropriate for Palo Alto because that data hasn't yet shown itself for the people who have the jurisdictions who have adopted it we're unable to really determine if that's really going to turn into anything for Palo Alto If we are more or less a city that has people owning their properties compared to San Jose, we don't have that information to be able to make that determination that that then just means that people are actually just going to do this instead. One last question which is let's take are you familiar with the out by Foothill Expressway we had the the horse property type place was divided up into a lot of ADUs. >> I think this was a was it >> you speaking about the previous >> talking about old trace road. Is that right? >> Is that what it was called? >> So, um I am familiar with it. >> So, how was this separate from that? Cuz that was also a lot divided up into a large number of ADUs. >> So, that was a lot split. So, it's a subdivision, not condos. And it wasn't a bunch of ADUs. Actually, you haven't seen the houses themselves. It was proposed as individual single family homes. Each one, almost every one of them also had an ADU. So each of the new parcels was proposed with a primary home and most of them also included in ADU. This is allowing by state law already allows somebody who has an existing single family home to build up to three or four if you're including junior ADUs uh in addition to the primary home. The question now before the PTC is whether those ADUs could be sold se allowed to be sold separately as a condo maintaining the existing parcel. >> All right. Thank you. I have a much better understanding now. Appreciate it. >> Uh so we've got Vice Chair G and then Commissioner Templeton. >> I'll be quick. I think that I agree at this time with Commissioner Templeton about the lack of data. I'm unconvinced at this time that this is something that we are urgently needed to go towards and I'm a little bit concerned about what Commissioner Jame has James James had mentioned in terms of potentially being a target for developers. I have a bunch of friends who are trying to buy uh place out in Pacifica and they're continuously being outbid by developers and that's a pretty big worry for me. So I think at this time I'm not interested in um sending this forward. Thank you, >> Commissioner Tomton. >> Thanks. I just had some follow-ups to uh Commissioner Peterson. Um what makes this not a subdivision? You said this that was a subdivision. This is not. What makes these not a subdivision? >> So it that one was a the parcel divisions, right? It's different parcels of land. Whereas what we're talking about here is the condo map. So, and it's not parcels of land. Are we stacking these ADUs or are they sharing a building? What do you mean by that? >> So, um, another example is if you had town home development, we've seen that recently. >> We can put free town homes on our property. >> I'm I'm not speaking about single family property. I'm saying that is an example in many cases where those are air parcels. It's not a line on the map saying I own the earth beneath my structure. I just own the the building. And so it is a condo rather than the land. And so that's the distinction between the subdivision that was considered for Old Trace Road where it is dividing up the land versus a condo. I I don't know if um our at city attorney would like to add additional clarification that might help with this. >> Um I think that's right. You know, they technically are both subdivisions. Um but one is a subdivision uh where you you technically still have just one lot and then you have air parcels that are created uh uh as condos. And as uh the assistant director said, when you have condos, you are just, you know, kind of marking out a part of a three-dimensional space um that is owned as opposed to when you own the land, you generally own kind of everything down below to the center of the earth and everything up above uh into the sky. So what would people own then if they bought ADU on somebody else's property? >> So you're saying there not the earth down to the center but is it any air? Can they go up? >> So it depends on how that dimensional box is defined. It could be defined to extend, you know, 30, 50, 80 feet up into the air, or it could just be the uh the walls and the roof of the building. >> What would prevent someone from making their three ADUs stacked in PaloAlto if we went forward with this? Now, >> well, the ADU law, right? Um, if you were making your three ADUs, at least one of them would need to be detached. Um, and at least one of them would need to be attached to the primary structure. So, >> okay. >> Um, you could have an attached ADU that's just on the second story, >> right? So, it could be stacked above the primary home, but the ADU law tells you how and where you can put your ADUs. >> Yeah, that's really important. And I think it's one of the reasons, and I know there's going to be some people disappointed at this discussion because they're ready to go. But I think for PaloAlto, we really need to understand what we're recommending. Um or else when it gets to council, how will they say yes? So, um I'm I'm just imagining uh all the extreme cases. Um uh I know it's a little bit silly, but it is the kind of, you know, we we shouldn't be underestimating the ingenuity of people here who may want to find a way to make a buck. um and um want to make sure what we're allowing in any ordinances and uh whatnot that we recommend. So, um I it seems to me just from talking it through and I really appreciate Commissioner Peterson's questions because I that's what brought me here is is just um we need to see this play out and if it's not something that we're prepared um through staff to to dig into tonight. We can either continue it um and then we have a date certain and we you can hear the kind of questions we have but also questions from the public or um we could continue it indefinitely uh and see if we can get some information from other jurisdictions. So, I have a question for staff because one of my biggest concerns when I myself was reading the packet, I thought this would be a piece of cake item and that we'd be done for done with it in 10 minutes as we were with the the first part, the first motion. But then I saw this condroisation idea and I I don't I know that it has been properly agendaized, but I'm concerned that the way the agenda title was written for the the title for the item was written that the public is not aware that we were considering this. So if we were to continue it, we wouldn't be opening up public comp uh public comment again. Is that correct? or is there a way to continue it and also allow public comment? >> If there was additional information requested, then we could open the public comment again based on that additional information. Um, the other thought that I would share as you're considering what your motion on this particular component might be is that what I'm hearing at least from a few of the commissioners is there's concern that there isn't enough information right now to move forward with this. And so the recommendation to council could be that that not to move forward with this at this time, but to consider coming back at some point in the future once additional information is available. That that could be the recommendation to council and then council could determine when they wish to have the city bring it pull it up together for more discussion in the future. >> Commissioner Peterson. >> So I wanted to say I feel like I have enough information and I think uh Mr. Kelly was the speaker who made the the argument that really I think reached out to me of of understanding the the social equity of of people being able to remain in their home uh while also being able to I think uh maybe micro segment their their uh real estate assets while remaining on a piece of that. I think I see the the value of that um because you certainly don't want to be pushing people out of the community who are a part of the community and this allows people to stay. Um, but if we do happen to continue this, and again, I'm I'm happy to to be in support of it now, I would like to hear from staff, and I think the best way to put it is when you have a subdivision that then has condonization. Yeah. The the multiplier of that. So, we have say six individual, you know, IPN lots. Is that right? IPN uh from a single lot. APN. Thank you. You can see I don't own many of those. And uh and then within that you have conization on each lot with five. So you get that multiplier effect. And then say now if I'm a developer I have a choice. I can build one large unit or I can split things up and I can have ADUs which I wouldn't have thought was real until we actually saw it actually happen. Uh and then the next one is I have a choice of turning it into uh regular town homes like the the traditional. So I you know it gives you three different which might be exactly what we want is to give developers that flexibility which I think after the last one I actually looked it up and there are AI optimization softwares that you can now take a lot and it will just give you a range of like your top eight options you can do. So the creativity idea is beyond creativity. It's now almost uh exhaustive of all the possibilities that we make out of every unit. So whatever we legislate is going to be certainly explored. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner James. >> Yeah, I'm not sure I need to say this, but I think I I like the direction that this conversation is headed because we I think are acknowledging two things. one is that there's some potential here u to provide a different kind of housing than that's that's badly needed uh and that we also don't yet feel like we have a handle on this and want I mean I would think at least another year of data. So I don't know what procedurally how we get from here to there but I I think um and that's sort of how I'm feeling is that there is potential here. We don't uh it feels like it would be premature um to move it forward with a recommendation, but I I I certainly want to keep it alive and and try and get more data and and come back to it. >> Motion specifying staff. >> Would you like to make a motion? >> Um I'm happy to make a motion that >> Please, we can help you, but go ahead. Um, I guess I would make a motion that this um uh uh staff report on on um on uh condosation um would uh come back to us in a year with more data and and and more insights. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Do we have further discussion? >> Commissioner Tumble. Um, just just to play devil's advocate, I would love to have it come back sooner. Um, because I do think the world is moving quickly and we will see some projects sooner than that. So, if that's something anyone else is concerned about, >> speak up and we can ask uh, Commissioner James to modify the motion. If not, then leave it as is. >> Commissioner James. Well, can I just ask staff at this point in the middle of a motion that >> do you have a sense about >> uh data from San Jose and other municipalities? Um when when you would feel comfortable that there's enough information to kind of make a a better informed decision. Do you I'm just curious what your comfort level is. >> How far away is 2050? I'm kidding. you know, obviously, um, it's it's interesting because it's been almost two years since that's been adopted and, you know, you got one a year from San Jose, right? So, I think that's a bit of a challenge. And they have two on they have two others on file that they've process that they are processing and that was as of March this year. So, that's one benchmark, you know, and others have just had interest but not yet seen applications come in. I don't want to bench bench it off of San Jose alone to say, "Oh, we'll see you in two more years or 2050 obviously." Um, it's hard to base it off of that. >> Uh, okay. Then we've got Commissioner G and then Commissioner Aken. So, one thing that I have a question for staff about is as I previously stated in my comments, state level ADU law is constantly changing. And I am wondering if, for example, we pass something like this and then state ADU law does something unexpected, we might end up with a lot of really unintended consequences with what we've passed. And that frightens me a little bit. And so and because we look at the state and we say hey based on what the state says we'll add XYZ but if we pass XYZ and then state is not looking at what we've done with this then we may be in a bit of a pickle if state decides to do something funky in relation to what we've already had. Um, so that's one of my concerns and I don't know if waiting well actually my specific question for staff is do we know if there's any ADU law changes that are coming down this legislative session? >> Every year there's been changes at the state law state level for ADU since 2017. So it'd surprise me if all of a sudden we had something that wasn't right. Um, but that's kind of been the for the last 6 years I've been doing this, that's sort of been a yearly evaluation around the holidays is realizing, oh, okay, well, now I have some more things I need to take care of. Um, it is possible that there could be some changes that occur at the state level if we adopt this that somehow fudge this up in a way that makes it more complicated. Our ordinance already states that um any changes at the state law that supersede our rules have to apply and that's whether we have that in the in our ordinance anyway frankly that applies um how we could struggle along until we have an adopted ordinance that that demonstrates what that looks like in the future. You know we may come back at a future time in May or you know some other time in later in the year to do the same thing at that point. >> Okay. So, for that reason, I don't know if I want to add on what we have for the condomization because I'm a little bit afraid of what the intersection might look like with state. Thank you. >> Yeah. Wait, we had somebody pop up. >> I I missed it. Did some Didn't >> Yeah, James Martin. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner Aken, >> thank you. Yeah, based on what I've heard, I feel uncomfortable with any um designated time limit. So, I liked the u phrasing that assistant director Armor used um that perhaps we should say that we do not recommend this at the moment, but we do recommend that it be revisited at some time in the future when more data is available. So, that's my suggestion. >> Um I accept that. Yeah. as a and I'll accept a second. >> Wonderful. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Uh, is there further discussion? >> No. So, Mr. Diver, would you please take the vote? >> Yep. >> Uh, Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Uh, Commissioner James, >> Uh, Commissioner Aken, >> yes. >> Commissioner Templeton, >> no. >> Uh, Vice Chair G, >> yes. Uh, Chair Chang. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. 51. >> Would you like to speak to your no vote? >> Yes. Um, I I was originally hoping we would just come back in a month or two and be able to talk about this and and make a um more detailed recommendation. I understand our desire is to have more information and that may not be ready at that time. Um but uh not having any kind of um accountability to have to make sure it comes back to us uh is why I voted no. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um commissioners, I think because it's only 7:30 because we were so efficient. Good job everyone. I was thinking that we would do the staff presentation for the next item and take public comment and then maybe take our break. Does that sound good to everybody? Okay, great. So, we're going to move on to our second action item of the day. This is another legislative item. So, it's a for us to make a recommendation on an ordinance amending the PaloAlto municipal code section 18.40.140, which is stream corridor protection. Could we have the staff report, please? >> And before we get started with that, >> thank you. >> Go ahead. Uh before we get started with the staff of report, I just wanted to encourage anybody who is in chambers right now and has a comment card to please get that comment card to Mr. Tivera as soon as possible. Thank you. >> And raise your hand online. I'd appreciate that, too. Thank you. >> Go ahead, Miss Chaw. >> Yes. Good evening, chair, vice chair, and commissioners. My name is Kelly Cha. I'm here to present the stream corridor protection ordinance update. Um it's agenda item three for tonight. Um as everybody has been reminded, please submit your comment card if you haven't done so and also raise your hand if you're joining us um remotely. And um we have actually um we will have our consultants um Kevin Gardner from Good City Company as well as James Martin our um consultant biologist as well as we have um Michelle Jeremiah from public uh works engineering um they're joining us tonight remotely um to facilitate our discussion later. Next please. Um just as a quick reminder, this ordinance um update effort um is part of the comprehensive plan and has been a city council priority for several years now. Next, please. We started this effort um back in 2024. Um and we've had a continuous uh community engagement including info session and a workshop and um we've been uh we've brought this item to the PTC um twice uh for recommendation hearing and in addition to a study session. So tonight would be our third time um to our attempt to receive a recommendation from planning and transportation commission and if we do receive a comm uh recommendation we will uh schedule a city council hearing sometime in the quarter uh third quarter. Next please. And um to expand our um community engagement effort, we have um conducted uh engage with the community and um engage the community and stakeholders through workshop and neighborhood meetings as well as um individual meetings upon request. Uh next please. And we recently uh conducted a neighborhood specific meeting with especially um with Esther Clark as well as Palo Alto Hills. Next please. And we received um extensive feedback from the the commission last time in August and also from the public since and so we tried to incorporate those comments as much as possible in the draft ordinance we have presented today. Um that's in attachment A. Um one of the key changes is the streamside setback. Uh for the urbanized area which is the um area in between 101 and west um uh foothill expressway. We have um changed the stream size setback from 30 ft to 25 ft. Um that's going to be measured from top of the bank. Um bay lands and open space and rural area. Uh the stream size setback remains at um 150 ft but we have um added additional condition to allow for the urbanized um area streamside subbeck which is currently 25 ft um for those properties that have ephemeral streams or in close proximity to the um to the ephemeral streams. Uh we have decided this um instead of the the previous uh recommendation of using the lot size because this is a streamside um I mean stream corridor protection ordinance. So u using the location of uh a stream and ephemeral stream was more prevalent in the open space and rural area. So we have decided to use this particular threshold instead of the lot size. Next please. But we did um include multiple alternatives approach approaches to um for the commission to consider. They are uh they are summarized here as well as in the report. Um I'm going to skip it for now, but we can come back um since we have a lot of people who would like to speak about this item. Next, please. Um although the commission previously directed staff uh to exempt a specific neighborhood from the slope stability protection area requirements um staff retain these requirements in the draft ordinance. Actually this is critical to preserve stream bank integrity and protect properties from erosion and landslides as well and it guarantees maintenance access. So um and additionally maintaining these um standards align with the regional um guidelines as well as ensures um the inter agency coordination. Um next please. So additional um so the existing requirements for slope stability um continues with the draft ordinance. So the exception process for the slip stability also re um is going to be carried over. And for the general exception process for the streamside setback area, we have provided um two different findings for the commission to consider. Um as you can see, we're asking um environmental document um environmental analysis to ensure that um it's not um impacting the riparian vegetation. And if so, um providing mitigation measures and also um to ensure that there's no physical or legal there's no there's no physically or legally feasible alternatives for the proposed project and um to to avoid and minimize the encroachment into the setback area. Next, please. And uh we also have a list of exemptions in the draft ordinance. Um, as you can see, we have the ones that carried over from the existing ordinance as well as the new ones that have been added since uh last since 2024. And the new one um from the last ordinance is the the valley water flood wall exemption. And also we have um removed the distance or um width of the the trails and public streets um and added a service road there as well. We wanted to just make sure that this is the right approach with the commission and um if there's any modifications you would like to make we would like to know as well. So we have presented it here. Next please. And to address frequently asked questions um we have added this fences slide here. Um just to summarize the urbanized area and bays area fences are allowed within the streamside setback and they're subject to the fences chapter um in the municipal code. Um for the open space and rural area only wildlife friendly fences are allowed within the streamside setback but they can have regular fences that are outside of the streamside setback. So that it we're not just prohibiting all fences altogether within their within the open space and rural area. And um while city doesn't require separate fence permits separately um fences are checked for compliances when they submit for development application and um for those that appro that that received approval from the public works director for um the fences that are located within the slope stability area will pro we'll have the record to for any future um references. Next please. I have mentioned that because um there's some questions about repair and maintenance as well. So we do have uh chapter 1870 that talks about non non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities and for repair and maintenance we do allow normal normal and routine maintenance and some incidental alterations as long as it's not structural alteration or enlargement I think we do allow repair and maintenance. Next, please. And for replacement and enlargement, um we generally do not allow enlargement or um improvements that increases non-compliance. Um but we do um have some specific uh ways to allow a portion of or the entirety of the those um non-complying facilities depending on the conditions. Next, please. Um tonight staff is asking for the PTC to um recommend to the city council adoption of the draft ordinance. Um but also there are other options to consider which is with the modification or another option is to deny the draft ordinance and ask the city council to retain the existing regulations as well. Next please. This concludes um the staff presentation and um staff and consultants are available for any questions. >> Thank you very much Miss Chaw for your hard work in incorporating PTC feedback and incorporating public comment and the public outreach that you've done. Um, so at this juncture I want to make sure that commissioners have a chance to ask questions and please ask questions keeping in mind that you want to ask questions that might be informative for the public. So, I did want to ask one really quick question, which is if I'm interested in ensuring that we minimize impact on the Yester Clark neighborhood, is there one of the alternatives that you have presented, the four alternatives that you've presented in the packet that staff thinks would be kind of most compatible with existing code? Well, the staff recommendation um is using the ephemeral streams. That would be most um our our recommendation just because we have staff visited the neighborhood and we have been informed that most of the streams they have are ephemeral streams. So that if we were to use that particular condition, then it will probably benefit that particular neighborhood as well as potentially PaloAlto Hills. Um it's just that one um disadvantage or something um to consider is that just using the ephemeral um might have unintended conse consequences because there are other parts of the um foothills or hillside that have ephemeral streams as well. Um and they are larger lots like open space zoned um or p public facility zones. Those are like Los Trunkos. Maybe you might have um been informed about certain projects. Those are quite big lots and um it may not need that smaller setback. We are only um proposing this because um the Esther Clark Park and um Palo Alto Hills have a smaller lots compared to the relative area. I will um add to that that if uh the commission wished to just be very specific and not require the biological report that is currently in the draft ordinance and just wanted to state that this neighborhood can use the reduced setback for the urbanized area. that that could be part of the motion just specifying that that area would uh use the urbanized area and we would put an exception in um we we would find appropriate wording similar to the exception that is for the Edgewood um neighbors um along that along that creek um how exactly we would put it in there. But I think you could just say we wish to have this neighborhood use the reduced setback if that was uh what you were getting at. >> Thank you. All right. Uh I saw that Commissioner Templeton had clarifying questions. >> Thank you very much. Um uh Assistant Director Armor is reading my mind at this moment. Um so I appreciate those uh suggestions. Um, do we have a definition of urbanized area other than a geography? At this time, we just use those roadways. That is what I was thinking. Um, thank you for confirming. So, um, one thing we heard at a previous meeting was that some areas were considered urban enough to be subject to certain types of zoning and lot designations and whatnot like at the previous meeting. Um, is that another way that we could look at defining urban areas, areas that are subject to some of these other things like the lot splits? And >> are you referencing different like zoning designations that allow smaller lot sizes? Well, I I'm trying to get you to tell me what you said at our previous meeting that applied to Esther Clark that required us to consider um significantly denser housing there on that uh property under consideration because it was also kind of urbanike. So, I'm just trying to remember what was the terminology you used and would that be suitable for the purposes of uh including these two neighborhoods into the exclusion without getting very weird about it. the the part of the previous discussion that I'm remembering that may tie into what what you're thinking is that uh when we look at the comprehensive plan and the density of residential that is allowed on um on lowdensity residential rather than in the open space district for example it it's a range and so because that designation extends farther you know I think The intent of the comp plan at the time was that you'd use the lower end of the range for some areas and the higher end of the range for others and it was implemented by zoning. But that the way the state law works because the whole range is in the comprehensive plan, it results in um an allowance for housing developers to use the higher density, but it it's applying because this area has already once been previously developed, right? of these two neighborhoods, Esther Clark Park and PaloAlto Hills or whatever. >> If I remember correctly, it had to do with what the comprehensive plan designation was. Uh it may be that uh Attorney Yang may have something more to add to that. >> Let's put it this way. If Attorney Yang does have something to chime in, he'll have a few minutes to to research it if he doesn't if he needs them. So, it's either now or we can come back to you. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner Aken. >> Thank you, Chair. I have a number of technical questions that I'll postpone until after public comment. Uh, the only one I want to ask about now is, uh, to revisit the question that was raised previously about the properties along San Francisco Creek uh, between Marlo and Southwood. So, that question was prompted by the observation that the banks there aren't all hardened. Um, but there are already structures in the slope stability protection area. Uh, so does that raise the concern that we might need to consider another neighborhoodspecific modification to the ordinance to cover that area. Um, the question is whether this has been um examined. Um so in terms of um the already there are some structures within the slope stability protection area. Um as we have mentioned as staff has mentioned in the presentation the the fences do not require any permits whether it's building or or planning but >> they're not just fences they're whole buildings. >> They're structures. >> Yes. And then also there are certain structures that we don't um require permits especially like those um accessory structures um that are smaller than 120 square ft. Um they don't really require any building permits either. So it those are um we're unaware of it. Um but we do um we do get informed once the development application is submitted for that particular uh property and we do check for compliance entirely when those kind of permits are submitted and also we don't do proactive code um violation enforcement but if there is any um complaints received we will probably find out that those um there are structures and we will check whether they are in compliance or in compliance and then move forward. with whatever the remedy um action or violation. Um >> so this is essentially applying 18.70 for non-conforming uses >> non most likely non-complying facilities because the uses are usually single family homes along in San Francisco. Yeah. >> All right. Um, I won't pursue this any further at the moment, but um, you should take a look at a good topographic map of the area, there are big structures there in the stability area. So, um, to the extent that we view existing structures along Edgewood as something worthy of special notice, we might have to view these structures as something worthy of special notice as well. Um and then there may be um especially along the creeks there are certain properties that have um easements from other regulatory agencies like Valley Water that those structures might be from them not uh like the private structures. We we were unaware of it but um that might be one of the condition. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have on that for now. >> Commissioner Peterson. >> Uh so a couple quick questions. One is what is a wildlife friendly fence? How do you define that? >> We have a definition in our um draft ordinance. Uh let me find the packet page for you. And while she's looking for the exact language, um, just generally, it's a fence that could delineate a property line, but and would generally discourage people from coming through, but it is far enough off the ground and low enough and it has openings in between that wildlife, you know, rabbits, deer could jump under or over um, walk through, not be trapped within that space. so it doesn't get in the way of them traveling through their migratory areas or other wildlife areas. >> Okay, that was exactly where I was going. >> Yeah. And the reason that we do allow for some regular fencing on those properties, that is that for example, if you had a pet dog and you wanted to have a space where they were safe and separate from that wildlife um and contained rather than getting out, there might be some portion of the yard that was enclosed by a regular fence. So, just to help me just visualize it, I don't need the exact words, is basically uh say a deer, take a large animal, uh that does not have antlers, would be able to walk through the fence almost always. >> An antlers would have to jump over >> it. It Yeah, if it was a large uh animal like a deer, they would more likely be jumping over. If you're thinking of a fence that has a couple of horizontal bars going across, but otherwise mostly open, you've got the the fence posts, but it's um not too tall. It looked like you've got the code. >> I believe it's 40 in. >> We have at least um 18 in uh from the ground. That's the minimum. So, it can be taller even. >> Okay. Or less. And then the next question is um we have follow up with two extra questions here. One is the um the sections of the creek that doesn't have an embankment. Were we were you able to identify where that is >> or not an embankment but a >> bank? Yeah. Bank. So top of bank is very difficult to obtain in general because uh the streams they meander and changes its locations over time. Um so generally we do ask the property owner or applicant to provide that information for us. We do have the um how to identify and where to measure um in our draft ordinance um but we don't have a data of the location of bank. >> Okay. So we're still just right now we're thinking through it. We know San Franco Creek there's um there's a large bend in the creek over there. Uh and that one I think was one we identified before that doesn't have a top of bank. It's just it it when it floods it kind of goes a large area. >> So we we have a definition for a stream with defined bank which is easy and then undefined or un without defined bank. we um in our draft ordinance that we're going to consider 100year water surface as as the measurement or point of the measurement. So that would be something we will ask the applicant to provide. >> But right now today we don't necessarily know where that is the 100ear flood plane. >> We would have to actually look at the map and other um like FEMA map or flood maps to identify them. >> If we have that available we might want to bring that up later what the the flood map looks like because I didn't see it in the packet. it it wouldn't be showing you um at the detail I think that you're looking for. Um each parcel has a designation as to which flood zone it's in, but I don't think it's getting at the detail in terms of the flood level. >> Okay. And then the the last question is uh if I recall last time uh one of our final pieces of the discussion was about a single lot that's on the other side of Highway 101 along the uh the balance that was within the 150 ft uh flood uh set or setback. Is that still I saw on the on the map it's still showing that's recommended to keep that lot within the 150 foot setback. Is that correct? >> Uh now I'm remembering that discussion. It might have been oversight. Uh we'll definitely include or exclude that parcel. >> Okay. And then uh one last clarifying. Thank you. I got a this is my fourth one. Is um is our is our main focus here on setback to provide space for flood for water flow or is it more for animal flow? >> It it is a multi-pronged right we are balancing multiple priorities. There's um an interest in um the wildlife in in the hills right the wildlife fencing. there is um an interest in having space for the riparian vegetation. Uh and then there is an interest in slope stability and capacity for flooding. >> Okay. >> And so it's it's all four of those things. Um and the fact that the they intersect in that area around these creeks. Uh and then recognizing that as city government, we're looking to try and find a balance between that and appropriate requirements for individual private property. Um, in addition to that, going back to your previous question about a map in terms of, um, the flood zone, uh, we have somebody from public works who's online, and I believe she is working to pull up a map that may be helpful to that, um, either now or during the future conversation. >> Okay. Thank you. That gives me the the the ground rules. >> Uh, Councelor Yang has raised his hand. >> Yes. Uh, thank you. Just to get back to Commissioner Templeton's question, I believe it was basically along the lines of um when we were discussing Old Trace, one of the things uh staff uh stated was that this was within an urbanized area um and you know why is that considered urban in that context u but perhaps not in this context. Um so the answer is uh for um state density bonus law and for uh the AB130 SQA exemption uh there is a definition of urbanized area that's uh set forth in this in the state law and it's based on the US census districts uh you know whether this US census bureau considers this area urban or not um and almost all of Palo Alto even the areas that we would consider colloquially to be more rural are considered urban by the US Census District. >> Thank you very much. And would you say uh because we're clarifying questions, I'm going to ask it this way. Would you say that using the term urbanized area in this context is ambiguous at best and perhaps we should specify something more clear? Um yeah and you know we are in this this uh ordinance is using those terms urban and rural more colloquially. Uh but since they do have they are terms of art in land use um it might be a good idea to if we could use arthosaurus there. >> Thank you very much. We'll get back to that after public comment. Thank you. >> Thank you Commissioner Templeton. Um all right. I don't see other lights for clarifying questions. So I have one. I would love it if so my recollection is that and I think it was listed in the packet as well or perhaps several public comment letters in it draw poll the last time this item was brought to the PTC the PTC was um sympathetic to the concerns of Edgewood neighbors regarding fencing for security purposes and the PTC voted in a straw poll that we should allow those fences um even if they're in stoop slope stability area because those fences for the most part already exist. And so yet staff has made the recommendation or as as currently drafted, the ordinance continues to disallow fences unless um homeowners go through a process um within the slope stability area. So could you just elaborate a little bit more on staff's rationale for that? So in addition to what the intent of the ordinance update is to um um protect and preserve the riparian habitat, but we also would like to continue protect the the stream um bank integrity and um from erosion and flood as well. So um the slope stability protection area requirement is consistent with the the regional document um from the valley water as well. They do have this requirement. the distance may be a little bit different. Um but and and they might have multiple distances depending on the type of um streams. But they do have this particular requirements because they know that that the streams actually change its locations and it also that particular um area provides um for them to actually provide uh do um maintenance as well when there's a flood events or something um natural disaster related to water. Um so this is something that we're kind of saving um in order for us to prepare for that that particular event. And also this allows um for the city staff, the public works engineering staff to coordinate with other regional um agencies to ensure that there wouldn't be um a lot of issues um with their regulations as well as our local requirements to find that middle ground um to provide options for the applicants. So it's it's more of a flexibility when we're looking at it because we're not prohibiting altogether. We're not saying that you can't have it, but you can have it as long as you get um you go through the process and as well as um it's just that we are not allowing as close as like on top of the bank. So that was our our intent because there's some safety concerns with the structures that are built close to the creeks and streams. So we wanted to ensure um that we continue that requirements so we prevent those um natural disasters or unintended consequences. So, um, having visited the Edgewood neighborhood essentially has a like every single house has fences and so we're not preventing anything and those would all be grandfathered in presumably. Um, so is I understand that if somebody were to develop, you know, let's say they're remodeling and then they apply for a building permit, that's when we would notice, we the city would notice if somebody had a fence there that had not gone through an exceptions process to be specifically approved. And so I want to understand how burdensome that exceptions process is like what fees are required in what time frame would people uh you know what what is that? I I was going to invite um Michelle Jeremias if you are available to join us um via Zoom to talk to public works concerns on this issue for slope stability. >> Sure. Thank you. Um and I can answer uh needed questions related to FEMA as well um in part. So the slope stability is basically a measure that over time um the creek in particular SS Creek has migrated. It has shifted several feet over the last hundreds of years. So we are looking to provide a stability along the channel banks and it's maybe some of the um walls that was mentioned earlier that are in the creek today. Uh what we're trying to do is allow the conveyance of flow over time. Um, having the slope stability allows us for the flexibility in a later date as the creek migrates and shifts so that we can protect human life and um, uh, housing. So that we are able to at certain point at a later date if a key continues to migrate and the creek erodess that we have the means to not only uh provide some stability at a later date if necessary like another project uh a larger regional project or also to prevent anybody from building something that could potentially be flooded out during a significant storm event. We're we're seeing a lot of these storms in recent years that are meeting the creek's capacity. The creek cannot convey a 100redyear uh storm. It it has a limited capacity and the slope stability allows us to provide means for uh safety um um life and property in the course of as a creek uh changes over time. >> Okay. Thank you. Not quite sure that answered my question, but at this point I think it's best to move on to public comment. Uh so Mr. Tivera, could you tell me how many public comments we have? >> Um yes, through the chair, uh we have uh 14 requests to speak. Uh two of those are groups representing five or more individuals. >> Okay. So I think we will continue to allow the groups the standard is it 10 minutes 15 minutes >> I think 10 minutes is what we've used >> I think it's 10 minutes yeah so I'm going to continue to allow the groups 10 minutes but I'm going to ask that the individual speakers limit their comments to two minutes so that uh we can do this in a timely fashion and if somebody has already shared the same sentiments before you um feel free to just say you share those sentiments and uh seed your time. Thank you. >> All right. Um our first speaker is Daniel H representing a group of 10. >> We have a slide, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. You can switch to the first. Can you all hear me? >> Y there we go. Um commissioners, chair, thank you. Uh, this feels like dja vu. Um, my name is Daniel Hansen. I'm here on behalf of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance. We support this ordinance in general. We have four requests for changes. I'll cover three. My colleague will cover one. Basically, um, we've demonstrated at Nauseium and over time and to the city council about the unique nature of our neighborhood and the requirement for security uh, for us in terms of safety. Speaking of safety, um the three things we ask for in this in this discussion are new fencing should not require approval. Um the 5- foot fence setback should not apply and ornamental plantings should be allowed within backyards. Um, we're actually kind of frustrated and shocked that we're sitting here because these all went through uh approvals before, including straw polls and u and the staff did not follow the clear direction of the commission. Uh, next slide. Edgewood is a unique area as we've explained. The property lines run to the middle of the creek. So, half the creek is privately owned. Um, on the other side is East PaloAlto, which has no barriers to enter the creek. This is the the problem that we face. So, anybody can just walk into the creek. The creek is dry most of the time of the year. It only has flowing water once one or two months. Um and this has resulted in increased burglary, theft, trespass, other crimes. Um in addition, in the last few years, encampments have arisen. Uh these bring trash, human waste, prop stolen property, fire, noise, and nuisance. The city council earlier this year recognized our concerns and our security issues and granted an exemption for our neighborhood with respect to the lighting ordinance. We ask you to do the same. Next slide. Access to the creek. These are pictures from the east PaloAlto side. Most of it you can just walk right in. Next slide. Or there's a short wall to jump over. Next slide. Same with this wall. Next slide. What results is people walking in the creek. So this is a trespasser that's private property is on. Next slide. These are images of encampments that we've uh run across. In front of you right here on the in the foreground is the uh top of the concrete uh embankment that uh runs along the back of our yards. Next slide. More pictures of encampments. Next slide. More pictures of encampments. Next slide. This picture was taken a week ago. These encampments are not going away. Next slide. Uh, this is what happens when it rains. All that pollution, garbage, everything comes down from these areas and flows its way right down into the bay. It's terrible. Next slide. Fire is one of the issues that we worry about. These encampments have fires. Uh, obviously the creek is surrounded by a lot of brush and trees. Uh, one lost ember could really cause a disaster. something that we have to pay a lot of vigilance to in the neighborhood. Next slide. Uh some recent uh problems that we've faced. There's a burglary. You may have seen this in the newspaper. This was a uh burglary on um Edgewood Drive on the Creek Side. Someone broke the lock on the back of the fence. Came in, stole tools, not once but twice. Next slide. This was a month ago. This is what a burglary looks like on Edgewood from the back of the creek. break your window. In this case, they stole jewelry. Next slide. There's been violence in the crime or violence in the creek. This was a a golf club attack where one person attacked another and got arrested for attempted murder. Next slide. Trespass. This is one of the issues that we face. These are these are pictures taken from a security camera at a home along Edgewood. Uh, this individual hopped over the back of the fence, walked through the backyard, jumped over the front fence like he owned the place. I ask you, how many of you have to deal with strangers walking from your backyard through your front yard? I hope I hope you don't. Next slide. This is a heat map of crime in PaloAlto. Um, this concept that crime and nuisance is the same everywhere in Palo Alto just simply isn't true. So, this indicates that the yard we're talking about is rated a D. Um, and if you want to want to learn more about nuisances, talk about our friends and neighbors that have RVs in their front of their yard. Next slide. Out Edgewood itself is disadvantaged because of the current ordinance. It was passed in 2007 um as part of a large package of zoning changes. No notices were given out. There was no community meetings. This thing did two main things. is one, it took away lot area for purposes of calculating the size of buildings, a material change. It also added this 5-ft gap which nobody knows where it came from. Uh this gap which is now turned into a corridor. So if you put up a fence between our house and the uh and the top of the bank, people walk down it. This is a taking this is putting in a public easement on private property. We should be compensated for it. Um, and it's reduced the market value. Yet, we're still required to pay property taxes on the entirety of the property, right? We're also liable for all of it. If somebody slips in that area and hits their head on the bank, guess who's responsible, right? So, if you're going to create a corridor, you have to give us the ability to prevent other people from coming into it. Next slide. This is what happens when you have a gap between your uh between the bank and your back fence. People fill it. In this case, uh, encampments. Next slide. More encampments, more garbage. Next slide. Fence tres, uh, gap trespassers. These are kids walking in the gap. Here they're uh, taking oranges. Next slide. Another trespasser walking through the gap. This picture was taken two days ago. This is not going away. Next slide. So, what do you do? You put fences up. This is a fence that's literally on the bank. Prevents people from coming in. This is what you do. This fence has been here for decades. This is on top of the bank. You can see what you're seeing here. What looks like concrete, what looks like sandbags are actually concrete. This entire embankment is all concrete. It's been that way for 70 years. This is not a stability issue. There is no movement. It hasn't moved in 70 years along our area at least. Next slide. more concrete banks along San Francisco Creek. Uh this is not a natural pristine environment that deserves some sort of environmental huge uh ordinance on top of it. Just doesn't deserve it. Next slide. So what we're asking uh new fencing should not require director public works approval or a slope stability study. The straw poll already approved this last time. Security is our is the number one issue here is security. It is the city's number one duty to its residents to protect their security. Uh Creek banks are solid been there forever. The 5- foot setback from the bank should also not apply. That was also agreed last time. This gap allows trespass and encampments. It's also a taking of private property. We should not have to have to deal with people walking through that regardless of who they are. Next slide. staff has commented that uh new fencing could be coordinated with other with other authorities like Valley Water to Flood JPA. That's naive and it's unfair. Valley Water has a private easement. It's contractual. It cannot be enforced by the city. The city has no authority to enforce the Valley Water easement. It's private. And in 2025, Valley Water uh passed an ordinance banning uh encampments based on violent threats against their employees. I was at that meeting. The stories that those uh poor folks told the employees were scary. It was awful. Um they get it. They understand what we're dealing with. Um the JPA's authority is likewise limited by contract. It only has authority to do what are called capital projects. They have to be agreed and they have to be funded. There's one now, the the Reach 2 project, the funding of which is in serious doubt. Has nothing to do with fences. Um, our security issue, it's immediate. It's right now we're talking about a fence. This is not an ADU. This is not a building, you know, this is not a swimming pool. It's a fence. It's security fence. If Valley Water or the JPA or anybody else has an issue with a fence, they can come talk to us. Come deal with it. Whether it's existing or a new fence, the ability to exclude others is the number one property right. Next slide. There's the ask. Follow the city council and make these exceptions like were previously approved. Next slide. Terms of ornamental plantings. This one should be easy. Um within backyards, people should be able to plant what they want. The existing ordinance does not prevent that. Existing ordinance says the only thing you can't do is non-native invasive plant species. Next slide. This is a screenshot of backyards along Edgewood portion of Edgewood. You can see that the uh backyards are all the same. I mean, this is urban area. People's backyards are the same. They should be treated the same. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Next speaker, please. Our next speaker is uh Jeff W representing group of five. All right. Um good evening uh Chair Chang and commissioners. I'm Jeff Watt. Um I'm a resident and a property owner in the Esther Clark Park neighborhood. So, I'd like to start first by um thanking the the planning staff um for the hard work on the ordinance. And I especially like to thank Miss Ch Miss Cha. Um she visited our neighborhood multiple times. Uh she listened to all the the resident neighbor concerns and actually saw the on the ground conditions of our our creek, which I think was very important to understanding uh what kind of protection we need. Uh so we really appreciate that effort. Um, please go to the next slide. So, um, before I, um, get into the specifics of our creek, I wanted to step back for a moment and talk about how our creek compares to other creeks in South Powaltto. Um, there's, I think, somewhat misleading information that was in the existing conditions report. I think that was unintentional, but it does leave the impression that all streams west of Foothill, which is where our neighborhood is, are natural streams, large natural streams in a kind of like a wildland area that require large setbacks. And that's really not the case. So, these photographs um I took um a couple of months ago. This was in the middle of or late February. This was after a pretty major rainstorm that we had in the middle of February where we had a total of 4.6 6 ines of rain over a 5-day period. So, I went out one week after that rain ended and I took these pictures. So, this is the the creeks in in South Powaltto. The one on the left is the one in our neighborhood. It's a tributary of the Baron Creek. It actually does not have a name, so I named it myself. I called it the Esther Clark Park Creek. The one in the middle is the Madero Creek. Um, that one I took um on the bike path, the Bullpark bike path, uh, looking down into the creek. And the one on the right is the Adobe Creek and I took that on the bike path that goes to Los Altos. That's taken from the bridge over the creek right by the Ultima Cemetery. So, um you know, this shows that there's really significant differences between these creek creeks. The one on on the left, which is our creek, I'm showing this right near the intersection of Mesa Avenue and Oakill Avenue. Um this is actually showing a basin that's been created artificially there. This creek is highly modified. 60% of it flows through underground pipes both in Los Altos Hills and in our neighborhood. The source is a storm sewer discharge out of Los Altos Hills which comes out of a pipe in the Esther Clark Park. Um so this this basin here is created artificially to allow the water to go into an underground drainage pipe which goes underneath Mesa Avenue there and through part of the neighborhood and it steps down there. Those are concrete steps that are about 2 ft tall each so that it doesn't create erosion as the stream goes down into the pipe. Um so this you know this creek is is quite modified um not natural. It's dry almost all the time. The lots that we have along this creek are typically around 1 acre but up to about 1.3 acres. So in the middle we have Madero Creek. This is a very significant creek that it's greater than 10 ft deep where I took that picture. It's flowing. There's significant flow um in this area. This is in Baron Park. There's fairly large lots along the creek. Actually, they're bigger lots than in our neighborhood, up to 2 acres. Um and then on the right, the Adobe Creek. Again, this is a very deep creek. It's over 10 ft deep at that point. You can see it's flowing. There's a lot of water. Uh it's natural. And there's also pretty large lots along this creek in the Miranda neighborhood and the Green Acres neighborhoods. Uh lots up to 6 acres along the creek. So, um, our creek is actually less natural, more modified, uh, much drier than these other creeks that are flowing on the other side of Foothill Expressway. And yet, we're being asked um to have larger setback, larger slope stability area um, in the original ordinance. I know it's been modified now with a new proposal, which we appreciate. Um, so the next slide um, demonstrates the ephemeral nature of our creek. So you heard Miss Chaw speak to this. So the definition of ephemeral which is pretty widely accepted is down on the bottom there. So it's a creek that flows only during and for a short time after rain events. And that short time you it can range from few hours to a few days. It kind of depends on the the um the amount of rain and the duration of the rain. So this is exactly how our creek behaves. So I I took the sequence of photos. This is in December. There was a fairly large rain event back then. It was a total of 3 days. Um the amount of rain that fell in that event was 3.4 in. So before the rain event, that's the image on the left. The creek was completely dry and you can actually see there's leaf litter completely covering the bottom of the creek because there had never been water flowing in there for weeks and weeks. Um during the rain event, it actually fills up in that basin because all of the debris flows down the creek when it starts raining and backs up at the grate that goes into the underground pipe. Um it doesn't stop the flow into the pipe. It just kind of dams it there a little bit. Um the the one that's second to the right, this is one day after the rain have ended. The rain ended. So you can see that that um damned water's all gone away. There's a little trickle of water flowing there. You can't tell. And then the one on the far right is 2 days after the rain ended and it's completely stopped flowing. It's drying out at that point. So this is the textbook definition of an ephemeral creek. Um next slide. Um this speaks to um the fact that ephemeral creeks need smaller or don't need big setbacks. So they they can uh they deserve smaller setbacks. This uh table here is actually a snapshot taking out taken out of the Santa Clara um valley water protection uh collaborative guidelines. They have a a chapter chapter 3 on the guidelines and standards. And this defines the recommended protection areas for different types of streams. Um, so you can see on the the right here is what's recommended for an ephemeral stream, it's 10 to 15 ft. Uh, for a stream that's natural with little or no hardening, it would be 20 to 25 ft. And then if it's an engineered system, which means it's in a usually in a concrete channel, it would be 15 ft. So feal streams according to the collaborative guidelines need this the, you know, the smallest setback, the least protection. Now, just to be fair, there is a provision in here that says if you have a large lot, you may want to add 5T. And that large lot definition is a lot that exceeds 10,000 square ft. So, you know, you may add 5 ft there for a large lot. So, our neighbors in Santa Clara County, Lostos Hills, Los Altos, Mountain View, they've all adopted these guidelines. This is what they use. And PaloAlto uses this as well. This is on the PaloAlto website. That's where I got this. Um there are no other guidelines for riparian buffer or you know any kind of additional setback besides this. That's the only guideline and standard which is recommended uh by this collaborative. So the current 20ft slope stability area we have which is the only setback we have is actually at the high end of the recommended range when you add the additional 5 ft for the large lot. But, you know, we we do believe in general, I would I think I speak for many neighbors, not all, but we believe that it would be a reasonable compromise to go to 25 ft um to um increase the protection of the stream. But in doing that, we would really like to see objective language. The way that the ordinance is written now, it's rather vague. It it says we can use the urbanized setback for an ephemeral stream. It doesn't explicitly say that our stream is ephemeral. And then it also says that we may use the urbanized setback. It doesn't say we can use it. So we would like to see objective language that guarantees that for our neighborhood. And I know that staff has included four alternatives. Um the first two are not really objective. So alternative three and four are objective. That that would be fine. Or just designating us as an urbanized area is also fine. I think we've heard the discussion about that earlier. Um, as you know, 4103 Old Trace qualified for a secret exemption under AB130 precisely because it was considered an urban infill in an urbanized area. So, I think that's fair and we can go to the theorus and pick out a different word if we don't like that urbanized word, but I think that that's it would be fair to um define our neighborhood as qualifying as being part of the urbanized area of the city. Um, next slide. Um so just to wrap up um you know the reality is that the creek in the Esther Clark Park neighborhood is ephemeral. It deserves small setbacks. Really it deserves the smallest setback in the in the entire city. Um, so we request um objective language to guarantee the 25- ft setback for the Esther Clark Park neighborhood and as I said preferring alternative three or four which are really the only objective alternatives or just designating Esther Clark Park neighborhood as part of the urbanized area. And then finally I just want to mention that I think we need to be careful about unintended consequences here. I don't think that going to 25 ft is going to create any unintended consequences, but just in general, applying uh or imposing these large setbacks and applying more regulations on neighborhoods like ours just make it more attractive for developers to come in under something like the density bonus law. And these are really, really prime targets. 1acre lot that you can chop up into 10 pieces. You can put on 16 units. You can exceed 50% of the mullen density, qualify for SEO exemption under AB130, wave all the rules, and you would certainly be able to wave this 25 ft setback rule because there's no safe um health and safety issue there. So, I just want to put that out there as a caution. Um yeah, thank you for your attention. >> Thank you, Mr. Watt. Next speaker, please. >> Our next speaker is Jeff S, followed by Robert C. Good afternoon. Um, my name is Robert Cesy. I reside at 4167 Old Adobe Road. I split a lot up from my parents which is now 4179 and it was originally 940 Old Trace Road. I moved to this area in 1956 when I was 6 years old when it was Santa Clara County and Losas Hills was still semi-ural. We had two horses, a well, and a and a drain drain field. I watched the area change from an orchards and open land into a fully developed urban neighborhood with utilities, roads, sewers, infrastructure, and 1 acre residential parcels. I understand and support reasonable environmental protection, but opposed to expanding the Creek SE back from 25 ft to 150 ft because it ignores the actual history and reality of the creek system. This creek is not a pristine natural waterway. The city itself altered it decades ago when old adobe road was constructed. The co the culvert was lowered substantially which accelerated erosion through Esther Clark Park. My father who worked for the US Geological Survey warned the city at the time that would happen. His concerns were ignored. The city later tried to rep tried rip raff and eventually had to build a check dam to stop the erosion. A sewer was also placed directly down the creek corridor. My neighbor opposite my placed the creek into a culvert. An additional runoff patterns changed drastically after orchards and loss hills were removed and the drainage was reduced into a channel. Much of the flow today is storm drainage and the urban runoff. In many periods, the creek is dry. The the runoff on my roof goes into Adobe Road into a storm drain that empties into the creek. So, my concern is this. Why why impose a blanket 150 ft restriction now in a longstanding residential properties in the already urbanized area? This could significantly reduce property rights, property value, and prevent homeowners from making reasonable improvements to their home. Please leave the 30-foot restriction rather than 150 broad restrictions designed for undeveloped natural habitat. Please consider the historical content, the infrastructure already placed in this corridor and the impacts on residents being being adopting such a large expansion. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker, please. >> Our next speaker is Jeff S. >> Go ahead. >> Uh, first slide. >> Oh, could we stop the timer while we're pulling up the slides? Thank you, Chair Chang, members of the commission. Uh, two points. Uh, first point is something left over uh, from my c next slide. Sorry. Uh, from my colleague Daniel Hansen. So, this is in regard to the exception to the streamside setback requirements on packet page 70 H1B. U, the no feasible alternative finding. Uh we think that a more straightforward finding asking whether a project does not unreasonably impair the streamside environment would better serve our urban creeks. Uh the problem with the no feasible alternatives findings is that it evaluates design process rather than environmental outcomes. So a project that substantially encroaches into the setback but successfully documents the infeasibility of alternatives gets approved. a project that barely grazes the setback that that faces a plausible redesign option gets denied. So the no feasible alternative finding measures an applicant's ability to document infeasibility more than it measures uh environmental impact. Uh, one more point with respect to the 5- foot uh, fence setback. Some uh, confusion or ambiguity about where that comes from. And it arose in 2006 2007 with the existing ordinance. And there's speculation that it comes from the water district. But a data point that may be of interest is that in 2002 2003, a flood wall was built behind our house. That is the first 1,000 line feet from West Bayshore. And the water district said, "We are going to own this facility and therefore we need to be able to maintain it and you homeowners, the first 15 homes, you guys need to give us a permanent easement for a maintenance corridor which they required to be 3 ft. So just as a data point, I wanted to bring that up. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker, please." Our next speaker is Ellen S. followed by Mark N. >> Hi, my name is Ellen Chay and I live on um Mockingbird Lane. I'm the PAN representative for Aster Clark Park. Um, I was going to say some other things, but I forgot to uh make sure someone's cards go out again. So, I'm going to say what they were going to say instead. Um, which is about the huge impact on um property value for these people in Esther Clark Park. Um, in fact, the the man that was wanted to speak, his uh family has several lots, but they would be consumed um 75%. and they would have to and you know the props also they were thinking of trying to divide up thing that it makes it basically so they uh they can't see a way to be able to sell them and um figure out you know what they're going to do. Uh they had an a realtor was going to come and also talk about the um property value loss which um I went through and added up approximately for all the people affected how much their percentage and an approximate value of all that real estate um assuming you can't sell it easily um which you wouldn't be able to. and we came up with well over $und00 million of value, which is a pretty significant uh taking. So, it'd be lovely if that doesn't happen. And um I think otherwise you're there would be uh consequences in the future of people trying to uh take some sort of legal recourse about that. My house is not affected, but I would I would probably do that if I wasn't able to use my property in a way or maybe find a developer to buy my property instead if if that was easier. If that was easier for me, okay, which I'd rather not do, but anyway. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> Our next speaker is Mark N. Good evening. Uh my name is Mark Nadim. I live in the Palo Alto Hills neighborhood. Some call it the uh the forgotten neighborhood. Uh about uh a couple months ago actually I heard about the u planning department working on the ordinance for protecting the streams in Palo Alto. Uh I wasn't aware of uh all the work that has been done the prior two years. Um the ordinance affects properties west of Foothill Expressway which describes the area west of I280 as rural. Um current zoning of Palo Alto Hills is uh RE which is a residential estate. A lot sizes in Palo Alto Hills are about an acre give and take little you know a little bit higher a little bit smaller most of it. uh unbuildable actually. Uh such setback will make it uh almost impossible to rebuild homes when a new buyer wants to tear down an existing one. The these homes are some of them are 60 years old or 50 years old. So um uh having a you know a setback of uh 150 feet is not going to work. I mean some of the loss has are less than 150 ft as their widest location. So this will negatively impact home sales in in the in this neighborhood. Uh as for the description of rural and if anyone hears uh the word rural they will immediately think a neighborhood which has where the homes have septic tanks narrow streets that are sloped to for so for rainwater to drain to ditches. U Palo Alto Hills actually as a matter of fact is connected to the city sewer system. We have street curbs and rain drain system that's just like any other uh neighborhood in Palo Alto. We also have street lights like any other neighborhood in Palo Alto. >> Uh reading the staff report uh it seemed that alternate alternative 4 is the most reasonable option to consider for this ordinance. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker please. >> Our next speaker is Cindy O followed by Shaunie K. Thank you. Um my name is Cindio Gorman and I'm u grew up in PaloAlto and I'm a real estate agent in the area. I recently sold three homes in the um PaloAlto Hills and Esther Park Clark neighborhood. Um, I think the 150 ft setback seems unreasonable to accomplish the objectives as they're outlined in 25 ft seems adequate. And I don't understand how it would be reasonable to have a six times the setback in an area just blocks away uh from a neighborhood with 25 ft setbacks. Um, I spoke recently to today to an appraiser who less than a year ago did an appraisal on one of the properties affected um by this draft ordinance and um he appraised it at $5 million. it'll be affected by 75% um the building envelope and he said easily it would drop the value to 3 million or less and it would also greatly limit um on all these properties what people could do with ADUs which is a state given opportunity you know in 2020 that as um Commissioner Templeton was talking about is very highly valued and your whole conversation is right you'd be taking those opportunities away from homeowners in uh these neighborhoods. Also, I have seen the importance of the value of these properties to homeowners. Some people have lived here 30, 40, 50 years. It's their most prized um asset and it's what they can leave to their children or it's what they use to for their retirement and to pay for their aging health care. Um and you're basically taking that from them. It's I don't understand how it can even be considered. Um, also I see young people who stretch to buy properties in order to live in very 60-year-old homes, as the other gentleman said, just to secure the land because they know in three, four, five, seven years they'll be able to build a nice home on that property. And you're taking that opportunity opportunity away from them, too. And they'll pay the full property taxes. They don't really have a means of even reducing their property taxes. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> Our next speaker is Shaunie K, followed by Raymond G. >> Thank you. My name is Shaunie Klein House. I'm a resident and I am um the environmental advocate for the Santa Clair Valley Bird Alliance and I am not speaking as part of the U Parks and Recreation Commission. I'm a commissioner, but I don't speak for the commission. I did my PhD on ecos bioysics of stream ecosystems. This is close to my heart and I am acutely aware of the impacts of development on what happens downstream and sometimes upstream when you don't develop with nature in mind. Having said that, that's already happened. So I would like to say a few words about the alternative that stuff proposes. alternative one which is um is unacceptable I think to the people here that came to speak about this their um need for smaller setbacks and ne neither is alternative two. Alternative one regarding the ephemeral streams that would be extremely harmful to to exactly the places we want to protect up in the open space. So please don't go with uh one um three is problematic because moving the delineation from uh foothills to 280 uh would expose some parts of Matadero Creek which are pretty natural right now and really are important to potential future changes that are not going to be good for that creek. Alternative four, uh, if you're looking for a compromise that will have the residents who spoke here, that's the most reasonable one if it applied cautiously. I'm not sure how you would trigger that narrower uh um setback and how that would be uh created, but this would help establish Esther Clark and Palatoto Hills as a place that can use uh shorter or smaller setbacks. So if you are going to go that way, I think four is probably the most appropriate. >> Thank you. Next speaker. Our next speaker is Raymond G. >> Uh, good afternoon commissioners. My name is Raymond Gones and I'm a resident in Palo Alto. Um, I just ask the commission take in the nature of nature and preserve nature at its finest course. Um, protecting money in the interest of homeowners. I understand what their interest is. I understand your concerns with neighboring Palatoto. But um, reaching out to the community by Edgewood and seeing how you can help your neighbor, I think is a key principle. If you're religious in the Bible, then love thy neighbor and we shouldn't discriminate against our neighbor because our neighbor happens to be east Palato. So they did adopt our name this east of us. Um I think nature preserving nature preserving the creeks preserving our waterways is first and foremost and should be at the foremost of this commission. I'm saying mines not with the interest of the of property owners. I'm saying it is nature that we built the property on. We're we're nature's I'm saying um renters. We're borrowing from nature. We got to preserve it for much as I can. so our kids kids could enjoy the same nature that we see. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> Our next speaker is Lawrence F on Zoom. Lawrence, you may now speak. >> All right. My name is Lawrence Fong. I'm a resident of uh Esther Clark. uh uh and I just wanted to speak as a a homeowner whose house actually would know actually sits within the 150 ft uh setback. So when we talk about these abstractions um our property is actually the reality in that we would not be able to rebuild a house on our on our property and so this 150 ft setback would have you know significant impacts has been discussed you know I think a couple of points other points that haven't been um touched upon is you know there's been a lot of discussion about how burdensome some of the um um processes may be like in the discussions with regard regards to the ADUs. I think um you know as we go went through the discussion for this there was a description about an exception process including getting a biologist to review um a stream. If you're um looking to make something incredibly burdensome, you'd really want to formulate um these types of um processes because they are extremely arbitrary. And so um you know first of all I think um you know we all are are understanding how this is an urbanized area but I think the other component is really not to make it so burdensome that um uh it's it's impossible for us to actually um uh use our properties and I'll stop there. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next speaker please. >> Our next speaker is Vyro M. Vyro you may now speak. Bro, are you there? You may now speak. >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Hi, good evening. Veryl Metha. I'm a partner at Manat Phelps and Phillips. I represent Tom and Kristen Fountain who are Palo Alto residents and home owners residing in Crescent Park along Edgewood Drive. Uh we're we're happy to see that the uh exemption uh is for single family residents on Edgewood is still in the ordinance. We object however to any slope stability protection area requirement for new fencing. As noted in the agenda packet, the PTC supported residents requests for the Edgewood neighborhood to be exempted from the entire stream corridor protection ordinance regulations including the stoopes slopes ability protection area requirements. Now, uh the PTC's prior support uh and recommendation has been ignored. This should be a non-starter for the reasons that Mr. Hansen and others uh outlined earlier. Uh this should this is also a health, safety, and security risk uh for the residents as previously outlined. But I also want to emphasize that you know the exemptions that were just discussed only apply to fences and only seek to avoid a burdensome approval process. Uh we submitted letters uh in support of this. So these comments are written as well, but Commissioner Chang asked the right question uh earlier this evening and I don't think the reasons provided by staff outweigh the serious concerns of my clients and their neighbors. The PTC's prior straw pull should hold here. Again, uh I won't repeat uh some of the prior comments as to the uh 5-ft setback and and ornamental plings, but I agree with the uh comments of Mr. Hansen. And I do want to uh emphasize that, you know, if this gets passed, if this gets passed as it's constructed, it would effectuate a taking and the city can't effectually effectively excise a taking in this way. Uh and especially when homeowners merely seek to protect their properties or their families through the ask being made here this evening. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker. >> Our next speaker is Janet L. Janet, you may now speak. >> Good evening. This is Janet Lee calling. I live on Edgewood Drive and um mainly want to um express my agreement with my neighbors who've spoken before me and u Mr. Meta as well on behalf of my neighbors. Um, I I'm I must say I'm shocked that we're here again after the straw polls and the commission has already expressed their support of this. And so, um, I think there's a procedural issue there, but the reality is that this is something that affects our homes and our neighborhood very deeply. Um, I often can hear voices from the back of my house of people hanging out on the back of the creek. I can't see them because I do have a fence, which is a very important um protection for, you know, having people coming over the fence and coming into my yard. So um there's a certain sense of security there but uh certainly um having the setback and the slope you know protection there um having an exemption for those of us who live directly along um the creek I think is has been shown to be supported already both by the neighbors and by the commission as well. So, thank you for your good work and hopefully um we'll get this done this time and not be back here again. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker, please. >> Our next speaker is Joan W. Joan, you may now speak. >> Joan, are you there? I'm going to suggest that we move on to our last speaker and then after um that speaker we can circle back and see if Joan reappears. >> Our next speaker is Dash Lash. You may now speak. >> Hello, my name is Dasha Leeds. I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club LMA Pria chapter. This ordinance has been reviewed by the planning and transportation commission since 2024 and each time it's been reviewed the requirements have become less and less strong. At this time, in most of the city's urban area, only a 25 ft setback is proposed. For natural streams, a 25 ft setback is narrower than the minimum setback that is mandatory in the city of San Jose for comparison, which is 30 ft from top of bank, even in downtown, and 100 ft elsewhere in the city. Palo Alto staff acknowledges setbacks larger than 25 ft would better protect riparian habitat, stream stability, and flood resilience. And this is how we lose our creeks. This is how we lose our riparian corridors piece by piece over time. So the ordinance before you tonight represents the absolute bare minimum 25 ft for most of the city's urban area, but the ordinance still includes some protections that are meaningful in the hillsides and bays where the larger 150 ft setback is sometimes applied. So we hope you vote to move this ordinance forward to the city council for their consideration with the recommendation to adopt. If you do wish to make any changes to the ordinance tonight, please select alternative 4 and add the re residential estate zoning district as the trigger for a reduced setback. Thanks for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. Can we move back to Joan to see if Joan is available? >> Joan, are you there? >> Okay. Uh Jones does not seem to be there. So, at this time, I'm going to close public comment. Thank you very much to every member of the public for coming during this, you know, coming and waiting for us to go through the last item. We really value your comments. Um, there's somebody else who's coming up, but I'm not quite sure what's going on here. I don't know if this is >> Joan is my sister, and I would like to speak on behalf of our family. >> Sure, let's go ahead and do that. Good evening. My name is Lewis Wakland. My family has owned three parcels on Manuela Court for more than 50 years and I currently live on the property. Two of our parcels are directly affected by the proposed 150 ft streamside setback ordinance. I am speaking tonight because I do not believe that the very serious financial and emotional impact on affected property owners has been adequately considered. The parcel that my family owns at 4243 Manuela Court is undeveloped and approximately 1 acre in size. Based on my review of the proposed setback maps, roughly 75% or more of that parcel would effectively become unbuildable under the proposed 150 ft setback. When combined with the existing city and county restrictions, very little practical building area would remain. This property was professionally appraised less than a year ago at a fair market value estimate of 5 million. I have since been informed that the value loss, if the setback is imposed, would be several million dollars, perhaps more. And other real estate experts have told me that they believe that the loss value would amount to significantly more than several million dollars. It is worth noting that there are other land owners in the Esther Clark area with undeveloped parcels that would be affected as much or more than mine, including some whose land would be nearly or completely covered by the proposed setback, which would render any development impossible as a result. At the same time, the actual environmental benefit in my particular situation appears extremely limited. The water course adjacent to my property is by any objective standard an ephemeral stream that flows only in direct response to rainfall and does not maintain continuous flow during dry periods. In addition, approximately 80% of the relevant boundary between the water course and my property line already contains an existing house, swimming pool, fencing, and mature landscaping between the parcel and the water course. >> Thank you. This concludes your time. I cannot finish. >> No, we have a twominut limit. But thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much to everybody. And you know, in the interest of maintaining fairness, that's why we cut it off at the stated time limit. Um, okay. So, at this time, we're closing public comment. And, uh, commissioners, it's 8:54. I think we're going to take a break, a brief break. So let's come back at 9:05. Five. Okay, welcome back everyone. I think everyone's back. Commissioners, are we ready? Okay, so um again, thank you to the members of p of the public for coming. And at this time, we're going to have commission discussion. So, please uh light it up if you guys have comments. Okay, first Commissioner Templeton, then Commissioner Peterson. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I really appreciate all the people from the public who came out to share their thoughts, especially those who came again. Um, I want to just echo the sentiment that some of these things we have already discussed and agreed upon. If we all still agree upon, perhaps we can move on. Um, As far as the alternatives, um I really wish we could find a coherent strategy that would incorporate all of these developed areas without incorporating areas of exception that are wild still. Um and I am hoping that uh staff may have a suggestion on that now that we've had chance to reflect on uh the kind of grouping. I think geographic grouping is is possibly not helpful um because it can get out of hand and we can we can overmatch um as as we've heard from our community members as well. So, uh, did you guys, uh, to staff have any thoughts on ways to group the developed areas other than zoning? And zoning may not be appropriate because that can change. Like, do we just say the developed areas? >> Developed area might be too broad to use that particular term. >> I agree. That's why I'm looking to you. Do you have a better suggestion? >> Um, I think I I understand that. Um if we were to use alternative 4, it might leave out a few um properties in the PaloAlto Hills which are zoned um open space, >> but that might be the most inclusive option um if you're considering that, you know, trying to minimize. >> Um >> thank you for weighing in on that. Um yeah, so I want to emphasize how important it is to remember property um property owners rights to safety and to use and enjoy their properties. Um in addition to protecting the impacted areas of having developed parts of the open space. So for that I want to say well all the stuff we've already talked about I mean in Edgewood is it's just not even worth rehashing right that develop being able to plant tulips in your backyard if you want being able to have fencing and safety if you want. not allowing an a complete gap of uh property that you own between a fence and the the the wall. Um, and you know, the liability thing also was something I hadn't thought about before, but my goodness, if somebody could easily get injured in that creek, and I would hate to be the insurance insured person uh, if that does happen in PaloAlto. So, um, I really hope we can find a way to make sure these things are included in whatever we recommend today that will hopefully be I thought we already recommended it, right? And I was surprised when Miss Chaw said this is going to be the third attempt. So, I don't know what that means. Maybe that's the last thing. I'll get some clarification from you about that. So nothing that we have talked about, voted on, discussed is it seems to be in conflict because we thought some of these things were part of it. So did the community, but you're saying some of these things are not. >> So I'll I'll start. Thanks for clarifying. >> I might be able to. Absolutely. So um at the previous discussion with the planning and transportation commission, we got really close to moving some portions of it forward and there was a concern um with the the primary discussion of separating the urban areas from the areas in the hillsides. Uh and so in the end it was continued um so that we could come back and respond to the concerns that were discussed as described in the staff report. You know there were a number of things where there was general consensus among the planning commission. Uh the work that staff has done since that last meeting included a number of different things, including extensive meetings with neighbors to hear and better understand their concerns and think through what is another way to provide options to address those concerns, but also keeping a close tie to the primary reason for this effort to begin with, right? the environmental protection and coordination with the technical experts that we have here in the city and other agencies. So I recognize that the planning commission had some consensus on some items. Staff will take your recommendation forward to council in whatever form it is. Uh we just wanted to make sure that it was really clear that you had clarity from the technical staff that you have here to support you in your discussion about the concerns and the recommendation particularly with things like the slope stability where it's maintaining an existing regulation. This isn't something that's new. Uh the only modification to that I believe is the additional 5 foot to 25 ft for the slope stability in those hillside areas. Otherwise, it's the same. Um, I believe so. >> And and the nature of the reason we have to redo some of retread some of this territory is because of the way we continued it such that you had to come back with a new report. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, chair, if you have any suggestions about how to expedite some of the things we already agreed on, that might be a way to start. Thank you. So, in the interest of time, um I would ask the commissioners when we comment to just quickly say, you know, I I support the straw pole if that is in case if that is actually uh how you feel about it. Um okay, we've got Commissioner Peterson, then Aken. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, I'll start off with yes, I do support the straw poll. Uh, but I would like to reuse some of that material just to refresh my memory. Unfortunately for the audience, uh, each time it comes in front of us, we do have to kind of bring ourselves back up to speed. But the point I want to bring up is, uh, for the Esther uh, is it Esther Clark Park crowd? I think I'm going to be your champion a little bit here. So, I've I've learned the term ephemeral creek. Is that correct? And um so it was one of a couple of the speakers talked about ephemeral creeks and I and I want to commend them for educating me on an ephemeral creek. I didn't know what that's what they were called. In the process, I realized I spent every summer next to an ephemeral creek at my grandmother's and realized that she had built her cabin essentially on top of it and it was never a problem. which made me realize that while I was a huge fan of the 150 ft setback uh the last time we talked about this uh west of Foothill, I am no longer that fan of 150 foot setback when I realized it applies to all the ephemeral creeks. Is that if I could ask staff real quick, we are talking about ephemeral creeks with 150 foot setback. >> Yes. Um we don't have any differentiation of types of streams at this point. >> Got it. So I want to bring some sanity to that that if we're talking about the difference even seasonal creeks there's a difference between an ephemeral creek and a seasonal creek I think is there a technical term between seasonal creek like a seasonal creek might be like a wide creek bed with rocks like uh San Francisco scrutal creek is seasonal correct >> I think um the the different types we generally see in these kind of guidelines and documents we see um per perennial in and channelized um those are used and as well as ephemeral. >> Thank you for giving me the vocabulary. So seasonal creeks I would understand like 150 ft setback but ephemeral creeks with 150t setback. It doesn't make any sense. I think in my mind I can't I can't make sense of that. and the ephemeral creek also. Um I think one of the key points on that is which one of the speakers was was going to bring up which I will bring up for them is that that's a city requirement of 150 ft. It's not a state requirement, which means every lot that's within an ephemeral uh setback could be built as a subdivided and then um if we did the uh um condoized uh version could become a a split lot with condoized uh ADUs on it within our 150 ft setback. pretty much every single one of them would probably automatically go that route, which I don't think is what we're trying to do because at the end of the day, I think it what we what we want is the repairarian corridor is for wildlife. It's not, you know, because we already know the ephemeral creek, we're not talking about flood protection anymore. So now we're talking about a wildlife corridor along the ephemeral creek. But then if our goal, our end result is we're going to put high density housing within all of our repairarian corridors by state mandate. That's not exactly what we're trying to do because now it's not a repairing corridor at all. It's just a highdensity corridor along every ephemeral creek. If I understood things, >> if I may provide one clarification, ephemeral creeks still are important for flood control. Um, just to make sure that that is true. In fact, that is one of their primary purposes. When there is a flood event, there's a lot of rain coming in, that's where the water goes. Yes, I understand. They spent every childhood, many every winter playing in the ephemeral creeks. It turns out they were a lot of fun. Um, so, and I did see a lot of the the the photographs showing that they stayed more or less within their banks. It's it's not the type of 100-year flood plane. In fact, maybe the 100-year flood plane would show the ephemeral creek, you know, spread versus, say, the seasonal creek flood plane. And maybe that's where I'll stop there is is when we bring up the flood plane map, I think we'll be more informed on ephemeral versus seasonal creek. Thank you. >> Uh, Commissioner Aken and then James. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh I want to touch on one technical issue before getting into the bigger issues and that is that the definition of a flood wall that's given on packet page 63 um is so general that it looks to me like even an artificial channel created for flood control um meets that definition. So, uh, I was concerned that we might have applicability in areas that we didn't intend. So, did you develop a map to show which areas are affected by the um exemption for being behind flood walls? >> Um, the exemption on the the the language about behind the flood walls. So I think our suggestion to just clarify because um we don't have any distances indicated there. We would um revise it with your um u motion or um direction that uh we'll probably clarify that it should be directly abuing instead of behind um so that there's no questions about which properties actually have exemptions or not. And that's excellent and I would hope my fellow commissioners would be receptive to that clarification. Um, regarding the definition of the flood wall, uh, is there any change you would like to make there as well? >> Um, I don't believe from what I understand about the um, flood walls and artificial channels. I think the the definition actually clearly describes what flood walls are supposed to be doing. Um I I can ask somebody else to kind of chime in, but my understanding of artificial channels are they're um kind of replaces and straightens the um waterways whereas flood wall actually creates a barrier so that there's no movement of wildlife from landside to the stream or vice versa. And also flood walls creates um I guess increases the capacity of the streams as well. So that's that I think they have a different sort of function. >> Could we um Ms. Jeremiah is so maybe she can assist. >> I apologize if I butchered your name. >> No, that's okay. So the the flood walls are intended to basically represent sections of walls that are raised to contain flows within the creek. So that's usually most the the purpose for flood walls. Um I think the other aspect was the channelized and and that is usually inside the creek like Matadair Adobe Creek are channelized concrete channels versus San Francisco Creek being a natural. >> Thank you. What I'm pushing on here is the idea that perhaps a flood wall has to be defined as being above the top of bank. >> Yes. >> Yes and no. Flood flood walls extend into the creek as well in order for st for stability. They not only are on the top of bank, but they're also protecting the the channels from erosion. >> Okay? >> But it could extend above the top of bank. >> Yeah. The you understand what I'm getting at here is just not to choose a definition that inadvertently covers the entire urbanized area because we're all behind something that is indistinguishable indistinguishable between a flood wall and a channel. So, >> so can I just clarify? I think what m what commissioner Aken is asking Miss Jeremias is do flood walls always extend above the top of bank? >> Uh yes. >> Okay. So that would be something that we can add to the definition. Thank you. >> Did you also just to clarify did you also ask about the drain if that counts as a flood wall or did I misunderstand? I didn't. But um yeah, I was just concerned about making sure that the the protected area was well defined. Uh thank you. That takes care of my concerns. On to more general issues. Yes, I do support the results from the previous straw polls. Um, and to emphasize, uh, that particularly means that it should be possible for the Edgewood neighborhood to build fences within the slope stability protection area and that the 5-ft um, distance. It's certainly inconsistent with what's already there and may well um not be feasible for future uh efforts as well. Um it might be worthwhile to consider creating fence design guidelines for Edgewood. It needn't be a part of this ordinance, but it could provide uh guidance to the residents um for the best possible practice. in that area. Um, regarding the areas west of foothills, I really like the proposal to reduce the setback near the ephemeral streams. So, I was happy to see that in the original text uh because it seems like a good compromise between property rights and the environmental concerns. Uh however, the points about focusing on objective standards are well taken. Um and while I think virtually all of the alternatives can be made to work, uh the one which I think is probably easiest is alternative 4, the restricting to re zones. I tried very hard to find um plots in the OS zones that would be affected by a 150 foot setback and there may be none. Uh certainly the number is extremely small and over extremely small parts of their lots. So while I think the concern expressed by staff is absolutely legitimate, I think the the actual risk is manageably small. So uh on the whole alternative 4 looks like u to me like the best approach of those uh we've considered tonight. Thank you. That's it. >> Commissioner James. >> Well, I am in pretty close alignment here. I I you know, as we talked about, I mean, everybody's agreeing with the straw poll, but I I feel like I would Yeah, I I feel like we did delineate those things. I I believe that um those neighbors need to be able to plant what they want in their backyard, inside their fence. Um I find the five foot very problematic. the only problem I'm not sure I understand why the fence can't abut the uh flood wall and then that that solves every problem except the one that a neighbor um mentioned which was that it was to service the flood wall. I mean, that would that would seem to create a potential problem for servicing the flood wall, but I I feel like um I feel like that's a real safety issue and that that that g five foot gap should not be there. >> Would you like to ask public works about that? >> Um, sure. I yeah I I uh yeah I didn't really find um I didn't really find the initial explanation um very convincing. I'm sorry. You know uh it's it's hard. you know, maybe in the whole of San Francisco San Francisco Keto Creek. Um, it's moving uh, you know, a few feet over hundreds of years, but that's a that's like that creek is concrete with a with a with a a concrete wall on top of it. I mean, maybe it's a cinder block wall on top of it. I I I've I've looked at it pretty closely. It's been a while, but I just um I do I do take the point that the flood wall could could prevent erosion on the back side of the concrete channel. I I follow that. I just think, you know, if we if we are trying to take both the city's position, that perspective, and then the neighbors perspective, if I was that neighbor, I would I would not like a 5-ft uh space behind my fence and the flood wall where people were camping. I would go crazy. Um, so I think that's we have to find a way to make that fix that, you know. I I really do. Um, I think everybody's got to be able to plant their backyard. So, I think I think I'm in alignment with all of those things that we we decided on the straw pole, but I just kind of felt like I didn't want to just call it a straw pole. >> Jeremiah, would you like to respond? >> Oh, sorry. >> Uh, no. So, just I was going to say the Sack Creek walls that were built originally, and I think someone said 70 years ago aren't permanent over time. They have fallen. They do need replacement. Um, we've had trees that in both sides of the creek that have fallen and taken apart some of the sack creek walls. They're not necessarily stable. So, I I won't necessarily think that these are sound uh structures. Um, they could at times. Um, we've seen storms, especially some of the higherend storms that damage them. Um, I I do hear the uh request to consider residents comments and staff's comments. Uh but I also remind um everyone that this there is an easement back there um along that property. So even if we were to change the slope stability, there are easements that have um other jurisdictions have um control over and that may be not only Valley Water, Sanonteo County, but also regulatory agencies like the Army Corps U fish and wildlife or the water board. Um any work within the creek or the repairing area would trigger permits and reviews by them. um for uh any restoration that needs to be happen. I think that 5 foot allows that. Uh but does that mean that that a fence couldn't be removed or um some offense a structure that maybe through an encroachment permit? I I don't know the mechanism needed from an agency. Um but there are other agencies that would involved with review of anything in close proximity to the creek or the top of bank for that matter. Okay. >> So, what I mean you've defined the problem pretty clearly. Do you have um so what would you be your suggestion for like sort of solving the fact that these people have people camping in the fence behind their their uh in their backyards between that and the flood wall. I mean that's a problem. That's a real problem. And I you know but I would just like to know what your recommendation is for fixing that. >> Yeah. I don't have one. I mean, I'm here to answer any of the engineering related questions, but and provide some feedback on some of the creeks. Um, but I don't have a solution or I haven't formulated a thought as far as what would be the process for that. >> Um, but do you do you see a fundamental problem with sort of abuing the the backyard fence to the flood wall and with the notion that it would have to you you said it was an easement issue and there were many agencies involved In some cases there are easements, in some cases there is no easements. I'm just identifying trying to um provide you with u additional information that may be of use as you make a decision. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. Um so anyway, I think my my views are pretty clear on that. Um I've been out to Esther Creek. Um you know, that's the 150 foot uh setback is is unreasonable. Um but I think we've we've already sort of moved on to that beyond that too. Um you know trying to include it at at 20 foot or 25 foot sorry. Um so I think that's that's um the the right direction. Um, and I had some thoughts about the 150 foot um um in the open space areas, the proposed 150 foot in in bay lands and open space areas. Um, and that originally seemed like a very very um it's it's the width of a football field and I thought that was rather a lot for the rip riparian corridor protection. Um, but I looked at uh conservation easements in many places and they fall right in that sort of 100 150 50 foot. Uh, so I think we're kind of on on sort of firm footing there in my view in terms of like what we're recommending for preservation of report repairing corridor in that area. >> Okay. Thank you. So for this first round of comments, I don't see any additional lights right now. So I will make my comments. Um, I feel strongly about trying to meet the needs of the Esther Clark and Edgewood neighbors as I did the last time this was here. So, yes, I agree with the straw polls. I also think that I mean if we the these neighbors need the security. So should somebody need access to that area um that they can that can currently be accessed through the 5 ft that is why the neighbors have gates so that the access easements are allowed and I mean it's a little inconsistent for us to require the 5T in some places but allow no five feet in other places. the security concerns are the same. And so I think that we should probably I I think we should eliminate the five- foot gap for the Edgewood neighbors. Um with respect to I think as I was looking at the alternatives that were proposed by staff as a way for us to address the needs of the Esther Clark and Palo Alto Hills neighborhoods. The alternative that I thought made the most sense was also alternative 4. And I was glad to hear that that was corroborated by both the environmental organiz organizations that came to speak as well as the neighbors who came to speak. So I think that is the most reasonable thing to do. I worry about the ephemeral stream definition because then there are going to be arguments about what's ephemeral and what's not ephemeral and the and it will trigger the need to hire somebody to tell us if it is in ephemeral or not. The very first time we saw this ordinance, we asked about we saw two maps presented by staff that showed creeks in two different locations. And so again, it's just going to be really difficult, you know, so the creeks themselves are defined to be in different locations, whether they're ephemeral or not is adding yet another layer. And it's expensive for homeowners to hire a wildlife biologist. So I think the cleanest way to do this is to use existing areas uh of the code that have already been really well thought out, I think. Um so the definition of residential estate the RE definition is a very distinct definition from the open space definition and in our code also open space development in open space is discretionary. Um, and so it really aligns well, I think, to have one set of rules for the re zone and a different set of rules for the OS zone that doesn't require the introduction of hiring biologists um or consulting conflicting maps. And I think that that is the cleanest way to address that. I also really appreciate the due diligence that Commissioner Aken did to try and find an OS property that would be negatively affected in the same way as the Esther Clark and Palo Alto Hills neighborhoods. And it sounds like he tried really hard to find that and couldn't. So that gives me even greater comfort that we move forward with the alternative for. So, um, my I would be in favor of the staff ordinance with the, uh, adjustment of alternative 4 plus, um, the adjustments that the Edgewood neighbors had, um, outlined that we have already done straw polls on. Uh, now I see an additional light first round from Commissioner G. And then we have Templeton and Peterson. All right. Thank you, chair. I will save everyone time by saying I agree with the straw poll. And I had a question for staff. There was a public comment about impacts on ADUs, but I know um can we just confirm that they're not impacted because I did see there's an exemption for them on packet page 67 under section D5. >> That's correct. They're they're exempt the same way. >> Yep. >> Thank you. And I also had a question for staff about the distinction between non-native invasive species and the ornamental landscaping that one of the public commenters provided. Can can staff just comment on that quickly? >> Um I think if the the planning commission would like to make a motion or direction to um allow the ornamental landscaping behind the the fences, I think that is um something that the commission can decide. Um I think if um Jim or James Martin is available to elaborate a little bit more about those um landscaping and vegetation um I would like him to chime in. >> And before he does, I'll point out that if you look at packet page 68, that is where we've got the details of the landscaping requirements. Um and at this point in the streamside setback requirements, non-riparian or non-native vegetation um shall be allowed as long as such species are non-invasive and they're located on the structure side of an existing or future fence that's away from the stream. So it it does um endeavor to address a lot of the concerns. >> Okay. Um, thank you. Uh, and then I have another question about slide four. Yeah. So, um I just want to quickly appreciate what Miss Chaw said about the courtesy mail notices. I think that was really important. I just wanted to make sure to highlight that because I think that there were a lot of neighbors that are getting impacted that by this and we didn't send mailers out the first time. So, I just want to spec specifically appreciate what staff has done um here for that and also specifically appreciate Miss Chs for going out and meeting with the neighbors. I know that the neighbors have mentioned both in Esther Clark Park and at Edgewood that um staff was very receptive and listening. And I also want to appreciate her attachment B which listed out all of the different comments that the PTC did at the last meeting and go go through all of them. So I I just want to take a moment to appreciate all the work that's gone through to um comment about this. And so right now I would I also want to just echo what the chair has said in her comments about what she's supporting. Uh I would also support option four. And I also want to talk a little bit about packet page 67 subse D section D subsection 6 about the projects located on the properties. I believe we did not have a straw poll on this particular item and I think that the inclusion of the pave public trails and service road was referring to a building in the bailance. Is that correct? Um that was also correct and we received a public comment letter um from one of the property owners in the urbanized area and so that was um kind of addressing that comment as well. >> So it's right now as is it would impact more than just the property in the Baylands or it would only impact or did you get a comment letter from that particular property owner? that particular property owner. But we do know that about um that there are easements available and flood wall locations sort of um more than just baylands as well. So it would impact more than just the bay lands area. >> So is that for the addition of the paved public trail and service road attachment or the whole section six are you referring to that's being impacted here? So So let me let me be crisp with my question. So in section six in a previous iteration we had projects located on properties separated from the stream by a public or private street or alley period like that was the end of the section and then since the last iteration we have since included or paved public trail or service or so that's that's my understanding is that correct >> that's correct the public trail was added last time because we were looking at the bay lens area and then I believe we had a width also um included so we have removed moved after the discussion and the service road was added after the the discussion of the comments and the big area. >> So I just want my question is is the paved public trail or service road portion that we just added only currently impacting the one property at the bays or is it impacting many properties? >> It impacts more than one property >> but but along the bays or also in the urban area? >> Also in the urban area as well. Can you refer me to some where in the urban area are we looking at here? >> I um the Matadora Creek um has some service road along the north side of it's the the the creek. So that was actually the related to the public comment letter we received last time. So we do have um on Metadora Creek and I believe there's some portions along Adobe and Baron as well, but it's it's probably not the entire section. So just to reiterate what you said there is the the paved public trail or service road intention originally came from a comment about the bayands but now also upon further inspection staff has identified that it also refers to other areas in the urban area. >> Sorry just to clarify public trail came from the bayands discussion and then the service road came from the public comment of the the homeowner who own uh who's who has a home within the urbanized area. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. And so let's say for the specifically for the paved public trail, do we know of any other public paved public trails that are in the urban area? >> I am unaware. Um but I can definitely check um and get back to you on it if that's important. But the intent was that we already had um exemption basically um anything that's separated by the public street which are usually paved. So if they were the trails were already paved it probably serves the same function. So that's why we decided to >> Yeah. And that's what we heard at your previous discussion that if there was a street or well actually we should include service roads as well. And what about a 10-ft wide paved path? um was the indication staff heard at the last one. So we were just trying to be consistent with that. >> Thank you. Uh I think for me the distinction I understand the intent here but for me I think that part of the reason why we are doing this ordinance is to protect areas in the Bayland and in the outer areas in the quote unquote rural areas. And so I would modify section six potentially to only the the exemption would only be for urban areas and that uh section six would not like the exemption for section six would not apply for the bayand. kind of said in a plain English, the property the the properties on in the Baylands that are separated by a public trail, I think should still be uh have the 150 ft setback. Um uh yeah. And okay, so those are my comments for now. Thank you. >> All right, second round of comments. Commissioner Templeton and then Peterson. >> Thank you. Um, I would caution all of us staff and the commissioners to just re uh consistently use our new preferred terminology because we now know that urbanized area is a definition of a a reserve term and um I I would just be careful about that. Um so I think we had talked about open space instead of rural. Um, so the the the thing I wanted to ask about is just to follow up on Commissioner James' questions of of how do we how do we form our recommendation about getting rid of that 5-ft wall or whatever space between the backyard fence and the retaining wall or water wall. What? I can't remember the word. Huh? Flood wall. Thank you. >> So, >> can we just say don't do it? >> That could be one option. Um I if I remember correctly, um the straw polls included exempting slope stability requirements and also um had specific one related to the 5-ft buffer or minimum distance from the top of bank for the fences. Um, one clear way would be just exempting the slope stability requirements because that includes the five foot and exception process as well. But also our suggestion if I can suggest because the I think the concerns about the edgewood and the slope stability area is related to fences. It could be that we only exempt the fences only from from the whole >> exemption. Yeah. stability regulations. >> I'm going to the concern is safety. >> Okay. >> Right. >> But the exception that we're hearing requested is to allow fences within the slope stability area and including not having to have that 5 foot set back from top of bank. >> Okay. And the reason I'm following up on this, thank you for for clarifying the suggestion, is that I thought we heard Miss Jeremiah say no, you can't do that. >> Yes, our public works staff is still very concerned about that suggestion. >> So, and then I heard and I'm not going to tell you how to address this issue. I'm just going to tell you can't do it. And so, what I want is how do we shape this discussion because that's what we're going to do. We're going to make a recommendation tonight and we want the support and cooperation of the agencies that are involved in this conversation. So, what do you suggest? >> I'll take a a stab at it. I I also am not an expert on um addressing encampments. >> None of us is. >> Right. Um >> and yet here we are. And so uh it it seems that that is kind of the primary core of the concerns that we've heard from the neighbors. And so if for a slope stability and other you know stream maintenance issues that our public works colleagues have um described that 5 foot is is still critical um as it is in their uh professional opinion. Then it comes to us to talk about what are the other options that the city could do. >> What about it makes it critical? Is it access? >> So is there another way to access that space? >> I I will invite uh public works staff to to restate what are the particular components. I know that there were mention of a number of things including repair. >> Yeah, we heard actions. We heard actions, but those actions are not happening in the five foot. So, what is it about the five foot that is critical so that we can help brainstorm? Thank you so much for jumping back on. >> Yeah, no worries. Um the the easements are within those five foot. So, ask >> are you patrolling those easements um right now to make sure they're safe? Okay. And do you intend or imagine any scenario in which that would happen? >> Um so the uh during flood events um we need access to the sites and the easements are not city-owned easements. They're not citymained easements. They're Santa Clara Valley Water District easements um on one end. Um those are features. It could be Calrans as well. I don't know. Um for example up on by Alma. Um, so those are easements that other a agencies have jurisdiction on. It's not something that public works engineering monitors and maintains. >> And easement is not owned by those agencies. They just demand access. Is that correct? >> Access and for maintenance of any of their infrastructure improvements that may be in the area. >> Access in order to perform maintenance. Right. >> Correct. So if for some way they didn't have the access they have now, but they had access through another means that would still be satisfying the easement. >> Could we have uh councelor Yang opine on this in terms of the legality of of it? >> I'm sorry. I don't I don't entirely understand the question. What we're trying to figure out is where is this no? There's a hypothetical no coming from um the operations team that is on behalf of some other people who have access to easements through this property that is part of this discussion somehow uh because of how the walls the the banks are maintained. So if we wanted to address through the work that's in front of us tonight the safety concern that is part of the bank maintenance. How do we do that? What we'd like to do is be able to say if you want access to your easements, we'll provide another mechanism such as going through the front yard. And that way we don't have to have safety concerns immediately behind our house on a property that we own and can't access. >> Right. So, you know, I I can't speak for another agency that holds the easement. Um, but my understanding is that it's it's an easement held by the water district. Um, >> and and what I'm I'm trying to split a hair here, but easements, as I understand it, and I'm really looking for your expertise here because I don't have what you have uh in terms of background, but an easement means the person who's the property owner of the home still owns the property, pays the property tax, is responsible for the upkeep of the property, and ensures themselves on that property. But the agency has the right to access that land involved in the easement. Is that your understanding of what it means to have an easement? >> It it really depends. Um so the easement can also grant the agency like the right to uh exclude others or to um you know to need to be consulted on anything that happens in that easement's area. So, an easement is basically you're giving up some of your property rights over a portion of your property um but not but not all of your property rights. And how many property rights and which ones depend on kind of the specific nature of the easement? >> Well, great news. Um you and we get to um stand by whatever we're recommending tonight. So, what limitations or not limitations do you think we have in our discussion tonight concerning the five-foot gap that was preserved by the city on some properties that is now a health and safety hazard? >> Um, >> can we eliminate it? So, so, so we can eliminate it from our perspective, right? There's there's layers of control and regulation here. So, we can eliminate the 5- foot uh setback. Uh but that won't necessarily mean that this gap will disappear. Um because if another agency holds an easement that gives them the authority to, you know, have some say over what what happens in that area, they could still say no, >> right? you. Do they say no to the encampments, though? So, I mean, that's not happening. They're not exerting any control right now. So, I think it's safe for us to give it a try and see what happens. But, I'm asking you because you're the person representing the city's interest here. So, if we're going to cross a line, I need you to tell us. So there's there's nothing about our you know no longer requiring a setback that would kind of violate any other >> cool >> agency's you know rights right >> whatever they rights they want to >> thank you and Mr. Jeremias, do you have any additional things to chime in before we move on? >> No. No, thank you. >> All right. Thanks. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner Peterson. >> Thank you, >> MG. >> Thank you, Chair. So, we're going to switch gears back over to the foothills. I'm going to make an argument for alternative two uh rather than alternative four. And so just to remind everybody, alternative four is that we simply use uh residential zoning uh for reduced uh setback. And alternative two uh uses a uh geotechnical or it says and >> page 56 for those of us still trying to find it. >> Perfect. So it says geotechnical and hydraological engineers. Is that geotechnical or hydraological? Cuz my understanding is these are equally qualified. >> I think the intention was um probably both um because we would have to look at the lock condition anyways. It's similar to the open space zoned properties. >> So you want both engineers to sign off? Yes, they would have to actually look at it and evaluate and provide some mitigations if they were to support the building close to uh creeks. And >> so the reason why I bring this up, I'm a earthwork engineer, which is quentially a butcher to a geotechnical engineer being a surgeon. Um so I know somewhat about it and I do a lot of the uh structural engineering inspections all across the area. So I'm pretty familiar with the process of an engineer and this is why option two gets my attention because when in my mindset it's always the customer has their own engineer one as the engineer you can explain to the customer uh sometimes you can kind of help them understand the situation whereas if you just have a blanket rule you don't have the opportunity to try to you know fit each each situation to you know get an optimal solution for the customer. Um where option two allows that one to help explain the customer what reality is and that they don't want to do things but also to help the customer um provide the documentation that's necessary to the city to you know do what makes sense for what they are uh trying to achieve which can only be done under option two. I mean, essentially option two, you could have a Frank Lloyd Wright house with a waterfall in your living room if you had an engineer sign off on it in theory. And so that's what gets my attention there that these are all incredibly important lots, right? I mean, I don't important the right words, the they're going to get a lot of attention when they when there's something constructed. I don't think any of these lots are going to have work done without a geotechnical engineer. I don't think there's any chance a geotechnical engineer is not going to be involved in any of these houses. So, they're already have an engineer >> for a fence though. >> No, we're talking about uh the foothill the ephemeral creeks. Sorry. >> But like what I'm trying to say is it's not always just building a brand new property um built out from scratch. Sometimes it's like a fence. >> Well, we've covered that I think pretty much okay >> with the creek with the fencing. I think it's I think we're done. We're just thinking building because that's what I understand most of the community is talking about is they can't build a structure within the the 150 ft setback and unless in option two they have a a geotechnical engineer sign off which they're already going to have a geotechnical engineer involved. So we the hydraological engineer that's that's did surprise me a little bit because that is a little bit different. Um but we have the flood map. Can we bring up the flood map now and just take a look because it might be it's not even an issue and pretty much every hydraological engineer is simply going to take one look and say I don't see a problem here and I think option two gives much more flexibility to the community with what they do than option four which is the blanket solution and if nothing else we've at least give option two some some time and I think staff for putting the time and putting option two together. >> So, so I think he's asking to see the flood map, but I would just like to remind uh Commissioner Peterson that we did hear from the members of the community and they did not see that option as additional flexibility. And uh Oh, yes. Uh >> um I was going to say I think we have a couple maps available. We have one for the Esther Park neighborhood and we have one for the San Francisco Creek. So, not sure which of those maps you want to see. >> Uh, let's take a look at both of them, but the Esther Park one for sure and San Francisco Creek. We'll throw it up and just quickly glance >> and I'll have to find one of the other ones for Foothills if we want somewhere else. Um, and somebody put up a map for >> Santo Creek, please. And bear with me. I'll hope to define and give you a little bit of background because this is a lot of it's a big map and has a lot of information here. But for the benefit of others, um what you see before you on the bottom of the screen is basically the image below reflects San Mosquito Creek. the uh area hatched in blue or teal color that reflects where water over tops the banks during a 100year storm event. So San Mosquito Creek does not have the capacity to contain flows during a over 70-year event or in this case 100year. FEMA only creates maps for 100 years. So I think in some of the conversation we had earlier as far as Top of Bank, we pulled this map to show that actual flood plane, the area subject to flooding extends in the urbanized area part of of um PaloAlto. Um and we do have on this basically uh a a licensed engineer would be required to locate where this elevation is in any of these properties. and focusing primarily in the San Francisco Creek section and top of banks. We would use this sort of as a start as a base to determine what the elevation is subject to flooding. Um, so this helps a little bit. Any questions on this? >> I don't have any questions. It's a fascinating map. >> And the other map, if you can bring up the one for Esther Park as well, I'm just going to give you a difference of a what FEMA creates these maps. These maps are currently in use. was built in 2009. Um, we have not had any replace maps since, but currently I don't see FEMA making any changes in the next during this time. So, >> I think the water district I heard that they're um looking at increasing their high performance computing um resources so they can produce more of these localized maps on top of the FEMA map, but they haven't yet. So, so this is another area shows the Estster Park neighborhood. >> Again, the same blue, those blue uh lines reflect the hatched area where the creeks could over top the banks and drain onto adjacent property, whatever that is. It could be roads, it could be backyards. Um, we don't know. This is what FEMA has gathered. >> That's what I was going to say. This is what I expected. we would see this this massive difference between a seasonal creek and ephemeral creeks. Can we zoom in? This is pretty high resolution. And >> thank you. So it may be hard to see what we don't >> most of that is even showing Los uh Altos Hills. >> So if you pan down, you can see where the city limits are. The dark black line. >> Yeah. Just just as a caution, I see limit of study marks in the Aster Clark area. So, we may not have data there. This is where yeah, the water district needs to come in and start working on these. But essentially, as we know now, I would say, you know, hydraological engineer would pretty be much be open to interpret what they want in that region being there's nothing there. So I think this is why option two to me stands out because it gives the discretion to the engineers to take one look at this and from the geotechnical and engineers I've worked with they would take one look at that and I think the the land owners would be pretty happy with the outcome of that and then it would be submitted to the city to approve and I think the process would be a fairly smooth uh process and give more flexibility. some of the some of the land owners did talk about something like option two. So, I'll leave it there. Thank you. I appreciate bringing up the maps and um giving some time to option two. >> Commissioner G. >> So, I don't actually have additional discussion points, but I'm wondering if folks are ready to maybe move towards a motion if that's okay. >> Okay. So, I'm seeing some nods, so I will go ahead. I move the staff recommendation with the following um amendments. So, one is to find a new name for the urban and rural area. Number two is to define change the definition of flood wall on packet page 63 under definitions B5 to potentially use a verbiage extend to or extend above the top of um as discussed with public works. So I'll defer to staff about the specifics there. Um uh three is to uh use alternative four instead of the ephemeral definitions and as needed potentially clean up the definition of ephemeral that is now in the definition section on item 14 and or clean up other definitions that may or may not be used. So for example, I don't know if stream channelize is still used. So I'll defer to staff about the cleanup there. Number four is to on packet page 67 under exemptions D6, what I previously mentioned for the this this I would like to not exempt the what is going to no longer be called the rural area but like the area not in the urbanized core. Um >> um just to clarify that um element um I believe you mentioned that you want to keep the public trail portion in the bay lands but others are >> oh the one yeah so I want I want the one the intention is for the 150 limit to apply to the baylands as well um and or other areas that are in the rural area. I don't want those those are areas that we're trying to protect. >> Okay. Thank you. So that so that exemption would only apply to the urbanized area. >> Yeah. Um is that clear staff? Okay. Thank you. And then uh as necessary get rid of additional references to ephemeral stream on packet page 68 etc. Um then I will move on to the three items discussed in the straw poll. Number one is for uh in section G2 for the a carveout for the ornamental landscaping to be permitted for edgewood. Um number two for the fences to not to to have an exemption for fences for edgewood. Um, and three, I think specifically around item B1, the new fences shall be constructed with a minimum of 5 ft. I would like to remove that to but only for Edgewood. >> Um, I if they are exempt from the stream stabil if >> No, I don't want to exempt them completely from the slope stability protection. I would only like to exempt the fences. >> Right. So if the fences are exempt from the the slope stability requirements then that includes that 5 foot. >> Okay. So then I would like to exempt fences in the slope stability protection area only for edgewood as defined at Edgewood. So maybe it'll be fun to throw in an Edgewood definition in the definition section instead. >> Fancy. >> Um okay. So, I tried to capture what all the commissioners have said during the discussion. Um, does anyone Okay. Well, well, I'll I'll I'll first wait to see if I get >> I'll second that. >> And then >> and then maybe we need to make some additions or discussion. >> I just want to clarify because I I I misunderstood I think what staff said about the five- foot thing. So, what you proposed was something that would fix the problem with the gap, the 5-ft gap. And what you're saying is this would address that. >> Correct. My understanding is the 5-ft concern has to do with the slope stability area. If fences in for the Edgewood neighbors are no longer subject to the slope stability area, then that 5-ft requirement would not apply either. >> Okay. Um, we here >> so they could build it right up to the >> here here's the problem. The problem is when those other agencies come through checking to see if they have their five foot thing. I don't know if there's anything the city needs to do or the property owners need to do. I'm going to just not worry about it. >> We we will continue to work with our colleagues to um to look into this. It looks like maybe we've got somebody available to add. >> Don't don't stir up trouble if we don't have to, but I just want to make sure you guys are thinking about it. >> Mr. Yang, did you want to add something? >> Uh, no. I had a thought and then I realized it was wrong. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Appreciate you nonetheless, but yes, I >> So, we've got a motion on the table and a second. Um, at this point, yes, go ahead, Miss Armor. One other thing that I did here as part of the discussion of the modifications to the flood wall definition was also to the exception so that it would be directly abudding uh I believe was a another part of commissioner Akin's recommendation not just the definition but also the exception. >> Yeah, I accepted that because Miss Chaw uh suggested it and it seemed reasonable. And I will add that to my motion. >> And I agree as a seconder. >> Do we have further discussion or things that we, you know, Commissioner Vice Chair G tried to capture everybody's comments? Is there anything that we're missing? >> I don't think there's anything from my list that's missing. >> Okay. So, I don't see any lights for additional discussion. Um, do we need to recap the motion at all or does stuff? >> We have it. >> Great. Thank you. All right. Mr. Tivera, can you please call the vote? >> Uh, Commissioner Templeton, >> yes. >> Uh, Commissioner Aken, >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner James, >> Vice Chair G, >> yes. >> Uh, Chair Chang, >> Motion carry 6. >> All right. Thank you everyone. It's been a long night with a lot of technical detail. Thank you to all the members of the public. Thank you very much to staff for try for doing such a good job documenting the conversations even if staff disagreed. So appreciate everybody's very hard work on this. Excited to have it move on to city council finally. All right. Next agenda item I believe is approval of minutes. So, we need to approve the planning and transportation draft minutes. Draft and summary, sorry, the draft summary and verbatim minutes for April 8th. Um, I guess I need to see if there's any public comment >> and uh through the chair, I've not received any request to speak on this item. >> Okay, >> I'll move it. And I for the record I just wanted to note that uh Commissioner James and Commissioner Templeton were absent. Um so when we do the call if they could just abstain. >> So okay we still have a quorum. Great. Thanks. >> I will move it. >> As revised. Apologies. Um as revised potentially by Commissioner Aken and or Commissioner Hecman and or others. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. Any discussion? Mr. Da, can you please take the vote? >> Yeah. Um, Commissioner James, >> abstain. >> Commissioner Templeton, >> Uh, Commissioner Aken, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> Vice Chair G, >> yes. >> Chair Chang, >> Motion carries 402. >> All right. On to Commissioner questions, comments, announcements, or future meetings and agendas. I uh Commissioner Well, no, we've got I just want to be respectful. We've got Commissioner Peterson, then Templeton, then G. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, keeping with my theme on the California Avenue. Uh, so I don't know if everybody remembers, but a while back there was a question on signage for California Avenue from uh, El Camino, and one of the businesses had offered to purchase signage to direct uh, to parking. And if anybody doesn't remember, that's let that be a reminder that, you know, it's come up. So, I went out and I took a look at the signage. No one's going to be able to see this. Uh but the sign isn't exactly I think what people had in mind. Uh it's it's not even on the on the uh the light pole correctly. It's it's kind of angled. So I went to a couple of the businesses on California Avenue. I like to go there and uh I joke about checking the wells and seeing the water level. And so, uh, I showed this to people were kind of surprised that that's the sign to their business on California Avenue saying, uh, park here on Sherman Avenue, which it's actually on Sherman Avenue, so it's pretty clear the arrow means Sherman Avenue. And I heard, you know, maybe we could put flowers on it, flashing lights, a flag, something. So, I'll I'll forward the photo, but I just want to bring attention that I think California Avenue still needs uh some signage. We closed the street, which I personally I enjoy that street and I've seen the bike traffic on the street. Uh we had questions about speed limit and and lane delineation. It seems to be working fine. Uh the the bike cyclists are absolutely respectful. The the community the community seems to be just fine with that street, but I think the the businesses there deserve some better signage. There's probably signage from the other direction on El Camino, but um and then again, I just want to also say if we could have signage or some kind of a uh like a banner at California Avenue train station letting people know that we now have uh you know, essentially street drinking uh with red solo clubs on California Avenue. Uh >> yes. And so I think people from Cal Train would stop on California Avenue and bring more business in if you could have some sense. I I get off the train at Mountain View Station because there is a a beer garden right there. I can see it from the train and I for years I'll jump off the train and take an hour and catch the next one out. So with that um that's my report back as the Calav Commissioner. >> Thank you. Can I just suggest so there is a retail ad hoc on council. Um I mean how do we make sure like council may not ever watch this meeting read the minutes. So might I suggest that you send that comment directly to the retail ad hoc? >> So it uh just to provide a little information on that um it is now called economic development committee. >> Okay. economic development committee >> broadening their uh interest beyond just the retail. Um also that um in response to the email and the additional information you provided to staff that was uh shared with public works and they were looking into a number of the things you brought up last time. So work is uh proceeding as it was on the transportation issues that were brought up a few months ago as well. So thank you. If I add an extra voice, I'd be glad to come talk to the committee and if not, it's I'm happy just to provide the information. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um, and thank you staff for all your hard work. All right, we've got Now I lost track. Commissioner Templeton. >> Uh, it's now that time of year when you can smell summer right around the corner and we still have no breaks on our calendar. So, I thought I'd bring that up. Um, traditionally I, uh, make a carve out for the back to school week, but I now have two different back to school weeks. So, um, August is looking less and less likely. I don't know how the rest of you feel, but, uh, I thought I would suggest maybe we could talk about that next time or something. I don't know, unless you already have plans. >> I'm glad you brought it up because I wanted to bring this up, too. We could talk about it now if you would like to. If we would like to or let's do it. >> Let's do it. >> Okay. Do you have a proposal? >> Uh I think 812 and 8:26 are less and less likely for me. I have a move in date across the country on 828. Um 812 is possible, but I don't think 8:26 is possible for me. That said, >> no, let's see what else other other folks have because I know that at dinner another commissioner was talking about a dream of maybe getting away. So, let's see if other people have >> perspective. If I may jump in just for um one additional point of context at this point, we've got um agendas for your next two meetings, but there aren't any items scheduled for the second meeting in June. So there is a reasonable possibility that June 24th will be a canceled meeting in case you need a little bit of time. Does anybody have any other perspective about these August dates? I mean maybe we do a little bit of research between now and next time and then um take you know with extra research on 812 and 826. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Okay. And then uh Commissioner G or Vice Chair G. Um, I was just going to say I might I might be out on the 8th of July because it's attached to the 4th of July, which is a Friday this year. So, thoughts there. Um, >> so many possibilities. Oh, it's Saturday, but it but a lot of But I'm getting Friday off, right? So, yeah. So, so we'll get Friday off. Um, I also just want to share that tomorrow morning is I think it's called like bike to wherever day. Um, so there'll be fun stuff if you're biking somewhere in the morning at a various locations around the city. Um, so just wanted to share that. And then also wanted to share that um, Commissioner James and I are have just finished writing a report from our Cal's conference that we'll be sending over to staff to distribute to everyone. So um, look forward to seeing that shortly. >> Okay. And now because there's a new requirement we that the council has dictated um we've got virtual public comment at this time any com anybody raised hands >> uh to the chair I see no raise hands on zooms if there's any members on zoom that would like to uh now is the moment to raise and I see none >> great we are adjourned then thank you everyone

recording in progress. >> Good evening. I'd like to call the May 12th, 2026 meeting of the Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee together. Uh would the clerk please call the role? >> Certainly. And before I call roll, I just want to make a quick announcement. This meeting will be heard on channel 75 tonight. Chair Lith >> here. >> Council member Rectal >> Vice Mayor Stone >> here. >> For the record, all are present. >> Great. Thank you very much. So we'll open with public comment on items not on the agenda but pertinent to this committee. >> There are no requests to speak. >> Great. All right. We'll move on to our first action item. This is the office of the city auditor presentation of the public safety staffing and overtime audit. >> Good evening committee members. Kate Murdoch, city auditor. I will be presenting the results of the public safety staffing and overtime audit. I'd like to thank both the fire and police departments for their time and assistance in conducting this audit. Next slide, please. The objective of this audit was to determine if the fire and police departments are effectively and efficiently staffed, including the use of overtime. The audit has four findings related to the police department and one finding related to the fire department. Management agreed with some recommendations and partially agreed with others. The auditor's office recognizes that given the city's current budget deficit, some recommendations may not currently be feasible. Next slide, please. Both police and fire departments have high operational demands and both have struggled with staffing levels in recent years, relying on overtime to meet staffing requirements and ensure public and staff safety. In FY2024, the combined overtime for these departments was approximately $7.5 million with both departments significantly exceeding their overtime budgets. While overtime is largely driven by vacancies, it's also due to various types of leave such as vacation, family, and medical leave and recruitment and retention challenges. Lack of adequate staffing and over reliance on overtime can increase burnout and fatigue. can make, excuse me, and fatigue can impact employee safety and job performance. Despite these challenges, both departments have largely maintained service levels, and the most recent resident survey received strong satisfaction ratings from the public. Public comments also called for increased staffing and resources, including additional fire trucks and increased policing in neighborhoods. Next slide, please. Our first finding is related Next slide, please. Our first finding is related to inadequate police staffing. We noted that the police department is still eight sworn officers short of prepandemic levels. And in FY25 and the beginning of FY26, the department had 20 officers that were not deployable due to training, injuries, and worker compensation claims. We also noted that due to minimum patrol staff requirements, some officers end up being pulled from the regularly assigned duties such as investigative work to fill the gap and ensure the safety of officers in the field. The department has not had a staffing study in over two decades and it is unclear if current staffing requirements are appropriate or adequate. Finally, we noted that police is not meeting response time targets for answering emergency and urgent calls. However, despite these challenges, police response times have slightly improved over the last several years. We recommend the department reconsider overhiring for positions affected by long-term leave, expand recruitment and retention efforts, consider conducting a comprehensive staffing analysis, and reassess minimum patrol staffing standards. Next slide, please. Our second finding is related to the first and noted that overtime use is primarily driven by the need to maintain minimum staffing levels and the cause appears to be vacancies. We also noted that overtime is concentrated among a few employees. The top 10 sworn employees working overtime account for 35% of the department's total sworn overtime hours. This suggests potential workload imbalances and broader staffing challenges could lead that could lead to burnout. While overtime it's often seen as desired to increase salaries, especially in areas where the cost of living is high, such as PaloAlto, employees we spoke with indicated that staff are generally working more overtime than desired. Finally, we noted that overtime is not formally assessed as part of workers compensation cases, police vehicle crashes, or use of force incidents, making it unclear if there could be additional costs to the department due to increased overtime use. This is discussed further in the next finding. We recommend that the department work with the administrative services department to better align overtime budgets with operational needs and ensure the budget better reflects actual operational demands and improves transparency. We also recommend the department evaluate the balance between staffing levels and overtime use to determine if adjustments to staffing levels or overtime practices are needed. Finally, there may be opportunities to civilianize certain functions and reduce the lead time that is required when these functions are filled with sworn officers as civilians would not need the same level of training. Next slide, please. Our third finding relates to increasing the use of workforce data to monitor staff sustainability and risk. Currently, the department does not formally track police academy success rates and as previously mentioned, the potential impacts of overtime are not considered in safety related incidents. We recommend the department begin formally tracking academy outcomes, which will help with assessing whether the department needs to overhire and if there are areas in the hiring, training, and probationary periods that are more pro problematic than others uh and if there are ways to increase retention. We also recommend the department consider overtime as a potential factor in safety incident reviews to understand how use of overtime may be impacting the department operationally. Next slide, please. Our fourth finding noted inconsistent and manual tracking of regular and overtime could cause the department to make staffing decisions based on inaccurate data. We found discrepancies between some internal timetracking reports between the department and citywide systems. Staff also noted that the overtime reports used by the department do not include analysis of specific drivers of overtime and this information would be helpful to evaluate more consistently. Finally, we noted that similar find we noted that there was a similar finding regarding the need for an enterprise resource planning system uh from an audit that was done in 2017. The current systems in use require the department to rely on manual workarounds to pull necessary data, which increases the chances for errors and emissions and limits systematic analysis of overtime trends. We recommend the department revisit prior audit recommendations and work to improve data collection, system integration, and reporting to better manage staffing and overtime costs. We encourage the police to explore whether they can leverage the fire department's time tracking system to accomplish these goals. Next slide, please. Next slide. Our last findings related to the fire department. We found that while the department has made significant steps to restore deployed resources over the last couple of years, overtime use remains a concern. The fire department has experienced chronic minimum staffing backfill shortages for the past decade, and the department has rarely operated at full staffing levels in recent years. Our analysis showed that most of this overtime use is to meet minimum staffing requirements. While the city has made significant investments in increasing deployed resources and res has restored services to all six fire stations, the department reported that service demands have also increased and the department still struggles to meet key performance measures. The hiring to full pro the hiring to full productivity timeline for a firefighter is 18 to 24 months. The department tracked success rates for new recruits from 2020 to 2025 and the average retention rate for new recruits after the probation period was only 64%. This represents a significant challenge in maintaining staffing levels. Department management also reported that the city requires a minimum of 75 positions to staff its nine units over three shifts per day um 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Um, however, the department requires an additional 11 staff to cover for when staff are on various types of leave when a firefighter is deployed elsewhere in the state for an emergency, for training, and vacation. As the as of the writing of this report, the department only had two of these 11 spots filled. According to management, this chronic understaffing has impacted some response times and the ability to follow up on fire code violations. We did want to highlight that the department implemented operational changes in 2023 to merge their voluntary and mandatory overtime lists with the result that mandatory overtime shifts were significantly reduced and staff feedback has been positive with changes bringing improved fairness in shift distribution. We recommend the department continue to work to strengthen workforce planning and hiring pipeline management to account for attrition and long training timelines. Consider the best rat ratio for floater positions. Periodically evaluate staffing levels and deployment needs against service demand. Improve overtime monitoring and workforce sustainability to better manage fatigue and staffing risks and improve budget transparency and operational efficiency by aligning budgets with historical trends. So that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take questions. >> Thank you, Miss Murdoch. We appreciate you. I want to also acknowledge we have our police and fire chiefs here in the chambers with us. And if this is a story of anything, it's a story of deep commitment on the part of both of your teams to do the work. Despite uh the the degree to which we're understaffed, the work still gets done. So, the community doesn't see the impact, but we know that you feel it and your teams feel it. So, thank you. Um colleagues, let me turn to whomever would like to go first with questions. Oh, should we do public comment first? >> Why don't we take public comment first? >> There are no requests to speak on item one. >> Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. >> All right. Thank you, chair. Uh, so few questions here. I guess first for more kind of maybe budget staff. Uh h has this audit been reviewed by finance con by the finance committee in the consideration of the fiscal year 27 budget. >> Good evening council members. Kylen Jose, assistant city manager. It was a long process to say no. Um uh but they are aware of it obviously as it's been released publicly uh but they haven't formally reviewed it as part because of obviously it was coming to this body for review. Um and so I think staff obviously is managing the response to this as well as uh the budget allocations. And so I will say that as part of the public discussion with the committee, the um adjustments like transparency of adjusting and realigning the overtime budget between uh full-time positions and overtime specifically was something that staff has committed to um doing in the coming year. >> Yeah, the order is a bit awkward because or just kind of like how we deal with this since it is a policy direction, but there are such consider such considerable budget implications with it. So, how does h how do we use within our budget >> this kind of this audit or even this understanding because I know this is this has been going on since since 2015 where we budget for amount of overtime in particular with PD and we end up going significantly past that how how does that work within our our kind of budget scenarios? >> Sure. Um so, uh couple things. So, as was described in the management response, ultimately um oftentimes, as the audit does reflect, we have a lot of vacancies. Um and so we fill those vacancies with overtime. Um and so what happens in a department budget mechanically is you'll have vacancy savings because those full-time positions that are fully budgeted are not filled and you use that vacancy savings to cover the cost of the overtime to backfill. Um, and what this audit uh does and what actually was done in the fire department's budget in FY2027 is realign the assumption for vacancy versus the assumption for overtime. So it shows more accurately uh a reflection in the different budget categories. And so I think we'll do that for public uh police next year. >> Okay, that's really helpful. So like right last year we budgeted a million dollars about to overtime for police was ended up being three and a half million and we saved how much though in vacancies since it's about a 13% vacancy. >> I'd have to go look at the exact number. I don't know but yes in theory right um but I'd have to look at the exact figures. I also don't think it's that clean. um police department especially recently has been using overtime to support things like the retail um ordinance, not ordinance, the retail theft grant and a lot of that has been on overtime. So, uh that grant in itself has increased overtime usage in the last year because that's one of the ways in which we're able to support those additional details. >> Okay. I guess then from just a very basic level, what I laid out is essentially kind of how it works. Obviously more nuanced, correct? Okay, that's helpful understanding. And then few questions probably for our I know we got two police representatives so not sure if this is for our our our chief but definitely for PD. Um thank great thank you chief. All right. Then, Chief Ryder, for for you, to what ext to to to what extent does the department support trainees in the in in the academy? Because I think we've all been a bit surprised by the the failure rate recently. I know we had um we had the the president Papoa in here a couple weeks ago talking about that that issue and seems to be a big issue that kind of came up in the audit. So, can you talk about what type of supports there are and is is is that a part of the strategy of the department to to try to offer additional supports, tutoring, whatever it might be? How can the council support that to make sure that we are that we're that we're not having that be a a cause for our vacancies? >> Thank you for the question. Uh James Rice, center, police chief. Uh so, there's a lot baked in there. So the department depending upon uh the hire date of trainees that need to go to a police academy utilizes several differentmies throughout the region. And so uh in some instances the department is able to provide a training officer that's assigned full-time to the academy and has a much more hands-on role in the day-to-day training of a trainee throughout their six months in the academy. However, that of course requires us to dedicate an officer full-time to that academy uh for six months and there aren't always opportunities for us to provide a training officer from the academyy's perspective. So, that's on one end of the spectrum the most level of support we can provide. Uh in most cases, the support we provide comes from our personnel and training division. They're in touch with the trainees regularly throughout the academy. They're receiving uh updates on performance from the training officers throughout the academy. And we actually pride ourselves on providing a great deal of training remedially throughout the academy. So for example, if we find that one of our officers is struggling with basic firearms training. We will actually schedule remedial extra firearms training with one of our firearms instructors on a day off from the academy. So we'll rent, we'll reserve time on a range and have one of our instructors come in on a Saturday. Uh same thing with driving, same thing with report writing, etc. So we do quite a bit of that. With that said, uh the reference that uh came up over the last year was we did unfortunately have what I would describe as an aberration, which was we had a large academy class that yielded only a handful of successful recruits. Uh some of that was due to injury. Uh one issue uh we had a trainee resign uh and then we had some other trainees that were not ultimately able to complete our field training program. So that group of trainees uh which was nearly 10 had only about a onethird success rate um from the group. And so that definitely contributed to our vacancy rate now and the success rate or lack thereof you're referring to. Historically, I would say if you take that group out, we're more like a 2/3 to 3/4 success rate. So, I'm optimistic that we can get there. Uh again, uh the one thing I'll add just as a caveat is that we have begun doing what Kate Murdoch referred to and recommended, which is training outcomes by academy location that we're using. So that way if we do see over time that there's a trend that we're getting inferior product from one academy versus another that we can focus our attention on sending recruits to the academy where we're getting the best level of success. >> And do we know as far as themies that allow the the field training officer to be present on on site? I I would I would imagine passage rates are are higher there or >> I would say generally speaking that's been the case. uh but not always. Uh we generally are very pleased with the level of instruction that our folks are getting at themies. Um we uh when we have the opportunity, we tend to send our folks either to the Santa Clair County Sheriff's Office Academy or the San Jose Police Department's Academy, which we think over time have provided the highest level of quality. Uh we do find ourselves sometimes in the predicament though where we have a top quality candidate that we bring on in say January and the next scheduled iteration at one of thosemies isn't for months and so we have to decide do we employ this person and have them doing office work here at the here at the police department for months before the next iteration of that academy starts or do we send them to a different academy in the region that has an academy that starts right away. So it is a balancing test but uh I think for now we're going to strongly error on the side of relying upon the twommies we think put out the best product. You know what one just thought I don't know if you've at code enforcement I know is not necess it's not in PD it's in right yeah have you had conversations with is that that planning with have you had conversations with planning to see if for those times we're always underst staffed and code enforcement seems like could be a natural crossover there >> we have not talked about that that's a good idea uh what we have done in the past is we've had them back help with backfill needs in our records unit. Uh we've also used it as a way to do some pre-academy training with folks so that maybe they can hit the ground running and have a leg up on some of their academy classmates. Uh but you're right, there could be opportunities to do work in other departments. >> Yeah, I mean yeah, I think we're we're always looking for more code enforcement resources. So I think that'd be that'd be nice from the the city perspective. And then just one uh one one final question. I think we've done far better on on fire at addressing the vacancy issues that have that have been there. Clearly, we continue to struggle in in police. What do you find to be the largest impediment to fully staffing the department? H how do we get there? Is it do do you find it's some sort of structural barrier barrier from sort of the city side resources being provided or is it something else entirely? I think there's several factors that have impacted our recruiting in recent years. I think one is not totally unique to police in the sense that cost of housing is certainly an impact. And I think for police, it's particularly impactful because nearly every city or every city has its own police department or contracts with a sheriff's office. And so any officer who's traveling from any distance is by definition driving through every other jurisdiction for whom they could be working closer to home. And so that's a challenge. So ultimately you really have to have an officer who feels fairly compensated and loves working where they work. And we've been lucky to have a lot of those. Um I do feel like we're in a position where we are compensating competitively to our neighbors. Um, I think that it still is a challenge though. Um, I think the other thing that we're hopefully recovering from, notwithstanding what I'll call a bump in the road with some um, you know, academy success rates last year, from a pure hiring perspective, I think we really have some positive momentum uh, over the last year or two. And I think we're we're in moving in a good direction. And I think we really are, believe it or not, just now kind of coming out of what happened during the pandemic with our staffing. And if I could, even though it sounds like a long time ago, um the fact that we did lose quite a few positions during the pandemic, while it may have been economically necessary for the the city's machine, it did send a a problematic message um because we were one of the only departments in the area that eliminated a noticeable number of sworn positions. And I think that created at least a reputation of either instability or lack of priority around public safety. And I think now though, having recouped the majority of those positions in the ensuing years, um we've we're now I think at enough distance that we're back to making some good progress. >> Good. Thank Thank you for that. And yeah, let's not make we won't make that mistake again. Appreciate all your all all your good work. So thanks. >> Thank you. And so just kind of just then you know a couple of thoughts on on just this. I think the overreiance on overtime and in both police and fire is concerning to me for a variety of reasons. I think one the I mean one the impacts on on kind of budget planning is concerning um especially when we're we're looking at three times more than than what we budget for in a in a given year. But personally, I'm more concerned about the safety risks to first responders. I know the the audit itself didn't specifically kind of go into it, but it it cited the the New York Times Inspector General for the NYPD on the impact of overtime on police finding and I kind of reviewed that report on my own and I was just fascinated. That report found that after working an average overtime shift of about four a four four hours, officers were more, again, this is in New York City, 36.8% more likely to be the subject of a substantiated misconduct complaint, 36.5% more likely to be named in a civil lawsuit, 20.5% more likely to be involved in a use of force incident, and 18.8% more likely to suffer a workplace injury the following day. And that report attributed those spikes directly to officer fatigue, noting that it leads to impaired performance, decreased alertness, and mood changes. And it compared the cognitive fatigue experienced during extended overtime to the effects of moderate alcohol intoxication. And we're we're choosing really to I think to subject our our first responders to these risks because of just unacceptable vacancy levels, especially in in police. Unfortunately, some of this is not well I think unfortunately sorry a lot of this is not in our in our control. It was nice hearing the um the police chief kind of appine on on what's causing it but to any extent that we are able to address these challenges. uh I definitely support so appreciate the the audit and the recommendations being being provided and I know a lot of this is a budgetary issue but we'll encourage us to continue to try to address this both in the current fiscal or the very soon upcoming fiscal year and beyond. Thank you chair. I know I went long. >> All good. Thank you Vice Mayor Council Member Rectal. >> Okay. Yeah. First I want to thank Miss Murdoch. Very good report. I thought the suggestions were very good. I was also happy to see that the chiefs by and large agreed with them. I thought they were good suggestions and you know constructive criticism is always a good thing. Um for police staffing there's two issues. One is uh vacancies. The other is allocated or budgeted spots. Can you talk about over the years the budget has decreased significantly even if you take out animal services uh we're about 10 heads lighter than we were a decade ago and is that a change in scope of what the police are doing or are they doing it more efficiently or are we just not enforcing things as much as we used to? So I I don't think I would attribute that to increased efficiency and lack of need. Um I would say that of those net 10 body difference uh versus historical numbers uh five of those are five fewer police officer positions for which were budgeted. Um, council may recall that uh for fiscal 21 uh there were uh 11 police officer positions that were either eliminated or frozen. Ultimately, all 11 of them were eliminated uh in fiscal 22. We have since recouped uh six of those incrementally over time. So, we're still at a net deficiency of five uh sworn police officer positions versus calendar year 2020. Uh and that was not as a result of a lack of need, but rather budget considerations. Um so, to answer your question, yes, there are things that uh we were capable of doing or at least capable of doing more consistently uh in years past than we are now just due to uh diminished staffing. Uh, a few of those other positions um would be attributable to uh we lost some parking enforcement positions. I believe there should be at least and a communications uh professional position that was eliminated by that a uh public information officer position was eliminated. So, not all in the sworn ranks, but uh all due to budget, not due to uh lack of need. >> Okay. So, if we didn't have budget issues, you would want those five back or would are those nice to have as opposed to essential? >> Uh, I would like all of them back if the budget would allow. And I what I would say to what I would say specifically is that those positions, assuming we had them budgeted and assuming we could fill them all, um would allow us to build out additional spots on our traffic team that used to exist uh and build out positions in our detective bureau that used to exist. So, for example, when I was assigned to the detective bureau, uh we had a total of two sergeants and approximately 10 or more detectives that were assigned to the bureau. They're currently operating at approximately half that staffing now. So, as a result, there are predominantly property crime related cases that m may not get investigated that did in the past because we have to focus our attention on those that are most impactful and the most serious offenses. And on the traffic side of things, I recall when I was a brand new officer and I got trained in traffic stops and ticket writing, we had half a dozen motorcycle officers working. Uh right now we have two and those two officers uh spend some degree of their time doing basic 911 response, not just focusing on traffic enforcement. So there are definitely things that we could use those additional bodies to accomplish. Um and they wouldn't be I'd call nice to haves. Uh, I will add the caveat though as I said on the front end. We haven't asked for those bodies back in part due to budget but in part because I want to be in a position where I filled all the bodies I have allocated before I come hand in hand asking for more. >> How many vacancies do we have right now in the forest? >> So right now we have eight budgeted vacancies that are unfilled. Um, I will add though that a couple of filled budgeted uh positions are occupied by folks that are out on long-term injury that I do not expect to return. So, as a practical matter, we're probably more like 10. >> Okay. So, if I look in the budget and see the budgeted headcount, th that's the total number that you're paying. Those aren't necessarily people working as police officers. The total budgeted headcount would include all the correct would include all the officers that are currently on the payroll regardless of whether they're able to serve right now or whether they're out on injury and it would include vacant positions that are funded. >> Okay. Well, that's a big distinction. If someone's on long-term leave, how long can they be on the payroll before they roll off to insurance or some long-term >> So, there are a couple different processes that come into play when someone's on long-term injury. Um they can be uh the general rule of thumb is that someone is can be expected to be out on an industrial injury for approximately a year and then they would transition to potentially to state long-term disability insurance coverage. So you could have someone with a career-ending injury but that requires an extensive surgery or some sort of care that can take upwards of a year or 18 months to resolve. Um, when we get to the point where we have someone in that position where we've reached the fork in the road where they can't reasonably be expected to return to work and if we're fully staffed and could otherwise use that position, there are some ways we can work with HR to over staff for that position. >> Okay. And so these 8 to 10 vacancies, uh, if you were to rehire for those, are you looking for laterals or are you looking for academy candidates? >> I think a healthy mix. I think I would say if I could find 8 to 10 highly qualified laterals, that would be fantastic because we're bringing in folks that already have a basic skill set and that we don't have to incur the uh expense of paying them for six months of academy attendance or for the academy tuition. With that said, we always want to hire for culture and fit. And not every police officer that is a competent police officer working in some other jurisdiction would be a good cultural fit for our community and our police department. So, uh, we don't always hire someone who may be what I would call a competent police officer that applies here as a lateral. >> Okay. Um, another issue is overtime and is are the people on overtime still doing their job well, right? So, for example, if someone's working 44 hours a week, those four extra hours probably are are still functional. But if they're working 60 hours a week now, are we getting the good value for that? Do we know the distribution of uh how many people are doing a few hours a week and how many people are doing a whole bunch? So I think the report does note that there's uh that there is a group of folks who are you know probably carrying more water than others. Uh part of that revolves around the fact that um some of the overtime you'll see and I think this is noteworthy from a cost perspective as well as from a fatigue perspective. So, when you look at the overtime numbers for the police department, for example, over the last 12 months, and you see a 3 point or close to $4 million overtime expense, um about a million and a half of that is attributable to the organized retail theft detail. So, the reason that's uh I think an important distinction is that $1.5 million is 100% reimburseable by the state. So when you look at the gap between the overtime expense and the budgeted overtime, 1.5 million of that is not actually a shortfall in the city's budgeting for overtime because it's being fully reimbursed by the state. So we don't need to budget for that. In other words, um so I think those overtime shifts are done completely at the election of the officer. um to answer your question in terms of you know are we getting good quality work product from our officers. So I think that I'm not aware of a recent collision or use of force where we felt like fatigue was a was a was a demonstrable factor or something that was obvious to us. Um, I think that generally speaking, our officers are working overtime in relatively short increments. And so most of our officers work 11-hour shifts by way of contract. So they may be coming in an hour early, staying an hour late, coming in 2 hours early, staying 2 hours late. While a 12 or 13 hour day is not ideal, it's also worth noting that many other neighboring agencies work 12-hour shifts as a matter of course. So, um I think that's that's a noteworthy point of reference. >> Okay. I mean, should we have a limit of how many overtime hours someone can work in a week or is that we do you think that's not a problem? >> So, I don't view that as a problem. I think that we do encourage our supervisors to do regular check-ins with their folks and we do make a habit of checking in with the folks that work a lot of overtime to make sure that they are, you know, that they're still in a good place and that they're that they're taking care of themselves. Um, there are already Fair Labor Standards Act uh rules that are applicable to maximum work hours uh in any particular 24-hour period, maximum or excuse me, minimum spread between time off and time back on the clock. And we scrupulously uh adhere to those, although FLSA does allow for an exemption in the case of a true emergency. So, if we're working on a homicide investigation or something and our detectives need to go home and sleep for a couple hours and come right back, on paper, that violates FLSA, but there's an exemption that allows for emergency. Uh, same with firefighting. >> Okay. Uh, clerk, can you bring up packet page uh 26? I want to look at uh the KPI plot. And right now, we have this. We want 90% of our calls to be within either six or 10 minutes depending on the type of call. Um, and we're not ma we're not hitting our KPIs. U do we know why that is? Is it is that KPI realistic or should we be changing it to a something that's um more relevant or do we have work to do? >> I think all of the above. There's certainly we we could give some thought to adjusting the uh the expectation. I think though that that expectation is reasonable with fuller staffing. So I I hate to be circular in the way we're talking about this, but I think truly if you look at response times over time, uh the two things that most directly impact it are uh that most directly well the three things that most directly impacted our volume of calls for service, vehicular traffic, and available staffing. And I think right now um traffic has more or less, you know, sort of returned to a baseline level. um calls for service have more or less returned to a baseline level, but our staffing has not yet returned to that historical baseline level. I'm optimistic if we can get there um then then these response times uh will again be, you know, reasonably expected. >> And so you think the primary reason we're not making this staffing right now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you zoom in on the the plot? I mean, one of the questions I have is we're not meeting the 90%. uh but what I don't know is how much are we missing that 90% by for example if we want a six minute response and only 80% is 6 minutes but if 90% is 6 and 1/2 minutes then we're probably okay right but if 90% is really 12 minutes then that long tail is troublesome do we know what how long that tail is >> uh so two things so uh our budget analyst reminded me that actually in our most recent uh budget we actually did make an adjustment to 80%. >> So we actually did rightsize that number and that will likely show a much higher level of compliance. Uh so that's on the front end. We have at least temporarily rightsized that expectation number. >> Okay. >> Um >> and is that expectation standard? You know, if I looked at San Francisco or San Jose, would they have a similar 80% or 90% or >> we certainly meet or exceed this the industry standard? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay, that's useful. Uh do you know how long that tail is? How much are we meeting missing our 90% by? Is it a few minutes or is it Do we have a long tail? >> No, the tail is not long. >> Okay. Okay. Uh we have frozen the higher head or is that fire in the budget process? We've frozen some fire ahead higher heads. >> I think that was on the I think that was on the fire side if I recall. There was a reference in this report to uh entertaining a standing hire program for police. uh council authorized that a couple of years ago and we were appreciative of that. However, we never got close enough to fully staffed where we actually needed to utilize those hire ahead positions. So, I feel comfortable that if we get to the point where that would be a useful strategy, we will come back to council and ask for that authorization again. >> Okay. And one last question about um time tracking. I'm not sure if this is a question for you or for it. your time system is incompatible with the cities and so it makes it harder to do analysis is and I saw that the at least the it accepted or like didn't even affect said more or less we'll look into it uh do we know um is it feasible for us to get a time and and why is it not matching why are why is the police department different than the city maybe that's >> so it's not that the police department so citywide for uh payroll tracking and time entry, we use SAP to track that. And so that's not unique to the police department. The fire department and everybody else uses SAP for purposes of paychecks and time entry. um individual departments that need to have used a variety of different other softwares to work through overtime scheduling and other things unrelated to sort of payroll. And so the disconnect is between those scheduling piece those pieces of scheduling software and the underlying payroll data. Those two systems don't talk to each other. And to my knowledge, no department in the city is currently using a time tracking system that is compatible with SAP. Um, so that's not a problem that's unique to PD. However, as uh Kate Murdoch pointed out, the fire department's using a different piece of time tracking software that they think has been more successful for them in terms of tracking overtime uses and purposes. uh we did meet with them recently to talk through whether the software they're using would be an improvement for us. So that's where we sit presently. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. I have one question for the fire department. Um one of the concerns was the fire marshall said that lack of um workforce or headcount is causing timely followup for fire code violations to be not made. >> Yes. Uh good evening. Steve Lindseay, fire chief uh for the fire department. Uh as far as the concern from the fire marshall, that was regarding uh staffing reductions during the CO periods um when we reduced our staffing by two fire inspectors, which um had us slow down some of our recurring inspections. A lot of the businesses at that time were actually closed as well. Um but what we saw is after uh the co restrictions started to lift that we were in a backlog of trying to get caught up on our annual inspections, our state mandate and then our our code enforcement. So those violations that we find follow follow up with them. Um since then we have added two to two additional positions. So we restored and rebudgeted for uh four total fire inspectors. So her concern was is that you go inspect something and you find some violations, you come back a week or two later to see that that's been fixed. And that delay was longer than it should have been. >> It was longer than it should have been during that period of time because those two inspectors were inspecting they were having to triage essentially um some of the more highest what we call higher risk sites versus the lower risk uh lower risk violations. And so we would see a backlog of some of the the lower acuity if you will. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. I just have a few more questions. Um thanks to my colleagues for asking great ones. Um just want to say Chief Rip Schneider, I'm so glad um to know that you've rightsized the response time goals and proud that we're still ahead of industry standard even by right sizing. So good good for good for you and thank you. Um, I would like to better understand how the budget shakes out on vacancy savings versus OT pay. I think that's a question for you, Miss No. Um, my first question is, are benefits impacted when somebody is acrewing overtime pay? Does that in any way increase the benefits they receive or I'm seeing no in the back from our PD guy. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, benefits are not impacted. >> Correct. benefits are not impacted but overtime is paid at depending on the contract time and a half or double time depending on the date all that holiday pay etc. So that's why I couldn't tell you specifically uh if it's a one for one, but you are right. There are some of the um the benefit costs, the retirement costs, those things are static. They aren't added on when there's overtime, but the hourly rate does change. >> Okay. Does somebody's seniority, the amount of time they have been with the department change if they are doing overtime in a particular year? Does it essentially do they acrue that second year more quickly if there was overtime in the first year? >> Are you talking about like Kalpers credits or are you talking about seniority within the department? >> Yes, both. I'm not sure what I'm I'm trying to get at the benefits and impacts of someone being >> Sure. Sure. Sure. Um from a Kalpers standpoint, overtime does not count towards um an employes pension calculation. Um, and so that's non-pensionable compensation. In terms of how a department considers the tenure of an employee with uh the city and whether or not overtime is included in that calculation, I'm going to guess no. >> We used >> Thank you. >> Sorry. We we track seniority based on calendar months, not hours worked. >> Okay. I appreciate that and it makes a lot of sense. But you can see how for these 10 people who are doing 35% of the overtime or something effectively they are over time o over a period of time putting in more months and years. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> I mean yes I see what you're saying. >> They're getting compensated but the burnout the wear and tear the sort of >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you if it's helpful. So let me go back now to budget. I realize you can't do a you know an exact comparison but but my big question is sort of what is the ratio between vacancy savings and overtime um you know so for example with those eight vacancies in the PD what are we saving in not paying people that salary and those benefits versus the millions that the department is spending on OT and would you remind me what your name is >> that quite a Right. Uh Eric Jensen, uh senior management analyst for the police department. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, of course. Uh so I don't have those numbers exactly in front of me, but I can refer uh you and the rest of us actually to the quarterly over public safety overtime uh informationational report that goes out every quarter where that is kind of factored in. And um thatformational report is is sometimes presented to finance committee, sometimes presented to council. So it's it but it in that information um uh spells out uh what the overtime spend has been and then it calculates out uh what the vacancy experienced has been and then it nets it out. >> So is that net a red color or a black color? Uh generally it's a red color >> meaning but not very red >> meaning our overtime exceeds >> the vacancies. Well, >> I should say there's there's other things that factor into it like for example the reimbursements >> from um the state grant and then also uh when services like Stanford pays us for half of the overtime for traffic control and things of that nature. So, those do net out, but generally speaking, um it's pretty close. It's pretty close to to to netting out. I But to be clear, I'd have to go back and look at some of the the most recent reports to confirm that. Particularly the one that ends Q5 and 2025. I don't have that one on the top of my head. Or the one that the fourth quarter. I'm sorry, did I say Q5? >> I think so. >> Wow, that'd be amazing. Um, I'm looking for 27 hours in the day. Um, no, Q4 of 2025 and Q4 of 2024 to see how they how they spent out. If I recall, and again, I'm I probably might be getting over my skis here, but um, last year, I believe we exceeded overtime uh, by maybe half a million, maybe. So that that's but then you make it up in other places uh such as contracts. >> So if I'm looking for a one for one I think which is what you're looking for council member. Uh and this is a blended rate. So the um total cost benefit ratio uh for a sworn employee is different than a nonsworn employee. Uh the formulas obviously for benefits are different. Um, on average, your additional on top of a salary for an employee, your additional costs for total compensation is usually about an additional 60%. So, as you can see, if overtime is time and half, you're roughly netting out essentially uh because your hourly rate is going up with overtime, but you're not paying the benefits. On the flip side, I think that's generally what you're looking for. Um, it's not as simple as that, which is why I think staff are stumbling over the options, but I think that's the general gist of what you're uh trying to compare. >> Thank you, Chief. Did you want to say something? >> That was essentially what I was going to say is if we're talking about overtime hours that are attributable to a vacancy, in other words, we had to fill this with overtime because we lack a full a regular time officer to fill it. Then I was going to say essentially the same which is that generally speaking on an hour to hour apples to apples comparison it's cheaper to pay overtime for an hour than it is to pay pay and benefits for that same hour. That doesn't of course take into account the toll on the employee or any of that but on a pure dollars and cents. >> Thank you. That's exactly where that's the point I wanted to land on. Um is it cheaper for the city to pay people over time then right? But what we learned from the chief prior is that wait a minute I can't even I got eight spots that I would love to fill. They're budgeted. You know, I'm not asking for additional spot those additional five cuz I I'm not going to come to you with hat in hand as you said for the five when I can't even fill the eight already allocated. And so this question of well should we be paying overtime or should we be paying salary isn't quite in front of us. Um okay but I learned a lot. So thank you for that. Um I agree with the with my colleagues expressing concerns about the risks. Um the study that you cited from New York about the potential for increased negative behaviors and outcomes if a person has been doing a certain amount of overtime. I think we're all relatedly concerned about the impact on that individual to their quality of life and mental health if they're doing too much overtime. Um um the last question I have really for both chiefs if you're interested is uh it's going to seem orthogonal but it gets to this issue of driving in passing through all those jurisdictions where maybe they could afford a house uh uh or receive the same salary and live you know 50% closer to their house. Um, as we explore workforce housing as a city, is there is that a topic that people in your departments are talking about? Wouldn't it be great if the city had a dormatory or a barracks or a place to park your car that was legal uh some form of shelter where you could do your shift here um and basically stay slashlive here and then drive two hours away to get back to your house, you know, every 5 days or however many days it would be. Is there do you have any feedback for us on the attractiveness of that kind of solution that companies are going to be forced to have to confront pretty soon? >> Good evening. As far as uh employee housing goes, I think there is an interest uh from kind of our newer employees actually to purchase uh either a condo or have ownership in real property um within town. And we find that some will rent apartments either during the academy or during probation and uh find ways to stay closer to town and then as they get off probation and they've decided to make this their home essentially away from home um they'll start looking for a place where they could afford to buy property and in a house and that's where we find that we start to get that sprawl and they start to move farther and farther away. And so I think there is an interest level from the fire side on having um a home closer to the workspace. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Chief Lindsay. >> Uh I'll reiterate that certainly there would be interest. I'll say that the same dynamic uh that Chief Lindseay just described is present in the police department in the sense that we find generally that our younger officers, our newer officers, many of whom don't yet maybe have a family, uh will rent something smaller or try to at least nearby and uh they have less of a concern. And then once they start to expand their own family and they're looking for uh you know a larger space to accommodate a family, that's when they start moving farther away. Um, I would say one uh one disadvantage that uh police has perhaps versus fire or EMS is just the work schedule because for fire, at least for those that are assigned to a station, I'll say they work for several days and then go home for several days and while they're on duty, they live at the station versus police has the traditional, you know, drive to work, drive home, drive to work, drive home. And so it's more difficult for them to purchase something hours away uh because they still have that daily commute. So just to put a finer point on it, if there were an opportunity for workday type housing, apartment, barracks, whatever you describe, I'm confident we would at least have some of our newer officers who would take advantage of that. >> Thank you so much for speculating on that for me. I appreciate it. All right, that is it for me. Any further questions from colleagues? Madame clerk, did anyone ring in with a last minute thing to say? Member of the public. Okay. In which case, I would be happy to entertain a motion. We are to accept the results and recommend that it go to c to go to council for them to accept the results. >> I move the staff recommendation. >> Second. >> Terrific. And while we're waiting for the vote to be called, Miss Murdoch, thank you so much for the audit. We appreciate you. >> You and again really appreciate all the efforts of of both departments and providing assistance and uh in conducting this audit. >> Does this look okay for vote? >> Yes. >> That looks great to me. Ma'am, >> Vice Mur Stone, >> yes. >> Council member Rectal, >> yes. Chair Liths. >> Yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Terrific. Thanks again, Chiefs and Mr. Jensen. Are you Mr. Jensen or am I supposed Are you Captain Jensen? >> No, it's just Eric. >> Eric. To the Chiefs and Eric. Thank you so much for contributing to the conversation. Okay, we're going to move on to our section, our second action item, which is um nonprofit partnership work plan fiscal year 2027 phase 1 process refinements. And Miss Almos, are you going to be presenting? >> Yes, that is me. Um good evening, chair and council members. >> Why are you giggling? >> Um I'm just being silly. um Lupita, assistant to the city manager, and I'm here to present tonight's item. Um and this item was originally drafted to respond to the city council's um feedback to refine phase one process. Um and since then the budget review process with the finance committee and subsequently the city council through the study session yesterday um has kind of changed that path um moving forward for the nonprofit uh work plan phase one process in fiscal year 27. Um so tonight's meeting uh just provides the uh committee the opportunity to discuss city council comments and provide feedback on next steps. the next step. Next slide. So, uh during the city council study session yesterday, um staff presented four options on nonprofit funding, uh including phase one process. Um given the city's budget constraints, the finance committee had made a recommendation that the city council consider option C, which is shown in this slide. Though no formal vote was taken, there um seemed to be a general consensus that the budget process uh would assume option C as part of the budget balancing strategy. Um option C here um includes 78,000 to the proposed uh budget direct allocations. The organizations that are included as part of that 78,000 include environmental volunteers with 10,780 neighbors abroad with 17,500 YCFs for YCI for 50,000 and these would be contracts that would be considered ongoing. The option C also allocates 235,000 in additional direct allocations for three organizations and this includes magical bridge for 150,000, Calav uh events and music for 40,000 and UNAV for 45,000. Um this option also puts no money or no funding for the phase one grant process. Next slide. So, some of the additional feedback that uh was received on nonprofits during the study session also including included wanting a better process on how ongoing partnerships are evaluated. We heard questions on uh where new or innovative nonprofit programs would fit within our grant program structure. Uh we also heard a desire to align or shift phase 1 funding with his wrap in fiscal year 28. Um and this option would uh require a change in scope. And then wanting better clarity on nonprofit categories or types such as um identifying what uh nonprofits uh provide operational uh needs as well as those that respond to community needs via the via a grants program or direct allocation to ongoing partnerships. Next slide. So, as a recap of the original PNS referral, uh, council had directed refining the nonprofit guiding principles as they related to the policy adjustments and new process and procedures and that's captured in the box there on the slide. Uh the nonprofit nonprofit partnership work plan proposed four major areas of work to apply the principles as well as the recommendations of the 2022 audit on nonprofit management. These are listed on the slide um and include nonprofit partnership work plan phase one funding uh requests which we piloted in fiscal year 26. Um it also includes work on nonprofit lease agreements which we are currently viewing. We've already reviewed um Gamble Gardens and Winter Lodge and upcoming is also going to be Lombals. We have nonprofit multi-year service agreements um which will address the review of some of these ongoing partnerships. that's going to be a space or an area where that um discussion would fit. And then highlighted here is the comprehensive review of all grants and programs including human service resource allocation or his um CDBG and folded in here would also be included our emerging needs fund. Um so given the time sensitivity of the next HISRAP funding cycle and based on the comments that we heard at the study session yesterday, uh the m the committee may want to focus on this area of work next if the committee would like to pursue. >> Can I just clarify? I'm sorry. Miss, can you just go back? You're suggesting maybe the committee should focus on this area of work next, meaning the Could could you go back one slide, please? >> Yes, the highlighted >> the highlighted orange yellow. Okay, thank you. >> Starting with his rep. Um, so in the next slide, if the committee would like to pursue that option, the following is a potential timeline that could be explored. So tonight, obviously, the committee would provide the feedback on those next steps. um in the fall in that next bullet uh the policy and services uh could discuss the fiscal year 28 hisroat process including any potential refinements as well as um the human resources uh commission and then following that PNS and HRC would then make a recommendation for council approval sometime in September October time frame and this is in the next column um with the application process of the the HISREP application process opening up in October, November time frame and then um those applications due back to city staff sometime in December. Um and this process would then at that point bring the the original HISRAP um schedule to its original time frame. Um, so tonight we just seek that the uh committee discuss and confirm the city council general consensus around the May 11th study session and provide feedback on proposed work plan next steps. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Um, I do appreciate that you shifted on the fly in light of yesterday. Uh I was preparing for today thinking should we really be visiting this item today? It just feels like uh less than ideal timing not knowing if council will approve finance committee's recommendation of option C. Didn't hear a whole lot of objection to that last night but it wasn't discussed a lot either. So, do we proceed assuming that's going to be the way it is that there is no nonprofit work plan uh nonprofit partnership work plan phase one in fiscal 27 and um uh or do we want to try to advocate that it should be uh you know it seems to make some sense to talk about these sort of overarching principles about um you know to to refine uh the process and clarify the purpose of an extra bucket of funding. Um, so I think first what I'd like to do is just see if we have consensus among us about what our conversation should be about tonight. Yep. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. >> Council member Rectal. >> Yeah. I guess for me the questions I have is what is our vision for his rep going forward and what is our vision for phase one going forward. That would be one of the things that I think we need to discuss. >> Yeah. I I I think and I think our our assumption should be that option C is what's going to ultimately be adopted in in June. I think given that last night was the last time that we as a full council discussed it until the actual until actual adoption on June 15th. Correct? >> Wrap up. >> So there's uh the full is your count is your question about full counsel or the finance comm. >> Full counsel. >> Correct. That yesterday was the last time the full council will see this uh until budget adoption on the 15th. >> Okay. Yeah. And so that's that's too late. So I think if anyone was really objecting to option C that was that was yesterday. So I think we should move forward with the assumption that that will be in the in the budget and really just kind of focus on then next steps. I do just have one question to to get some clarification is so is staff kind of recommending here that phase one just that in instead of rather this We just call it phase one. Sorry, this nonprofit work plan. >> Yeah, that was the original um the original um I guess grant process that we were going to talk about was the phase one process. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So is is the recommendation that we're rather than pursuing that we're that we would just re-examine his rap and revise the his wrap process or through this through these discussions we found that there are some some ways that we might be able to improve the ISRAP process in addition to refining this phase one approach too. So that's technically an open question. >> Okay. >> Um your colleagues at the finance committee uh opined on this saying that they thought that a separate process um was redundant and that you know we should as an organization pivot towards um looking at how that would be incorporated into the hisrap process. Um they articulated that last night as part of the study session. But I ultimately I think as staff are dividing and trying to work with two bodies on the numbers versus the who, what, when, where kind of thing um and how with this committee. So this committee could uh that's part of I think your discussion and recommendation to council is do you think we should be rolling this into his wrap and reooking at his wrap? Do you want to continue a separate grant process knowing where your colleagues are? >> Okay. And at least good or bad how you see it as far as just kind of process goes, we now have about a year if we were to move forward with the phase one that that's not going to be actually funded until or it's not funded for the next fiscal year as proposed currently. >> Correct. It's suspended for fiscal year 27 and then um if um the council or the committee would uh choose to come back to that in fiscal year 28 then we could resume those refinements around that time. Um but I also did want to note that um as we started looking at those refinements in the last few meetings with policy and services continuing from the 2025 policy and services committee and then um later we had talked about um having the HRC being a reviewer of the process and so I just wanted to echo assistant um city manager Nos's um comment of trying to avoid redundancy services or processes. >> I I mean I think the I think the timeline that you suggested on reviewing his wrap makes a lot of sense. I think I think my recommendation would be to review the review the his wrap process and if there are still gaps in services after we maybe review and refine then to revisit this phase one approach to be able to address things like emerging needs or other or other kind of gaps in in funding. Um that would just be my my thoughts. So I think I'm hearing you say review his rep. If there are any gaps then we could have maybe this sort of up lane number two. >> Yeah. I I mean I think ideally we see how can we refine his rap and improve it to be able to cover >> what this program was initially intended for. And if we can't do that, then we kind of come back to phase one, >> which could include changing the definition of his rep to be more encompassing. Yes. >> But I feel like council member Rectal was saying, I see a need for his rep and I see a need for a second category >> right off the bat or am I getting that wrong? >> Um, no. My personal opinion is we don't need phase one anymore. >> I think we should expand. So, one question I had is when I looked at what was in phase one from last year, a lot of them are human services and did they not qualify for his rap or did they like for example job train? Uh did they not know about his wrap and then they just stumbled on phase one or what happened? uh many of these actually were his rep recipients, existing recipients that um didn't get full funding through that uh cycle and so they saw phase one as an opportunity to pursue that second part of what they had originally requested. I'm not saying all of them, but a good majority of them. >> I'll also emphasize that his rep is a two-year process. And so last year um was not when the Hisre process, I think, was actually applications open. Correct. That's correct. >> So this year we'll be opening up applications again for his rap this fall. >> The deadline if that's the issue >> potentially. I don't know that that was the issue but we were in between two application periods for his rep when we ran this process last year. >> That's useful. But when I look through a lot of them are uh human services. Would any of them not qualify for his w? >> Yes. as currently defined um by his rap for example job train which is a workforce development I don't think is um necessarily part of the uh needs assessment um uh a category within that um as well as some of these um like UNAF that provides arts and culture um and let's say uh environmental volunteers who um provides more of um environmental climate action uh types of services. So yes, that part of that evaluation for HISRAP would have to um look at expanding the scope to include categories that aren't currently captured. Um and also I do want to um point that we do have an emerging needs fund um that is kind of a catch uh for nonprofits during the year. So that is another tool that could be layered over um what kind of comes um through in 28. >> Yeah. >> Can I ask before you continue? I sort of wanted to try to get a lay of the land of what we were going to talk about and just get kind of technical questions answered. Then I want to go to public comment and then we can is that cool? Okay. >> So um my technical questions are I'm very confused about the different categories. I understand his rep for the most part. I understand CDBG. Um I don't know what we mean when we say direct allocations ongoing versus additional direct allocations versus multi-year service agreements. Or maybe that one's not a versus. There may be some multi-year services agreements that are included. I I'm struggling with the ven diagram or the complete distinction between these sets. Ultimately, I'm trying to figure out why are some people getting funded and some people are not. And you know, we put them in buckets and categories and we have a lot of them now. And I think we're all interested in driving toward clarity, you know, fewer buckets. Um maybe more money in that one bucket or in those two buckets, but let's not have all these different tiers or statuses and let's not fail to name why somebody's in a certain category. So I would love a technical definition for additional direct allocations versus direct allocations parenthesis ongoing. >> Um yes, thank you for that and um agreed that this additional nomenclature adds to the confusion but essentially all of these are being considered ongoing um um service agreements as a best practice. Um I think that if when we follow our policy on how we enter these relationships, these ongoing partnerships is um is a good idea when we do um either an RFP or or soul source soul source justification or some way in which there's a transparent process on how we enter into these relationships and partnerships is a good practice. Um as to um the the direct allocations identified here, um obviously uh members of the finance committee felt that these were very valued partners that we want to continue. Um staff would recommend that we would formalize those relationships with um you know formal process and um understanding what the organizations are thinking about in terms of scope and having a formal service agreements where there's performance measures and ways to evaluate that partnership. >> So thank you for that. So it sounds like when we desire to be in an ongoing financial relationship with a nonprofit, we seek to enter into an ongoing service agreement where we'll formalize it. We'll create we'll have performance metrics and so on. >> Yeah. So, we would have um you know, for for many of these a multi-year service agreement because that creates a um kind of a guaranteed funding for um some of these nonprofits or it identifies the the need. Uh so, if if there has been, you know, a a service which would require multi-year service from this nonprofit, then that would be identified through that process. Um and having uh us follow that as well would uh trigger those performance measures, the reporting, the kind of conversation that we also heard from council members yesterday. >> And that is handled by city staff. >> Correct. >> The reviewing the service agreements and determining >> correct. >> Okay. And the HISRAP is a two-year relationship. You have to apply every two years and it's HRC that makes that determination and recommends to council. >> That's correct. >> So we have a whole swath that are handled by HRC every two years. They have to reup and hope for the best. Then we have a different set with whom the city has not through the HRC but through city staff a set of service agreements. a service agreement where our expectations and what they get for it are laid out and we hold them account and are those every two years, every 3 years, every 10 years. >> I think it depends on what the service agreement term is. Many of them tend to be around 3 to 5 years. We also have um very long-term partners where you could see something longer than 5 years >> as we see in leases in particular. Council member, what I think maybe it's easiest to take this um and akin all those categories you just talked about in relationship to what I think folks are looking at which is that attachment A right and those four categories in the original attachment A right so his rap a grant program there's an application a notice of funding availability uh applications are uh reviewed in the context of the priorities of the HISRA process and allocations allocated as grants over a 2-year period. Same thing for CDBG, although that's a um annual process. Um then you have the other two categories on that table. One is the nonprofit phase one grant process, brand new. We've done it for one year. Um and then these direct or um operating service agreements categories. Ultimately, all of the things that you just talked about um that you were identifying, you know, the direct allocations, the additional direct allocations, if we were, let's just assume council adopted everything in adop uh attachment or option C, shall I say, if we were to reprint that table of attachment A, everything that has the grant phase one funding would be zeroed out as it is in the current version, and all of those six agencies in option C would be added and documented under that operating service um ongoing service agreement. So the relationships that we have for these ongoing services come in a multitude of ways. It could be through an RFP. It could be through simply council direction, right? As an example, Magical Bridge came to council two years ago at finance committee asking for the 150,000 annually for services. Um uh same you know we decided to do third Thursday now Calab music with the Palto Rec Foundation and I think as council members noted a lot of times these direct or ongoing service are in lie of staff doing something right we have ongoing services with Avanitas who deliver deliver senior services to the community. Um, and so I do think that one of your questions is is how do you get in that bucket, which is a multitude of ways, direction from council, an RFP, a sole source as Miss Alamos identified, um, that we want to do. And in terms of how they're reviewed, that is one of the things we need to work on in the nonprofit work plan. Um, if you look at slide four, Miss Alamos outlines, right, there's kind of four areas, right? Those nonprofit multi-year service agreements. How are we going to regulate that? Um, you know, some agencies could and how does that play all the way from how long are the terms to what are the performance level metrics and those check-in points, right? A grant process automatically requires that, but a contract process is something that I think we still have to define as part of this work plan. Um, hopefully that helps clarify. >> I actually really did. It's very complicated and complex and people have been working very hard on it and it's, you know, it's time for us to bring a little bit more coherence to it. Sounds like so much need. We want to do the right thing and um not enough dollars to meet the need. So, we want to be really thoughtful and I know everybody agrees with that. I think I've reached the end of my technical question. Before I start getting into my own opinions and thoughts and invite that, let me turn to the clerk for members of the public who wish to share their thoughts with us. There are no requests to speak for item two. >> Okay, terrific. Then I'll Why are you laughing? You can't laugh without notice. Okay. Um All right. Uh colleagues, let us proceed in this direction of it sounds like there's an argument from you both that figuring out how his might uh be the best bucket, you know, how to redefine it, how to expand it, how to sort of invest in that process and make sure that process gets going in accordance with our thoughts this fall. Um, and then this question of is there another lane or avenue that we ought to pursue relatively soon or do we want to do a wait and see? Um, so let's um let me hear your thoughts about kind of getting his wrap from where it is today to where it might be. >> Yes. I mean so big picture I think it there is a lot of different you know you talk about the ven diagram a lot of circles going on and to me I think there's three separate groups and one is the service providers and you if you look at the the packet uh there's things like um al cove we're funding that as a service provider um we have alta housing which works for us avanitas is another service provider Canopy gives service to uh urban forestry. We have grassroots ecology does things like irrigation maintenance and habitat restoration. And they're all working for a particular department. And so all those departments can do the vetting and do the figure out how much do we need this year? And so I think that's pretty clean because each department is determining what they want and then they propose that to finance and then finance can say yes that's a good suggestion. So I don't think we have to be part of those operating services. Then the next would be human services and I think anything that we think is human services should be eligible for his w people do their application for his w then HRC would recommend after going through that and doing the heavy lifting they because I watched last year that was really painful to watch and it was even probably more painful for Greer to do it. Uh that was a long meeting and you guys dug through a lot when you're talking about the phase one and what do you and that that seems redundant to me uh when you're giving money to human service type uh organizations and so if we can make it broad enough that all those service providers go over to the u HRC HRC gives their recommendation and their rationale they give that to us at uh policy and services we look at their rationale and agree with it or disagree and then give a final recommendation to council that makes it so the PNS isn't spending eight hours doing this but maybe can do it in an hour or two meeting. So I think that's much more achievable for his rep if we have that two-step process. And then the only thing that's left over is the people who are doing programming like magical bridge or UNF or neighbors abroad all those anyone who does something else I guess neighbors abroad is direct now through the but but right now if you look at uh on slide oh slide two uh neighbors oh neighbors abroad is direct allocation uh magical bridge Calab music festival or you the third Thursdays basically and UNAF those are just a handful and council I think can just deal with that directly and we can do that tradeoff and I think that's the most efficient way is to have those handful direct done directly with council. So, uh, council members, just something for consideration, and I think these are the nuances that you vetting through and thinking through these definitions is helpful and and ultimately the goal of tonight, um, and these ongoing conversations with policy and services. Um, council member, you talked about the organizations that are delivering services. Um, where the lines can get blurry is is some of those that you had identified as like these are easy slam dunks would be eligible for something like a human his rep process. So as you know al cove as an example they would be eligible under human services but as you were just running through and referencing and appropriately so council has said but we want to deliver these services so where would say all cove fall would it fall under the human services grant program or would it fall under that direct allocation and that you know I think that's where I think as council member chairs was saying you know how do you define that operating services and when is that check-in happening um struggling through some of these nuances with this committee I think will be really helpful as we figure out how to simplify those buckets that you're articulating >> and I think in my mind it would be every department is choosing there's some department that has chosen you to do some task right >> so as an example al cove wasn't departmental driven that was council direction >> okay >> um as part of midyear >> um uh that's just one example um I think Other examples like Avanitus, let's take a historical one. I think council members have articulated that um and I don't know if Avanitus is one of them, but if you were to go back decades in history, you know, we the city may have previously provided those services and we they spun out into a nonprofit and so that's how it turned into an ongoing payment to that nonprofit to deliver some services. Um, so I don't think you could say each one of these is directly initiated by a department. Um, I hear what you're saying and I think thinking through those nuances of, you know, one way to think about it could be are they delivering core city services that if otherwise wasn't being done, the city would have staff do it. >> Um, police is a really bad example because we would never hire uh security officers, but like let's just use that bad example. um if we didn't if we wanted to if we had hired a firm to provide police services to us and we said you know what we don't want to use that firm anymore we would have to provide police services um in house like cuz that's a service that we in our chore in our core charter are going to provide to the community >> so Avanas right now they're under CSD I assume is that >> correct under human services direct allocations not the grant program Okay. And so CSD feels some responsibility and if we didn't have Avanitas, they'd be the one who would be providing the services. Is that not the truth? >> I mean ultimately I think senior services if it were delivered in house um would be something that would fall under a community services department. in terms of does community services do an RFP to solicit for um providers who provide that and they select Avanitus. No, it doesn't go through a public procurement process. It's that long-standing relationship and I think a multi-year agreement. >> Correct. If I remember correctly, >> I would say that pets in need is more of a typical example that just happened recently where um we have an uh animal shelter that used to be run by the city and a few years ago we went out to an RFP um and through that process we um contracted with pets in need to provide that service. >> Okay. And so then that is still under the police department or who contracts her to pets in need. >> It's under CSD. >> CSD. Okay. And so you have a department that has saying I'm responsible. This is under my umbrella and I'm going to I'm going to monitor them and make sure that they're doing good work. And anyone who doesn't fall into that category like you UNAF for example that gets thrown to council and says council here here are a few oddballs that don't fit under these departments but they don't qualify for his w what are you going to do about that are you going to fund them or not and I think it since it's only a few I I think the simplest thing is just have council do them one by one. >> Okay I'm done. I didn't mean to take a loud exhale and make you think I was trying to interrupt you. Um M Mag, is it all right with you if I continue rather than turning to you? >> No. >> Okay, go ahead. Um this blurry line is really blurry. I loved Keith's clarity, Council Member Rectal's clarity, the operating service providers, the human services providers, and the programming. And I found myself thinking about Magical Bridge and how it is this extraordinary playground intended to ensure that kids with various degrees of special needs um and differences in abilities have the chance to play like all people want to do. And if that didn't cover by his rep, I don't know what should be. You know, it's kids with special needs getting to have a park that addresses their needs. And to in my brain that is in the same category as feeding low-income seniors and un you know helping unhoused people find shelter and um but that might just be you know what what seems to fit right for me. So, I think these blurry lines are real and uh we ought to just try to do our best to articulate definitions that make the most sense knowing that they're going to be some oddballs. Um, for example, I know a couple years ago there was some kind of relational disagreement between Avanas and Lacoma about providing those low-inccome meals. And there was a time when that was all happening in one place. And then there was a time when it was like, no, that can't happen anymore. And so, La Coma is not any longer providing senior meals to low-income seniors through Avanas. They're doing it through the city across the street now at 445 Bryant. And it begs the question if the city's obligation to provide senior services is not completely met by the organization that's our main senior services organization like what what do we do? How do we what control do we have over any of that? If in some cities the city staff provides those senior services and low-inccome feeding low-inccome seniors would be a definitely a bullet point under what's offered. Um, so we find ourselves with one long-standing terrific partner, not knocking Avanita. Aanita is a great partner. Uh, they chose to no longer partner with La Coma. We had to figure out how to make sure that piece got handled. And um, I would hate the thought that one receives ongoing funding de facto and the other is begging at the door for money, you know. So, how do we how do we return to this core of, you know, the city can't do it all, but the city knows these additional things that it can't do need to be done and sort of what makes the cut for that and what doesn't. And I know that we think UNAF is out there, you know, because it's art, it's film, and we may not see it as, you know, filling a need or addressing an inequity the way that a senior low-income food program does, but some would say it's the arts that are saving us or that will save us. You know, somebody could make that argument that in a healthy city, the arts must be well funded. And um and so maybe that's not a one-off either. um the Calav music you know the city is very interested in the activation of Calv through entertainment through music and food and drink and entertainment zone so we don't want that organization to be knocking at the door asking us for funding every few can we still provide this service for the city feels like a strange posture for any nonprofit to be in when we're the ones who ask that for them to help us right so um I know I'm I'm not driving toward any particular uh conclusion here or recommendation. I think I'm trying to highlight for me a few examples of why the lines are so blurry. >> Yeah. I mean, it seems like we're we're all in agreement of those lines being blurred. It's not a perfect process. There's too many buckets and who qualifies for what is is unclear. I I think that's why being our next steps through the fall is to really focus on to really focus on his rap, refining that process, see how we can improve it. I think we should go into that with the goal of of uh kind of incorporating this this phase one into that. And if we find through that work that we are unable to accomplish that goal, that's completely fine cuz at least we've then hopefully improved his rep in in other ways in time for the new applications in the fall. And then we would have or at least the future policy and services committee will have the opportunity to be able to go back to the phase one and improve that by the time of the next fiscal year if we're able to finance that for for for the future cuz I I definitely think there are there are a lot of ways that we can that we can improve his rap. I think one of my one of my concerns has always been the which I mean it's and it's a good thing about his rep the consistency of of agencies that are looking for those funds. I think like right now what about 80% of the agencies are funded for have been funded for more than 5 years. I mean they really rely on this funding but also that has meant that it's really challenging for new organizations to really be able to access that fund. And I think phase one in in part was really meant to be able to address that need. I I think we can figure that out through through um through some reasonable changes to to his RA and be able to accomplish those goals. So that's definitely the the path that I support and the and at least the the calendaring recommendation from staff. >> Thank you for that. And may I ask if we do that, assuming I mean because I feel like that's the consensus, do we need to also say, hey, if we're trying to expand the definition or widen the umbrella of his rap, do we need to make some recommendations upfront about the kinds of dollars we think would have to attend that expansion so that we don't end up diluting the amount of money that, as you've said, they're kind of accustomed to getting from HISRAP if they're regular HISRAP uh applicants. Um might I suggest you focus on the process first and then um as an example do the existing parameters satisfy the inclusion of everyone we want to include and be available to this funding and if so is there enough funding we can then make that secondary discussion of adding more funding or not. Um, I only say that because we are running multiple processes at the same time and you do have a little bit of time before the hisiz process is kind of done, right? You arguably could issue your NOA in the what with your new set of um parameters, shall I say, whether they're the existing ones because you deem them sufficient or you change them. uh but you know the city moves forward with the NOA process in the fall winter time frame and you can see what comes in and then make further assessments and evaluations at that time. Um, and you know, I I say that just given where your colleagues are at, I think, uh, where we're at financially for FY2027. And then you've got other times that you can adjust the budget, right? Any Monday technically you could, but this FY2028 process for his RAP wouldn't really come into play until a year from now. And so I guess I just encourage you to realize you do have time before you kind of put a stake in the ground um on the orders of magnitude. >> Can I just clarify when you said the FY28 HISRAP process wouldn't come into play for in for for a year, this slide says December. >> Yes. So the process absolutely comes into play over the course of the next 12 months, but the actual awards are effective basically January, no July 1 of 2027. So you you take the next 12 months to move through the review, the application process um and the award process and then those funds are awarded starting July 1, 2027. So, a year from now. >> Thank you, Council Member Rectal. I see your notes. >> Post it, man. >> Take your time. >> You can go ahead. I these are I mean I guess h >> how do we for example in his rap which comes first the chicken or the egg how do we determine the funding let's say two years ago when we started this we took a bunch of applications and then we give the awards on July 1st but during the application process did we already have a bogey of how much we're going to spend on So let me tell you what the budget and your longrange financial forecast is based on and then let's let Miss Alamos explain to you kind of how that gets adapted. So the long-range financial forecast and your annual budget process assumes an annual CPI for the amount allocated to the HISREP grant process. Let's say it's half a million dollars. Add 3% or whatever the CPI is every year so that the time value of the money stays current. >> Okay. Um, and so that's how it's planned in the long range financial forecast and how it starts in terms of your proposed. Now, let me have Miss Alamos talk about the timeline of when the awards are done and whether or not um, you know, that number can get adjusted obviously, right? As you're planning prospectively and you're still running a budget process in parallel. >> Yeah, I didn't have that much more to add. I was going to repeat that uh same um comment about the 3% um annual increase which happens um annually for his rep. Um and in terms of like when the dollars are um awarded or allocated the process identifies that in May June is when um those awards are made. Um I also just wanted to point to um the phase one process and how we managed that. Um we first talked about the process. We outlined um you know the criteria um we opened up the application process um with a target in mind but those dollars weren't refined until finance committee um had the discussions during uh the budget uh review process. So though we had already opened up the application period, the actual dollars didn't come until later and then the review of uh how much to award was done in that um very long meeting in May. >> Okay. Um I think you're also wondering how you do so let's take away the phase one process because I know there's a lot of consternation over that. Um his wrap how do you adjust the amount from the budget amount? Um, I've been in this organization in years where we've been in reductions and basically the finance committee and council had to make really tough decisions and say, you know what, we need to cut his wrap. Um, and they took a percentage number and they said, okay, HRC, are you okay with this? Let's say it's 3%. The amount was 500,000. We need to take a 3% reduction to manage the city's finances. And so HRC said, then why don't you do a 3% across the board reduction? I've also been here where the city has said, you know what, his RAP is underfunded. I want to give them more. And typically, one of two things happen if that happens when you're in the middle of a grant process. Either you go back to HRC and HRC says, you know what, everybody gets an additional 3% from what was awarded uh and spreads it across or they go back and say, who were we unable to fund with this additional funding and let's adjust it that way. And so those kind of levers and maneuvers allow us to run building a budget and moving through a grant process simultaneously. And so we have to make those kind of adjustments and nuances as we're moving through those kind of changes. >> Okay, that's useful. Thank you. I remember uh Vice Mayor Stone and I were on the finance committee in my first year and we talked about trying to augment his rep and I think in that year it went from 651,000 to 851,000. >> And we had conversations about tying it to 1% of the general fund. >> Yep. >> And so we when we did that math I think it actually we aligned it in that way um in an apples to apples to way. And then that's also when we did the percentage increase annually. Um so the annual increase for his rep uh was automatically built into the financial assumptions. I also think that's the year we established the emerging needs fund. Um and so that's that annual 50,000 that is established because something may occur in the middle of the year. Now, 50,000 is not enough to satisfy a $100,000 grant request in the middle of the year, but it does help bridge those um things that may pop up uh in between cycles. >> Okay. So, um go ahead, Council Member Rectal. I >> mean, one of you mentioned this, the the old boys network. I think Ger mentioned that we get this established, right? And you know, we have our people that we know and we trust and we give them that money every year in his rap I'm talking about. And the new people are kind of not don't have as much leverage or don't have as much chance. And so do you set aside a guideline and say we want 5% to be first time recipients and that means that we're taking 5% away from the so is a is a glass 95% full or 5% empty or but that would be one way of encouraging if we really do want to have a turnover and not not just be an old boys network have some fresh money that we give and then that's they have one year trial and they better prove themsel or two-year trial prove themselves because now next year they're competing against everyone else. And I don't know cuz I do worry about being insular about this. >> Yeah. And I think I think all of those discussions will be able to be had if we if we move forward with the staff recommendation is that that's an issue I remember I struggled with when I was on the his RAP subcommittees when I was on the human relations commission. And it's it's a challenging thing to do, but ultimately there there really isn't all that many guidelines around around his rap. And I think it would be I think it's worthwhile having that conversation and opening it up and seeing how can we improve this cuz I I agree. I've been I've been thinking about that same thing. Is it is it a percentage? Is it is it more guidelines? So I guess we we move forward this these conversations are coming what August September time frame. I don't want to make it mandatory just because if HRC thinks the best people are the existing ones we should give them that but to encourage them to look outside the existing recipients but that's again it's easier said than done >> okay so I feel like we're coalesing around supporting the staff recommendation um the one thing that I want to say before the motion is made is this timeline feels both specific and um optimistic Just knowing how things slide and this can't slide because in some ways we are the result of this year's slide, right? We are now facing fiscal 27 where we're not moving forward with any kind of nonprofit work plan phase one because we basically have not it's complicated. We haven't sorted out yet. We don't want to find ourselves in this situation next year. I think we owe it to HRC. We owe it to uh the HISRAP recipients, the potential HISRAP recipients. Like everybody's looking for clarity. So we need So I'm looking at this timeline comes back to us. It says August/september/Occtober. I think it's August PNS giving HRC a heads up that this is very likely coming. making sure it's on their agenda in a timely fashion so we don't let the calendar be the enemy of any of the good decision-m and analysis that we're trying to undertake here. All right. Who's ready to make a motion? >> I I do have a quick question on slide five there. We receive it in December. Then is the plan that HRC would divvy it up and then policy and services would rubber stamp that or what's the process for? >> So I think ultimately that's up for discussion if we're looking at revamping the process. The current process would go to the HRC. Um you know they have a subcommittee as a few of you have referenced. They'll pour through the applications, make initial recommendations, HRC will then review those in a public meeting and those move forward through finance committee as part of the budget process to council. Now, I think as part of this discussion, obviously in August when we come back to talk about this, those are all points of discussion to have. Um, and depending on where this committee is thinking or headed, you know, we may want to consider a joint session with HRC so that you have the wisdom of those that have been through the grant process to help inform your further refining of that process or adaptations of that process. >> Okay. Yeah, that that's good. We can talk about in Augusta. >> I'm not sure you need a motion from us on this. >> It helps. >> I would say it helps. Um cuz I also think we might um then include it if I'm being honest in the budget adoption that cuz you know now we'll have at both um committees that will have recommended that we um continue to pause the phase one program and move towards assessment of the hisrap program first um and how we can streamline things that way. >> Do you have a staff recommendation for a motion then? I don't I don't think there necessarily is one in the staff report. >> I can try. I'll I'll No problem. I'll I'll move that that we recommend pausing adoption of the phase one work plan and direct staff to return to the policy and services committee after the summer recess with a with a discussion and potential re-evaluation of the HISRAP process which can include incorporating which can include the next steps on the on the phase one work plan. >> I'll second that. for the maker. If I can make a small suggestion, is it possible that we can say potential review of the or just review of the hisizrep process? >> That's fine. >> Um, with the intention knowing that this committee is not interested in overhauling the entire his process, that may decrease some of the concern if someone's just reading this motion. >> Yep, that's fine. >> Thank you. >> You could strike the word potential city clerk. Thank you. And I think you said review of the HISRAP process with the intention, didn't you say, of me? Looks good to me. >> Please call vote. >> Council member Rectal, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone, >> Chair Liith Cotts, >> yes. Motion carries unanimously. >> Terrific. Good work everybody. This is an unwieldy subject and we just wrangled it a slight bit. So, yeehaw. I expect everyone in their cowboy boots and cowboy hats for the next meeting. Uh I believe with that we're done. Is there anything else we need to talk about? >> I'll just state your next meeting is next month and that will be your last meeting before your break. I will be working with the chair on the agenda items for that meeting. >> Great. Thank you everyone. We are journed.

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Recording in progress. >> Good afternoon. At this time, we'd like to call to order the Rail Committee meeting for the City Council of Palo Alto for Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. Would the clerk please call the roll? >> Council member Lauing? >> Here. >> Council member Litkouhiemes? >> Chair Burt? >> Here. >> For the record, three present. >> Great. Uh, so at this time we have an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item that's within the purview of this committee, uh, but is not otherwise on the agenda. Do we have any public speakers? >> We currently have no requests to speak. >> All right. Well, we'll move on to the updates, uh, on interagency activities. And the first up is Caltrain. Do we have anything from Caltrain today? I don't see anything. Okay, then we'll Anything from VTA? Nothing again. And now we'll move it over to our staff. Rippen, you driving this train? >> Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Rippen Bhatia, a senior engineer with Office of Transportation. Uh, also we'll have our chief transportation official joining online today. Um, and uh, since Caltrain was not able to attend today, uh, we'd like to provide a quick update on the safety enhancement improvements, uh, that included rail sentry, channelizers, marker and trespassing pads that are all in place at all four crossings in Palo Alto now. So, I want to give it give it a give it a quick update on that. Uh on for the city staff updates on the quiet zone project uh uh we have minor punchlist items that the punchlist items that need to be complete and public works is working with the contractor to finish those items. Soon after the completion of those items, we will host a a meeting with FRA and CPUC for the field review post installation field review. Uh also we'd like to note that recently with rail sanitary system in place, Caltrain had observed the vehicle queues that are spilling over from El Camino Real Palo Alto signal onto the crossing and uh the vehicle queues from that signal is spilling over on and at this crossing and Caltrain would like to have this issue discussed with CPUC and FRA also. We have initiated our discussions with Caltrain Caltrans who manage the signal operations at El Camino Real Palo Alto Avenue looking at some of the suggestions to improve the signal timing and see if we could adjust that could help alleviate some of these or improve the conditions at these locations. Um and with and for Meadow, Charleston, and Charleston Avenue new crossings for quiet zones, we have an RFP already on in in in advertised right now, so in the procurement process. We're hoping to conclude that procurement during the summer before we and then return to the council for >> Like construction RFP? >> No, the design. >> Design. Thank you. >> Uh also to note that Caltrain has initiated the 15% design on the San Francisquito Creek Bridge replacement. We have They have kicked off the design and I will be collaborating with them on the next steps and Caltrain will bring back an update at the next real committee meeting. That concludes the staff update. Thank you. >> Thank you for going to colleagues with questions. Anyone from the public who wants to speak on that end? >> We have no requests to speak. >> Oh, we may have one. >> I have a comment to me. >> Okay. >> Good morning. I'm up. Good afternoon. I'm John Mittlechuck and I wanted to thank everybody here for teamwork that they showed and professionalism in trying to expedite quiet zones. I'm sincerely thankful for all those efforts. And um I really do appreciate them. With and your gratitude and respect to all of you. Um and I'm hoping that we can speed this through and that's my only comment. Thank you so much. >> Colleagues, any questions or comments? >> Just a question. You said it's a sound the San Francisquito Creek Bridge replacement or refurbishment or TBD? Is that >> Well, now it's called replacement, I believe, sir. >> Okay. >> Um so, a couple things. Julie, do you have some? >> Yes, please. Thank you. >> Um thank you, Rip Van. Um I think you said rail sentry where has Caltrains observed vehicles spilling over? >> At Palo Alto Avenue crossing. >> Okay, Palo Alto and El Camino or Palo Alto on the train, okay. Vehicles are spilling in which direction? >> So far, I would say westbound are going towards Menlo Park. And the traffic signal making that right turn for the traffic is held by the pedestrians and bicycle activations that grow goes from that trail from the park side to the on the to cross the El Camino on the other side. And so that's holding the signal which brings the queue back to the crossing. >> And did you say Rail Sentry has noticed that? >> So, they have installed cameras as part of the Rail Sentry. And so now that we have 24/7 monitoring there, so they do have noticed that that there are occurrences of that spillover that's and blocking the >> I'm delighted to hear that. It happens to be the one crossing in the city or anywhere in my life where I have accidentally ended up because I anticipated the queue would go more quickly and it was held by bikes and pads or whoever up there. I ended up with my back wheels on the tracks when a train was coming and I was terrified and I had to like scoot out of the way. And so the fact that we can now see what is, you know, the vehicular behavior and then figure out improvements to make accordingly is really exciting. >> Thank you. Thank you. Nadia, did you have something? No. We're just following up first on that issue. I forget whether westbound on Palo Alto Avenue as you want to go northbound on El Camino, is there a no right on red at that location? >> No, it's a signal control. So, when the signal the pedestrian activates the that request, then this and then the signal is given and that holds the line. >> Okay, thanks. And then on the San Francisquito Creek Bridge replacement um Um We haven't had any uh preliminary presentation by Caltrain on what is being considered and ability to really understand the potential impacts in that sensitive area. Um This is our main meeting. So, our next Rail Committee meeting would be when? >> Our regularly scheduled meeting is in September. >> Well, not till September. Why not August? Why Why not August? >> So, we Those are the schedule month because July is uh the break and then August is I think the retail committee. And so, we kind of uh alternate with retail. >> Um I think we should talk about whether we we should try to have one in August and not wait so long because we've got several timely issues that would be good to have updates. >> Yes. >> Uh including the quiet zones that we >> Correct. >> want to have a full update on. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then um just a a couple of the um one item related to the uh additional security. The anti-trespassing panels are installed at all four locations. There is an issue that Caltrain is pursuing with the CPUC to basically uh enable them to be as secure as they were designed. Uh and uh so, there's there were there was a requirement by CPUC that um limited their effectiveness until that is overcome and um uh Caltrain is pursuing a um their waiver and approval um uh currently. They're They're pursuing that right now. Okay. Um That uh um I think allows us to go on to our next action item or >> Yes, we can go to the next item number one. >> I I should have said one other thing on quiet zones because of how much focus we have on them and and including after the decision last night to not go forward with a trial closure at Churchill but in part to make sure that we could have the most expeditious quiet zone possible. Can we be getting a regular timeline update every meeting and anytime there's any changes so that we're just really staying clear on that and it would be a public document as well. >> We can surely do that. >> Thank you. All right, now on to our action item number one which is the Alma Street Charleston Railroad Crossing near-term section 130 safety improvement project. That's a mouthful. Welcome. >> Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon to Council members. My name is Ruchika Agrawal. I am with the office of transportation in City of Palo Alto. Project engineer working on the Alma Street Charleston Road safety improvement project funded by section 130 funds. Next slide, please. The purpose of this project is to address some immediate concerns, safety concerns that are related to the railway crossing at the at the crossing of Charleston and Alma Street. Based on the scope of work that is determined between different agencies, the project limits are limited to the intersection of Alma Street and Charleston Road and the railroad crossing and Charleston Road. Next slide, please. Uh to give some background on this project, um this project was initiated by California Public Utilities Commission, uh CPUC. Um It was identified as one of the locations where uh safety improvements were needed. Um uh looking at all the different data that they have at traffic calm, speed and volume, um the fatality conditions, uh and the analysis done by the FRA, the Federal Railway Administration. Uh it's a project or it's a program that supports the elimination of hazards at all grade rail crossings throughout the country. This is a project that involves different stakeholders, um Caltrain, the JPB which operates the Caltrain system in Palo Alto and the in the peninsula. Caltrans is our funding partner. Uh the funds are obligated through the State Department of um uh transportation in California and City of Palo Alto. Um this project is limited to the guidelines and the requirements as um as proposed by the CPUC. Um we have a short timeline of how we started the project of how we received the PID, the project initiation documents from CPUC in January 2023, and we had our Palo Alto Bike Advisory Committee meeting um last um month or March of 2026. Next slide, please. Um as I mentioned, it's a limited scope uh for this project, which is determined by the different stakeholders. Um the Caltrans, which is again the funding partner, Caltrain, um, and CPUC. CPUC have decided or designated certain work to be done within the city's right-of-way and certain, um, elements of the work has to be done within the JPBs right-of-way. There There are some design considerations, um, right-of-way being the top one. I do want to emphasize there are no property impacts for this project. Um, some of the other considerations that we are looking at are existing utilities, uh, visibility, um, grades and elevation, and bike and pedestrian movements. Um, I just want to very briefly mention one of the other projects that's in the same intersection or vicinity is the uh, grade separation project. It's a long-term project and, um, um, currently it is in the preliminary engineering and environmental documentation phase. Next, please. Uh, this is the proposed direction right now from the city council and rail committee that staff is pursuing for further. Next, please. Um, this, um, highlights This slide highlights the project limits for section 130 safety improvement projects that we are here to present today. Um, in order to make the, um, conversation eas- easier, we have identified six corners or six, uh, curb ramps that, um, we will be discussing further as a part of this project. This project is limited just to these six crossings, A, B, C as highlighted and X, Y, Z. Although some striping and signal I mean striping and signing improvements extend until Park Boulevard as well. Um next slide, please. Uh in the rush to start the project I failed to acknowledge and mention my uh teammates here, Marie My from Calender Associates who would be um presenting the next few slides on uh the preliminary concept designs and next steps. And we also have Jason E from BKF Engineers and um Rafael Rios from uh senior engineer from City of Palo Alto OOT Department. So, I'll hand it over to my Marie. >> Thank you, Rushika. Um Good afternoon, council members. Uh I will be presenting over the next few slides uh details of the proposed improvements. Next slide, please. So, the changes near Park uh Boulevard are pretty uh subtle. They include the addition of green bike lane markings at the bike lane entrances to improve awareness of cyclists by motorists. They also include the addition of traffic delineators that are similar to the existing flexible posts in the median curb. Next. I'd like to uh zoom into the intersection of Charleston Road and the railroad tracks and Alma Street. Um this slide shows the conceptual plan and summarizes the proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and rail crossing safety improvements. Next slide. So, um talking about the the three of the curb ramps uh that Rushika had mentioned. So, the curb ramps for crossing Alma Street will be reconstructed to be directional. Uh and the three uh locations are boxed in the red there. Um the curb ramp will direct pedestrians towards um well, the the top image uh that is shown um as existing conditions, um the curb ramp currently directs pedestrians towards the corner into traffic, uh which isn't ideal. So, then with the proposed design, which is shown in the bottom image, pedestrians would be directed towards their direction of travel into the crosswalk. And the curb at the southeast corner will be slightly extended and would result in a slightly shorter crossing distance for pedestrians and improved safety. Next slide, please. And then shifting to the other uh curb ramps, which would be for crossing the railroad tracks, uh they will also be be reconstructed to be ADA accessible, and they are also dashed in the red boxes. The existing sidewalk grades are too steep, and so the design proposes a new level landing at each pedestrian crossing before the railroad gates. And elongated pathways and handrails are suggested in the bottom image, um and that's done in order to flatten and reduce the slope in order to be accessible. We understand the existing handrail configuration is more open and provides for a larger queuing space, uh but in order to meet accessibility requirements, a longer pathway is needed, and with the railroad gate and cross crosswalk locations um remaining essentially unchanged, a zigzag path is really the only way to create that longer pathway. Uh note that this does push the curb ramp location at the northwest corner, uh which was designated as location B in that um initial plan, uh that curb ramp does get pushed um slightly to the north, uh so that would increase um the angle or the skew in that crosswalk across the northern leg of Alma Street. Next slide, please. Now, there are existing green striped bike lanes along Charleston Road, but they do not currently extend through the intersection, and you can see this in the upper photo. So, the design proposes new dashed green bike lane striping through the Alma Street intersection to make cyclists more visible to motorists in that conflict zone. The bottom photo shows an example of what the dashed green markings would look like, and that's taken from the Churchill-Alma intersection. Next, please. To improve motorist safety at the railroad tracks, a pre-signal is proposed. A railroad pre-signal is an additional advanced warning signal that's placed before the main railroad crossing signal. In the photo example at the bottom, the pre-signal is a signal head shown in the red box, and it would be coordinated with the existing intersection traffic signal, which is shown in the orange box. Next slide, please. And the pre-signal is coordinated with the main roadway signal, and it's installed in a location located before the railroad tracks. Um in this case, I'm describing um for eastbound Charleston drivers. The pre-signal improves safety by preventing vehicles from being stranded on the tracks. It ensures that vehicles approaching the rail crossing have adequate time to clear the tracks. So, to provide for a little bit more kind of description, under normal circumstances, when there are no trains approaching, they operate together, and they would show the same signal. So, the traffic signal shows green, the pre-signal, again boxed in red, would also show green. The railroad crossing signal, boxed in orange, stays unlit, and the gate arms stay at the upright position. However, when a train approaches, the two signals would operate separately. The pre-signal will show a red, so that motorists approaching the tracks can slow down and stop. And the railroad crossing signal will flash red and the gate arms will come down. The traffic signal would operate separately by showing a green light, which allows motorists who are already in the intersection or those who are too close to safely stop behind the gate arms, they would be able to continue through and exit the intersection. So, the intent is to keep the area by the tracks clear of vehicles. With the addition of the pre-signal, right turns on red will be restricted because there is no uh current right turn only lane. Uh motorists who want to turn right currently have to wait for a green signal anyways um if they are behind a car that is wanting to go straight. So, uh the delay from the right turn restrictions may not be um significant. Uh as um sorry, next slide. Um as Ruchika mentioned, a number of key tasks and meetings related to project funding and design development have already been completed. The next steps are shown in the green in the dark green boxes and include today's rail committee meeting and a city school traffic safety committee meeting scheduled for next week. Um they would be followed by city council approval um of the design plans by mid-year, then development of the construction drawings uh later in the year, and a construction start in 2027. Next slide. And that concludes uh our slideshow presentation. We'd be happy to receive and answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um shall we go to the public first? Okay. Any speakers? >> If any member of the public would like to speak on item one, please raise your hand or press star nine now. We have no request to speak. >> Okay. John Melanchuk, um with this proposed improvement to Charleston and Alma, which is long overdue, is it duplicated and will will it be wiped out or wasted expenditures wasted on the basis of installing quiet zones? That's my first question. And um it looks good. We'll welcome any safety improvements at that intersection, which is very near to my home. And um that's my comment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Colleagues? Julie? >> Thank you. Yes. Uh Pat, I'll uh pick up the commenter's question in a way. Um the larger question of how this project intersects with everything else that's going on. So, we have recently completed a number of uh safety improvements at all four, including the anti-intrusion mats, et cetera. So, I'm interested in how any of that is potentially impacted, and I'd be happy to hear that it's not at all. But then we get the question of, okay, but quiet zones coming, how will the quiet zone related improvements and technology uh impact this? And then the bigger picture, grade separation, or the cost question of, what are we spending on this, and for how long will it be in place? Um how far away is grade separation? Will will this turn out if grade separation was to come um on the on the earlier side of whatever time frame we have, you know, how many years would we effectively have this near-term improvement in place and how many dollars will we have spent on that only to have it uh undone? >> Well, and whose dollars? >> And whose dollars? >> Okay, I'll start answering the questions, but I will look up to Rubin and um Rafael to chime in um where I missed it. Um so in terms of the timeline, uh what we're looking at is to begin construction uh in 2027 and this entire project would be funded by um section 130 program, which is a federal funds obligating we are getting obligated through Caltrans, the state department. Um the current engineer's estimate for construction is about 2.2 million dollars. Um um which which the city would uh request these funds once we have the GO 88 approval, which is expected in the next couple of months. CPUC and Caltrans um staff have already provided us uh interim cursory review for the um GO 88 um submittal, but we have not received the formal approval as of yet, which we expecting in the next 2 months. Um I'm not quite sure of uh I'm not aware of the timeline of the great separation project um or the quiet zone project, but it does not impact um the the near-term um quiet zone as far as I can tell, but yeah. >> So, to add to Ruchika is uh we are making provisions to accommodate for the four-quadrant gate systems. Uh we have asked the design consultants to ensure that uh those provisions are made um for as far as the location of those four quadrant gate systems will be installed. So, it will be accommodating four quadrant systems locations, not actual the construction or design or any element of that. Um so, this will work together in eventuality when both projects are constructed. Uh as far as your questions regarding the grade separation, uh we don't have a final timeline for the grade separations as we would have to go through uh several steps including utility location, uh funding, and also, you know, right of way acquisitions and um you know, and the construction and final design and award. So, that in itself are un- like can un- predictable at this time, but uh we can see that it certainly will have a good 5 years minimum uh effective time period to be uh you know, providing safety at this crossing in the interim basis. >> Thank you. So, uh who is fund- it's uh Section 130 which comes through the FRA? >> No, it's a it's it's a federal another federal entity. >> So, those people are not concerned that their $2.2 million on a project will be a short-lived project. It's an improved They they feel that the amount of time that this improvement will be in place someday to be replaced by grade separation is not of concern. >> Yes, the ROW are aware of our grade separation projects that are in pipeline and I believe because of the uh the the conditions are that yeah, they they they feel that the the expected benefits are worth the cost. >> Okay, thank you. My second question relates to um the um First of all, let me get your name right. Ruchika. Um Thank you for your presentation and the eastbound Charleston traffic, so coming out of Southwest Palo Alto, headed east, uh attempting to cross the train tracks and then go straight on Alma or turn left or right. I am aware when I'm in that line that at certain times of day, peak times of day, when you might have two trains coming moments apart, um that traffic gets really backed up and the two cars that have made it over, even though they're not supposed to, uh the track and are in that cra- crosshatch prevention area, are the only two when the light changes, it's train's coming, green light, you can go, right? Everybody moves up the two cars. And so when we're doing the pre-signal before that, I understand why it makes sense from a safety perspective. I'm wondering from a traffic's traffic impacts perspective, what we think that is going to do to the backup if the Charleston traffic can't kind of slowly inch forward with every green light because we've eliminated and we're really enforcing that and we're putting this pre-signal up so people are much more likely to stop, are we going to find ourselves with far greater traffic backup at peak times? >> Thank you, Council Member. Um Um yes, so an analysis was done, a traffic study analysis by Hexagon and um I don't remember the numbers right away, but I will um look up at Rafael to help me respond to this. Um the primary purpose of this project is safety and it was recognized that a pre-signal was uh proposed and is needed in order to avoid um accidental or I I don't want to use the word intentional, but people who are trying to make the light uh in order to cross the tracks. Um so that was needed. Um the downside is we expect some traffic backlog uh or some queuing uh in the peak time, but again um the level of service for that intersection was not dramatically um changing. Um, Rafael, do you have the numbers with you? I think we are crunching the numbers as we speak. Um but yeah, that was definitely a question that came up during our analysis that we looked into. >> Hello hello council members. Uh Rafael Arias, senior engineer with the office of transportation. Um I'm going over the traffic analysis done by Hexagon and it is showing about a 25% increase um in the queue length for that eastbound direction and some degradation of the level service from E to F in the morning and and afternoon peak periods. So, there is a decrease in service. >> Thank you very much. >> Ed? >> Yeah, I had uh actually the same two questions, but the first thing I was going to say and I still am, but um you you've given us a very nice um project to make a decision on. Uh particularly in light of last last night's decision. You're offering us near-term safety improvements to Charleston Road railroad crossing. Near-term most of most of the things we deal with here are very long-term. Um you already got the team together and you already got 130 funding. So, it sort of felt like where do I sign? Um this is really good and then I had the the questions. Um First to be answered is was anyway um interfering with quiet zones. Uh you answered that. And secondly, does anybody care, particularly the funding sources, if this is a 7-year project by the time we get around to breaking ground? Of course, it could be 10 or 12 or 15. Um I I'm glad to hear that it's not because we are trying to get a near-term solution there that's safer, obviously, uh with a lot of uh tension and anxiety to get there. So, I think this is just, you know, first-rate that we've got this here. Just one sort of detail question, you call it 130 federal funding, but I think you said that it actually comes through the State Department of Transportation. Is that just how the money funnels, federal to state and down? Um but yeah, I think this is and and the 2.2 million that we're getting, for that part of the construction, is not a massive number anyway in the scheme of things. So, these kinds of benefits that we can get very short-term uh for that amount of sort of, quote, somebody else's money, I think is is very much uh well worth doing. And I was really glad to see that there's no property uh implications here. And that we we already can spell that out uh for other folks that have been subject subject to that uh level of angst as well. And and you've got the data showing that you you do have some declining services uh service levels on Amtrack and Charleston down to uh F LOS in the morning hours. So, that's all. Thank you. >> And afternoon, she he said. Yeah. >> It's F in the morning and only E in the afternoon. >> Nattie? >> Um I just wanted to reiterate a little bit about what staff said. This is um from the FRA's perspective, they've decided our intersections are bad enough that they need to do these improvements, and so you don't really get a choice. You kind of just get the improvements. So, yay for us as uh Council Member Lawing said, cuz we don't have to pay for them. The degradation of the signal is similar to what probably happened at Churchill. This is already in place at Churchill and it was an issue that I raised because the distance between El Camino and Alma is pretty short and that backup impacts the backup on El Camino over where the new VTA bike lanes are. So it should be something that we watch and what may happen is that we may have to adjust the light at El Camino and San Antonio or not San Antonio at Charleston and El Camino. Basically depending on how far back the queue start to get, there may have to be a tweak in the lights cuz that's how you do it. But this is one of those safety above everything and so that's kind of how they look at it. Like sorry if it's causing you more traffic, we're keeping you safer and that's kind of how they manage their things. So I'd also say that when it comes to safety improvements as hopeful as we are that we'll get grade separations and everything as fast as we can, it tends to take longer than we think and so let's just take them while we can get them. And so that's it. >> Thank you. So let me start with that issue of the traffic impact. At VTA we just have taken action to um uh begin to roll out um AI powered smart signal optimization for bus prioritization. Uh but and San Jose has already implemented that at I think five different locations so far and seen real benefits. Um this is a little different from the bus optimization but I assume it's a similar capability of the technology. And uh so um if we haven't done so already, I would really encourage us to maybe engage with VTA to understand which technology they're pursuing and what they think of it. Apparently, the VTA staff is fairly enthused and it's already been flushed out in San Jose enough and it's potential application in both this location and maybe on El Camino, which would of course involve Caltrans, but that already must be the case because VTA is utilizing it for their main bus routes, like the 22 522, which is on State Highway of El Camino. So, I don't know the exact things, but I think it may be an opportunity to address what's a real problem related to the safety improvements um uh conflicting with traffic. Um and I believe that while we have this other issue that um about uh cars still to this day, even where we've already done similar improvements at Churchill Avenue. Um uh sitting in the wrong location on the far side of the tracks and even on the tracks. I was there with our new chief safety officer a couple months ago and he and his assistant and it was the first time they had visually seen that Charleston and then we went down to Charleston Meadow. I mean, Churchill and then Charleston Meadow and they were shocked and worried by the backups that were routinely happening of cars there. So, um these measures don't necessarily solve the issue of drivers who ignore all everything we're telling them. Um now, one of the things that I believe Caltrain is now exploring is automated ticketing of folks who are violating these measures and I think that may be important uh or we're just not going to get there on compliance. We can set up well-designed systems and if people think they can ignore it and they have this sense of need to ignore it to get through because the traffic's so bad uh with with no real consequence uh then we're going to have continue to have big problems. Um I did also have a question. I didn't When we put in the eventual quad gates uh will the far side quad gate go down simultaneously with the near side or is there a relief valve that the near side goes down then the far side so the cars that are trapped can get out? >> Uh Councilmember, typically there is a delay in the far side one and so that so that there's a clearance. >> Is there enough delay but I it's at we have we have liability issues and at at Caltrain uh of strange behavior by drivers uh that they don't do what everybody would think is common sense. Um they get freaked out or whatever reason turn down the tracks, who knows? Um so >> we'll depend on Caltrain's expertise in their their design for that. >> And the and the dilemma is what do we do not about rational drivers and not just about drivers who uh are rationally following the the the rules or those who are rationally not following the rules, but then there's the irrational drivers and that's even harder to figure out what to do, but I think we have to recognize them. They're real. And I'm not quite sure I just want to make sure that our design is trying to figure out what happens with the the irrational drivers. Which is a tough one. Uh okay. Um And as Naughty has said, we're we're get we this location was ranked high. I think it was on the state list is why we qualified the section 130 so high. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So just so everybody knows, we weren't just clever in getting the funds. We deserve them because it's a bad intersection. Okay. Um Then I want to talk on slide 12, if we can call that up. Uh is that No, I'm sorry. Nine. Let's go to nine. Um and the improvements at Park Crossing Charleston. And basically, we have some improvements on what we'll call East-West bike traffic. Um but we have a real problem crossing at both Meadow and Charleston, crossing uh the arterial on bikes going north-south. And this doesn't address that at all, and maybe it's outside of the scope of this. But is staff looking at that issue? And um because it it's really a significant problem on our whole Park Bike Boulevard. Oh, I see we have a staff member who may be able to help us on that. >> Hello Council. I'm Jason Yu with BKF Engineers. I helped design the plans. Uh your comment about Park Boulevard crossing in the north-south direction on the plans. Um with this project specifically, the section 130 funding is looking to remove queues that may impact the railroad. Um in this case, a crossing uh so close to the rail could produce the similar results that we have seen before, which is if someone is crossing, if a bicycle or a pedestrian is crossing nearby, that could actually cause a delay in people exiting the tracks. For example, if you have a large group traveling on Park Boulevard of bicyclists that are crossing, that could stop traffic in a westbound direction and potentially back up traffic into the crossing. So, for that reason, we were sensitive in the design of this. I will mention though on this slide, these were the conceptuals that we had. There is a dashed green bike lane through Park Boulevard in the final design to help at least assist in the east-west direction. >> Oh, good. Yeah, so I was less concerned about the car back up and more concerned about the bike riders, but both matter. And then my recollection is that our bike and pedestrian master plan um uh does address that issue, but I only have a vague recollection of that. It looks like my vague recollection may be the highest at the table. Okay. Um all right. Um and And and just from a nomenclature standpoint, I've been trying to push to say Caltrain, but we we we don't have good nomenclature that what what I think should be is we call safety improvements those that are trying to address accidental uh uh risks and security those that are trying to address deliberate risks. Of course, you could argue that the security is a subset of safety, but we just haven't had nomenclature that says, "What are we trying to solve here? Is it cars and people are doing things accidentally or is it we're trying to prevent intrusions into the right-of-way that are um for to prevent self-harm? So, I I If anybody's got good ideas on that, I think there is a need for us to just have clear communication on what's a term that everybody understands which problem or problems we're trying to solve through that. >> Um I can respond to your previous comment this is Riya at the Chief Transportation >> Great. >> Um so in terms of the uh the bicycle crossing um the staff is planning on providing wayfinding at the corner of Park and Mackay which is just a little bit upstream and so the idea is to um encourage cyclists to cross Charleston at Wilkie Way instead of Park Boulevard and so I think that that will help to alleviate this concern as well given the closeness to the crossing. >> Great and that seems logical given that they end up on Wilkie um to get further south Meadow which isn't part of our discussion I think doesn't have as good of a an alternative street um route but I'll leave that for another day. Um okay uh Julie? >> Yeah one more thing thank you. I know Meadow isn't part of our discussion and yet um if we are going to be contemplating doing similar improvements at Meadow the potential vehicular traffic backup there um I think might be worse. I don't have the charts memorized I'm sure Nadia does but the difference with Meadow is it ends up T-junctioning onto this strange thing on the west side called El Camino Way which is particularly on the southern end of it during school commute time an incredibly fraught road. It's the road is one lane with on street parking it's one lane for traffic in each direction and the bikes are meant to share the road and um and so I worry about that piece being backed up potentially onto El Camino um and in this uh new scenario where cars are really not allowed to advance one or two at a time um uh with every train signal coming. >> Well, and that that issue of signal optimization whether it they the the new capability hopefully of AI empowerment even preceding that Caltrain is uh had an issue and I'm not sure that they've really optimized it yet of when you have gates to go down, it takes how long for the whole pattern to recover to normal and during that period cars aren't flowing uh through in the most optimum way. And so I think that whether or not we get this AI empowerment uh we should be uh really seeing if Caltrain can support better signal optimization uh basically at the um uh at the the uh Alma and uh Charleston signal. >> I just want to add a exclamation point to to Julie's point. That's not just a few bikes on El Camino way. That's masses of bikes. I mean interfering with traffic in both direction. >> They would probably say we're interfering with them. >> Well, and in our traffic analysis this makes me uh think as I was riding El Camino uh earlier today um that right now our bike ways on El Camino are not very utilized, but we are going to be adding at least a couple of thousand housing units on El Camino. Many of them are uh breaking ground or nearly so and that will change the biking demand in that area in ways that we may not have included in our modeling. Uh so if anything, we're probably going to have more bikes there bottom line. >> Council member um so one question I was going to ask is do we know if there's any funding available in from the feds for the section 130 to be able to do the messaging that's needed when such an intersection changes like when that when it happened at Churchill I was surprised we didn't have one of those informational signs that says like this has changed you can no longer stop on the tracks. So, while the people are sitting there and waiting in traffic they're learning like oh oh yeah, I see a new signal cuz otherwise they just continue to do what they've been doing even though the intersection changes and even though the light changes. And so having these informational signs that broadcast especially a bit further back that says hey don't block the box, you know, whatever the terminology is for that might be helpful and it occurs to me that given the danger of that intersection how significant the changes that maybe the feds have money available for the information and education piece that goes along with the safety improvements. Um, and we might also think about as it gets closer to school, you know, once it's built and school goes back into session having that be part of the messaging that uh, 25 Churchill and PAUSD send out that it you know, it just becomes something we send out through payback that kind of there's this general education that hey these intersections have really changed and especially obviously if they're going to incorporate ticketing from Caltrain with the cameras that'll make it extra exciting but you'd like people to to do it before getting ticketed. So. >> All right. Um, you get enough feedback? >> Thank you for that that feedback and thanks Beth. >> Thank you. >> Chair. >> Yeah. >> We did receive an additional request to speak if you'd like to reopen public comment. >> Oh. Uh, yeah. We'll take the comment and then I think we we need a motion. >> Belinda is our next speaker. You now have permission to unmute yourself. >> Hello Council Melinda McGee here. I just wanted to follow on Mr. Burt's comment about drivers who ignore and stop on the tracks and I've been thinking about this as I observe this happening regularly, not even at times when there's a lot of traffic. And I just wondered if with the the the security that's there at the tracks, if you know, part of the protection is for cars not getting smashed by the train and whether they could take a picture, whether there's some fine or signage that would say, like Nadia said, don't block the box, that it would be, you know, $500 fine for for stopping on the tracks. So, I I I just feel like we need more information because people are clearly not paying attention. Thank you. >> Yes, we need a sign to get them to stop in their tracks. Um So, do we have a motion to Yes, go ahead. >> Um Move to recommend the council direct staff to move forward with proposed near-term safety improvements to Alma Street and Charleston Road railroad crossing, including direction to complete final design plans, environmental analysis, project specs, and engineering cost estimates for construction. >> Second. >> All right. Um would the clerk please call the roll? >> Councilmember Litfin Haines? >> Yes. >> Councilmember Lauing? >> Chair Burt? >> Yes. >> Motion passes 3-0. >> Thank you. And thank you to staff for informative presentation. >> Might even get that on consent. Is that >> That would be right? By default? >> Yes, right. Yeah. >> Okay. Um our next item, while we change chairs, is an review of the techno technical activities that informed um the 15% design development for the grade separations at Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston. Welcome. >> Good afternoon, Council. Good afternoon, uh Reuben India again with the office of transportation. So, we have our transportation officials again joining online. So, and also we have staff from our integrated team, uh Edgar Torres and Jill Gibson here with the presentation and also in our audience Whitney Digiorgio Marcelo and uh Jessica Kuhlman. Uh next slide, please. So, today before you uh we present an update on the development activities for the grade separation program as we advance our 15% design. And uh this presentation will provide an overview of the delivery scenarios um and that we have evaluated as well as the key design elements um currently being considered as part of the project development. We also will discuss the considerations related to the cost estimates uh and conclude with a brief update on the next steps towards development of the 35% plans and environmental documentation. Next slide, please. A quick recap for any of our new attendees and those joining online, that the City Council has previously selected partial underpass as a preferred alternative for Churchill Avenue with the bicycle and pedestrian crossing using Seal Avenue uh and Alma Street ramps option. Uh for Meadow Drive, uh hybrid is a preferred alternative uh selected by this Council. And for Charleston Avenue uh Charleston Road, it's the underpass alternative with direct trip access ramp. So, now I'll hand it over to Jill and for the next step. Thanks, Ruben. >> Um good afternoon, Rail Committee. Um I'm going to continue really just with the summary. Um and if you go to the next slide, um with where we are and just a recap really quickly where we've been and where we're going. Um so, the last over the last year, right, uh the project developed multiple concepts, um several alternatives at each crossing, and at the end of last year, um City Council, as you said, selected one alternative per crossing to further develop into 15% and design. So, we are halfway through this 15% design development. So, today we're really going to give you an update of where we are and um and then in September, looking forward, um we're going to present an updated 15% design here to the Rail Committee and um also to City Council to really receive concurrence to carry forward um into the 35% plan development and environmental clearance um phase. So, in that 35% phase, um which will run from um October of 2026 roughly to the end of 2027, we'll be developing and advancing that 35% design and environmental clearance. Next slide, please. Um so, before we launch into our design update, I also wanted to summarize um I think what's important is, "Hey, what's the focus and difference between 15% design phase and 35% design and environmental? What's the difference? What's the purpose?" Really, the goal for 15% is to establish a feasible, buildable project concept um with a defined footprint, which we're going to talk about in the next slide, to inform the environmental studies in the next phase and get a understanding of a preliminary, which Edgar's going to talk about cost and schedule. Um it includes updated um concepts, layouts, typical sections. So, if you think about a roadway, and you take a knife, and you slice it um down, you you would understand the lane configuration, where the shoulders are, and you will understand the typical cross-section. Um you will understand key risks, and then also a preliminary cost estimates. Um the final deliverables would include a basis of design, which is really a summary um of those that criteria, the codes, the standards that would be used for advancing the design. Um and then the 35% design phase, it really is advancing the design, confirming more details on the um track and roadway geometry, the type of structures to be used, more a better understanding of the risks, the constructability, in order to really complete that environmental documentation. Um and the deliverables again are that 35 35% design plan set, the environmental documentation, um and then a refined project cost estimate, um and schedule. Next slide, please. Um so, as I'd mentioned, really the goal of this 15% um design phase, and we've talked about it here at this rail committee, is establishing a a stable project footprint. Um and the project footprint not only uh consists of the permanent improvements, so where the bridges are, the roadways, the utilities, but also the temporary space, right? So, the space needed to construct the improvements. Um so, the shoofly tracks, which Edgar's going to talk about, which is the temporary tracks needed and to keep the trains moving during construction, the staging and laydown areas, and the work zones. Um when we say uh stable, what we mean by that is a high level of confidence that the overall uh footprint is not going to get not not going to expand. So, it's the area that we're working within. Um so, after that this 15% design phase is complete, that's really our maximum footprint um to work within during the environmental period as we're analyzing potential environmental impacts. Concurrent to these environmental technical studies that we are again then going to be advancing that 35% design. Um and so, uh hopefully that helps with the kind of framework of the 15% design goal of really advancing that stable footprint. Uh final slide for me um to kind of tee up um Edgar in terms of really what are the key design elements we're going to cover today and what the team I think has been exploring to ultimately that get to that that footprint is roadway, track, the right-of-way, the utilities, um the structural components, and then the construction considerations that Edgar's going to talk about. So, Edgar's going to kind of speak to all six of these key design elements. >> Thanks, Joel. Good afternoon, Rail Committee. Let's dive right in as we've been doing quite a bit of work as part of this 15% design effort to better understand um how not only the design advance, how it relates to constructability and the implications to um to roadway operations, railroad operations, and the community writ large. Next slide, please. The first topic is with regards to roadway and drainage. So, this is a lot of what people experience on a day-to-day on you know, dry, but the drainage is because when it rains, you do not want that impacting your roadways, whether it's a lowered roadway and avoiding flooding conditions, um or the simply the ability to be able to travel safely along the roadway cuz you're trying to clear that water out. So, as part of the 15% design drawings, we are eval- we have started the detailed evaluation of how the water is going to be conveyed from these low points. I'll be able to bring them up to a conforming grade or what we say just getting back up to a specific elevation to tie to existing storm drainage systems to then be conveyed to the creeks at either side of these crossings, Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek. Now, because Churchill because all three roadways are being lowered, Churchill, Charleston, and Meadow are being lowered, there is a need to be able to again bring that water up. Water will go to its lowest point. It will find that space very quickly. And so then be able to pump that out and get it into the piping system. So, this is the first storm water report that's detailing out that preliminary design to be able to understand how far the storm water improvements will need to occur for the project for each three each of the three locations. Next slide, please. With regards to the roadway, now as part of the concept refinement, you may recall we had done turning movement analysis to be able to test not only fire trucks, some other truck movements as well as trash collection. We did a thorough analysis to confirm that not only local vehicles can make the turning movements, but also at every essentially location be able to handle garbage truck, fire truck, what we call our bus, a standard bus. This is a 40-ft bus, as well as what's known as a wide wide-body 40-ft truck. This is to be able to allow for, I'm going to say larger deliveries, your moving trucks, you say Home Depot deliveries or materials deliveries that are tend tend to be in larger larger vehicles and be able to show how those vehicles would be able to maneuver through each of the crossings. Now, there are some limitations uh specifically at Charleston Road with regards to the direct access ramp. The preliminary predominant movement for the direct access ramp is private vehicles going from the west of the tracks to the south of Charleston where a great deal of development is going to be is already occurring in South Palo Alto. Um so that direct access ramp is mostly handling local traffic. Um and so we believe that there there can be a limitation on the three-axle semi-trailer at the direct access ramp. There are many options for trucks to be able to go on to Charleston whether it's El Camino to the west or Middlefield to the east. So there's options available for heavier truck traffic if necessary to go on to Charleston. Next slide, please. With regards to the right of way, we have some refinement associated with the right of way. First of all, and I'll come back to this topic of utilities and where potential utility corridors may be, we have seen at least at Churchill and Meadow that the 15% design confirms the previous list of potential property impacts and potential acquisitions. With regards to Charleston Road, there have been two parcels that were removed from the list based on the 15% design due to potential reconfiguration of the bike ped cross bike ped facilities and the utilities. So those two um were uh removed. And that's This is at Charleston, correct? So, it's one along Alma and then one along Charleston uh to the east. >> Oh, I see it. >> So, there's a distinction. >> Quick note. >> Yeah, find find find the difference. Um so, yes. So, those those two locations were um were effectively removed from the list. We feel with high confidence that um that the footprint could stay within the space we've identified. Um the list of potential properties will continue to be refined uh throughout design. So, as more detailed uh utility design occurs, we'll be able to at least again increase or improve the confidence level uh with regards to the list of potential property impacts. >> Um just for clarification, is the blue highlighted the complete acquisition? >> That is correct. So, blue is the complete acquisition, orange uh is partial acquisitions or temporary construction uh easements. >> And the ones without a coloring along Alma, what are they? >> They're temporary construction easements that may or may not be necessary. So, that's something that we will continue to evolve. We wanted to at least disclose that there may be temporary construction easements uh as part of that again list. >> Thank you. >> And and that's the key with regards to the environmental documentation process is effectively a disclosure process. So, that's this is what as part of the due diligence, being able to disclose here are the the potential uh property impacts. Next slide. With regards to structural and geotechnical, so at Churchill Avenue at the partial underpass, the low roadway is lowered within a concrete box underneath the tracks with cantilever retaining walls um there and approaching it. This is um and I'll get it more into detail as to the methodology, but this is where that box is essentially jacked or is slid underneath uh the tracks. Um and so the example on the right is what what the box could look like for Seal Avenue underpass. In this case, the tunnel uh extends from Piers Park um to reduce excessive uh retaining of soils. It's pushed through um from most likely the park side. Uh and so that box is then able to uh again be uh stable underneath the tracks and be able to again be supported by retaining walls on either side. Uh I'll get more into the construction method here shortly in terms of the box jacking, but we uh thanks to the the preliminary geotechnical information, so not only what was previously done by the city, we have done additional cores out there and confirmed uh at least for 15% design, the the bearing strength of of the soil, uh which led to what will be preliminary structural um plans. As the the project uh proceeds into later phases, there would be more cores necessary. That's due to when you're ready to construct, you want to make sure you have precise data for wherever there's going to be any foundation so that you can confirm what the design will be and that there's enough bearing strength at the particular location where a foundation may occur. Um next slide, please. >> Sorry, just to make that fast. So, basically the soils confirmed that box jacking is possible at this level of >> At this level of design. That is accurate. Now, as to what the um support of excavation or support of the jacking, that's those are refinements that will occur as we get more cores at those specific locations. With regards to utilities, um we have not only done uh desktop research to identify the major utilities. Um some of it confirming previous work and others new items that were identified. Um further investigation is needed. Um we can say that as part of that desktop research, we also called um the had the owners of the utilities come out and confirm through um through their mapping where their utilities are. They did not mark them out. That's going to be a subsequent phase. Um but we have received at least record drawings from the utility owners. This would be the city, PG&E, and other um and um fiber uh communication companies uh to be able to at at least uh confirm uh what they believe are assets uh in this area, utility assets. >> Um I noticed that this slide doesn't seem to be part of the presentation linked in the package, just so that for a few we can maybe update it subsequently. >> Yeah. Well, we will provide an update. There are There are two additional or at least one additional slide, and we will provide an updated edition of uh for the road committee and the public. With regards to um next steps on utilities, um there is going to be subsurface utility exploration out at the crossings. So, this will involve uh what's known as ground penetrating radar, where they essentially send sound waves down, get reflected back, and they do multiple passes to be able to identify where approximately those utilities are uh with some uh margin of error both horizontally and vertically. Once that ground penetrating radar effort is is complete at strategic locations, we will go back to pothole, essentially dig a hole uh with water and air, be able to find where that utility is depth-wise. Uh this is to be again confirm how deep things are so that when we are doing additional utility design, we can confirm whether it's going to be in conflict or not with the proposed improvements. If it is in conflict, we look for a relocation of the utility. If it is not, we look to protect the utility. >> Are those procedures relatively uh new improvements to identifying utility locations cuz I know there's been a problem a lot in the past. This sounds like a good way. >> So typically, um there's different what's known as quality level of subsurface utility exploration. Um and in the past, uh what's known as the higher level of quality investigation tend gets to be done at final design or even prior to construction. As part of um effectively evolving standard operating procedures for design of major infrastructure, we're bringing those high those high-value, typically lower cost activities um earlier in the design process. So, utilities are an area that tend to have been more of the the tail wagon the dog, so to speak, pardon the metaphor. In this case, we're saying no, bring that effort earlier. Be more precise with that information so that decisions on design could be clearer and more precise for a potential contractor. >> And to your point that you may discover that the utilities are there and protectable, that's the obligation. You may discover that they need to be moved. >> Correct. >> Who bears the cost if they have to be moved? >> That all depend on um rights and agreements between the various parties involved. So, in in this case, City of Palo Alto being the utility owner uh may you know, have an opportunity to be able to do it at the city's cost or as part of the project cost. There may be In other cases, there are franchise agreements. I believe there is no franchise agreement between PG&E and the city of Palo Alto. We are further investigating that. So, understanding the rules of engagement is going to be part of what we're doing in 15 and 35% design. >> It'd be great to have a sense of order of magnitude if utilities have to be moved. Thinking about the overall project cost and if oh my gosh, we discover this thing is deeper or less deep than we thought and requires movement, you know, is that 1% of the project cost or 0.1% or bigger than that? >> Great question. So, as we look at utilities and understanding the the potential of them being relocated, we actually have what's known as a risk register or risk matrix where we actually price out the potential of that utility having to be relocated and the probability of that utility being relocated. So, that first round of more detailed quantitative risk analysis is going to occur at the end of 15% design at the beginning of 35. >> And since we've got houses on one side and Alma Street on the other, when we're talking about relocating a utility, are we >> It can may mean construction of what's known as a bypass or a new corridor for the utility and then having the shutdown temporarily that utility to be able to then tie it in on either end. Very similar to say the railroad. You build the bypassing tracks or you build the bypassing asset of the utility so as to to minimize the impact to the customer, in this case the residents around served by that said utility. >> Thank you. >> And so, the this information we we we we are considering as a high priority information both for the end of 15% design and proceeding into 35% design in the latter half of the year. The geotechnical investigation is intended to occur or sorry, correction, the utility subsurface exploration is intended to occur this summer into early fall. So that would include the ground penetrating radar and the potholing which will include some form of traffic traffic control or traffic management to be able to provide the space for the for the truck that does the the potholing. The we are just we are exploring approaches to be able to minimize that construction impact and footprint related to the utilities because anytime you bring the roadway down and you need to move the utilities, all that work has to occur prior to the main work of the construction. So it's creating the space for the improvements to be able to take place. There are some preliminary approaches already being considered as part of the 15% design. First is we are looking at a combined utility trench. In other words, where electrical dry fiber communications in some cases a gas line may be in a joint trench with vaults at either end to be able to have the utility owner access only to their particular assets. So we'll be working on that. No um utility upgrades except you know, increase fire hydrant frequency or our fire safety as necessary. This is again because we're being mindful that there's it's been a long time since any improvements may have been made with regards to fire hydrants and so being able to bring it up to code as part of the project. The preliminary approaches to storm water management. So this we dovetail with utilities because we need to be able to set aside the space for storm water management. This is to be able to have the water essentially be cleaned before it goes into the creeks. This is an important requirement as as part of water quality in the state. And so we we look for ways to be able to treat this water both on site and off site. In other words, within the project footprint and outside of the project footprint but still within the water shed of the creeks. It depends on just how much space we're going to have to be able to treat the water. >> Is that requirement based upon water sampling results or just across the board? >> It's across the board. And so and the main reason is that again roadways already have vehicles that have rubber, hydrocarbons, all sorts of metals that are coming off of them. And so it's implicitly essentially contaminated. And so in in this case we'd be looking for opportunities to be able to treat that water prior to again releasing it into the creeks. Again at low points there will be drainage pump stations especially for those deep underpasses to be able to handle water flow. Next slide. Track. So at Churchill Avenue we can say there's no modifications to the track. This is thanks to the um the working assumption that the the improvements will be done through box jacking at that location. Charleston Road. If Charleston Road were to be delivered on its own, in other words, if there's only sufficient funding for one crossing and Charleston Road is that one crossing then the recommendation would be to do no modifications to the track and box jack underneath those existing tracks. If there is sufficient funding, and we'll get a little bit more into sort of the deliver scenarios, but if there's sufficient funding for Meadow and Charleston Road to be to occur effectively at the same time, um then there's an opportunity to be able to raise the tracks at Charleston Road. And this actually can help alleviate uh some of the challenges at Meadow and the and the um uh the constructibility at at at Meadow. Uh it raises um at Meadow it's 16 ft and due to uh Meadow Drive Meadow Drive track raise, um it can increase Charleston Road up to 4 and 1/2 ft. Now, the tracks would be set on bridges over the roadway crossing um or a box. Um so, we're looking at at both options and I'll explain uh why there's um the opportunity for either. And then embankment with uh retaining walls um for Meadow, which we had presented to the rail committee at at previous meetings. Next slide. Now, there was a question um at the last meeting about how the track curves would work. So, there's the ability to be able to move the tracks up, so that requires what we call vertical curves so the smooth transition of the train into a new grade. And then we also have uh the need for horizontal curves to be able to either create additional space or be able to provide a sufficient space for construction. Those two curve types, horizontal vertical curves, uh should not coincide. Should not overlap. Uh and so here in the exhibit on the screen is to be able to show at least within where the track improvements could occur um how the vertical curves in uh orange and the horizontal curves are effectively staggered to be able to provide the space necessary for the tracks to be able to create additional space and then be able to move vertically. Um and that you can see how that translates into the profile itself. So, wherever you see green, there's usually a curve where you a horizontal curve. Where you see orange in the in the in the center, you go straight down. You probably see that bracket. That's the bracket for the vertical curve transitioning from one grade to another. Um but we again, we wanted to share with the rail committee how that design came about to be able to get to steeper grades where possible. >> Can you remind us why there are horizontal curves there? >> So, there are horizontal curves for the primary reason is we're going from a 13-ft offset between tracks to 15-ft offset between tracks. Uh and so, that is to be able to provide again a safety a safer operating environment. >> The low-tech version is that the lines of the tracks where they connect is not exactly straight. And so, even though on our map it looks straight, it's actually jagged and they have to allow for that because Caltrain can't encroach. >> Edgar, I'm sorry. What I'm trying to make sense of the orange, green, and the red, purple. So, I see the vertical rise coming northbound on Charleston from Charleston, I see that there's a vertical curve. And then it there's a horizontal curve, then we get another vertical curve at the Meadow Center line. >> Correct. >> What but the train is still going up between those two oranges. The train is still on an upward curve. >> It's what we call tangent profile. So, it's effectively a straight line between those points. So, when we have the straight line vertically, we can put a curve >> It's just a vertical. Okay. >> Yeah. It's just straight line. >> Thank you. >> So, you can apply the ruler there, so to speak, and then say, "Oh, yeah. It meets two points." Um the with regards to the red is really the um the new track profile um to be able to show again how much the tracks are being adjusted uh to be able to meet the grade separation at Meadow. >> Can you just point out that the Meadow is actually physically lower than Charleston? So, the land is a little bit higher right at Charleston. That's what that other black line is. So, that's also part of the reason why it goes up more. If you follow the black line, which is nested under the purple line, that's actually like how the terrain goes. >> Yes. And in fact, if if you see the slope on one side is over 1%, and then the slope on the other side is less than 1%, is because we're taking advantage of the topography. So, by taking advantage of the topography, the slope doesn't need to be as steep. Uh we did look at opportunities to be able to make it steeper. Um that is still a potential option. However, those curves start getting very close to one another. Now, one thing I uh we haven't highlighted here is that for um horizontal curves, and I apologize for getting into a little bit more into the weeds here again. Um horizontal um steel wheel on steel rail does not move very easily. Uh in other words, you can't just do a straight line change. So, or even go straight into a curve. We have in in on either side of a curve, we have what's known as spirals. And those spirals help transition the train or the wheels into the curve, so that it's gradual, gradual, gradual, gradual till you get to the curve, and then it's able to traverse the curve safely. It is the reason that space is really critical from a safety perspective and it's highly regulated in terms of how those spirals occur and to be able to again traverse that space in a safe and operating operate in a safe manner. >> And can you remind us um whether the constraint on curves vertical and horizontal is driven by passenger trains and their speeds for freight trains and their speeds. >> Great question. Uh for the horizontal curves, that is determined by the passenger rail speeds. In this case, the design speed is 110 mph. Um for the vertical curves, those are effectively determined by freight train requirements. And so freight trains tend to um require much more gradual vertical curves than passenger rail. >> And if I recall correctly uh at a previous meeting we were really wanting to understand what are the permissible freight um uh speeds for loaded freight is whether that's that's the real choke point, right? Is loaded freight cars? >> So loaded freight cars are the reason why there's a higher requirement for the or longer vertical curves because you know for as I may have explained previously with passenger trains, the passengers have a natural suspension. We have our spine, we have quite a bit of control. With freight trains, that's all inertia. Right? That's all there's no protection other than what's in the cars. So if there's any abrupt movement that can lead to a derailment, that's the risk with cars of freight trains. >> So the question that I had had previously was um we have one standard on what freight trains are currently allowed or uh to operate. >> Yes. >> And perhaps a different level what they're functionally operating today loaded. And a third level which is what we might at Caltrain be able to negotiate under the track usage rights which don't stipulate to my understanding a specific speed. They have to have a reasonable access. So I I just wanted to make sure that those differences are something that we're still exploring. >> Yes. >> ways to reduce costs. >> So that is something that is still um uh that can be discussed as part of 15% design as uh Jill had mentioned. The objective is to be able to understand what that stable project footprint is so that we can uh have a high level of confidence we will not exceed that that footprint. Um and so that's the that the that's the intent here. Uh in terms of uh discussion in terms of what's called the maximal allowable speed per the track uh classification, what they actually do depending on you know either locomotives or their equipment, and then finally uh what can be negotiated that's still um something that can be discussed as part of 35% design. >> Can you tell us what freight speeds were assumed Denise? >> 50 miles per hour. >> Okay. And do we if you theoretically if you had to change and lower the freight speeds, how might that change this design in a favorable or an unfavorable way? >> Uh >> It really the first thing it would change is the opportunity to be able to adjust the vertical curves. As to whether that becomes favorable or unfavorable, I can't uh make a judgment just yet on that. Um But I would say that's the first thing we can say with I could say with confidence that if it were below or the vertical curves would be the first thing adjusted. >> And so piggybacking on that, I would say since you guys are doing corridor-wide discussions and you will be building other grade separations any any use of Palo Alto's project to advance standards that might help in that flexibility of design or in reducing the cost of overall grade separations is something that we definitely want to be pursuing. And so to the extent that someone can crunch the math at some point and be like, "Oh, that really helped a lot." Maybe we do this in other places would be great because this idea of now for example studying the utilities prior and not after 35% design is finally been seen as like, "Oh, that would actually help." This would be another big place of savings. I'll just leave it there. >> Yeah, um I'm hearing you say 110 mph for the passenger train. >> Yes. >> I'm looking at the Northbound from Charleston to Meadow and I'm seeing kind of a wee because that's you know, it's like they get to the town almost looks like you're at an amusement park and with a big electric train, you know, obviously we don't want it to fly off into the air. And so I'm just I know that that won't happen, but I'd love for you to tell me why it won't happen. Is there a mechanism that like holds the train down as it's going 110 mph or can you tell me the length of the average train cuz I I can't remember as I'm sitting there as a driver waiting for the train to go by. Like how long is the actual train? How much of the curve of that top mound of Meadow would it would a single train occupy? >> Approxi- approximately 700 ft. >> Which is what? Tell me >> About 2/3 of that curve. >> Okay. >> Um well, here it's so this is going to be may blow your mind with the passenger rail criteria if safe freight was not on the corridor, um they don't That's not for But say it wasn't on the corridor if they were separate tracks for passenger rail, um then at that point, um that vertical curve could be much shorter. >> Wow. >> So, it it doesn't have to be as long. Um Now, the the reason why is again, it has to deal in this case with gravity and momentum, and mostly it's there's just so much weight on there. And again, what you're looking for is to um getting into a little bit of physics here. Um when the train is traveling at that speed, your your your inertia is to be able to go continue in the direction you're going, right? However, gravity is in our in our benefit here on the other side of the vertical curve. >> Okay. >> So, in this case, it just pulls us down. So, those those have been, you know, designed over um years um being able to understand the dynamics and the amount of forces that are being applied on passengers or on the trains. And so, they're specifically designed to be able to, again, >> Mhm. >> um control the train through through the track design. Track design. >> also just add, and this may be obvious, but for folks who may just be casually watching, the vertical and horizontal axes on these graphics are really What's the word? Distorted. Uh so, the vertical's like a hundred The horizontal's a hundred times the vertical. So, in real life, again, this is stretched out over miles. >> Yeah, in fact, you um at a couple locations in the corridor, there's already um one location, I believe, approaching 25th, where it's about a percent and a quarter. You hardly notice it because the transition is so gradual. >> Sounds like if it's a short train and an empty train with less holding it. Okay. >> Yeah, there had for years there's been this claim that if we increased our slope it would have a roller coaster feeling but that's not really the case at this level. Um Uh one thing I just want to share. So our Caltrain operates at a maximum speed of 79 mph but it has this capability to go higher. Correct. Really the Caltrain doesn't intend to go there but the possibility increasingly remote possibility of high-speed rail on the peninsula is really where 110 would come into play. We don't have Lou Thompson here today who uh uh uh wrote a um a critique uh to the legislature on as his the former peer review committee chair uh on the latest business plan but uh it's pretty shocking what that plan has and in fact the legislature rejected the business plan. Uh but as of right now that's what we have to accommodate. And can you explain the you made a comment that uh a a slower speed freight speed might help or hurt uh what we could do on curves and I was assuming it could only help. So can you explain to me why it might hurt? >> Well I it's it's I it's actually not whether it's hurts it's what are the unintended consequences. So it's not until it gets investigated that you then see what the potential consequences could be and so it's like a an onion you start peeling the layer of the onions and and just being able to see more and more of what's happening. It it there is a a higher likelihood that it would improve the track profile and therefore make it potentially less expensive. Um but one of the things that we also are mindful of is we're looking for the ability to build this in a modular way. And modularity likes an element of consistency and being able to have hit certain targets, so to speak. Um And so, um that is something that we we are exploring and saying, "Okay, it may we the modularity may be designed to this station um or this track profile, but if it changes substantially, that may change how the modular uh design occurs." Okay, so is it correct to say that almost for sure if if we were able to do that, it it could shrink the the the berm, for instance, uh the length of the berm, but it could have other negative constructability con- consequences. Got it. Thank you. >> All right. Next slide, please. To constructability and construction sequence. Um so, the construction sequencing um is intended to be able to help support identify the the community impacts uh as part of major construction phases. Um these things don't happen in um just immediately. It's being able to have again deliberate thought as to the space required, the amount of time required, how it how a contractor is able to mobilize equipment in and out and materials in and out of the space to be able to build a set of improvements. The construction sequencing as part of 15% design will serve as our baseline in informing the environmental document. It is not the construction sequence. It is intended to be a feasible construction sequence to understand those environmental considerations of those uh of or the environmental document. The city and Caltrain uh do have a constructability workshop this month. We continue to work and explore on the key constraints associated with the construction sequencing. In other words, how each phase of the work could occur, what are going to be the challenges with those phases, and what does that mean in terms of um the user experience. In other words, your cyclists, your schools, I mean, uh Meadow and Charleston being key corridors for school access. Um so, being able to identify for each user what can happen and how to be able to do so safely. Uh because we're talking about major construction equipment, uh large um pieces of materials, in some cases large girders uh to be able to um install for the future bridge construction. So, that's something that uh have been developed. Those sequencing plans are being refined and better understood uh again from un- what we call the unintended consequences and the different better definition of risks so that we can then share that with the Rail Committee in September. Uh and uh considerations uh are again the user experience. What are cyclists, what are pedestrians, what are automobiles experiencing for each of the phases? Um the safety associated with the paths that have been identified. Um how access across the tracks can occur and both uh because in this case we are exploring uh both the uh uh shoe fly track or even a closure of of roads. So, being able to understand how bikes and peds will be able to go through, especially um where we're talking about um young riders and pedestrians uh for schools. The vehicular access across the tracks um is and along Alma Street. And then finally, um being mindful of the yes, providing as much time as possible for a contractor to be able to do the work to be able to shorten the the duration. Uh there's homes adjacent to these construction potential construction sites. So, nighttime construction is something that is going to be better understood to be able to then understand and then be able to say what can and cannot occur at night to be able to again reduce potential noise um noise generating activities. Next slide. Let's dive into um track shoe fly. So, this is the best way I can describe it is that it's a it's a track bypass uh of where existing uh a potential or a temporary track is constructed around a potential construction site and and work area along an existing track uh to be able to build whatever is necessary. So, in this case a shoe fly is necessary to construct the Meadow uh hybrid at grade separation. And so, the this uh for the shoe fly sequencing, it will allow for reliable and consistent caltrain operations with larger work windows for the contractor potential contractor and the opportunity to be able to improve those production rates. So, when we look at the contractor space and the amount of time that's being provided safety is paramount for the rail operations for neighborhood and those workers um adjacent to the railroad. So, those work windows and the ability to provide them space is is really important. The the essentially the more space that's safer is provided, the higher those production rates can be. Next slide, please. So, there um we we evaluated the shoe fly extents for Meadow Drive and the and if in this case we wanted to see the larger shoe fly extents if Meadow and Charleston were to be built at the same time and see if the shoe fly could be utilized to be able to uh improve the construction duration for Charleston. So, we looked at a shoofly extend from Green Meadow Way to Loma Verde Avenue. So, approximately a mile long shoofly. Next slide. So, what does So, creating those temporary tracks to one side of the existing tracks? Again, those existing tracks that are there today are going to be operating with Caltrain trains. So, there needs to be some form of separation from those existing tracks to the shoofly tracks with a temporary barrier and construction fence. The shoofly tracks could be constructed. Then, you have the supporting infrastructure for those shoofly tracks. These used to be the OCS poles and and any maintenance assets. And in this case, crossing equipment for Meadow because Meadow will be open while the shoofly is in operation. And so, in this case, it shows that there's about 28 ft remaining for Alma after providing the protective barriers for again the roadway, the shoofly, and the existing tracks as these workers will be in between the tracks and the roadway. Next slide. >> I think it'd be helpful if you'd say how wide a lane normally is and how much of a shoulder is. >> A a typical lane or at least is 12 ft, but it can be reduced down to 10. For fire access, the preferred is 14 ft along a stretch. And so, this is what we've been able to at least accommodate. In section, so one thing is to be able to see it in in plan view from a bird's eye. It's another thing to be able to see it in section. So, I'm going to actually go right to left. So, the existing tracks are on the right side. Then, you see the Shoe Fly tracks in the center. And then, finally, Alma Street uh on the far left. And then, you'll see the sidewalk and and um the remaining right roadway right-of-way to the left of that. The the Shoe Fly uh can extend uh into Alma Street approximately 23 to 37 ft. Now, it seems like that's a very wide range. It's because of the jog in the right-of-way uh and the transition of Alma's uh right-of-way width uh between um essentially on the north and south side of Meadow. So, that's the the reason why there's the a larger extent there. So, this is to be able to show, again, the what may seem like a lot of space when you go uh when you see the railroad uh and go out at the crossing, it's actually not as much when you start looking at the ability to be able to construct um said tracks. >> And the east side of Alma has uh a very wide planting strip. >> Mhm. >> As well as, in some cases, a buffer even beyond the sidewalk to the back fences. >> That's correct. >> Does this include intruding into that? >> Not yet. >> Okay. >> So, that's those are going to be opportunities to be able to provide relief. Um and so, we again, we wanted to first explore what does this mean in terms of um not conservative, but constrained footprint for for the roadway. Um now, in that buffer zone, there is extensive utilities on those poles. So, those are uh fiber utilities as well as electrical. Uh and so, that would have to be buried and relocated prior to utilizing that space. >> Thanks. >> All right. So, that's in section. Next slide. So, box checking. Uh this is applicable to Churchill Avenue, uh the partial underpass, and then Charleston Road if it were to be, you know, constructed uh with or without Meadow. It's a There's several scenarios. So, what occurs here? This construction method installs a reinforced concrete box underneath the existing tracks. And it's essentially pushing it with hydraulic uh pumps. Just pushing it pushing it at about a centimeter a minute. Um and be able to get it all the way underneath um the tracks. Now, you see on this on the screen an example from the delivery guide. In this case, this is a what's known as a supporting bridge. In other words, you see these blue those blue supporting structures on the other side of tracks. This is to completely isolate the tracks from the ground below so that when the box is pushed, uh it's not moving. Uh you do not want those tracks translating or what we call shear. Be able to move to the side to side. Now, um the deeper the box, there's a less need to isolate the um the tracks. However, our objective here is to be able to get that box as high as possible underneath the tracks. Now, there is another jacking method that we are exploring and that is where um what other railroads have done. Other railroads have done this type of box jacking where it's isolating the tracks. There's also the ability and we're exploring the ability to essentially cut the tracks have some form of shutdown, cut the tracks, dig the hole, push the entire box with a bridge structure underneath uh into place. That's uh been done in Long Island Railroad. Uh it's been done uh as part of a handful of pre-planned closures uh at the location. That's the another method that we will be exploring as part of this project. >> There are some wonderful time-lapse videos on box jacking uh for the public who might go to this on our website and I I assume these are going to be posted on the Yes. Could we link time-lapse lapse video because till you've seen that it's hard to envision how this works? >> Absolutely. So, there's the in this case a whole box. They've we there's the ability to just jack the not only the box with an open cut which makes it a little bit easier, less isolating on the tracks. There's also the ability to build the essentially a frame of the box with the bridge on top and push that into place. So, we are exploring different methods of being able to reduce that construction period immediately at the crossing and be able to again improve construct constructability and construction timelines. >> And I'll just note even though we haven't done any rail jack boxes regionally, VTA has used it on other and I'm not sure where but I I know our CEO had mentioned this and other locations on projects they've done in the county. >> That's correct. So, where the tracks are isolated, it minimizes or eliminates the disruption of rail operations so you can effectively operate on top of the tracks. If closure is is considered, then there's other ways to build again reduce the the amount of impacts surrounding that particular crossing. So, we are exploring multiple options including whether it's one large box or two smaller boxes. So, we're starting to delve into those design considerations and details to be able to see how to be able to improve constructability for each of the crossings. All right. Oh, and and and again so if you'll indulge me again in a little bit of detail here, the leading pit at the other end is not just for the dirt that's coming out. It's also for this pretty sizable segment of what's piercing the dirt. Think of it as like almost like the nice edge that's piercing the dirt that then gets cut off and there has to be the ability to move that those pieces that remnant box out. Um so we are looking at ways in which um this could be repeatable even between uh Churchill and and Charleston and see if there's efficiencies there. Next slide. So, the delivery scenarios. So in in this case we've we've talked about a lot of the design elements and constructability and and and we are going to go into more detail in the coming months with you. Uh so this is the first foray into that. Churchill Avenue I've I've I've mentioned this box jacking both for the vehicular crossing at Churchill itself and Seal Avenue uh at Pierce Park. So the ability to be able to build that push that box through. Um I didn't get too much into Seal Avenue today but we will be talking about what it means to potentially push that box further into Alma and maybe doing some open cut there. We'll talk about some of that sequencing to see how that can get um again to be able to improve constructability. Now, Meadow and Charleston. As you've communicated in the past, this is highly dependent on the amount of funding that would be available uh for the crossings. And so we are um preparing these scenarios to be able to see how much it would cost to deal with the Charleston on its own. Charleston and Meadow somewhat in sequence at the same time but and then both effectively at the same time. So that we are able to better understand the tradeoffs from a cost perspective and be able to present that to the rail committee and the city council. Now, Charleston Road, essentially it's box jacking is from a scenario perspective it's pretty straightforward and we consider that a good sort of baseline to then understand the marginal cost beyond that. For high for Meadow and Charleston, there are a couple of options here. So, there could be for example, Charleston constructed with box jacking, get that all built out and then shoofly and build Meadow afterwards. That's one potential scenario. And then there's the scenario that if the shoofly is constructed for both crossings, then be able to take advantage of that shoofly to be able to construct the Meadow or sorry, the Charleston bridges as quickly as possible for the railroad and create the space for then the roadway improvements. We're also looking at the roadway improvements occurring first before the rail improvements because of again, the ability to be able to provide circulation mobility for the for for the communities on either side of the track. So, we are looking at different scenarios of how these these could get built. And then again, it's all dependent on the funding and so that's something that we will continue to explore in in terms of the ability to deliver if the funding's available. >> Could I ask um now that we're at this point and we're really imagining the box jacking here and the shoofly here, are you finding yourselves going, oh I wish Palo Alto had gone with the underpass at Meadow? Like I'm pattern matching here. I see box jacking here and box jacking here and then this sort of more complicated piece in the middle with Meadow and I just I know why we preferred the hybrid. We were trying to minimize property impacts. Um and you know, there are trade-offs inherent in all of this. So, I'm just wondering is there we hate for you not to tell us you know, hey y'all, as we've gotten this far in what we realize is there's a tremendous cost savings if you go with you know, underpass at Meadow because we could box jacket all and it would I I don't know. I'm just trying to I'm >> Right. >> your transparency and your advice before it's too late. >> So, in this case, one thing to recall is that there were the two ramps going north from Meadow along Alma, one on each side of Alma. Those were pretty deep ramps and they were adjacent to homes on on the east side and the shopping center and it would require the ability to then support said shopping center construction. So, there's some more complexity there. Whether it's I Again, we we could analyze it. I don't think it's going to be as easy as saying, oh, because box checking is available, it's easily constructible. What I can say based on what we've dug into more and more in terms of 15% design, um candidly, the the track or the track portion of the crossing at times is easier than the Alma Street portion of the crossing. Charleston and Alma, that bridge deck is complex to be able to build and be able to maintain traffic on it. So, that is where um there's a great deal more effort on our part to better understand how that bridge of Alma over Charleston will work and how it will be built. We're exploring different um construction techniques for that. We're actually we'll be presenting this at the next meeting. Construction tech techniques for that, what if any diversion of traffic may be necessary, is it shutting down Alma there an option? Unlikely, but we're just trying to see what um how to be able to provide that space to be able to build what is effectively a pretty big bridge. It's an uh uh 80-ft bridge at least. Uh and so that's there's some complex geometry and structural calculations for that particular bridge. The Oh, sorry. I do have one more slide. Um the independent cost estimates. And the considerations associated with that. Um the estimates will include total delivery costs. I I can't emphasize the importance of that. It's not just construction. It's the ability to deliver all of it, utility relocations, um permitting, environmental environmental monitoring, construction management, um noi- noise monitoring. All of that is is to be included as part of the independent cost estimate. Um property uh are not going to be explicitly included in the in the ICE. However, we will be able to come back with some preliminary estimates um uh associated with uh potential property acquisitions. The estimate will be informed uh by three key factors. First, the work windows and rail service constraints. So, the ability for the contract contractor to be able to perform the work. And therefore, they will be um estimating uh whether the production rates will be what we call sort of free-form. In other words, unconstrained production rates versus, you know, a level of constraint or degradation of those production rates. We are in an electrified corridor. So, there's the need to be able to de-energize the OCS to be able to provide again that safe space for for the contractors' crews and equipment. So, sometimes with these larger equipments, you you that clearance from that active um OCS or uh energized OCS wire. And finally, uh current market costs. So, we've all been experienced different levels of inflation recently. That's construction materials are not immune to that and unfortunately conditions globally do impact the ability to be able to acquire materials. So, at September in September, um we will be presenting to the Rail Committee a constructability memo with regards to Metro Charleston. We will be coming back with the construction schedules of first edition of the construction schedules and the estimates based on those schedules. So, what type of work is occurring at what time and then be able to provide a cost associated with that for all for the three locations for the following scenarios. Churchill partial underpass on its own, Charleston underpass on its own, and then the Metro hybrid and Charleston underpass concurrently as a package. Also, at the September Rail Committee, we will come back with the potential preliminary cost risks. So, as you mentioned, Council Member Lithgow Heims, there's a price associated with some of these risks. We will come back with a preliminary edition of those those list of risk and associated costs. >> Last slide. I'm sorry to interrupt. >> I just one question on the cost um is I I think you had told us previously that you're still assuming that the hybrid uh uh the earth and the width of the hybrid um would still be the entire corridor. Is that right that the earth and >> Oh, the earth and the retain fill earth and berm? Yes, it would effectively be for the stretch. We would be looking at the shorter bridge per the direction of the rail uh committee at the previous meeting. >> And that entire width, is that based upon Caltrain O&M needs or other considerations? >> Uh as as of right now, it's based on the uh Caltrain's criteria for full utilization of its right-of-way. >> And so, what point in the process do we enter into engagement with Caltrain on minimizing those requirements imposed on the design? >> That would be something that can be discussed um in its first format as part of 35% design. We'd like to establish the the footprint as part of 15% get that going as part of the environmental review. >> Because at Caltrain, I've been pushing for over a year, and we're going to have this in the coming months, is a reconciliation of different Caltrain policies on supporting grade separations, uh the O&M needs, the real estate issues, and uh currently, to some degree, those are in conflict. Saying that we at Caltrain want to support most cost-effective grade separations, and then we have policies that in some ways design criteria that that uh work against that. So, hopefully, we're going to in the coming months, at least at the policy level, uh say, "Here's some some how we reconcile them." >> Yeah, and we always appreciate that direction from Caltrain. >> So, uh if I could wrap, just touch on um in August, and the last slide, so the last slide, uh in August, we're anticipating hosting uh two community meetings at Mitchell Park. Um dates to be determined, but we're working closely with the city's comm team and others uh late August. Uh we'll socialize that date once we have it. Um and then as Edgar said, coming back in September uh to Rail Committee and then ultimately uh to City Council for concurrence to advance into 35% design. That concludes our presentation. >> Thanks. Well, first I I just want to say um thanks for once again presenting some complex issues in depth uh and yet uh in ways that allow lay people to understand. And um and also thanks for indulging our questions as you went through the slides because it just helps us be able to keep track. Uh do we have any members of the public who want to speak on this? >> Yes. We do have several requests to speak. Our first speaker is Eric N. Thank you. Our next speaker is John M. >> Hello, everybody. Um Mr. Torres, that was terrific. I learned a lot today and also for the Rail Committee. And Nadia, the questions you asked answered a lot of questions and concerns that I had. Um can we go back to slide 17? Please. Is that possible? So, um for me, I live very near to the um railway. And I'm That's Yep. I'm just living here. Yep. Just uh there. So, when the shoe fly tracks come across, they're going to be 130 ft closer to my house than they are now. Which concerns me. So, I'm looking for options that would not include the fly tracks. Um Also, I'm I don't really have any desire to have a Berlin Wall bisect our city uh or a portion of it or albeit and my neighbors will be affected negatively. I don't know that that ship may have sailed, but I'm asking for consideration there and options if possible. Um I have concerns about long construction disruptions, nighttime noise. We suffered a lot with electrification and the positive train control systems where we didn't sleep for years on end from flashing lights, back up uh beeping horns from back up of heavy vehicles, and um and that was we didn't sleep for many years because of that. Um Now with the new electrification, we see that there's a lot more noise, there's a lot of rail screech that replaced the rumble of the old diesel electrics. Um when the trains move faster, they kick up more dust. Our house is full of dust now rather than diesel particulates. So, it's better, but it was a trade-off. Um with the horizontal uh adjustments, is that is there a way to mitigate rail rail to wheel screech? Because the frequency is is like a dentist drill in a certain way. Some unpleasant as that. Um Uh So, and I'm asking for a whole a pretty good holistic analysis of impacts to residents during construction. What mitigations would be provided to us or compensation for the disruption? Would we be rehoused somewhere else if we can't sleep? Um And my last question would be find it. I guess um I want to thank you for the presentation again. It was a really terrific thing. I learned a lot today. >> Right. Um I think we had most of our questions asked. See Ed. >> Oh, Chair. One moment. We do have um another request to speak. >> Okay. >> Our next speaker is Roland online. Roland, uh you now have permission to unmute yourself. >> Uh good afternoon. It's a actually Yeah, this picture there, that's Durie Den. Uh but this essentially would be the same as a viaduct. Um so, let me quickly go through two things. It's uh number one, a viaduct does not require shoe flies. If it did, it would be impossible to build Durie Den using this construction technique. And it also does not introduce a building wall. It actually you don't see it here. It introduces some really um elegant arches, not uh some uh you know, concrete uh monstrosity. Um I'd be happy to introduce you to people who not only have designed this, uh but they've actually built this. And uh you may find that they the cost are uh competitive. Uh my closing comment is about this uh buff checking, which quite frankly, you have to be honest, it is not viable in your consideration in your uh particular configuration because you don't have the depth. And the way this is done in the UK is through a 3-day weekend closure. Let's say for the sake of argument um you know, Thanksgiving uh maybe Christmas, but Christmas is not desirable. And essentially, what you do is you take everything down, the tracks and everything. You jack the the precast structure uh into place. Actually in the UK I've got an example they use uh so self-propelled modular transporter SPMT um and this thing weighs I think about 250 tons something like that. And move it into place and then you rebuild everything. And this literally can be done in 3 days if you know what you're doing. Thank you. Okay. >> All right, thanks. Ed? >> Yeah. Uh with all sincere humility I would say some of the committee members are now up to speed on full physics. Um I tried to avoid that class in high school and and ever since. Um but I think the the presentation was fantastic uh just speaking from one audience member. Uh but the thing that keeps troubling me from when I read it from you know and going through this is when we talk about this you know Meadow and Charleston delivered together. I just I'm just trying to figure out how that can possibly work and I understand where we are on 15% uh shoe fly etc. But you come down to saying things like where feasible either Charleston or Meadow would remain open to traffic. Well that to me sounds like a confusion disaster for unless it was like you know these 2 weeks or this month uh you know it couldn't be every other day. So I'm I guess I'd like not necessarily today but sort of more detail on that and I'm just wondering if sort of biting off more we could chew there and just say look it's got to be one one will be closed for a year and a half. Uh two can't ever be closed totally because wow then we got you know real problems. You know we just did an analysis of Churchill closed temporarily. You know to close both of those we it would it that just wouldn't work. So I don't know if this I'm not trying to necessarily change your game plan here. I'm just saying I don't see how this becomes practical. Um and in any case, the other thing I was going to bring up, which actually you just brought up. And this is I think on us, not on your estimates, but at some point we have to think if if it's better to close down for a month or something like that, then we should look at accommodating those folks that are sitting there listening to that for a month and saying, you know, you get to go to the to the motel down the street. I mean that again, that's on us. That's not on you, but I think that is something that we need to consider in our sort of cost estimates um cuz this will be horrendous for a long period of time. So, um those are those are just sort of my two comments at this point. >> Yes. Yeah, I was going to say that that is exactly why we are digging more and more into the construction sequencing as to whether the roadway should go first um prior to the railroad um the roadway bridge. >> Mhm. >> overall map. >> Yeah, that's that's very wise. Thank you for re-emphasizing. >> We are that's one of just we're exploring it. We're also trying to understand that if there was simultaneous closure, unlikely because we know that that's going to be quite um challenging. Um how to be able to get in the most benefit for such a um disruption. If it What does it unlock effectively? That would be uh the the question. We are going to be exploring this summer um the first iteration of construction period traffic based on the construction sequencing. So, we will be delving more and more as to the diversion of traffic uh the ability to how much traffic can be accommodated. Is there a um a traffic management plan that may be necessary for these projects to be able to help um individuals that may not be that may not reside in Palo Alto, but travel through Palo Alto to be able to utilize different routes. So, that's going to be something that we'll begin exploring this summer. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. I have questions along the same vein. Particularly in light of the item we heard prior to this, which is we're going from intersections that are already pretty poorly graded and are going to be reduced further on the traffic side due to improvements made for bikes and peds. So, that's going to happen. So, we already have Meadow, I think, going to an F. And that's before there's any construction, any impacts from Charleston being closed. And so, just want to be sure that these conversations are all happening in tandem. And so, and how low can we go? Is it G? Is it H? Is it I? Is it J? Like, what's How bad is it going to get? Living on that side of town, just trying to figure out like the whole There's a whole quadrant that's going to be impacted by the inability to I mean, more than a quadrant, but uh looking forward to hearing more information on that. >> And one other consideration that we'll have is might we have the new bike and ped undercrossing uh in the vicinity of Matadero Creek before we go into this construction, which would provide two potential benefits. One is uh just the uh being able to divert a portion of the bike and ped movements to that location, so they wouldn't have to go through the construction site. The other is any benefit overall to traffic pattern as result of mode shift from commuters to the research park and things then having a a real viable route, uh especially if we had that uh Chamounix bike path. Uh but, that remains to be determined. So, I think that Oh, Nadia? >> Um so, uh just wondering, have you guys made any contact with the Long Island Railroad folks and are there tips on the box jacking that we could learn from? >> Yes. So, the Caltrain management has had not only I think at the initial meeting with the project management team for Long Island Railroad. We have been consulting box jacking and shoe fly contractors to be able to understand some of the key challenges that they've experienced in other locations and along with the design team and the integrated teams experience of where we've done similar types of construction. Long Island Railroad in particular was fairly complex as high ridership, high frequency. >> And freight? >> And freight. It is an electrified railroad, although in that case it's a third rail, not overhead catenary, which was a bit to their benefit in this case. But they were able to do nine separations with five closures to the service on a week on weekends. Now, there's some really unique roadway conditions in that area that they were able to take advantage of. In this case, I would say almost probably the highest constraint and complexity to the construction of these separations. Very few high frequency quarters have essentially a high capacity and high speed in some cases from from vehicles on Alma Street. So, that's the that's the challenge that we're up against is the Alma Street in particular. >> And as part of your next analysis, will you be coming with impacts of that speed if we were say to consider reducing speed on Alma? How beneficial might that be? Is that something you'll be considering? >> Um, I think it wouldn't necessarily be an immediate benefit to the projects themselves, but I I would say it's likely a benefit for the community based on observations in the area, especially along Seal Avenue. Seal Avenue being proposed as a pedestrian bike crossing and that access at Seal and Alma, the ability to be able to ameliorate those speeds would be of benefit to to that crossing. >> Okay. >> Um, I wanted to ask about the uh when the XCAP was looking at this, one of the main ideas was this context sensitive solutions and the possibility of finding other buckets of funding to be able to help with the project. So, I would encourage you with all of the utility relocation to look at even federal programs, any programs that if it's improving our sewer system or lights or fiber to the premises or any place where we can bundle as much as possible and potentially get funding. Obviously, would be great. Um, so just throwing that out there. I'm sure you guys have thought of that. Um, I had the same question about the Loma Verde bike crossing and how that timing goes together. Was going to was wondering whether the utility exploration at Meadow might also help elucidate what Councilmember Liz Got Haims was asking about Meadow and whether an underpass would have been better. I don't I I I think that there's a big piece of equipment there which actually made it worse, but that you don't need to answer. I'm just throwing out my list of questions for you, but you know what I'm talking about. So, and then I guess for the Caltrain board, wondering about how you guys might consider changes in railroad operations that might help the cost of grade separation. So, both passenger and freight operations, just changing the schedule as we get to work windows. You might eliminate the midnight train and the through a.m. freight train or change the the window and that can happen and that could greatly decrease not only our work windows but the work windows of all the projects along the corridor. Similarly, wondering if the Caltrain board should have a master list of all grade separation projects and their anticipated timeline because if they all line up more or less around the same times then looking at those operations might actually have an even greater reduction in cost than it might have if they were kind of spread out. Um so you'd probably want to have a running clock at the Caltrain board level. Um uh was going to suggest that uh the the width discussion that council member Bert mentioned in terms of like are you building the berm, the width size again goes into Caltrain policies that he talked he talked about. Um the outreach meeting that you want to have in late August, early September, just be super coordinating with the schools because there's just a lot of stuff happening during that time so extra messaging. Um at some point sound walls were talked about when we had elevated things and I'm wondering how that might impact the screechy sound that uh has been mentioned um and we might want to think about. I know that most of the sound comes off the wheels and there was discussions about how a very short wall of a only about a foot near the wheel well could actually help with some of the sound so that might be something the neighbors would appreciate. Um when you look at the traffic management plan for constructability, as you know my favorite topic is what happens to the lights on El Camino so I will just throw that out there once again. Um and then uh are there any improvements in Mountain View that might be happening that might also help us when we look at construction management traffic and that whole plan because that traffic isn't just Palo Alto traffic, it's Mountain View traffic and we should think about how things that might be happening in their city that we I know you guys are I think also working in Mountain View so there's a benefit to that but um just having better coordination across city lines on those issues might be super helpful and obviously same with Menlo Park and San Mateo County. So that's it. >> Anything to add if you have >> um, to Naughty's point about the community meetings in August, I think last time it felt as if um, it was either one was the daytime, one was at night, and Churchill was at night, and Charleston and Meadow were together in the day, and it just didn't feel equitable. Charleston and Meadow are two separate projects, even though they're a quarter mile apart. There's more complexity when you discuss them because it's two very different things, even though there is much that we then discuss about them together. So, I urge you not to treat it as half a Churchill, Charleston Meadow, right? Give Charleston Meadow people interested in that discussion, give them the time they need to properly understand what's going on. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you all, and thanks for hanging in extra 15 minutes. Uh, it's very valuable. And I think that concludes our meeting. Great. Thanks.

Mhm. >> Mhm. >> I would say good evening, but it's still afternoon. So, good afternoon. I hereby call to order the May 11th, 2026 meeting of the Palo Alto City Council. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? >> Of course. Councilmember Lauing? >> Here. >> Councilmember Lu? >> Councilmember Councilmember Burt? >> Here. >> Vice Mayor Stone? >> Councilmember Rector? Mayor Vinker? >> Here. >> Councilmember Litfin Cote Heim? >> For the record, six present. >> Excellent. Thank you. Well, today is a terrific day because our first special order is city employee years of service awards and proclamation acknowledging Public Service Recognition Week. So, I want to welcome all of our city employees who are with us and their families that have been attending the recognition event of employees with 20 or more years of service. We're so glad you are here. And with that, I will turn to Councilmember Lauing and ask him to read the proclamation. >> Thank you, Mayor. Delighted to read this proclamation for this wonderful event of recognizing all the years of service for a number of our of our employees and overall, thank you for your service. Whereas Americans are served every day by public servants at the federal, state, county, and city levels, these unsung unsung heroes do the work that keeps our nation working. And across our nation, public employees take not only jobs, but oaths of office. And whereas many public servants risk their lives each day in service to the people of our communities, as well as providing safety inspections and patrols, maintaining our infrastructure, operating our public facilities, and providing the diverse services demanded by the American people with integrity and diligence. And whereas public service provide institutional knowledge, experience, and continuity that support the long-term sustainability of our community assets and organizational history. And whereas here in our city, our staff promotes and sustains the superior quality of life in Palo Alto. And in partnership with our community, delivers cost-effective services in a personal, responsive, and innovative manner. And whereas over the last year alone, our city staff oversaw the lending of 1.3 million library materials, cleaned and treated 90 plus miles of sewer lines, replaced over 55,000 square feet of sidewalk, processed 58 employee personnel transactions, facilitated the participation of over 13,500 individuals in a variety of classes, camps, and programs spanning arts, sciences, recreational activities, and open space, maintained 32 parks and 36,000 trees, provided nearly 4,000 ambulance transports, issued over 4,000 building permits, and completed over 18,500 500 inspections, and received over 50,000 calls for police or fire services and much more. All of with professionalism we know and appreciate day in and day out. Now therefore, Vicki Veenker, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto Alto on behalf of the entire council do hereby proclaim that May 3, 2026 to May 9, 2026 is Public Service Recognition Week. All citizens are encouraged to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of government employees at all levels, federal, state, county and city and especially our very own City of Palo Alto employees. Thank you so much for your ongoing service. >> And I want to add my thanks. I mean this is a city that's reputed for how well it's run and how terrific the services are that our residents have come to expect and that's because of our our employees and we know that the examples in the proclamation are just a very few of the many things that you all do for us every day and so I just wanted to thank you before we present the proclamation to the city manager. Are there any other colleagues who would like to say anything at this time? Okay, well then I will happily turn to city manager Ed Shikada to read the names of the employees. >> Yes, thank you Mayor. Members of the council, on behalf of our staff, let me just thank you for this recognition. This is our once a year opportunity to really pay special recognition to the work that all of our public service employees and professionals do throughout the city every day, every night, all around the clock and around the year. So we were able to have an employee appreciation event last week at Mitchell Park, a opportunity to get folks out and really appreciate the the energy from your staff in both the camaraderie as well as the appreciation for what they do. So, that's it. Tonight, we've got a special recognition for employees that have reached particular milestones of 20, 25, 30, and 35 years of service. So, I was doing some quick math while I was sitting there and if I got my math correct, it's a total of over 800 years of service, of experience that are represented by the folks here in the room, as well as the other folks that couldn't be here this evening, but that are otherwise being recognized through their years of service. So, what I'm going to do is call the names of each of our employees that are being recognized. The ones that are here, please join me up front just standing here and then once we've got everyone called out, then we'll come around and take a photo with the city council. All right. So, with first category of 20 years of service from our administrative services department, Cecilia Magaña. From community services, Bill Gutoff. Brian Haynes. Adam Howard. Andrew Joyce. And Heather Mitchell. From our planning and development services department, Scott Scott McKay. From the fire department, Captain Jesus Zuniga. From the police department, again 20 years, Sergeant Eric Velado. Lieutenant David Lee. Cody McCarthy. From our public works department with 20 years, Noreen Doss. And Edgardo Gella. And from our utilities department with 20 years of experience, Michael Mince and Steven Richie. Now with 25 years of service from our community services department, Miguel Chacon and Mark Ribeiro. From our fire department, 25 years of service, Captain Jesse Aguilar, Robin Ellner, Assistant Fire Chief Fire Marshall David Villareal, Battalion Chief Shane Yarborough. From our IT department, Ty Wren. From our police department, again with 25 years of service, Brian Furtado II, the second, Agent Mariana Krats, and Shawn Smith. From our public works department with 25 years of service, Fermin Mora, Carl North, and Ignacio Paez Rincon. From our utilities department with 25 years of service, Isaac Armenta, Brian Solis, Chris Segura. Now with 30 years of service, Paula Borges Fujimoto. And two employees with 35 years of service, Sergeant Alex Afanasyev, Police Department, and from our public works department, James Borkin. All right, those are our employees receiving a recognition for years of service. Okay. Come on up. >> Congratulations and thank you. And as the city manager said, please come join us on the dais for a photo. Thank you. These are >> Amazing. It's great. >> We're going to need a few of you to come back this way to splice in with us. It's like a It's like a baseball. A few more come down this way. Yeah. License or I think There we go. We just got to >> We're going to do two rows. >> everybody so we can kind of go sideways a little bit. You guys can splice in a little bit. Now, can you see us all? Okay. All right. Are we good? All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh. Okay. Yes. Okay. >> 3:00 p.m., right? >> 3:00 p.m. 3 hours. Okay. >> All right, terrific. Well, again, thank you all. That's a great way to start our meeting. We will now move on to our second special order of the day, and this is a proclamation recognizing National Police Week, and I will turn to the vice mayor for that proclamation. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's my honor to read this proclamation in honor of National Police Week, May 10th through the 16th, 2026, and National Peace Officers Memorial Day, May 15th, 2026. Whereas the United States Congress and President of the United States have designated May 15th, 2026, as National Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in in which it falls as Police Week. And whereas the members of the Palo Alto Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of its citizens, and whereas it is important that all citizens know and understand the problems, duties, and responsibilities of their police department, and that members of our police department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting against violence or disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression or intimidation. And whereas the Palo Alto Police Department has grown to be a modern and progressive law enforcement agency with unceasingly provides a vital public service. And whereas the City of Palo Alto asks all citizens to join in honoring the police officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities, and in doing so have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. Now, therefore, Vicki Veenker, mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the entire city council, do here hereby proclaim the week of May 10th through the 16th, 2026, as Police Week and urge all citizens of Palo Alto to observe Friday, May 15th, 2026, as Peace Officers Memorial Day, in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or become disabled in the performance of duty. >> Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And with that, I would like to invite Chief Riefschneider to come say a few words. Ma'am, if you would render the pro- pro- Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Uh Chief James Riefschneider, Palo Alto Police Department. Uh Madam Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, Council, I speak to this proclamation with both gratitude and a sense of pride. I'm grateful to this council for recognizing National Police Week and recognizing Peace Officer Memorial Day, for recognizing the important work done by the men and women of the Palo Alto Police Department each and every day, and the sense of duty with which they perform it. And I'm grateful for the service of our own fallen Palo Alto police officers, Lester Cole, Gene Clifton, and Theodore Brasinga. I'm proud to be part of a noble profession and a group of truly dedicated law enforcement professionals right here in Palo Alto, many of whom are in the chamber now. In closing, I would like to invite uh the members of the council, as well as the members of the community, to join us for our annual Memorial Grove event, which will occur this Friday at 9:00 a.m. in Cogswell Plaza, where we will gather to remember Officers Cole, Clifton, and Brasinga. Thank you. >> Thank you, Chief. And thank you to all of you here who serve us every day. Do you want to do a photo? Okay, why don't let me come up, we'll do a quick photo. All right, but but thank you for your service, all of you. All right, well, an even better collection of ways to start our meeting. That's really terrific. Um I'm going to move next to agenda changes because the agenda change involves the closed session that is agenda-ized next. And Mr. City Manager, if it's all right if I just or Yeah. I um we are So, the closed session that was notified for 4:45 will be placed last on the agenda this evening so that the public, and especially public commenters, do not have to wait while we meet outside of the public view. That will have the added advantage that all else will start approximately 30 minutes earlier, possibly more depending on public comment and the length of our discussions. So, but I also wanted to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for coming an hour early tonight. I really do appreciate that. Um and so that and moving the closed session uh to the end should means that we will start the last action item by 8:25, hopefully, and conclude it before 10:00. That being in the prime time window, as they say in network television. Um and so that we can get through our all of our very full agenda as expeditiously as possible, I will be gently reminding folks, including myself, of our speaking time limits. So, and we may have to uh nudge staff gently every now and then to keep their answers concise, as well. So, thank you in advance to everyone. And Mr. City Manager, is there anything else that you'd like to add to that? >> There are no other changes. >> Okay, excellent. All right. And so with that, we will move on to public comment for matters not on the agenda. I'll turn to the clerk. >> We have five requests to speak. We had three uh presentations submitted, and the three individuals were notified of the earlier start time. So, not sure if they were able to make it, but I will call their names. Uh Shawnee K. Moving to our next speaker, Sven T. Moving to our next speaker, Justine B. Welcome. And we can circle back to those if need be. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Vinker and City Council members. For those of you who were not present at the Finance Committee last week, I just want to share a few thoughts and highlights of the informational report that you received from the Office of Transportation, including the Palo Alto TMA's um annual report, three-year strategic plan, and commute survey findings. So, our work in 2025 resulted in 482 parking spaces freed up, 2.9 million fewer vehicle miles traveled, and 1,152 tons of greenhouse gases reduced, up from 603 last year. And the next slide shows you from January 2019 until December 2025, something happened in early 2020 that resulted in a 90% drop in the number of transit passes given out, and I think you know what that was. And we've been building back ever since to 482 parking spaces freed up. And the next slide shows a picture of Javier. Javier just took delivery from Silicon Valley Bike Exchange of this lovely bike. Um the Bike Exchange uh sets out the best um bikes that have been donated donated to them for our people, the low-wage service sector workers. And Javier was particularly excited to get his because he lives in Sunnyvale, and he does shift work in Palo Alto that starts at 6:00 a.m. So, he, like a heartbreaking number of low-wage service sector workers, take Uber or Lyft to work. Now, he wants to get in shape and he's excited to have this bike so that he can bike to work since the trains and buses aren't running yet when he needs to already be at work. Next slide is testimonial from Alejandra Meer, who's on our board. She's the HR director for Coupa Cafe, which we all love, our local Coupas um to hang out at. And she cites the the benefits to her staff, reducing parking stress, lowering commute costs, and improving work-life balance. And the last slide I want to share with you is that we have opportunities for growth. So, this current this year with the current programs we offer, we're going to be reaching out to assisted living workers, hourly city staff who do not currently get benefits and who cannot take advantage of the Bay Pass, and workers living in five cities in particular. San Jose, a lot of people come from San Jose, uh Redwood City, um Fremont, um East Palo Alto, and Mountain View. And with the transition from Palo Alto Link, we'll also be serving not only low-wage service sector workers, but low-income residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. Thank you so much for your support. >> Our next speaker is Herb B. >> The uh public notice agenda for this meeting uh was unusual. It's the first one I've seen for any uh agency subject to the Brown Act which says, "Well, this might not be the agenda. We may change it." And since I've been aware of what's been going on this year, uh the fact that uh it might be in a different order, uh I know that, but the other people who wanted to speak on the public comments didn't know that that's common practice these days. I want to talk to you about the first about the building in three the Roth building where the occupant has applied for a conditional use permit. It seems to be changing the use from a a history museum to an event center. This is a building that should be dedicated as parkland, but it is not. And the approval on the on December 12th was for historic purposes. And now I don't know what it's going to be doing. In terms of dedication to parkland, across the street the Museum of American History was dedicated as parkland with ordinance 4423 because it had received funds from the county subject to being uh park purposes just as the Roth building has. And the intent of the Roth building to possibly for these events very large to you use the the park for its purposes. Displacing current users of the park I think is wrong. Or for having large events where there's not adequate parking in the neighborhood and where the the traffic situation you could be available for you know buses bringing in large numbers of people. The second item I want to speak about is the Opportunity Center 33 Encina. And the last the public letters you received notice of violation from code enforcement for for mold and growth water intrusion repairs without required permits and lack of required uh, inspections for repairs. Uh, the complaint, you know, first was done in October and nothing seemed to be coming of it. And it appears that it was finally issued a notice of violation when the complainant had sent uh, comments to the city council. And so the message came to staff that you have to go and enforce uh, the law. And now, uh, there's some letters available for for this meeting available online uh, where there's some claims of retaliatory uh, eviction. So, uh, this is a concern uh, since uh, uh, Abode, which manages the property, is a key link in uh, rental housing in the in the county. And so is LifeMoves, which is there. Thank you. And the Community Working Group, which owns the building. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Reina Yu. >> Before I go to the press, I just wanted to come to you guys and tell you what happened to me. And if I don't finish at this meeting, I'll come back. And only reason why I'm bringing this to the council because it happened in Palo Alto. So, on the 24th, I was admitted to Stanford. And the head nurse of emergency room came back and told me, "Less than 45 minutes, we're going to have to admit you to the hospital in case we have to do emergency surgery." So, I was there and everything was going accordingly until one night, somebody was peeking through my curtain. And I asked the nurse, I said, "Who was that?" She didn't say it was a doctor. She didn't say it was a nurse. She said it was another patient. So, I got up to proceed to leave. And when I got up to proceed to leave, when I got out the door, not one, not two, but seven security guards stopped me. They said, "You can't go." And I said, "What do you mean I can't go?" They said, "You can't leave." All right. So, they surrounded me and they cluttered me and they stopped me. And I said, then they noticed that the IV was still in my arm because I was going to defense state mode. So, I said, "Okay." When he noticed that the IV was in my arm, he told me, "You can't leave until we take the IV out." I asked him, "Can one of you guys walk me downstairs and take this IV out?" They said, "No." So, I had to humiliate myself and I used some choice words. "If you want this IV, then you take it out." And I pulled up my shirt and had to bare my bare breasts because there were And that's the only way that they let me go. That's the only way that they let me go. And so, when I went downstairs, I said, "But I didn't get my medication." Now, mind you, they said I had congestive heart failure. I didn't get my medication, so I said, I said, "Okay." I called my niece. I called the police. They told the police that I was crazy, that I was disorientated, that I wasn't So, when I didn't get my medicine, when they said you have to re-admit yourself just to get my medication. When I went down to go get my medication, when I went down to go get my medication, they said, emergency room. I went back into the emergency room and the guy said, "I'm so sorry this happened to you, but they should have never gave you that medication." Not only did they give misdiagnose me, give me the wrong medication, they held me hostage. And so, when I went, my cousin came from Antioch. I called my nephew in Texas. I said, "Hey, they're holding me hostage. I'm not a threat to myself. I'm not a threat to them." When I got, my cousin said, "You have to go to another hospital to make sure you're all right." When I got to Sutter Hospital, they said nothing was wrong with my heart. They said I had broken ribs and a cyst on my kidney. So, I just want you guys to be aware of this story cuz I don't want this to happen to you, man. I don't want this to happen to no woman. They made me lose my dignity. And before I go to the press with this story, I decided to come tell you guys. >> Our next speaker is Shani Kay. >> Good evening. My name is Shani Kleinhaus. I'm the environmental advocate for the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, and I'm a resident, and I do not speak for the PRC tonight. Uh this last weekend, May 9th and 10th, we celebrated the World Migratory Bird Day. Uh the focus this year or the theme was every bird counts, your observations matter. Um and this was a real celebration for a lot of chapters all over the country. Um I wanted to mention it because I wanted to thank you for the bird-friendly design ordinance and the dark sky ordinance. And I don't know if you can see my presentation, it's only one slide, but you can see this is last night. And you can see where migration happens. Peak migration is happening now. For the past week or so, every night I get an alert, and it says the birds are flying tonight. And this is from last night, tonight is even more pronounced. And so, the request that I get is please turn the lights off outdoors. Please make sure your windows are safe. And these migration alerts could potentially be provided to the community. I'm not sure, and maybe we can work on that. But I wanted to thank you again. >> And that concludes public comment on items not on the >> Thank you, and I also want to share that we did hear from Mr. Thiesen, and he intends to come next week. So, he is aware of of this timing. Um okay, so with that we will move on to council member questions, comments, and announcements. And I want to start with uh re-announcing what Council member Lydia Kou Haimes has shared in prior meetings, that this city will be hosting its first Palo Alto Pride celebration. And Madam Clerk, I believe you have the a slide of the beautiful new flyer. I'm kind of taking you by surprise cuz I think you thought that my colleague might be speaking about it, but um I There it is. It's beautiful. And we would like everyone to join us on Sunday, June 7th from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. We will start right here at City Hall raising our new Pride flag and hearing from some speakers and performers. And then we will have a festival and celebrate including on the closed block of Hamilton Avenue adjacent to City Hall and the pedestrian access part of Ramona and Ramona Plaza. So, please do join us. And I want to note the sponsors there at the bottom. Uh I have a longer version. I think Is it I've got the version that has the more detailed. Just one moment because I We are thrilled that quite a few sponsors have stepped up so far. In addition to the city, we have the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation as you see there. We have Stanford University, Stanford Medicine, Embarcadero Media, Jennifer DeBrienza and Jesse Dorogusker, Grocery Outlet, Palo Alto University Rotary, Youth Community Service, and I know there's some others in discussion. So, we are thrilled with the outpouring of community support and at this point I want to go back to the um Council Contingency Fund um and uh we would like to uh contribute $10,000 that uh will make the budget work from all angles and I really want to thank uh all the people serving on the Coordinating Committee including our staff to think hard about uh what would go into uh this event and they put together a budget, they've raised a lot of money and with our $10,000 it would make it whole. So, I want to see if uh our colleagues I know a a couple uh Council Member Liz Got Haims and Council Member Burt had expressed support previously, but I wanted to see if there is any concern or objection to that. I'm seeing nothing to my left, nothing to my right, so I think we're we're good to go with that. So, thank you colleagues, thank you staff, thank you community. This is going to be a great day for all of us. Um and then I want to very quickly mention three terrific city events uh events that have happened in our city last week. We declared it Affordable Housing Month and then the next day Cinco de Mayo, there was a celebration with Alta Housing and Canopy where we planted trees at Alta's first Palo Alto project Colorado Park which still looks great and houses a wonderful community some of whom have been there since the 1970s. Second, there was the Youth Art Exhibition and Awards that was done in conjunction with the school district at the Art Center. And Emily Benetar's parents were there uh for the awards made in her memory to two students who will go on to study art after high school. And thank you Council Member Haims uh Council Member Liz Got Haims for attending. And finally, on Friday uh we celebrated the grand opening of Mitchell Park Place, which houses uh a Ability Path and provides affordable housing to intellectually and developmentally disabled adults who often have trouble finding affordable accessible housing. So, we're thrilled to add that home set of homes in our community, and it was beautiful, just a spectacular place. So, that's all I have. Councilmember Lauing. >> Thanks very much. On Friday, we had sort of a recap of where we are today at the Stanford GUP, also known as Stanford Next, with a contingent from all over the county in Sunnyvale. And the focus was affordable housing. And it was time to get down to brass tacks or green, red, and blue Monopoly hotels, or whatever you want to call them, because we did a sit-down workshop and suggested where is the best place for housing to go if they need to do housing. And it was actually quite constructive. Um one of the things at the end of the ask is, "What Did you have any aha moment?" And one of the things that I said is my aha moment is that there's much more agreement among the cities than disagreement on where things should go, because the five tables, with one exception, were quite similar. Uh so, it's not going to be uh all in our backyard or none in our backyard, and you know, we get into more details later. And we're now on hiatus for a couple of months as they process this and come back and eventually present us a draft. So, that's where we are. Thanks. >> Terrific. Councilmember Litvak Heimes. Unless Councilmember Ratto has anything. Welcome. Okay. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I actually have a personal announcement I'd like to make. After much reflection with my partner, Dan, I've decided not to seek re-election this fall. I'm making this announcement now so that members of our community will know that there is an open seat available and can have the important conversations they need to have with their loved ones, supporters, and advisers about whether to step up. My decision to not seek re-election derives from my three greatest learnings as a council member. Number one, I had no idea how much sheer work it would take to be prepared in all the ways required to serve this great little city well. From the reading required to prepare for council and committee meetings, to attending those meetings, to meeting with members of the public, to conversations with staff and colleagues, and attending events. This city demands and deserves much from its council members. I'll admit at the front end, I had no idea quite how much work it would be when I got myself into it. So, my number two greatest learning, imagine how surprised I was then to discover that I actually love it. All of it. This experience has not just been a net positive for me, but a truly fulfilling one professionally and personally. And of course, it has been an honor and a privilege to serve this incredible community. And yet, learning number three, I also had no idea that I would have so little time left over in which to do the work that actually pays my bills, namely writing books and public speaking. As our developer friends put it, I just can't make it pencil. That's why I'm bowing out. It pains me to do so because I love it. Did I mention that I love it? Going to miss these guys, too. All of them. Have no fear, I won't be a lame duck. Far from it. In fact, I feel I've really hit my stride in the last year or so and I intend to finish strong. Meanwhile, our city clerk is gearing up to run our elections and expects to have the 2026 candidate guide posted online by the end of May. We all encourage anyone interested to reach out to the city clerk to learn more. You might end up feeling really glad that you stepped up, as I am. Thank you. >> Thank you, council member, and we're counting on you to finish strong. And I know I know you will. So, thank you for sharing that. Appreciate it. And with that, we will move on to our study session on the uh budget. So, I will turn to whom? To the city manager. >> Yes, we'll just need a minute for our staff to get in place and uh walk you through what we've got out of your finance committee meetings from last week. >> I'll say welcome back. >> Good evening, mayor, council members of the public. Lauren Lahti, financial officer. Um first of all, I want to say thank you to the finance committee. Those were two very robust days, and I think each of you have served on the finance committee before, so you know the work that was undertaken, especially given this budget. Their questions were really insightful. Their deliberation was very concise and comprehensive, and the direction and the recommendation come out of coming out of it is really impressive, as well. So, um this evening, I'll briefly summarize where we are and also walk through a little bit of the high level for the benefit of the members of the public who are joining us for the first time. So, for fiscal 2027-2028 fiscal 2026-2027 budget operating and capital budget, may we have the next slide, please? So, in the deliberation process, here we are on May 11th coming back to council after a couple of study sessions with the finance committee. Tonight uh we'll summarize finance committee's initial recommendations, hear some feedback from council, we'll both go back to committee on work shopping it and then come back on June 15th for a final adoption. Next slide, please. Um as an overview, as mentioned previously, this is a balanced budget um because of our financial challenges, it does have reductions in it with a focus on preserving our really valued high-quality services and initiatives and also reducing impacts to our community. Next slide, please. Just the top line, our budget is a billion dollars across all city funds. This is a very modest increase of 1.9% within the general fund, which is the predominant fund we focus on. That's about 311 million and it's also a reduction from fiscal 26 budget. Um on the capital side, we have a five-year plan and also we have a one-year budget. The five-year plan is a 1.2 billion dollar budget and the one-year 27 budget is 314 million, close to 314 million. Um we have a multi-year multi-strategy portfolio put in this budget and also presented previously in the long range because we project in 27 we'll have a $17 million deficit. That is solved in this proposal here and committee coming out of workshop have some recommendations for council to consider. Um that also means we carry forward the reductions from 26 and also we preserve our budget stabilization reserve between 17 to 18% which is within the range of our guideline. Next slide, please. Um absent of the changes that came out of the workshop, the proposed budget does show the multi-year as presented there with the general fund balanced and 28 and 29 with modest deficits. As noted in the finance committee workshop, um these deficits are significantly smaller. So our goal is to get our city into a structurally balanced stance for um maintaining um our services and also being financially stable. Budget stabilization reserve there is within the guide of 15 to 20%. However, as noted, we do need to or want to contribute towards our BSR so it doesn't slip to the lower end of that guidance of 15%. Any savings that we have in 26 which is the current year, it closes on June 30th. Typically we do contribute towards BSR as one of the approach and so we're hoping that will uh afford us some opportunity to shore up those reserves as well. Next slide, please. Um every year we look at rates because within our city we are very fortunate to govern five utilities for our business and residential community members. Um as noted there, these are the 26 adopted rates and then also the 27 proposed rates. Want to call your attention to the electric fund um coming out of finance committee, uh, the finance committee recommended 3-0 unanimously to move forward with electric rate increase of 4.5% in 2027. Uh, on the gas rate side, uh, committee on a 2-1 vote recommended the 9% uh, rate increase for 2027 with an alternative of 7%. Next slide, please. Um, so now what I'll do is I'll summarize the, um, committee workshops. So, we had 2 days on May 5th and May 6th. Next slide. As a refresher in finance committee, the process is, um, items get put onto the finance committee adjustment table. This is actually financial recommendations for the council to review tonight. Items are also put on what we call the parking lot for further deliberation, and also sometimes that's for staff to come back with additional information. Um, last but not least, there's an area of council contingency as it was mentioned tonight. Uh, out of the workshop, uh, committee sometimes has an opportunity if they so wish to actually appropriate from there. So, we'll go through those three, uh, just to summarize where committee landed, um, at the end of May 6th. Next slide, please. So, starting with finance committee adjustments to the budgets. Um, in total, there's $802,000 here, maybe about $803,000 that we still need to rebalance the budget. So, I'll walk through that. Um, the first one has to do with the JMZ. We're very proud of accreditation. It sets a standard that we aspire to maintain. Um in order to um maintain those credentials and also meet some of the requirements, the budget did include two part-time positions and some associated um expenses. Um after review, staff feels that we could leverage um other resources and programs and or review the AZA requirements. So, we are proposing to reduce those expenses by 64,000 with the goal of still maintaining those credentials. So, that's a favorable adjustment to the proposed budget. The others uh the other two um the school crossing guards um we heard from the community and also from council the concerns there. So, out of coming out of committee, it was voted to restore those. The cut was $102,000, which was potentially before intersections. Um this does assume that PAUSD would cost share 50%. So, we're restoring it with the assumption that the city's appropriation is $51,000 to be added back to the budget. Likewise, on the track watch the track crossing monitor contract, as you may recall, that collaboration with PAUSD that contract goes through February. So, what committee has asked is to add it through June. So, this would be the expense between March, April, May, and June. Um and again, this is contingent on PAUSD cost sharing. So, this 307,000, almost 308,000, is only 50% of what it would cost for those four months. Okay? Um OSV oversized vehicle programs. Um this is an important priority, and so uh what we've come out of the workshop with is um recommending additional appropriations of 384,000. This would include 200,000 for the period of September through June for the Gang Road parking site, and then also additional towing capacity to be included at 184,000. This would uh for uh enforcement and street sweeping. Um also the nonprofit workshop the nonprofit work plan. Um I'll go into it in more detail. Committee we did receive uh four options. Financially, the committee voted upon option C, which would add another 124,000 to the proposed budget. So in total, this is 800 almost $3,000 with the contingency of the PAUSD cost sharing. Um also want to note that right now we haven't filled out anything for 2008 and 2028 and onwards because we've yet to know whether or not these will be one-time expenses or ongoing expenses. And that'll be important uh later on because part of budget balancing will be how do we balance the additional appropriation. Next slide, please. Um finan um council contingency. Good news is council did not appropriate anything yet out of council contingency. What we did want to do was acknowledge that um previously the council did appropriate for the pilot of an an assistant for the council, and that would run 6 months acknowledging that that 6 months straddles two different fiscal years. Uh we're recommending that that $30,000 for that part-time limited term position to be carried into 27. So what that will do is is that it'll actually add to the council's contingency by $30,000. So it'll bring it up to 155. And so we anticipate that position will start sometime in June, I believe. And so that'll enable us to go through the calendar year through December. All right. Next slide, please. So the parking lot or items that staff needs to bring back um that will inform this particular budget itself. So on the parking lot we have quiet zone, uh the quiet zone construction. We heard from committee that we want to accelerate that project. So we're going to come back with a CIP update that shows the funding in 27 and 28 uh with the funding coming from measure K. So we're going to need to rebalance the impact to the grade separation project. The other project is also Chamales right-of-way. Um we're going to come back on the 19th to review um what that looks like from a CIP planning perspective and also the funding sources to make that happen. Um acknowledging uh there are certain projects within OOT and also staffing that need to be reviewed. Committee wanted us to review the marginal benefits of restoring office of transportation staffing and what that might look like in terms of impacts to council priorities and projects. Couple of other aspects was the concerns around the police department staffing staffing level vacancies recruitments and overtime. So staff is going to come back and have a discussion with the committee regarding the lateral hiring bonuses. We have a program in place but perhaps having a deeper conversation about the lateral bonuses for police hires. Um as it pertains to the nonprofit work plan committee did want to recommend to the council that any potential appropriations for grant funding and awards go through the his route process. So I'll go through that in a little bit. Last but not least as noted on the prior slide to rebalance the additional appropriation of $803,000 and it could be more committee wanted us to focus that around reductions to CIP i.e. re-prioritizing projects that may not be urgent or emergency and or could be delayed or deferred further. So staff is working behind the scenes to see what that might look like and we'll bring that back to committee for the 19th. Next slide please. Um in addition the committee worked on review the number of topics would like staff to review it and also eventually Council would need to consider whether or not these would be staff referrals but for your awareness at this junction some of the focus areas out of the last two days have been focused around a summary of the city's AI strategy. Um and also reaffirming that in the council priorities, there is a consultant work plan. So, emphasizing in that work plan best practices, and then also discussions around the golf operations. As you may be aware, our golf operations is not an enterprise fund. So, committee felt it was important that we uh refine the way we present the golf operation project profit and loss statement, and then also review the different fees and rates, in particular senior residential rates. Um as it relates to Cabrillo, looking at outdoor recreation programs, and also potentially capital repairs that may energize and create more awareness around Cabrillo and potentially any utility infrastructure upgrades that may be important in the short term before the long-term plans. As we look towards the fiscal '28 budget development, um committee felt it was important for us to further review the police department overtime, which you may be aware is underway through our overtime review with public safety. Um last but not least in the fire department, any opportunities for additional efficiencies, um and incorporating that in the '28 budget. Next slide. Um want to call your attention to a couple of things. Um committee did feel that the employee child care pilot program is a very valued um program, and wanted to incorporate that as a long-term program, and incorporate it into the long-term financial forecast. And so, we have incorporated that in the general benefit fund for fiscal 27. Wanted to highlight that it doesn't change the current budget, but wanted to bring your awareness and that we would move towards incorporating it in the long range financial forecast and move away from characterizing it as a pilot program. CIP plan there was direction and also recommendation for us to do more KPIs, key performance indexes and so we have included those in the agenda report for you and we also summarized it to the committee. They related to you know tracking delays, tracking cost increases and which projects did we defer for budget balancing. So we incorporated those for you and then also will incorporate a summary of that in the CIP budget. Each project page does include such discussion, but I think summarizing it at a higher level was really useful feedback. As it relates to the Roth building, we value this partnership. We value it opening soon. We also acknowledge that there is park drainage and also Roth building water intrusion. So out of committee it was emphasized that there is funding in the Heritage Park site project. Should the should we incur cost to remediate the park's drainage issue. So we had a good conversation about that and the committee wanted us to update the budget tax for the project to prioritize the location at the Roth building in particular to make sure that that it be front and center and so we definitely heard that. And then within your agenda package, we also have an attachment for tree trimming and the tree trimming objectives because I think it did come up in our conversation as well. The next couple of slides now will be on the nonprofit work plan and considerations for funding. We have two slides that look fairly similar, so I'll kind of walk you through committee was given four options and they went with option C. So, this is one presentation. Next slide. So, so option one is basically what's in the budget itself as proposed. Option two keeps the total nonprofit dollar flat at the 26 level, which is 6.7 million. Option C adds specific additional direct allocations. And option D maintains the 2026 phase one grant funding level. Committee deliberated on it and has recommended unanimously to go with option C. So, next slide, please. So, the motion was to move forward with option C and also to call out that the additional funding and the appropriation to add to the proposed budget is $124,000. Now, this is on top of the you know, 6.4 million summarized on the prior page and also the 78,000 that we have now included for ongoing operations for environmental volunteers, neighbors abroad and also YCS. Within the motion, it was also clear that the direct allocations would go to Magical Bridge, Cal Ave music and special events and UNAF. So, 150 for Magical Bridge, 40 for Cow Hav Music, and 45 for UNEF. Additionally, importantly, is if there are additional award or grant funding, committee recommends that that go through the HIS rep process. I'll also note um there, as noted on the slide, that um in the 27 budget, the Canopy nonprofit contract is reflected at 368,000 with a reduction of $43,000. It was previously noted at 412,000 when this went to council on April 6th, when we did the study session, and that was prior to the publication of the proposed budget and the budget balancing. Next slide. As this is a large, robust, complex budget, um technical adjustments are fairly reasonable. Utilities did brief the committee on two technical adjustments on the gas and electric funds. Those will come back for formal adoption for council. In addition, we'll go through final review of um head counts as we flow through um that were carried forward from 26, and also realigning revenue expenses based on um you know, where we land with committee over the next week. Um so, we strive to ensure that the general fund impact on these technical adjustments are de minimis, but wanted to call your attention to that. That will be part of the June 15th packet. Next slide, please. So, in wrap up, this is where we are, um and we will then um out of this study session come back to finance committee on May 19th. Last slide, please. So, that summarizes committee's recommendations thus far um seeking feedback from the council so we can go back into the workshop to provide us any further any further guidance, insights, directions. So when we come back on June 15th, we feel that we've hit the mark with the full council. Thank you so much. >> All right, thank you, Ms. Lai. Um Councilmember Lauing as chair of the Finance Committee, is there anything you'd like to add? >> Uh just a couple things now so we can get into it and take some more later. Um I just noted that underscoring the fact that for both the uh putting back in the four suggested reductions in um school crossing guards and for the track watch uh we're suggesting uh that this good partnership continue with PAUSD. Uh and so at this point we're budgeting 50% uh noting therefore that we need to have discussions um get going as soon as possible in the in the right kind of way with PAUSD on both of those things because we feel they're both valuable valuable and want them to be continued uh at current funding. And then a comment on the OSV, you you know this is quite modest and part of that is because you haven't even heard any recommendations yet on anything else to do on the OSV situation from the OSV committee. Um and so what's in here is anticipated what we have to do to do maintenance such as we've done before. Um but if there's anything that's um new measures of any type, then that would have to be uh be incremental. So those are the only two clarifications I want to make at this point. All right, thank you. Um All right, so why don't we um go to public comment at this point? Madam Clerk, how many speakers do we have? >> We have 12 requests to speak. >> Okay, let's go with 2 minutes each. >> Our first speaker is Shani Klein. >> Thank you. Shani Klein does I speak as a resident thank this time only for now. I'm still worried about the cuts to water at Foothills Park. Foothills Park has almost 300,000 people that come and go visit the park every year. Of these people most of them go to see the lake and they and play and enjoy the lawns. There's also a lot of summer camps they use it and a lot of other types of activities there. Cutting that water needs to be really really carefully done. I'm not necessarily opposed to doing it overall, but we already cut 37% of the water allocation a few years ago. So now we're at about 60% of what it used to be historically. And cutting more could be really problematic if problems start is areas are too dry. Fixing problems with the in the lake or the lawns will be very expensive. It's very difficult to fix something if it's broken in that sort of environment. So we need to be extremely cautious. So I asked the other ad hoc from PRC to talk to the rangers. So I hope we can do that. That's Vadim Axelrod and I and we're hoping to get more information, but I really think you need to consider that 37% of the water has already been cut and there and so how much more can you do without starting to erode that entire system. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Maria C. >> My name is Maria Chai. I'm a resident of Mountain View and chair of Canopy's Canopy's board. I've always admired Palo Alto for its conviction that the health of its residents is non-negotiable, and you have proven that year after year. Investment in trees has always been part of that commitment. Trees clean the air we breathe, provide much-needed shade on the increasingly sweltering streets, and improve our mental health. Few cities understand this better than Palo Alto, that trees are a crucial part of the public health infrastructure. And you have backed that understanding with action, prioritizing and protecting funding for your urban forest through the city's urban forest master plan. That's why I was disheartened to learn about the funding cut to Canopy's contract. Canopy has been a long-time partner in executing the city's vision for a vibrant urban forest. Their work has been especially impactful in South Palo Alto, where the percentage of canopy cover is significantly less than the rest of the city. The funding cut will directly impact Canopy's ability to survey and care for every young tree already in the ground, putting their survivability and the community's hard work at risk. There's a That's a small investment with an outsized return and lasting impact, and you've always known that. So, I'm here as your neighbor to ask you to reconsider and restore Canopy's contract in full, and continue to be the example of what a city can be when it truly invests in its urban forest. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Becky B. >> Hello, good evening. Um, my first time ever speaking to the council. I'm a 40-year Palo Alto resident. I got involved with Canopy through the South Palo Alto excuse me, tree project. I've gone on to take part in plantings, the great oak project, and my very favorite, the young tree care project. And I've also become a Canopy donor, um, at the plantings, I have observed neighbors who are so deeply moved with gratitude to be receiving trees and the promise of tree care. Um, it it's truly moving. Um, in addition to the uh, many benefits of urban trees that were just so well described, um, I think the partnership between the city and Canopy give residents a reason to feel really good about their city government. Uh, sometimes that's not that easy. There is a segment of Palo Altans whose experience with the city has to do with bureaucratic processes, high fees, a long time to get things done. The Canopy partnership with the city is something that brings residents an immediate benefit with no apparent direct cost to them. It really is fabulous PR for the city. Um, the city's partnership with Canopy through the young tree care program also protects the city's investment in tree planting. For 3 years, Canopy volunteers go out, assess the health of young trees, and report to the city what steps need to be taken to help the trees thrive and also let the businesses and residents who >> Your time is up. >> benefited from the trees know their responsibilities. I hope you will consider full funding for this small organization that does big work. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Luke L. >> Hello. Good afternoon. Luke Lu and I'm a senior at Pali. I'm also a long-time resident of Palo Alto. Today I'm in support of Canopy. First of all, I'd like to personally thank all of you for your support of of all the climate and sustainability initiatives here in Palo Alto. However, I'm speaking to oppose the budget cut proposition to organizations like Canopy which has played a critical role in restoring Palo Alto's natural beauty. On a personal level, Canopy has been really impactful. I first got involved with Canopy about three years ago by attending a few planting sessions. It was initially just to get volunteer hours. However, I found myself always enjoying all the times I get to go out and uh volunteer. Through these events, I was able to work on something that was really fulfilling and that was to help build a system that both people and nature got to benefit from. I also got to connect with people from different backgrounds, different experiences, different aspirations, and different jobs and yet collectively share the hope for an improved society and future where people and planet don't exist separately but collectively help each other. Uh since that event 3 years ago, I've been able to plant a few dozen trees with Canopy and also volunteered as a local as a tree health surveyor. Um for a long time with the magnitude of the climate crisis and environmental degradation, I didn't really know what I could do to make an impact, but through Canopy, I was able to see how little winds could really add up and make a difference. Canopy provides something beyond the urban forest. Um Canopy provides hope, uh which is incredibly important in today's society. >> Um so, when considering the budget for next year, I urge you, council members, to consider the important role uh that Canopy plays in Palo Alto and especially for the youth and next leaders. >> Sorry, please finish your sentence. Your time is up. Uh just a reminder to those public speakers, you have 2 minutes to speak. Please be mindful that there is a timer on the podium um of the 2 minutes. Our next speaker is Michael C. >> Uh good evening. Um my name is Michael Clawson. I'm a long-term resident of Palo Alto, having first moved here in 1972. And one of the first things that struck me when I moved to Palo Alto was the tree canopy in in Palo Alto. Of course, since then, it has improved dramatically, but even then, it was great and very impressive. I'm here to encourage you not to cut the budget for Canopy. It's a wonderful organization. I'm retired former director of Acterra, and we worked closely with Canopy during the years that I was executive director. And I know that the great work that they've done, both in planning trees and caring for trees, and also involving young people. I think the young man who spoke before me is is a good example of that and I think it it's a really great way for people to connect to the environmental world in a very tangible way. The other point I want to make is that trees are an essential infrastructure. It's not just that they're beautiful and and provide aesthetic benefits, they provide us essential services. They reduce energy demand, they manage storm water, they improve air quality, they protect public health protect public health. So I encourage you to keep the the budget as the same way it is. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Vaughn G. >> Hello, my name is John Gifford and I'm speaking as a resident and a Canopy volunteer most notably involved with the Great Great Oak Count tree plantings and most importantly for this session tree care. I'm speaking on behalf of supporting the digital tree health survey because this is a smart system and a cost-effective one which is the ones that we need to maintain our canopy before we have experienced failure. The digital digital tree health survey is preventive infrastructure for urban forest. It allows our community foresters to identify risk early before trees fail, before roots damage sidewalks, before drought stress leads to decline. Without this tool we're shifting from prevention to reaction. And reaction is always much more expensive. This is a program that saves the city money, it reduces long-term liabilities and ensures that the trees we plant today actually become the mature canopy that we depend on tomorrow. Cutting this funding doesn't save money, it defers costs and increases them. Deferred maintenance deferred maintenance has consequences which leading to tree death, canopy loss, environmental harms, and negative impacts on aesthetics, property value, and not least of all, human health. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Sue Kem >> My name is Sue Kem Mine. And a number of years ago, a group of us who are members of the Women's Club of Palo Alto joined Can- Canopy in a tree planting event at a local park. We chose that event because our foremothers planted and watered trees throughout what we call Professorville because in fact, they felt that trees were such an important part of the infrastructure of this new town. Uh we felt very tied to that goal, and so we went off to plant trees with Canopy. And were we surprised? It We were amazed at the number of people there to plant trees. It was in a park. We were excited to participate in this actual process, which we learned and did various parts of. We had a wonderful time, and afterwards, we were all interested in watching our trees grow. Now, that doesn't mean that we don't all live in neighborhoods with wonderful trees, but it meant that those trees were added to the canopy of this amazing city that so values that asset. To this day, I wave to a tree as I go by and think, "Oh my god, how could that be so large?" Now that it's been so many years since we planted that. I feel that the community so supports this amazing work that Canopy does, and I urge you to support their budget. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Ash P. >> Hello. My name is Ash Patney, and I'm 17, and I've been a resident of Palo Alto for the past 15 years. And I've been volunteering with Canopy for the past few months now. I am a member of the Youth Urban Forest Stewards program, and I've really loved it. What makes Canopy special is it brings young people into the process of planting and caring for urban forest. We're not just told to care about climate change or community, we're actually invited to help build solutions with our own hands. We plant the trees, we care for them, and we work beside neighbors and community members from just different generations to make it all happen. And through that process, we learn something important, that change is still possible when people come together around a shared purpose. Reducing investment in this work would not just affect the urban forest, it would reduce opportunities for young for young people to feel agency, connection, and hope in a time when all three are desperately needed. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Rayansh M. >> Hello, everyone. My name is Rayansh, and I'm a ninth grader, but I've been volunteering with Canopy since fourth grade. I wanted to share an experience that really stuck with me, my first tree planting. I was a nine-year-old in a Palo Alto neighborhood tamping soil around a root ball while a Canopy volunteer walked me through exactly why it mattered to how deep you set it, how much room the roots needed. My hands were dirty, and the tree was barely 4 ft tall. I remember thinking about how the tree would look like when it grew up. I would also like to add that Canopy is one of the only community organizations that allows young people to partake in it. Over five years of Saturdays, I've done a lot of different kinds of work with Canopy. Whether it's planting, hauling water to young trees that needed consistent care to survive their first few years, and some days just walking block by block with a keyboard for their great oak count, stopping at every oak in the city, logging species, size, condition. It sounded tedious until you realize nobody had systematically done it before. And that data is what lets the city actually protect those trees. And that's what I want people here to understand today about Canopy. So, I urge you all council members to support Canopy in this upcoming budget. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Holly P. >> Thank you. I'm Holly Pearson. I'm a resident of Stanford, and I'm a past co-chair of Canopy's board. And I was part of a group that worked to update and improve Palo Alto's tree ordinance back in 2022. And part of council meetings at that time was looking at neighboring cities and what their tree ordinances looked like, and recognizing that Palo Alto really wanted to remain a leader in urban forestry. And here we are almost four years on, and I'm asking you to support Canopy's contract in full and not cut the budget now. When one city invests, neighboring cities benefit. We all know that because, you know, Canopy doesn't stop at city boundaries, and there's ecosystem effects. But when one city disinvests, the impacts also ripple out. And Palo Alto has has long been seen as a regional leader in urban forestry and community forestry. So, what happens sets a precedent and I think that precedent matters beyond one tight budget in a year. Thank you very much. >> Our next speaker is Rob O. >> Good evening. My name is Rob O'Connor. I'm a Palo Alto resident and have am a tree planting, tree care leader and a board member at Canopy. When you enter a a neighborhood that has a great feel, it's all it's almost always because there are large trees and shade. Without them, we have asphalt, concrete, grass, shrubs and punishing summer heat. While it's difficult to prevent people from removing trees, we can plant trees to maintain and enhance our canopy. When someone plants a tree that they will not be alive to enjoy at maturity, it's nothing less than an act of love and commitment to our community. Canopy is much more than a tree contractor. We partner trees with people and help residents choose an appropriate tree and plant it in the right location. Canopy tree plantings bring together local volunteers and I've seen several of you at our volunteer events, um families, residents of all ages and while we're doing this, we learn the joy of tree planting and help create a neighborhood with cleaner air, um I'm lost here. With with cleaner air and and shade, it's cooler and a much nicer environment for everyone. Um Canopy tree planting in partnership with tree stewards and volunteers delivers an astoundingly high survival rate for new trees. Today, relentless government policy changes can impact our sense of hope and make it feel as if our lives are becoming just a little bit worse every day or day after day. So, I ask you our city of Palo Alto councilors, you today have the chance or you have the chance to enhance the joy, comfort, health, and self sense of hope and trust in our community. And by fully supporting Canopy, possibly make each day just a little bit better. Thank you. >> Our next speaker is JPR. >> Good evening, council members. Good to see you again. I'm JPR Renault. I'm the executive director of Canopy. Today, we posted a beautiful collage on our Instagram account celebrating nearly each of you planting a a tree in a selfless act of love for your community. We tagged each of you showing up for something bigger than yourselves to better our future. One photo captured a a mayor planting a tree in the very same park he played in as a child surrounded by some of his colleagues in the council. Another captured a powerful moment. A mayor showing up with his family to plant what will one day become a mighty oak. A living legacy to the to his children and grandchildren. All the photos show what we all experience when planting a tree, pride, joy, faith, and hope. Council member Recdal, we look forward to welcome you into this movement very soon so that you too can share in these wonderful memories. And one photo from that collage stands out in a special way. The tree planted in that photo was in South Palo Alto where where the canopy coverage is half of the rest of the city and where the and where the Canopy community has planted more than 1,500 trees in order to address that inequity. Every one of you in this chamber, everyone here, has made a material difference in the growth of our urban forest together. But what's most important is this. This is just a sampling of what we have built together. A force that not only plays a material role in growing and caring for our urban forest, but also in forging community power. Because over the past 30 years, this movement has never just been about planting trees. It has been about planting a sense of belonging and unity. Building a community of thousands who are willing to show up if change is needed. Through the simple yet profound act of planting and caring for a tree. Thank you for your leadership and for your service. >> Our next speaker is Nicole C W. Good evening. My name is Nicole Chewong. I'm the executive director of Pathway Wise. First, I want to thank the mayor, the vice mayor, the council members, and especially the city staff and the city manager for all your hard work on the budget. I know it is very hard and you have to make a lot of hard decisions. I'd also like to say that I acknowledge and want to give you credit for thinking through how do we fund new innovative nonprofit work and programs that are not already being provided by the wealth of nonprofits we are so blessed to have in Palo Alto. I also want to acknowledge that there are many different ways in which you fund nonprofits, such as the agreement that you have with Canopy. And at this point, I also want to acknowledge the amazing youth that we have that spoke today. It takes a lot of courage for them to do that and I'm constantly reminded when I come to these that we are so blessed to have you that feel that they have a voice that can be heard here and so I hope you were listening because it's really important. Um, I'm also a South Palo Alto resident and acknowledge the difference in our Canopy down in South Palo Alto and the important Canopy is doing. And on the matter of his rap, I hope that even with continuing the nonprofit partnership work plan, which again, I feel is important, that you acknowledge that one of the benefits we have is the amazing breadth of nonprofits and services they provide to Palo Alto residents that are less resourced and oftentimes marginalized and that you think about adequately funding his reps so that those nonprofits there are such as Pathways which received 70% of what we asked for last year receive the funding that we need to provide the services that Palo Altans rely on year over year and have been for many years. So, I hope you take that into account when you plan your budget planning process. I know again, I know you have to make hard decisions but think about the services that would go away if they're not adequately funded. Thank you so much. >> Our next speaker is Cheryl B. Cheryl B, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. >> Hello, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay, sorry about that. Thank you so much for your time here today. I'm Cheryl B Merryman and I'm the CEO and founder of Musical Memories Foundation. We address the epidemic of loneliness and isolation among seniors by providing high-quality, customized, and interactive music-based programming to underserved active seniors, those in assisted living, and those in memory care. And we are one of your phase one nonprofit grant recipients. As a recipient of this grant and as a startup nonprofit, I would like to share some of the impact we've been able to make within the community so far. It's our first time. We've served 635 members of the Palo Alto senior community, which is 435 more than we thought we might serve so far. We have delivered 11 out of our committed 15 programs and we're still going strong. In addition to launching our cardio drumming workshop, developing our strum for fun ukulele workshop, and delivering our magic of drums workshop and our signature melodies and movement programming, this grant allowed us to deliver our first community concert specifically designed for seniors free of charge. We held our swing and sing in Spring events at Cubberley Theater on April 25th featuring a 17-piece big band orchestra, multiple singers, a costume contest, and a sing-along. And I wanted to share a quick quote for reference. We are so blessed to have your team in our community. Your music and energy so fantastic. It's a 20 out of 10. We won't miss it for the world. I can't wait to report in on all of the details of our engagement with the Palo Alto Experience to Adult Community. Thank you for helping us make a difference lighting up memories and lifting up seniors' lives in the city of Palo Alto. I know these decisions are very difficult and I hope that finding a way to continue funding our very small but mighty nonprofit continues. Thank you. >> And that concludes public comment on study session item four. >> All right. Well, I'll bring it back to the dais and I'll start with the two council members who are also serving on the Finance Committee as they have I think deeper insight into this. Council member Burt. >> Thank you. So, I just wanted add a few follow-ups to the um uh reporting that we already received. Uh first on the electric uh utility increase uh that was actually a uh the recommendation to increase it by 4.5% rather than 6% was a recommendation from the Finance Committee um uh a number of weeks ago uh rather than out of the uh most recent meetings. But, the mechanism to do that was that really what was driving that increase um the additional increase was a recommendation by staff to and the and the UAC to increase the hydro reserve fund and to do that significantly in a single year. And we recommended that that be spread over two years. That's how we reduce the um that increase. Um Second, uh the the GMZ um the committee had actually identified or asked staff to pursue uh whether um the additional funding that was in the proposed budget for conservation programs wouldn't in fact be covered to a great degree by other conservation programs that we're already doing. And they came back and identified that most of that funding would be able to be covered that way and that's how we got that reduction. Um And then um on the um nonprofit funding uh first we had discussions about that we all received a very extensive report that and the staff report still references all of the 6. uh however many million 6.7 million in nonprofit funding that the city does. Uh but that really is not a very relevant point of comparison. Nonprofits are a tax status. They're not really what we're looking at in in these community services. We have some nonprofits that we have ongoing contracts with that are basically performing outsourcing for the city of different functions and the like. So we zeroed in on as Director Li had talked about these different options and as she mentioned um what we looked at is if we the council wanted to address the UN hour or for this coming year um essentially the the needs that were identified or met with the phase one grant process that that preferably be done through the HISRA process but needing to recognize that not all of the phase one grant recipients were necessarily would necessarily qualify under our current HISREP criteria. So, it brings two questions. Do we want to have a funding this year or next year that might increase the HISREP amount? And if so, uh would there need to be any modification in the criteria uh if the intention of the council was to be able to capture some nonprofits that don't fit in the current HISREP criteria. Um and then I did want to note that uh we had brought up it said Cal Lab music, but it's really Cal Lab special events. It goes much beyond the music. Um and um uh on the issue of a canopy funding, um there were no comments uh made to the finance committee or um or either in person or uh through um emails um through that finance committee process. And that's the it may be that if canopy didn't understand the process, but that's the way to get your voice heard. And all the emails that we've received to date uh really didn't speak specifically to the proposed staff cuts. We all value our canopy and our trees. What we have to have is a better understanding of why you think those particular staff recommended cuts are harmful. Uh I think they were really in two categories, a few different outreach uh areas, and then the digital tree survey. And uh I would welcome any thoughts from colleagues on um whether one or both of those are something that you want us to as a finance committee dig deeper in at our next upcoming meeting. Um and Oh, we did talk as Director Lai >> quickly as you can. Thank you. >> As Director Lai had mentioned um there is a item in the CIP that covers Heritage Park improvements. We I don't want to have the council misunderstand that that is necessarily an adequate dollar amount to cover what may come forward on needed capital efforts to reduce the or address the the flooding into the Roth building that's occurring. >> Thank you. Council member Liu. >> Thank you for the session. Again, I just really want to listen and have points that we can take into that last finance committee meeting. Just a few points to recap and just a few points to elaborations on what my fellow committee members have said. So, one big picture note is that the budget is tough, but I want to give a lot of kudos to our staff. The deficit was originally projected to be 83 million dollars through 2032 in our long-range financial forecast. Now, we are looking at around a 4 million dollar deficit over total over 2029. So, that picture is significantly better than we saw at a previous study session in our long-range financial forecast. We are of course adding plug numbers. Details TBD of course, but it looks like deferring some capital expenses and capital transfers are potentially a way to make up for those plug numbers. Uh I uh well, the entire committee had a lot of discussion about this, and one item that I am somewhat concerned about is how we would defer some maintenance for the ballpark bike route um as part of those capital deferrals. Uh there's a lot going on in terms of how we're pacing capital projects, how we're accounting for them, and uh I would be interested in, of course, saving that bike route maintenance, but uh also just more generally looking at uh how we can not in practice uh limit the capital projects we work on. Uh okay, that came out funny, but uh moving on. Nonprofits, uh this was an area where there was a lot of discussion and uh some notable disagreement as well. We called a bit of an audible. We knew that the staff that the council direction from the last study session in April was that council did want to move with a nonprofit uh phase one work plan again for this year. Uh I don't recall how that vote was, but uh uh that that was clearly feedback from study session. However, within the group, we uh realized that we were sort of aligned with a thread that uh Vice Mayor Stone picked on a little bit of moving the process more to his rap. Um well, at least substantially to his rap. So, that's a direction we went, uh but it was a bit of an audible, and uh we were sensitive that we were sort of going against consensus from the study session, and want to flag that, of course. Um Uh one note as well is that a number that was not shared today was that funding for potential OSV programs from a permit program to another safe parking lot, that number in finance committee was in the ballpark of 1 million to 2 million depending on what combination of programs we talked. So, that's just another plug that um uh is a huge decision, but uh a plug that is not included in this budget. Um on canopy, I did ask whether there would be a practical reduction or slowdown in Palo South Palo Alto tree planting or canopy goals. The staff answer was no. Um again, our understanding from staff was that there would be some tooling changes like a digital tree plotter that was part of the contract that will have somewhat that part of the contract will be reduced, but you know, that tool exists and will continue to exist. So, we weren't that worried, but uh um also here the public and would want to I would want to understand the details of whether there would be a practical impact to our canopy. Um so, uh yeah, a lot of notes just to do a quick recap. Uh deferral of budgets including ballpark bike route maintenance is an issue. Uh nonprofits uh uh there there's um a lot to discuss there. Uh OSV funding is a another potential plug and uh canopy was at least briefly discussed um at finance committee. So, those are my four bullet points. >> All right, thank you. Uh really helpful to hear from each of the finance committee members. Uh colleagues, what what who would like to go next? Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. And first, big thanks to finance committee for for all the work you've done over it, especially over the last week. I know how exhausting and difficult that work is, and thanks for for staff taking all of this back. I I think we're we're definitely getting there. I I have a couple of really just kind of a couple concerns and questions. So, on on this proposal of the 50% cost share of I guess the 10% of crossing guards, correct? Yes, okay. Seeing the heads nod. And uh and track wa- watch from March to to June. What happens if PAUSD doesn't agree? Cuz I know the presentation says contingent, so what happens if they say no? >> We'll need to come back to council because this is what's appropriated. >> Okay. Sounds good. Then okay, so that would just kind of come back as a as a budget adjustment to be able to then fully fund later. >> So, um if we just follow the typical budget cycle, there's the mid-year, but that's in February. So, there's a couple of cycles where we can come come back separately as well. I think it depends on the timing of some of these PAUSD conversations. So, ideally we would want to be efficient about it. >> All right, and same time, I think underlying your question is where would the money come from? And that would remain an open question. So, it's either to find the funds to uh provide the service without the PAUSD uh support or to make cuts elsewhere. >> Okay. Cuz yeah, now I I I want to make sure that that that we are fully funding there. I think ideal world is we're we're cost sharing with the with the district on both of those, but I I we're about to find out come June on the parcel tax. If that passes, I'm sure that's going to uh potentially to a difference here and and a lot of other things that are just kind of up in the air. There are ongoing labor negotiations, etc. So, that makes me nervous, but as long as as as long as I I see a path towards us ensuring that we're not having a a any reduction on the crossing guards and track watch, um I'm I'm happy. And then And then I think one, I'm I'm glad that Canopy has spoken up to to express con- concerns. Yeah, I was not aware of it until until we started getting the emails and glad to see everybody coming out tonight. I think really good questions about what what do these what what is the $43,000 cost reduction actually do to Canopy's ability to service the the community. I wonder would you have the executive director here of Canopy through the mayor, is it okay if I ask a question of the executive director to try to get to the heart of what these what $43,000 budget reduction really means for Canopy. >> Thank you for the question. So, in nonprofit budgeting, every dollar is already appropriated. So, even if you look at a full budget of a nonprofit, um every dollar has already been appropriated by law to a certain cause. So, in So, when you look at Palo Alto's budget, it is 400 It is the $400,000 budget that we talked about, which is 10% of our partnership with the city. That's what I would urge you to focus on, and that would mean a a full-time position. That would mean less work, less ability for us to deliver services to the community. As a nonprofit, we do a lot with very little, and so 10% for us is 0.003% of your deficit. Um so, those are the differences in in scale here. >> Thank you. I I I wonder then cuz my understanding what we we are identifying that that reduction as kind of two different positions or services. Can So, can you >> Yes. Perhaps I could ask our our public works director, Brad Eggleston, to explain staff's perspective on this issue and also note the connection to the urban forestry division. >> Yes, thank you. Brad Eggleston, director of public works. Um First, let me just say I'm really impressed by everyone from Canopy coming out to speak and I I want to say we really appreciate Canopy and it's a great partnership. And making this budget proposal by no means in any way discounts any of that work. Nor is it meant to suggest that we think we can make cuts in that area that won't have any impact. These were difficult decisions through this budget process. As far as meeting targets and having reductions. So, just um at a high level in urban forestry, I also want to note the proposed budget includes a cut to our tree trimming contract. It includes permanently eliminating one of what had been seven tree trimmer positions. So, there's that cut. And it also eliminates an admin position that was directly focused on the urban forestry group. So, there will be reorganizing. With respect to the services and the selves, um I think in the budget document, we as staff had had looked first and included that it could be that digital tree survey tool. Reductions in corporate outreach and I think we have something in there about signing up people for services. Um I know that the urban Forrester Peter Gallinger had a conversation with John Paul from canopy last week and had heard some concerns about some of those specific items that we had included. You know, ultimately if this is adopted through the budget, we would need to go back and talk to canopy and work out an amendment to their contract that would actually make the reduction and if we were to do that, we would be very happy to talk to them and and try to come to some agreement about what areas what scopes of work could be reduced downward to have the minimum impact. >> Okay, thank you for that. Yeah, I'm definitely definitely concerned. Want to want to learn more. I mean it was nice to hear the the testimony. I think everybody who came out very persuasive. I think in particular Ash P, your your comments were were very moving and persuasive and nice to be able to hear that perspective and the opportunities that canopy provides for for young people in the community to to engage. So and just one last question, sorry, on additional direct allocations for for 235,000, is that is that in addition to what is kind of already the the baseline of what we're providing magical bridge, Cal Ave? >> The Cal Ave What is it? Cal Ave? >> And you know, no, it's that is just that's kind of continuing what we've done historically over the least last couple years. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Councilmember Recaldin. >> Yeah, thank you. This is a tough budget year so there's a lot of hard decisions. Yeah, first for the canopy, it seems with canopy be in the decision what to cut? And if for example if if they were to reduce the budget by 40,000 are we cutting the things that they think are the low-hanging fruit? >> Well, what you have before you is a staff recommendation and again this was staff's initial proposal for where the reductions would be made based on the service agreements that we we have in place. As Director Egosingh pointed out, I think Canopy has a different perspective on what might be the better services for reduction. So, that's a conversation to be had. >> Okay. So, I think that'd be useful for finance to hear that discussion of what's the impact of cutting this 40,000 and are there better services to cut in forestry that would have less impact on the native environment? Uh second, um nonprofit funding. Yeah, this is tricky, too. We The nonprofit funding became very complicated last year and I thought the finance committee made a good decision. I thought they simplified and said, "If you're human services, we're going to run you through HIS Wrap. If you're programming, we're going to run through council." I think that's a cleaner way of of operating this. Uh you look at the phase one people who didn't get money. There's some really good groups in there and it pains me, but hopefully next year we can right-size the HIS Wrap and and run that through. I think that's going to be a the best way to do things. Um can you bring up uh packet page 28? All right, 208. And this is talks about reapportioning. How does that work? We're taking money that was not spent in this budget. Are we We also have a policy that if we have a budget excess, that that is split between different groups. Is this treated like a budget excess or is it a budget transfer from last year to this year. >> Perhaps the city clerk can take a minute to bring it up so we're all on the same page. >> Back at page 208. >> Yes, so this is relating to the capital re-appropriation. So just to give context for council and members of the public, the budget for capital is a five-year plan. As noted earlier, we have $1.2 billion. And you know, 200 projects. Given the complexity and the funding for project, it is very typical that the timeline will vary and the cost will vary. So the re-appropriation process is an efficient process wherein the council approves the plan. And then at the end of each year, appropriations or the budget that is unspent is carried over through this budget process that comes before council multiple times of the year. I think importantly for council and the committee finance committee to understand is in that process before council is presented with these re-appropriations, they're called re-apps. Staff has done the due diligence to review, you know, how many of these projects can be closed out, how many of these projects have funding that have been reduced because of you know, better pricing from bidding process, reduction of scopes, etc. So they've done that homework as a part of every single re-app request before the council. So this list here shows what we've re-appropriated in 27 as a part of the 27 budget and in the five-year plan. >> Okay, so this is all capital projects that is just rolling over to next year then. >> Correct. >> Did you roll more budgets out of next year into the following year to make room for that because we only have a certain workforce? >> Say that again. >> So, we're adding more money from this year, we're rolling that into next year. Uh but we also have a limited workforce. We can't do an infinite amount of work. And so, if we're putting more work into next year's budget, then if you look at those tasks that were originally in the 5-year plan scheduled for next year, do some of those roll over to '28? >> Uh all right. So, let me decouple what I hear is maybe two questions. One is a function of technical budgeting, right? This is where the budget has a certain appropriation for the project, the money is unspent, and that's also not tied to a contract. So, we as staff want it to be carried over, so the project still has its funding. So, that's what re-app is. >> Yep. >> Okay. The other aspect is And then that is a function of what's approved in the plan. Um the other question, if I hear you correctly, and you can correct me if I'm mistaken, is staff capacity to manage and support the portfolio. And certainly, I I think in Finance Committee workshop, we've talked about that. And so, as we look at staff reductions, it will impact um in the near term, some, you know, capacity we'll have to take on either the work plan or Council priorities and initiatives. Um and so, >> But if you look at this list, yeah, 30% of the capital projects didn't get completed last year. So, we're rolling that in, and so next year, we have 130% uh allocated or or scheduled. I don't think we're going to get that all done. So, have we reduced the scope of what we plan to do next year so that it's achievable? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm okay. Robert Kanes, budget manager. As part of the reappropriation process, as Director Light pointed out, we do fine-tooth comb analysis between these projects. And part of it is understanding the resources we have available, as well as from a scheduling perspective of when we think contracts will get awarded. As part of that process, we will then reallocate the funds, maybe not even till the next year, but then push out even into outer years. So, it's not only what you're seeing that was appropriated in the current year that we're going to move to '27, but there's also unspent fund that you'll see that's falling to fund balance that would then get reappropriated in different years as part of the budgetary process. So, we are looking at it from a resource perspective as well, aligning it with schedules. >> So, we there is a cascade of tasks pushing forward. >> Correct. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we don't have go to the buffet table and we have too much on our plate and there's no way we can finish it. >> No, that So, as part of that process, that's how we're able to balance out the budget for the capital and make sure the projects are getting the appropriate funding at the time that's needed and in alignment with those resources. So, it's not all being compounded all into one year. >> Okay. Because 30% we only did 70% of the capital projects and I just don't want to repeat that. >> You know, I I I think there may be an assumption that we should um correct. And it's that there was not implicitly an expectation that the 30% represents projects that are not or that were intended to be complete, but that were not complete. That's that's not the case here. In the case of CIP, we have multi-year projects. Let's take for example, any any large project will take more than a year to construct, just the construction period itself. But we need to budget for the entire construction contract at the beginning of that contract because we need to appropriate the funds in order to pay the contractor. So, you'll show the dollars there and then it's carried forward into the following year, not because the project's delayed, but that's just the nature of budgeting versus cash flow. >> That's a good distinction. Thank you. So, this could be multi-year projects. Okay. And one last thing, Foothills Park, I'm still nervous about that. I was part of the group that looked at cutting by 37%. And in the finance we said it sounded like it was like, "Well, we don't think another 10% is going to be that painful." Well, we already have cut 37, and I'm really worried that you know, that took us a lot of work to look at where we could cut 37%, and I'm nervous that we may be unintentionally dam- damaging the environment. >> Is it okay? I think uh Director O'Kane may be ready to speak. >> Good evening, council members. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Department. So, I did confirm with my open space staff that that production was um our drought reduction that we're no longer doing. So, this would be a 10% reduction on the normal um watering schedule that we would do when we're not in a drought. So, it brings us to the 10% reduction brings us to the a level one um drought >> So, okay. >> water conservation. >> Okay, very good. So, we went down by 37, but some of those I think we identified as sites that we never thought should be watered. And so, were those permanent? Of that 37, how much was permanent and how much was just temporary? >> That I don't know. Um I will also add that you know, the team that worked on this with you had mentioned um Darren Anderson, they're all still here at the city, and so they have that knowledge and that information. So, I'm confident that um the reductions are going to be okay, and they know where they need to keep watering, they know where they it's okay to not water or to reduce, and they'll keep monitoring it throughout the year, and can make adjustments as needed. >> Okay. I mean, I think uh a short summary would be really valuable to give to finance next week so that they they know exactly what they're getting in for. >> Happy to. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Council member Liz got Hemes. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um Uh thank you to my colleagues for all the hard work on finance. I I I remember that work, and it's important and necessary, but it's so hard. And the staff as well, thank you. Um I'd like to talk about accelerating the quiet zones. In the city manager's supplementer supplemental memo, he stated that to continue to accelerate this work into the next fiscal year, which I think we've all discussed from the dais, or many of us have discussed, is really quite desirable given that quiet zones help address an an important facet of the community's concern. The memo said to continue to accelerate this work into the next fiscal year following successful recruitment efforts, funding would be needed for a limited term position or ongoing hourly project manager. So, I'd like to know what the fiscal 27 appropriation would be for that, and did finance committee discuss it? >> So, I would say yes, the finance committee dis- did discuss it, and in fact, what you have as a recommendation is in advancing the funds to next year or to to the 27 fiscal year for design and construction to occur in the following year. So, it does represent moving funds forward for that purpose. >> What you stated is in fact reflected in what finance seems to be recommending. >> I believe that's accurate to the extent that we have uh well, to be frank, we don't have exact figures at this point, but the advancing of the funds does give us the capacity to do that. >> Great, thank you. Uh regarding track watch monitors, um I agree with much of what's been said. Very much appreciate that additional funding for the four months that get us from March through next June. Is there presumed to be shared by the school district with the you know, uncertainty there. We can't speak for another entity of course. Um what I want to offer is um you know, with an eye toward the conversation we're going to have later about Churchill. Um we've heard repeatedly that our track monitors have worked in the past that we have seen um no suicides at the tracks when track monitors were present. In contrast, we have had a number of suicides at our tracks when they haven't been present. So, I would like to see this allocation of funding for track watch monitors baked in as an assumption going forward beyond fiscal 27 into fiscal 28. Even perhaps uh until grade separation happens. I would hate to see this year over year over year be a painful conversation the community has to have when I think we have all the evidence and data if you will that we that we need that they serve as a deterrent and we can't afford to not have them. Regarding canopy, um I really appreciate that the community came out and the comments about uh I think from the CEO that South Palo Alto has about half of the canopy presence. Um and uh we all know that. It looks and feels different on the south end versus the north and that, you know, is historic and valid for all kinds of reasons and yet we are building new neighborhoods in the south, particularly the uh San Antonio area plan contemplates a very coherent approach to what thousands of new residents um will experience by way of neighborhood and trees and open space and parks are going to be a huge facet of their um enjoyability in that new Palo Alto neighborhood. So, in my view, now is the time to be doubling down on our partnership with Canopy, not going in the other direction. Um and so I second the concerns about uh maybe we ought to look at that 10% uh that's being cut, the 40-some thousand dollars. Uh to Council Member Lou's point about oversized vehicles, um this has got to be one of the most pressing concerns we are facing as a community, both the impacts of RV dwellers on the residences and businesses outside of which they park, and the needs of these folks who live in the vehicles, who are some of our most vulnerable. And Council Member Lou pointed out that the funds that that might go toward addressing both sides, if you will, the enhanced enforcement and the enhanced efforts to provide safe parking are TBD items. I think he alluded to millions of dollars. They're not yet in this budget. I you know, we're actively talking as an OSV committee ad hoc committee about both sides. And you know, for example, the a potential new lot. And so I hate the thought that we will find ourselves saying, "Wow, we didn't we didn't budget for that." And it's a large enough sum of money that um I'd I'd feel much more comfortable knowing that um this has kind of made it out of the parking lot. Um as for nonprofit funding, I it's such a big issue. I have 1 minute left. I might take 2 minutes given that some of my colleagues have, but um I'm trying to understand which nonprofits go in which bucket and why. And I still don't know. Um I think we have HIS wrap and we have, you know, operating services to which 5.4 million is directed, and then we have direct allocations, and we have additional direct allocations, and um I'm just finding myself yearning, as I'm sure we all are, for greater clarity around what's what and why. I I have a specific question for Director Lei. Um when we say in option D, that um, the dollar amounts articulated in option D uh, include 193K, which is quote, "The remainder of the 317K." And I find myself going, "What is the 317K?" Can you succinctly answer that for me, please? >> I think it's to get us to last year's or the current year funding level, but it does not actually appropriate those dollars to specific nonprofits again. >> Um, I'd like to say that Hal to Recreation Foundation has taken over management of our Cal Ave entertainment activation, what we used to call Third Thursday, what we're now calling, I'm not quite sure, but music and fun festivities, and in my view is doing the work city staff would be doing if if our staff had enough bandwidth, which they don't, and so we've outsourced it, and I would worry if PARF had to ask year over year for support because um, they're really doing us quite a service by filling that gap. So, I I feel like I'd like to see it in operating services, if my understanding of what operating services means is correct, but maybe it's not. Again, I just hope that they are not that, you know, we have sought their help, and I'd hate the thought that they would come to us year over year to have to ask for money to do what it is we've asked them to do. It feels a little odd. The last thing that I'll say is, um, I support the finance committee's recommendation of option C for nonprofit work plan. That's me talking. Uh, interesting. Thank you. Okay. Given our budget challenges, this is not a year to be increasing funding for anything without a very compelling reason. The nonprofit phase one has been complicated, confusing, and burdensome for staff and our nonprofit communities alike. I would like to see us take the proper time to sort it out, be ready to fund it in fiscal 28, which would put it on the same schedule as His Wrap. Maybe some more nonprofits would properly belong in His Wrap, and we'll have the opportunity to sort that out. Um, so, as I said, for this budget, I'm in favor of moving forward with the Finance Committee's recommendation of option C, which does not recommend additional phase one funding. Thank you. >> So, thanks once again to my colleagues on Finance and to staff for all the work that goes into this. I do recall it as well. I just I have a couple clarifying questions and then some substantive thoughts and questions. Just first, I'm just not sure I'm understanding what you're trying to tell me with respect to the utility rates, the 2027 proposed electric where it talks about Finance having recommended electric go from 6 to 4.5% but we still have 6% in the chart. So, what So, when you calculate out all the rest of the things and end up with the $800,000 etc. etc., which was used? >> Great question. So, the slide represents what's in the proposed budget. And so, we have not calculated through the impact of the electric fund. If you'd like that impact, we have it at a high level for the utility fund and also for the general fund, but the table typically just represents the impact of the residential bill, but it's based on what's in the proposed budget so far. So, maybe clerk, if you could put that up. Um So, the electric fund in the proposed budget includes 6%. And so, the fiscal impact is not reflected on slide five. >> Oh, slide six. >> Slide six. Um and so, the fiscal impact of that has not been incorporated because what's incorporated in the Finance Committee budget adjustment, as noted by Committee member Burt, is what came out of May 5th and 6th study sessions. The electric and gas utility rates were addressed by the committee a few weeks prior. Would you like the fiscal impact? Okay. Um so, the approximate general fund impact um on the electric fund is about maybe $150,000 on the utilities user tax. However, as noted by committee member earlier in the briefing, reducing that rate increase down to 4 and 1/2% would reduce the revenue predominantly going towards the increasing the hydro reserves. I believe it was $6 million over 1 year and we're going to spread that over 2 years. And so, um the impact to the utility funds would be about $2.5 million. >> Okay. All right, that's helpful. Thank you. Um And then I just wanted to speak generally about the nonprofit partnerships. After we went through the uh allocation process last year and uh the vice mayor uh suggested that um most of this be directed to HIS Wrap. I I think that the issue is that uh as was mentioned um that not everybody qualifies for HIS Wrap. And so, it seems to me that and and I think we pretty much concurred, those of us that went through it last year, that if something's HIS Wrap eligible, let HIS Wrap sort that out. Like we really shouldn't be, you know, they should see the full picture. If we need more funding, I think Councilmember Burt mentioned or somebody did, then we should do it there. And so, that I think still holds and I'm hearing that theme now from the finance committee as well. So, I think the majority of us feel that HIS Wrap eligible stuff, let's get his wrap right and do it there. Um and then ongoing contracts I think are things that because both we and the contractee need to have some certainty, that can be dealt with in uh sort of its own course. But I do think just like all of our contracts, they need to be evaluated on a regular basis. We don't just re-up them just cuz they're there and cuz we've always done it. The city evolves, the world evolves, the entities evolve, and so we should check and see, you know, are those appropriate allocations? So I hope and trust that the Finance Committee is looking at those. Um what I think the question is that we need to think about for the nonprofit partnerships is who, how, and where we look at new or additional programs. Um so it could be from the same or new groups. And you know, those that do not fall into his wrap. Um and and there are there were some of those and uh in order to evaluate them though, what we found ourselves yearning for and staff was you know, sort of since we were building the whole process as we were, you know, sailing it. Uh staff was bringing them to us, but I think when we look at those remaining um nonprofit partners and do they serve a need that our citizens either have come to expect or we feel we have not previously provided, but we should. Um in order to sort that out, we need to know the backdrop against which we're making decisions. We need to know, you know, um what other services are out there of that kind, what is the the the need, that kind of thing. So I would just zooming out, that's how I would go about this whole question. Um so what exact numbers, I'm not I'm not going to get into that with just having had this for an hour tonight and and give thoughts on that, but I trust that the finance committee will look carefully at those generic considerations that I've mentioned. >> Can I comment on that? >> Yeah, please. >> Cuz I want to know if that's sort of a referral to finance because what you said pretty much everything you said I happen to agree with, but um the thing that we have not done is we have not looked at what we're what we're calling the nonprofits, which we shouldn't. We agree that, you know, because they're really a partnership. And some of those partnerships are literally contracts and some of them are that plus something else. But in this recommendation, we haven't looked at that at all. In fact, we're just passing it on from last year. So, whatever X asked for last year, we're assuming that's their need this year. Which could be correct. Um it could have been that they said, "No, I really need 20K more." We don't know that. So, at this point in time, we're we're passing this over here and the process for sorting that out, I totally agree, is work still to be done, which is a note I made about 45 minutes ago on here. But, the question is how to do that. And that's a question that I don't know we can solve in this process unless council wants to debate it because it's possible that that goes back to P&S or it's possible that council says, "We want you to come up, finance committee, with an assessment of how we do this because you may need more or less some year. Uh somebody might come in that's a good competitor to you and we might want to choose to split it up." I mean, there's all kinds of, you know, uh parameters there that we might want to be looking at. And that for us so far is not on our agenda. So, I'm asking at this point, what what do you think we ought to do about that? Is it something we you want us to dig into cuz that's going to take a bunch of time. >> My initial thought is that the sort of the second bucket I described, these ongoing contracts that we've had for years that are fairly sizable, um I'm fine with the finance committee looking into those and deciding like I I I don't remember for example if Magical Bridge was 100k last year or 150k. I see it's >> 150. 150. >> 150 last year. Okay, so that's just so these those are all static. That's what I think the vice mayor asked. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, I I I I would actually like that. Um but then on the new and additional programs, I think that has to be part of the the skinny down nonprofit program uh partnership that I would think is just too burdensome for a finance to grapple with in that detail. That would be my instinct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And since I'm over time, I'm going to stop myself and see if anyone has anything more. Otherwise, I'm going to ask the rest of my questions. Okay, seeing no lights, um yeah, thank you for that. Um Canopy, I hope that that finance does get a chance get some perhaps more emails beyond and that this you can look at what staff is saying and the more specific things we've heard from the Canopy director and uh look more carefully at those cuts and assess them and uh whether or not you know, it's it's just hard to be sort of presuming things in in cuts about another entity's budget. So, I understand that in this tough year we have to do that, but I would like us to do that a little more directly um to see if if we really really think we need them. Um then uh the accelerating quiet zones, I just want to uh plus one to Councilmember Litcott Heim's comments. Uh I was asked recently by a community member why we stopped funding um well when you when you actually moved on to the the track guards, sorry. Uh when when you asked why we stopped funding them and I said I don't really recall a decision. I think it just kind of expired. And so that's what you want to prevent against and I agree that that's something we should talk about as a council. Um I would prefer to uh flip it that the burden would be on us to end it when we think we've reached a point hopefully where we feel we can. Um the OSVs, I'm nervous about that as well. This big plug number um I you know, I will will will have to see what will happen in terms of our need. Will it go up or down due to home key, due to towing? You know, home key could take it down, towing more bring it up. It's just uh hard to know where that will go, but I that's a that's a huge thing that we need to to look at more carefully. But could you just quickly explain to me this $200,000 for the Gang Road September through June financing? You you you described it, but could you tell me again why I mean if if if FY starts in July, do we have July August funding and then this picks up in September? And what exactly is that 200k versus the other OSV? >> Uh Deputy City Manager, welcome. >> Thank you. Not a loud person, so I was waiting for the microphone. Uh Chantel Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager. That is for ongoing services for operation at the Gang Road site for the additional spaces that the city is responsible for paying for as opposed to those that the county already pays for. So that is to maintain what we already have at Gang Road, no expansion of spaces. >> So we have it covered through August. >> We have it covered through September 15th of this year. >> I see. So, that's why it picks up in September. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. Well, I support that. Um Uh then lastly, I just wanted to understand a little bit more since very small dollar item, but the um council contingency for the council assistant. Um I'm just not quite following the math. So, I do understand on May 5th, we had a balance of 125,000 and there will be some amount presumably allocated in the 27 budget. Um but the 30,000 is a reallocation of of the 26 dollars. And why And And you mentioned they may start in June. Um That's a 6-month So, 30,000 is is July through December, 6 months of the 60. So, it's half the 60. Is that what we're doing? Okay. >> It's going to be 60 It's going to be 30,000 for the 6-month period. Um and typically, the unspent council contingency expires and doesn't roll forward. >> Mhm. >> And so, um I I don't think there was a desire to use 27's appropriation for this considering when council approved it, it was based on the understanding that we had a balance available in 26. >> Right. >> So, we wanted to honor that and then propose that we carry the 26 funding forward into 27. >> Okay. >> So, that's the background on that recommendation. >> That's great and I I agree with that cuz we were trying to take it out of the FY 26, but yet it'll be expended in FY 27. So, that's that's good. I did want to say that I do think that um we should do some modest evaluation in like your month five um, with the I know the clerk's office has graciously said they'll manage this person. And so perhaps we can briefly pull council and the clerk's office to see if we need to have a reallocation because it would need to be effective, you know, Jan 1 or and we don't do the budget re-look until February. So perhaps we can but it's a small dollar amount and so whoever is in charge of contingency could do it again out of that or we could pull it into some other category. So there if we could find some mechanism to do that. Cuz otherwise it just necessarily Peters out before we get to the mid-year budget review. I think. >> Correct. So because it's a pilot, it's a limited term duration higher with the set appropriation. So I think at some point council would need to decide whether or not to extend it. And the next process for that is typically mid-year, which is February. >> That's exactly what I was saying and that's a problem cuz it doesn't dovetail. So in other words, I totally agree. That's why I'm suggesting in your month five, which November, that we do evaluate it and that but if that's November, that's not February. So this poor person is sitting there going, what happens to me? So I'm just suggesting that we figure out some way to deal with that small time gap. And I'm asking what that might be. >> Um, I guess as a council it would probably be an actual item on the agenda or I think similar to the way it was taken up. Um, it was an item on the floor brought up by a council member and then there was a discussion about it. So I think we've heard this feedback, mayor. I think um, I'll I'll bring it back to committee and then also figure out, you know, agenda setting, how to incorporate it. >> Yeah, that'd be great. I just think that, you know, there will be a human who's wondering uh and uh at some point we need to answer that and I don't think we want to say go away for the month of January. We'll deal with it in February. And then we could do the contingency again, but it seems like by then we'll know you know, how we want to handle it, whether we want to terminate it or extend it or whatever. So, that's all. >> If if I could, Mayor, I I do want to just clarify. I think that's a referral back to the Finance Committee for further consideration of the recommendation that's come forward. Cuz at this point, again, it it does reflect ending it in December, so I think based on your suggestion, it might be appropriate to extend it through, say, February or or an appropriate date. >> Yeah, whatever Yeah, that's great if Finance can think about that. Um it is a pilot and we need to figure out what to do with the pilot, but I'm trying to do it in an appropriate way. So, thank you. Councilmember Liz Vice Chair Haines. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um this conversation uh reminds me that with my Policy and Services hat on, we have an agenda item tomorrow night to look at the nonprofit work plan and it would be very helpful to get direction from Council as to what's headed back to Finance on this, if any of it is headed back to PNS right now on this. Um I'm not sure that we are well equipped in this time frame to have a meaty conversation about what it should be tomorrow night. I feel like if option C passes, we're not allocating anything this year. So, let's take the time for PNS to flesh out or Human Relations Commission or other entities to figure out what this is going to look like in fiscal '28. >> Okay. I don't know exactly the nature of the agenda item tomorrow, but I I mean, I agree we can't have a meeting conversation on it now. >> Phase one process refinements. >> Okay. Well, maybe you can take up some of this uh conversation that started tonight and make referrals back. Um okay. I see no further lights. So, going once, going twice. All right, with thanks to all and with uh wishes of good luck to the Finance Committee on its next go-round before we see you all again, I will thank everyone and we will move on. Okay, so let's move to the consent calendar. We only have two items tonight on the consent calendar. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar? >> No, Mayor, there are no requests to speak on consent calendar items five and six. >> Okay, excellent. I would then entertain a motion to approve or registration of any no votes or request to pull or recusals. >> So moved. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seeing no other lights, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? >> Of course. Vice Mayor Stone? >> Yes. >> Council Member Burt? >> Mayor Vinker? >> Yes. >> Council Member Litkouhi Heinz? >> Council Member Liu? >> Yes. >> Council Member Rector? >> Council Member Lawing? >> Yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right, thank you. All right, then we are at our at city manager comments and we'll let you do them this week. >> Well, I actually thank you. I appreciate that, but I will be really quick because most of what I have got you've already mentioned. So, uh next slide, please. You did have not mentioned uh that uh we have our bike to work day this week, Thursday, I believe. And it's Thursday's going to be really busy day. So, if you're uh riding your bike, uh get ready for some action. Uh you can as always expect to see our energizer stations around town, and uh look forward to hopefully seeing folks on two wheels around this week. Next slide, please. Because So, on Thursday, we have our Home Key celebration. So, you could start out wherever you start your commute, come down to City Hall, then go out to San Antonio for the Home Key celebration. To be honest, I probably won't be on two wheels doing all of this. But, if you choose to, it is from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. Look forward to seeing community members there and celebrating this milestone with our partner LifeMoves. Next slide, please. And on Friday is our police memorial, as well as celebrating National Police Week. Thank you for the earlier special order of the day. The uh annual memorial will occur on Friday, May 15th, 9:00 a.m. at Memorial Grove, which is located at Cogswell Plaza at 264 Lytton Avenue. Next slide, please. Okay, and then final slide here to note upcoming agenda items next week. You have the Coverly Master Plan and CEQA review coming back, as well as discussion of development options at 156 California Ave, as well as a retail revitalization policy and ordinance for your consideration. On June 1st, actually, let me also note there is a Trace Road development proposal that is also on the consent calendar for next week. That's May 18th. And if that were to be uh pulled from consent, would need to be heard also next week on May 18th. Then looking forward, the following meeting you have is on June 1st. You will have a study session on the automated license plate reader uh program we have with our police department, the annual CDBG community development block grant uh plan, SB 79, which was on a prior agenda and again is time sensitive in order to uh have the council direction in time for the July uh implementation date for some of SB 79's provisions, Kella Avenue outdoor activation uh next steps, and Crescent Park traffic calming. I would note that that agenda is probably overloaded, and so as of next week, we may have uh uh further information by which to determine what gets pushed off. It is possible that the Crescent Park traffic calming item may need to get pushed to one of the following agendas, which is on June 8th and June 15th, June 15th really being the last meeting of your uh fiscal year and uh your budget adoption. Uh with that, Mayor, uh that completes my comments. Back to you. >> Excellent. Okay, well, it is time for our break, and so we will uh recess and come back at uh 7:15. >> Mhm. >> All right, good evening. We're going to reconvene and address our action items starting with item seven, 3781 El Camino Real, which is a public hearing in a quasi-judicial matter. So, we need order in the chamber and I'll turn to staff. >> Great, thank you, Mayor. Good evening, City Council. Steven Switzer from our office city planner with our office, will give the presentation for the site plan. >> All right. Well, good evening. Let's take a trip to 3781 El Camino Real. To orient ourselves here, we are looking at four assessor parcels. They are zoned neighborhood commercial CN as well as medium density multiple family residence district RM-30. Some of the adjacent land uses would be commercial and residential. Moving along, to provide a brief overview of the project, existing on those four parcels is approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space and 14 existing residential units. So, the project proposes to construct a seven-story high building with 183 units. The unit mix is detailed on the screen, ranging from studios up to three bedrooms, and there would be 23 below market rate units included in the proposal. There's 215 parking spaces, 183 would be EV ready, and 36 are tandem. There's 144 long-term bike spaces and a ministerial lot merger for the merging of the four parcels is also associated with this development. So, moving along, how did we get here? Back in February of 2024, a Senate Bill 330 application was submitted. Following that, on June 10th of 2024, a major architectural review application was submitted to our office. And following that, in September of 2025, the applicant requested consideration under some new state legislation, Assembly Bill AB 130, and we recently went uh, to the architectural review board, which received approval of 3 to 0 on January 15th of this year. And that brings us to this meeting tonight. So, moving on, background of that architectural review board recommendation as detailed in the staff report and attachment F, uh, the items in bold were incorporated into the project design. Uh, of those items on the screen, those were proposed by the architectural review board as conditions of approval for the project that council should consider. And moving along, we have some state law constraints, uh, for the project. This is a builder's remedy project, uh, as defined in the Assembly Bill 1893. Uh, the project may not be denied based on an inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or comprehensive land use plan. And the project could be not could be denied if a finding of, say, a specific adverse impact on public healthy public health or safety, uh, that could not be, say, mitigated or avoided with a condition of approval. Uh, the city may also only require compliance with objective standards that would apply to the project. And this project is proposed on a site that's in the El Camino Real focus area and is compliant with those standards for density as the qualifier for the builder's remedy project. So, moving along, um, state density bonus law also affords the applicant some waivers and concessions from applicable standards. And Assembly Bill 130 also exempts infill housing projects from CEQA and in tandem with that sets some strict timelines for city review and decision. And for informational purposes, uh conformance with those objective standards are provided in attachment C and D. And in the draft record of land use action at the very beginning, we have a list of those waivers and concessions that are requested by the applicant. And with that, um as noted before, the applicant is pursuing and the city considered the project exempt uh to Assembly Bill AB 130, and that is a new recently new uh legislation that allows for a statutory exemption. It limits project hearings to five and sets some strict timelines for tribal consultation and project approval or disapproval within 30 days following the completion of tribal consultation. And on to the recommendation, uh staff is recommending that City Council consider the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with that Assembly Bill AB 130 and approve the major architectural review board application based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval subject in the draft record of land use in attachment B. And the applicant is here and has a presentation as well, and I can entertain any questions. >> All right, thank you. Well, let's hear from the applicant first and we can come back to for questions uh after that. So, go ahead and step forward and you have up to 10 minutes to present. Welcome. >> Members of the City Council and City staff, thank you for the opportunity to present 3781 El Camino Real, our 100% residential housing project. My name is Peter Giovanotto, and I'm here tonight representing my family who own the site. And no, you are not experiencing déjà vu right now. I was In April, I was before you to introduce a nearby development project, which is 3606 El Camino. Different location, same great team. My family's owned and assembled the 3781 El Camino Real site for well over 25 years, which is just another way to say that we're a long-time local family that's committed to providing housing for Palo Alto. With its proximity to both jobs and transit, this site has been recognized by the City Council as a location suitable for higher-density housing within the El Camino Real corridor. We're delighted to bring this project forward as a meaningful contribution toward the meeting that our city's housing needs. With that, I'll hand it over to Marissa Riley, our development manager with Seritage to dive into the details. >> Good evening, City Council members. My name is Marissa Riley. I'm a project manager with Seritage Group of Northern California. We're really happy to be back in front of you presenting another housing project for Palo Alto. As Steven mentioned, we were here just last month. Um, I'd like to begin with just acknowledging how wonderful staff has been to work with on this project as well. Um, Steven and team has been helpful and collaborative throughout the 2-year process that we've taken to move this project through entitlement. Uh, and as Steven mentioned, this is a builder's remedy project. So, while it's not the typical process that that we're used to seeing, we hope that you'll see that we've taken tremendous care to design a building that's thoughtful, contextually sensitive, and really brings Palo Alto's vision for the future Palo Alto in housing, um, to light. So, next slide, please. Same team that we presented on 3606. We have BD Architecture, The Guzardo Partnership, and Kieran Wright. All three of these firms together have over 150 years of Bay Area experience. Uh, Seritage has been building in the Bay Area for 30 years, and then we're working with the Giovenotta family who's owned this property for decades at this point. Next slide, please. Want to offer just a few images of interiors of projects that have been delivered to nearby communities over the past 3 years. These projects reflect our approach. We build where it matters, near transit and amenities that people want to use, and then we build it so well that people want to live there. Next slide, please. Central to this project are the community benefits. This project brings 183 new homes to Palo Alto, including 23 affordable units. It directly advances Palo Alto's arena It It provides housing for a range of residents, from studios all the way up through family units. It provides a safer, more walkable El Camino Real frontage in a build on Palo Alto's vision for the future of El Camino Real. Next slide, please. Last May, the city adopted the El Camino Real Focus Area Plan that raised the maximum allowable density and changed several development standards with the intent of ushering housing production in the in the area. The property at 3781 is included in that focus area plan. The design of 3781 is largely in line with the objective standards that were put forth in that focus area. And certainly in line with the main intent, bring housing to El Camino Real. To name just a few of the other alignments, the proposed project is within the height and the density standards, is 100% housing and includes affordable housing, and enhances the ground floor experience along El Camino Real. Next slide, please. And it's an ideal place for housing. You know, this is an infill site. It's a transit-rich location. There's a There's a bus line right outside, a bus stop right outside this project. There's a newly installed class 4 protected bike lane running along El Camino Real, and it's about 1 mile from the California Ave Caltrain station. Next slide, please. Here's a few images of the existing conditions, and you can see there's a real opportunity for improvement here. Along El Camino Real, the site is currently developed by older one-story commercial buildings and lower-density cottage-style apartments, including a a large parking lot. The site is really ripe for transformation and will be catalytic for the area. Next slide, please. So, the next three slides just move through the progression of the design since we originally submitted the SB 330 application in February 2024. You can see it was um, you know, just the beginning of a thought 2 years ago. And if you move to the next slide, this picture illustrates the project that was provided in the full planning application um, in June of 2026 or 2024. And then if we move to the next slide, after years of city input and public hearing, we arrived at this project um, that you can see in front of you, which offers a real sense of place. I did want to just touch on a few examples of the way the ARB and and city staff comments have been incorporated into the project that have helped to craft a better design. Move to the next slide. So, the ARB members suggested that expanding the patios on the podium level would enhance livability and activate the the building's street presence. And we did just that. We took a look at the podium level and said, "How can we better these units, better the usable open space for these residents?" And then incorporated that change. And also just sort of activates that building's tie to the street frontage. Next slide. ARB and staff also recommended that we take a look at the internal bike circulation along with sort of our our trash circulation system. One suggestion that we heard was including a a pathway that connected the bike storage facility to the garage that would enter that would provide egress out kind of a side alley that would allow easier access for cyclists getting in and out of that that long-term storage. And we did just that. That was a excellent suggestion. And then similarly, we We had our our trash staging internal to the building and both staff and ARB recommended that we reconfigure some of the the frontage along Curtner so that we could have a more efficient trash staging. Um so this allows us to not have to stage trash trash on the street at all, but instead on the trash hauling days the haulers will just come into this uh room that fronts Curtner and is easily able to move that trash out. Next slide, please. We also heard some update some feedback on the Curtner frontage. Uh the ARB recommended that we rethink our garage entry materials, add visual interest to the blank uh flanking walls on either side of the garage entry, um and improve the parking structure screening particularly from the adjacent properties. We took all of those comments to heart and we redesigned the garage entry to better integrate with the architecture, added trellises on either side to activate that frontage, and then enhanced the parking screening strategy by with a combination of decorative garage materials, trellises, and trees. Next slide, please. We've also taken a look at the sight lines. This was a an item that came up on the 3606 project and we want to make sure we got ahead of it here. Building projects that ensure safe conditions for all street users is paramount for both the project team and the city. To ensure we're adding projects to the community that usher in safe street conditions, we engaged Gary Black of Hexagon Transportation to review this condition. We've committed to conducting a traffic analysis in our conditions of approval and we'll incorporate the reasonable recommendations that the transportation group advises. Uh we'd also like to note that um this project conforms with the uh city's objective standards of having the garage entries off of El Camino Real, so we're we have a one point of egress on Curtner Avenue, which we believe creates a much safer condition than the alternative. Next slide, please. And then finally, just circling back to the core of this project, 3781 El Camino Real is exactly the type of infill housing project Palo Alto wants to see. It delivers 183 new homes, 23 affordable units. It transforms an underutilized site into a vibrant transit-oriented community, and it directly advances the city's vision for housing along El Camino Real. We respectfully ask for your approval so we can move forward and bring these homes to Palo Alto. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> All right. Well, thank you very much. Um colleagues, since this is a quasi-judicial matter, I assume we should do any disclosures. Looking at city attorney. >> That's That's correct. >> Okay. All right. So, let me ask if anyone has any disclosures for this matter. Council member Burt. >> Yes, I met with the applicant and did not receive any information that has not been in the record. >> Thank you, Council member Lythcott-Haims. >> Yes, thank you. I've also met with the applicant and have not received any information that isn't on the record. >> Any others? Okay. Seeing none, um let's I want to see if there's any clarifying questions for either staff or the applicant from those presentations, and then we will go to public comment. Does anyone have any questions they'd like to ask at this point? All right. Seeing none, is there any public comment? >> There are no requests to speak, and no hands are raised for action item seven. >> All right. Thank you very much. We will then close public comment, bring it back to the dais for any motion and discussions about this application. Council member Lauing. >> Yeah, I'd just like to start by saying uh this is why the El Camino focus area was created. And now it's being expanded and delighted to see uh enthusiastic partner design and ice structure within the general requirements and and add to as you called it the the housing vision along El Camino so very very supportive. Thank you. >> Well I would like to echo those comments and add that I I really appreciate that the applicant has really only used the builders remedy elements for some fairly minor allowances that I think are reasonable and that it's an applicant who despite having a prerogative to kind of break the bank on these things has worked within our El Camino guidelines and our our existing zoning to have something that is very close to it and and then taken to heart a number of the recommendations of the architectural review board and staff and I I think it's to be commended. We the community hasn't yet seen what 85 foot buildings up and down El Camino are going to look like and I think we're yet going to have a little bit of a a shock when these are built but I think given the circumstances it's a good design it's thoughtful about its its alternative transportation approaches like its bike access and the one thing that I'd still push is for all these projects to really look at what are adjacent shared vehicles Zipcar type programs that really do cut down on parking demand Uh so, other than that, I uh I really think it's a commendable project. >> Councilmember Wolbach. >> Thank you. I will echo the comments made by my colleagues. I appreciate the housing on El Camino. I appreciate the thoughtful design of the bike room and bike access onto the El Camino bike path. Uh I also really appreciate the process with the ARB. Um as I saw that application first come in, I was really worried about the aesthetics of the building, and it has made a lot of progress. Um uh You know, I I I I might have some aesthetic gripes. I might have some uh regrets that we can't require some element of replacement retail on this site, where I think it could actually be economically viable. That said, I am uh happy to move forward with this. I will also note that we did get a public comment asking about renter protections and uh uh uh relocation and by implication relocation bonuses payments and things like that. We already discussed that in the previous city previous meeting on meetings on similar projects. So, I understand that tenants uh would be eligible for any relocation bonuses. So, um just wanted to put that out for the record. Thanks. >> Councilmember Litkouhi Ames. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Excuse me. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to just join my colleagues in expressing real satisfaction with this project. Um I won't reiterate what's already been said. Just plus one it, plus two it, plus three it. Really appreciate that you've mentioned to council how positive your working relationship with staff has been. It's so great for us to hear that feedback and for people beyond this room to hear that feedback as we endeavor to be a city that builds more housing. I happen to live in this part of the city. I'm just south on off Maybell and the Walgreens corner. And so when I drive north in El Camino, I'm struck by how blighted this portion of El Camino at times looks. So I just very excited by the notion of you know that the El Camino focus area. Grateful to my colleagues who came up with that idea. And I know your family said, "Hey, we want to be included in that." You heard it was happening. You said, "You know, we own more we we own some of that land that isn't quite included." And could we could we increase it? You're you're really responsible for that. So you know the satisfaction and gratitude even that you wanted to partner with the city that you call home. You know, you've got the 3606 which came last month. 321 units I think. This one when you first told me about it was 177 units. Now it's 183. So the numbers keep getting better. And then you've got your forest proposal. And so I think you know, it's just it it looks like it's a partnership that's working. And I think that's going to be to the benefit of many people. Thank you so much. >> Council member Rector. >> Yeah, thank you for the application. I too am quite happy with it. It's big. It's going to be a big building. That's good. We'll provide a lot of housing. It will be a big change for the neighborhood. But for a big building, I think you broke up the facade nicely. I think it will fit in. People get used to it. I think overall it's a good thing. Uh my biggest complaint is bike parking. You have only about a half parking spot per bedroom, which is not a lot. And so, all it takes is a couple biking couples, and all of a sudden the bike room is full. So, um I would consider looking at that and really scrubbing that. That That This is a 1 and 1/2 miles less than that to the Caltrain station. That's far enough that you probably don't want to walk, but a bike ride is going to be really easy. So, I would really look at look at the demand. And then, you mentioned in the presentation, we have the bike lanes in El Camino. You can go up and down very easily now. So, really look at scrub that and see do you need more than you you're designing right now. Uh are you going to have electric outlets in the bike room? Uh >> Hi there. Um Well, I'll just say that I appreciate those comments, and I think that's that's a great note, and we can certainly look into that to see whether there's more capacity for more biking. Cuz I think the point um is heard that it's right on that class four bike lane. And And And you know, this makes it really convenient for people to bike there. Um in terms of in terms of having the electrical outlets there, we we haven't gotten to that point of design yet. That's sort of the next phase for us, but that's a a great comment. Um and we'll have to, you know, work with the fire department cuz I imagine there's some sort of There could be potential issues there, but I'm sure there's a safe way to do it. >> Yeah, your insurance company may require you to have a a fire cage or something like that. >> Yeah. Yeah, sure. But, thank you for the comment. >> Yeah, but especially this is building's been around for a long time. And e-bikes are just in their infancy, I think. This is really going to people are going to find it so convenient to get right where you want. You don't have to park you know, a half mile away and walk to your building. So, I think you will have more demand in the future for biking. >> That's a great point. >> Okay, um let's see. Uh in the by the bike parking lot parking room, there's something called a pet spa. What is the pet spa? >> Sure, a pet spa is a amenity that we've incorporated at a number of properties, you know, in the last number of years, but it's a dog washing station. So, folks are able to bring their pets down and there's a place to wash and dry your pet. I mean, it's an amenity that is is pretty popular among kind of buildings like this. >> Oh, okay. Interesting. I've not seen that before. That's Okay, then also, um you have the co-working spaces. Will those be free for or will you be renting them out? How How's that work? >> Those will be free for residents. So, for folks who are working from home or working from home sometimes, they'll have a place to come down and it'll be a combination of sort of shared tables where people can, um you know, work alongside one another and little conference rooms, but people will just be able to use them at will. >> Okay. Uh I also noticed you have the both the garbage room, both the collection room, and also the staging room, which means that you have to haul You have to have someone drag it the garbage. You couldn't collocate that? That wasn't didn't fit in the design? >> That's a a great comment. Uh we originally had it collocated, so we had the trash staging room was right next to that termination point in the middle of the building, but after hearing from, you know, the trash experts in the city and then also ARB, they suggested that we move the trash staging out to Kertner so that on hauling days it would be easier for folks to just come into that room cuz otherwise we would have to we would gather the trash and then we would have to stage it on Kertner Avenue. >> So, we thought this was a better solution. >> better, yes. But, you couldn't have the room itself where the shoots come down, you couldn't have that come into the staging room? >> That is There will be some staging there, but I think just given the scale of the building, you need, you know, a certain amount of square footage to accommodate all of those bins. That's why it needs to be in the square footage of >> back and forth is not a big deal. >> Not yes, Stefl take care of that. >> Okay. Uh on floor two, there's a storage room. Is that storage for a management or is that storage for the residents? >> I don't have the plans right in front of me, but I imagine that storage that will be rented out for residents. We find that to be another great amenity if folks just have, you know, holiday decorations or whatever it may be that they just can't quite fit in their one bedroom apartment, but want to certainly have it on hand and there is opportunities for them to store it on site. >> Okay. And finally, uh Uber and DoorDashers, do you have that parking spot for leasing? Is that going to be also used as DoorDash? >> So, there's one designated loading space that is internal to the garage entry. Um so, that is what we've imagined as the place where Ubers um Ubers and delivery service would come in. Um there's also, in terms of just other sort of loading facilities on site, um we've a move-in we've a kind of a move-in um parking space that will be near the transformer. So, if you're looking at the plans sort of on the right side of the plans, that will accommodate folks with move-in vans and that goes straight to a move-in lobby. >> Yeah. So, just as another point of like, who's parking there and how how much space will they take up? >> And so, that loading That's just for people moving in or could you use it also for Uber or DoorDashers? >> The intent of this plan is just for move-ins. >> Okay. >> And then >> And I noticed all the corners inside the hallways are extra large. And so, if you're hauling a dresser around the corner, you you don't have to tip it on the end. >> Yeah, exactly. We did a lot of thinking around that move-in lobby and what's that sequence when you're you're hoisting a couch in to get to that elevator and how can we make that as smooth as possible? >> Okay. Uh really good design. I thought a lot of thought went into this. Uh what's the schedule like? You you when do you think you're going to break ground and when do you think you're going to start renting? >> Sure. Um there's a lot that we still need to work through. So, at this point, uh hopefully we have our approved tonight, uh and then we still need to go through all of our design. You need to go through financing. We need to get a contractor on board. Um and we also have 3606, which the intention is to move forward with that project first and just to to build momentum there and to then then once, you know, we have momentum there, follow with 3781. >> Okay. Okay, thank you. >> Sure. >> All right. Um So, you are actually the second applicant um that has come here and told us that staff has been uh a pleasure to work with and delightful. So, I just want to give extra kudos to staff because we are in the customer service business even when we have to say no or ask for revisions and I just want to commend you on that. Um we are redefining the Palo Alto process. Um you know, I bragged about it on Friday that uh went at the Mitchell Park Place grand opening and you had told me that it took us a mere 91 days to approval with only 61 of them being on the city and I said we are redefining the Palo Alto process and here is more evidence. So, appreciate that and I appreciate you telling us that because it's helpful for us to know. Um I also appreciate the uh the aesthetics and the efforts there um especially because it is so big as Council Member Ratto said. Uh so, it really will make a difference that extra effort that you make on on how this looks. Um I also appreciate all the revisions that are in compliance with the ARB suggestions. Um that is appreciated. Um There was just one that I was going to ask about, but I think it got answered in your colloquy with Council Member Ratto because the uh ARB recommendations that were in bold were incorporated into the design and one that was not was an off-street loading space. And I was going to ask you about that, but it sounds like you have the one in the garage area for Uber and delivery and then that separate move-in spot. So, those can be used that way. So, good, then I don't have to worry about that one. Um So, then the only thing that I just need to point out one that cuz I do that. Um is it does say that the unit mix the 23 BMR units is greater than the 13% minimum. I think it's technically 12.56%, which if you round up is 13, but I don't think it's over unless I'm calculating wrong. Uh but you know, it's it's right there and we do appreciate those those are very important to us. So, always if you can maximize those since you tend to to be here before us. Um just want to say we always appreciate that, but I think in this instance we're right on it. So, um colleagues, I would entertain a motion at this point. I see no lights for further discussion. Um I'll stick to whatever the staff recommendation. Do that or I will I'll tell you what, I'll just move the staff recommendation that we consider the project exempt from CEQA in accordance with in accordance with AB 130 and that we approve the major architectural review application based on the findings in the Arlua. >> Second. >> All right. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? So, we're following the Palo Alto process, too. We're redefining it right here. >> Councilmember Lou? >> Yes. >> Councilmember Bert? >> Councilmember Lawing? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone? >> Councilmember Lithgow Heim? >> Yes. >> Council- uh Mayor Vinker? >> Councilmember Rectal? >> Yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right, thank you. And thank you to applicant for coming and presenting, and thank you to staff. All right. All right, and with that we will move on to item eight, our second and final action item. Then of course we will have the closed session at the end. Um so just preliminarily, um item eight is our continued item from April 15th that addresses the potential temporary closure of the Churchill Crossing. So as you will recall, in recognition of both the high public interest in this topic and the difficult nature of it, Council held a special City Council meeting on Wednesday, April 15th, 2026 devoted solely to this item. And that evening Council received a staff presentation, and we heard public testimony for several hours, and we had an initial discussion. Um that meeting started at 6:00 and ended after 10:00, so we we spent quite a bit of time in the preliminary um phases of this item. It was continued to tonight to allow for further Council discussion, deliberation, and potential action. Um and given that we closed public comment at the April meeting, the agenda notes that no additional public testimony will be heard this evening. So I know there were a few things, questions we asked, and uh information we sought, uh and I believe staff has done some work since then and may have something more to tell us. So, I'm going to turn to staff for any further information you'd like to share with us. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council. Alex Andrade. The role tonight for me is my assistant to the city manager role. So, as the Mayor just indicated, yes, tonight's agenda is a continuation of last month's um expedited Churchill Avenue rail crossing evaluation. And in terms of the supplemental report, it did address some of the questions that the City Council had last month on a couple of items, the Churchill Avenue quiet zone, as well as the Jed Foundation collaboration. For the benefit of community members that weren't here earlier during the budget study session, and perhaps those that weren't watching earlier, I think it is important to acknowledge a few key components uh to this body of work. So, first, the quiet zone implementation along the Caltrain corridor is a City Council priority. Second, last week the Finance Committee discussed a strategy for the acceleration of the Churchill Avenue quiet zone, and of course, you all discussed that earlier, as well. During the Finance Committee's review of the budget last week, accelerating the quiet zone uh was discussed. If the expedited plan is approved, Measure K funds would be utilized in fiscal year 2027 for design, and construction would then take place in 2028. The other Finance Committee topic discussed was the monitoring guards. There's interest in adding funding for the monitoring guards through the end of the current fiscal year, so that means additional funding would cover funding for March through June of 2027, and of course, contingent upon the school district paying uh 50% of the estimated cost. And finally, I have a very brief uh presentation here, but finally Jed Foundation completed their final listening sessions virtually in April, and they're currently compiling their research findings from the stakeholder sessions, listening sessions, and focus groups to complete their overall assessment report. So, that should be made public next month at the end of the month. So, representatives from Jed are here with us tonight, both virtual. Kurt and Katie are with us, and so what I will do after I'm done here, I'll invite them to say a few words, specifically to clarify death data record information that was shared last month. Of course, aside from Jed Foundation representatives being present, Caltrain representatives are also available, as well as city staff. That concludes my presentation. I'm going to hand it off to Kate Katie and Kurt of Jed Foundation. They should be on line. Thank you. >> Can you hear me okay? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. I'm going to go ahead and just read a statement. And uh it it begins um data from the publicly available Santa Clara Medical Examiner's data dashboard were reviewed and found to be generally consistent with broader CDC Wonder trends described in the uh report that we will eventually release. So, consistent with CDC reporting guidance, which includes avoiding presentation publicly or in reports of death rates based on counts of nine or fewer, we leaned on the uh widely available CDC Wonder data data system to report our findings. Nonetheless, the dashboard itself from the Santa Clara Medical Examiner's board was used to confirm that in fact multiple locations along the railway corridor in Palo Alto meet criteria for quote frequently used locations or suicide quote hotspots. Some research in the has been basically shown that once a location is known as a so-called hotspot priority should be given to sustain prevention efforts because of their self-perpetuating nature and their impact on those who work, live, or travel nearby. The recommended strategies that we are providing including reducing access to lethal means including barriers and deterrents uh enhanced promotion of help-seeking increased opportunities for third-party intervention through surveillance and rapid emergency response and adhering more closely to responsible suicide reporting guidelines. And I'll just finish by saying this last sentence. Although restricting access along railway systems can be operationally challenging and costly in the short term that include grade separation and or closure such interventions may prove cost-effective over time and this is a finding that's been shown in the literature multiple times and that concludes my statement. >> All right, thank you very much. Is there anything further to report? >> Not from staff. Thank you. >> Okay. All right, thank you. So colleagues um we'll bring it back to the dais for motions, discussion, and etc. >> Is is there any ad hoc input or No. >> If if they wish, I don't know if they've met since then. >> We have not met since >> Yeah. the the April 15th Council meeting. >> Thank you. Then I would just invite invite any council member who wishes to speak to be recognized. You know, I used to teach law schools and the looks that I would get when I was about to call on someone is kind of like this. Council member Burt. >> Thank you. Well, you know, we had a pretty good discussion when we left off and I think before us tonight are really the questions of um the problems we're trying to solve and the ways that we'd go about doing so. And I think at the highest level what we and the school district are trying to address is the um the crisis that we have in teen suicides in our community and the broader mental health youth mental health issues that um contribute to those. And to address that uh even in our budget discussion, we we have multiple areas where we are addressing youth mental health where uh the school district is also doing so. Um I think that one of the things going forward, no matter how we proceed tonight, is that there's a real value to a closer collaboration between the school district and the city and our community partners who are really uh uh facilitated and uh into a collaborative through Project Safety Net where we have uh just a a large group of very capable and dedicated community partner organizations and individuals who are uh working to address these issues from the highest upstream youth mental health to um I I to intervention and and even uh crisis uh intervention to means restriction and to postvention. Um and I just want to make sure that um as much as we're all acutely aware of how tra traumatic these most recent events were that we're we're really focused also and most of all on the big picture. And but then we are left with um that important part of our discussion around means restriction. And what we have uh seen is a number of things over the years. One as uh our staff presented um in a previous meeting uh the data indicates that when we have had the paid the security guards present at the crossings um we have not had any suicides at those uh locations. And no measure is fail-safe. So, that does not absolutely prove that it cannot happen going forward but it's a very strong indicator. We had a uh a large petition by uh students and parents asking for 24/7 guards at all four of the crossings uh which the school district and ourselves have stepped forward and um and are doing um and it's important for all of us to recall is that over the 17-plus years where this has been a real crisis in the what we've called the three different clusters that we've had. The overwhelming majority of those suicides have occurred at night and at Charleston Meadow. And so the question is then what what additional value would we get and what what downside impacts may we have if we did a um a closure at Churchill whether it be a temporary closure or permanent closure. Um and I'm not sure that we would have a discernible benefit over the 24/7 guards. And if the 24/7 guards are not adequate in some people's minds, it begs the question of then why are they deemed adequate at at Meadow and Charleston and Palo Alto Avenue? On the other hand, we've seen that um that we as this has gotten flushed out more, we better understand the negative impacts that may occur. Uh which are um uh public health and safety impacts where we would be diverting high volumes of bikes to the actually the same locations where we're diverting high volumes of vehicles. Uh one on the north side of Embarcadero, the other on the south side of Embarcadero, as well as the California Avenue uh bike ped underpass which is not designed for current standards and and would never be built uh today at its at with its grade and with it that we have. Um And then we we have another uh public safety and public health impact which is the the impacts that would occur from additional delays of emergency vehicles. Those are not primarily about the additional distance to get to another crossing. Uh they're about most of all about the additional traffic uh that would hold back uh the times of those. Unfortunately, we don't have um projections on how much delay it would be. Uh but my biggest concern is actually ambulances even more than police or fire. Um and Embarcadero Road is one of our routes not only for our own ambulances, but uh for county ambulances actually from both San Mateo and Santa Clara County. And as I looked into this, I saw a data that for every 1-minute delay for a cardiac arrest victim um it is a 6% increase in mortality. Similar delays for for stroke and trauma uh victims and uh also impacts on uh morbidity uh as well. Uh so I those are the the that accumulation of reasons um are why I went from being unclear on which direction I would um advocate to believing that um it's probably the the correct decision to not go forward with the the temporary closure the trial closure I should say. In part also because um we're now as you heard earlier uh have really managed to accelerate the quiet zone uh effort which uh would prioritize Churchill. And, uh, there appears to be a real dilemma that a a temporary closure is not something that the FRA has a mechanism to address, and that, um, that closure could inhibit, or at least delay, um, the ability to go forward with a quiet zone. Which, so, I I basically, um, uh, continue to support the 24/7 guards. Uh, tonight we, uh, gave our authorization through the end of fiscal year 2027, but by no means, uh, in my mind is that a an implication that it would end then. That's just the fiscal year we were addressing. So, that's my summary. >> Council member Lauing. >> Yeah, thanks very much. Thanks to all the residents that we heard from, uh, initially and and since then, uh, in public comment and emails, um, certainly to staff and the ad hoc who did just exhaustive work to research the issue for us and provide a lot of information for council members who now have to make a a call on the issue. You know, as as a community and as a council, we clearly continue to mourn, um, the recent deaths of students at Churchill, um, as well as prior deaths at other Palo Alto grade crossings. You know, just contemplating, you know, losing a child, losing a really close friend, using one of losing one of our own young residents. It's just beyond devastating and hard to even talk about. So, obviously the idea of closing Churchill was brought up as a way to prevent um more suicides in the sort of copycat vein. And that was initiated at least formally by the ex-superintendent of PAUSD asking for us to to to look at that and and and probably close it. The public discussions that started on that at the initial listing session that was co-sponsored by the city and PAUSD with participants from both sides. Um and then community comments continued thereafter. And what what I heard out of that and early on after that is that that they the issue was being defined as the choice is between saving lives at the Churchill grade crossing versus inconvenient delays for residents moving around the city on bikes, in cars, or on foot. Um and I I don't believe this is the issue at all. I don't think it ever has been that issue. I mean, obviously first stating the obvious, council is responsible for every square mile of the city and uh all 70,000-ish residents and all visitors to the city. But I think the issue that we're tasked to decide upon uh is how to optimize for public safety in this particular area under discussion under discussion for all people who pass through the area. So, that's sort of my focus on this. And so, the question becomes will this area be be safer uh with the closure of Churchill? So, pertinent actions that uh Councilmember Burt has already started to touch on. First and foremost, the city and PAUSD acted immediately after this last problem and funded these 24-hour crossing crossing guards at all Palo Alto intersections, together funded together, which is new. Um and the last time this was done, there was no record of any track intrusions. Staff report pointed out there would be additional 8,000 vehicle trips per day immediately from a Churchill closing. And those cars will siphon off to Embarcadero and Oregon and other streets as well. There's a count of at least 714 PAUSD bikers that also have to find a new way to school around this blockage and drive at least an extra mile on the street uh in front of the weapons that are out there called cars. An Embarcadero is not certified as a safe route to to school route. And the 2020 traffic study predicted the near the nearest six intersections to the blocked off Churchill would all be at grade F, called jammed conditions. That's 2020. And mitigation of these problems would cost over 50 million again in 2020 dollars and take years. Um also of note, we already have had um a couple uh fatality years a couple years ago uh near the fire station on Embarcadero. Uh student was killed on her bike by a car. Um I talked with her mother. I want to bring up I think an important consideration that we haven't talked about too much, but let's get real here. Um every week as I drive around town, um a lot of times actually on Embarcadero, I'm just I'm absolutely alarmed at the number of drivers that I see impatiently and illegally uh rushing around to get places faster, trying to get through the traffic faster. They increase speed to run yellow lights and even sometimes red lights as I've been watching. They weave through traffic lanes. They cut through neighborhoods uh and speed with complete disregard of public safety. Um, in the last car in the last month, I've been in my car multiple situations like this that it could have caused a crash. And to put a point on it, I just want to give one example because it's just so stunning. Last week, I was proceeding on Embarcadero from Middlefield to El Camino past the Town & Country Shopping Center. I stopped at the red light. I was first in line at the red light with Town & Country on my left, another car on my right before the Town & Country entrance, and on my left was the left turn lane into the valet parking lot. Suddenly, as I'm sitting here at the red light, a car blasts past me in the left turn lane, cuts right in front of me and the car next to me, and shoots into the Town & Country in the left-hand turn lane past two cars that are stopped at a stop red stoplight and goes into Town & Country. Had that red light changed a few seconds earlier few seconds earlier and I was starting out, I would have been crashed. Much worse. What about if there was a biker along the curb that was coming up on the right-hand side of the two cars that were stopped? That could have been an instant fatality right there. That's without 8,000 more weapons out there every day of additional cars. That behavior is irresponsible and it's illegal. But with that many more cars out there, sorry, vehicle trips, I believe that the probability that this will increase is 100%. And that translates to me of many, not just a few, crashes causing injury or death. Finally, as Councilmember Burt said, uh, I think there's a high probability that police and fire emergency vehicles will will be delayed in congestion in getting to their destination and returning to hospital for lives will be lost. Minutes matter in times like these. So, bottom line, after much analysis myself, I believe that the area under study will be less safe with the closing of Churchill. And in addition, we are accelerating other train safety measures like we just discussed with quiet zones and no train horns, and the 27 24/7 grades at all Palo Alto crossings will provide a high probability, not foolproof, deterrent uh to more tragedy at Churchill and other crossings. So, that's where I come out. Thank you, Mayor. >> Council member Lythcott-Haims. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I really appreciate the eloquent and thoughtful words of my colleagues who've already spoken. Um I want to begin by directly addressing the loved ones and friends of those who have died by suicide at the tracks. My heart goes out to you. I imagine my colleagues feel the same. I too remember dates and names and think about those people every single time I cross the tracks. As I'm lowering my window in my Jeep and shouting thank you to the track monitors, I'm thinking of specific people. And I know that's true for many people in our community. We are confronting a true health and safety crisis, probably one of the largest a community can face, which is the suicide of youth. We all care deeply about this. Everyone on this dais, every member of the staff, everyone in this so many people in our community, and we are all striving to do what's right when it comes to supporting our youth and frankly supporting people of any age who are in crisis around their mental health. We have to look at downstream, meaning means restriction when someone is considering ending their life, and upstream, all of the resources and supports that need to be in place to support positive, good mental health and wellness, as well as changing the culture. Regarding downstream, our data show that track monitors work as deterrents. So, as I stated earlier tonight in our conversation around the budget, I believe we should continue to fund track monitors with our partners at the school district, hopefully sharing 50/50 henceforth for the foreseeable future until we have grade separation because we know that track monitors work. There's an added piece here, the possibility of quiet zones. This notion that if we put certain structures in place, we demonstrate to Caltrain and the Federal Rail Administration that we have a safety mechanism mechanism in place such that the engineer doesn't have to blow the horn. And the reason why we need quiet zones and need to accelerate quiet zones, which it sounds like this council and our staff are ready to support, is once we have the quiet zones, which sounds like will be fiscal 28, it will mean that we will all be free from the haunting sound of this train horn, which is a continual reminder of our tremendous and irreparable loss as a community. In terms of upstream, we've been told, and I believe it, that the PAUSD is unified is second to none when it comes to expending resources on mental health supports. We also have engaged with Jed as a city and a broader community. We've recently advocated for the restoration of county funding for ALCOVE. There are many, many more examples of what we are collectively doing to try to make it easier to be a young person in this magnificent town. To try to address these mental health issues in an upstream fashion. Before going into this, in February when we created our ad hoc I didn't know about the X-Cap work. I heard of it, but now I've had the chance to pour over it. We had a committee, X-Cap, that looked at whether Churchill should be closed as a grade separation option. And they said, "You can close it if you do about 10 or 12 things costing tens of millions of dollars over a decade." You may not close Churchill, they said, unless you make all of these mitigating changes to make the roads onto which these vehicles will be diverted, and bikes and peds as well, until you make these roads safer, you may not consider closing Churchill. And once I allowed myself to appreciate the wisdom done, frankly, for a different purpose. We weren't in the context of youth suicide, we were talking about grade sep, which is something we are committed to doing, and everyone on the corridor needs to do. Once I dug my teeth into that, I realized what they were basically telling us in our present context is, "If you think this is a solution to save lives of youth, be careful. You may actually be creating a different type of disaster. Not inconvenience. I'm not here talking about anyone's inconvenience or getting anywhere late. I'm talking about the potential for collisions between children on bikes and on their feet just trying to get a Palo Alto education. Collisions between them and cars. I think that writing is on the wall. And I am desperately worried. I think we all should be. Make a decision in furtherance of that, and those accidents begin to happen, and none of us will forgive ourselves. Given that forecast, I am deeply concerned about the closing of Churchill on a temporary basis. So, my views have changed. My vote based on all the input, I have been listening. My vote tonight is for what I truly believe is the way to keep our kids and the broader community safest based on all the data we've received from the city's transportation department and public safety and public works and city manager staff and from the Palo Alto Unified and Jed and Caltrain and from the hundreds of inputs we have received from members of the community who have made such an effort to let us know your opinion. Please don't read me wrong. I am not trading a death somewhere for a death somewhere else. I'm actually trying to vote in a manner that reduces the likelihood of a youth dying again for any reason in Palo Alto with confidence that our track monitors work and that the trauma of the train horn will be eliminated soon thanks to quiet to quiet zones. >> Council member Lu. >> Thank you. I fully agree with Council member Litvak Hames, so I'll keep my comments brief. There are so many challenges and uncertainties in how to evaluate this. We've tried to ask for the best data we can get on emergency vehicles on uh safe routes to school, on the potential likely uh hood that uh track watch could be effective in uh discouraging or uh otherwise reducing the likelihood of suicide. From the beginning, I told myself and the public that my decision would be purely based on reasonable reasonably foreseeable impact on uh life, on public health, and certainly not in any way based on convenience. And uh there is an element of this that strikes me like a trolley problem where there is a uncertain risk of youth suicide, but also uh an uncertain and real risk of traffic collisions and of uh uh delayed ambulances and urgent public safety calls. Whenever I try to do the math in the back of my head, whenever I try to update the priors and sketch things out on a napkin, I given the factors and the sketchy information we have right now, believe that keeping that not pursuing a temporary closure is the right option for overall public health. Thank you. >> Councilmember Herbold. >> Yeah, thank you. This actually is quite personal for me. I lost a friend, a good friend in college, to suicide, and that was just an awful awful experience. I don't want anyone to go through that. Uh and closing Churchill now would provide comfort to the people in in the community that are grieving, and that would be a good thing. But I really have safety concerns like other people have mentioned about this. And so, pedestrian safety, we're putting thousands of cars now. They have to go somewhere, and a lot of them are going to be going through residential neighborhoods, and those residential neighborhoods are not designed for this type of traffic. And pedestrian safety is also personal. My wife My my mother was in her 60s, and she was crossing the crosswalk, and someone was in a hurry and hit her. And the you know, there was no broken bones, relatively minor injuries, but those injuries nagged her the rest of her life, made her much less mobile, and really tarnished her her golden years. And that it was all just because one driver wasn't paying attention. And we're going to be putting thousands through these neighborhoods, and so I really think that I thought the Churchill problem was a good analogy, is that there we have to look at the whole situation and not just put our uh eyes just on the Churchill crossing. Uh that Um I mean, one comment that we've heard is that if we close Churchill, that will tell our youth that we care about them. But what does putting thousands of of cars through a residential area tell the youth that are biking through that neighborhood? So, I I think we have to again look at the big picture about this. Uh the clerk, can you bring up the document that Jed uh has has a document that I sent to the clerk. Uh page three. And in this, Jed looks at if you're now trying to minimize suicides, what approaches do you have to look at? And we're looking at mean safety. We have the the guards there, and they're not perfect, but we also know that fences aren't perfect. We're addressing this mean safety, but there's other issues. Yeah, can you zoom in and make it wider? And so there's seven different Yeah, zoom in here. Seven different aspects to go after, and really we as a community can't get so focused on the mean safety. And there's other aspects, and a lot of those aspects are much, much harder. And so I think we cannot get distracted by the mean safety and and lose the big picture, is that we have to address all of these if we are trying to minimize suicides. And so I think that's that's the challenge that we have here is to we only have a certain amount of dollars, as you heard an hour ago, our budget is tight. How do we best spend this? And closing Churchill would cost us million plus dollars. And if we had the million plus dollars to put into suicide reduction, this suggests that mean safety is not where you want to put it. We've already addressed that. We have other six other areas that are much harder and that we've much better better spending our money. So, I will not support closing Churchill right now. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think personally this is the most challenging issue that's come to the council in my six years here. I you know, addressing teen suicide is literally the whole reason why I entered public service in the first place. Like Council Member Rec Dal, I lost a close friend to to suicide, uh a former Paly student. He took his life few years after we graduated. Wasn't at the wasn't at the tracks. It was after we had graduated, so it it didn't get reported as a as a cluster, but that really fundamentally kind of changed my own I'd say my own life trajectory. I was always wondering what red flags did I miss? What more could I have done to be able to to make a difference. It's why I I sought appointment to the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission at such a at such a young age. It's why I became the liaison to Project Safety Net at that time. Why I ultimately ran for council. Probably a big reason why I switched careers from being an attorney to to being a a teacher. It's why when I was mayor I formed the Youth Mental Health and Wellbeing Task Force and appreciated all the support from my from my colleagues and the community on that and created a lot of incredible relationships such as such as the Jed Foundation and and Peninsula. Um sorry, Children's Health Council, Palo Alto University and and and countless community members. I mean, so much good came out of that. Thank you, Council member Filseth Ames, for all your work on that committee as as as well. But I've I've found doing this work for so long has revealed to me the the hard truth when it comes to mental health. That our successes are invisible. All right, we'll never know how many lives we save. But our failures are are not. And we feel them every time we lose another young life, and we've lost far too many young lives in this city. And so, I appreciate the mayor's quick response informing the Rail Safety Ad Hoc. I was really glad to be able to be part of it. Um and I'll I'll I'll I'll admit and Julie, I I've Sorry, Council member Filseth Ames, I I felt exactly how what you what you articulated during your during your comments. I think I've always really prided myself in entering any any issue that comes before the council trying to view it really objectively and trying to hear both sides out and to and to reach that conclusion based on the facts, based on the data. I I found I really came into that ad hoc with with a clear direction in my own mind that closure was the was the right thing. And I found myself with this confirmation bias of every presentation, every set of data that was presented to us, I was trying to look for evidence to support an argument for closure. And every time information came out, whether it was from the police department, the fire department, transportation, emergency services, really anywhere, I I think the the direction was kind of was was sort of how you felt that it that that was that was clearly not the the right path. And I think I wanted that cuz that was it felt easy. It felt right, nice to be able to have one fixed point to to say, "Hey, we can address this." But that's another hard lesson that I've learned that there is no there's no single cause of these mental health issues. There's one no one cause that that drives somebody to to end their life, and there's no one solution to be able to to address it. And yeah, I've I've I had if I truly felt at this point that closing Churchill would save even one life, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Uh but I my my fear is that by doing so would create an even greater public health risk. And as elected leaders, we have the responsibility to make decisions based on on the data and facts. And I think the facts are are are increasingly clear that that that church that sorry, that closure is not the way to to move forward. I appreciate everything that has already been said on really the reasons why, so I won't repeat it. I think for ultimately for me comes down to the to the public health issue, the the risks to the public, mostly articulated by fire and police at our last at our last meetings. Thank you to the two chiefs for presenting last last time and being here to tonight. Concerned about the concerned on the impacts on first response time. Um really concerned about the additional risk of serious accidents to the 700-plus students who bike to Pali every day and what this what these changes to these traffic patterns would mean. Yeah, Jed is working on a on a more comprehensive community-wide evaluation of suicide prevention and postvention efforts and we've heard they'll be releasing that report near the end of June and sharing policy recommendations later this year. I thought the one-pager was really helpful that they provided. The update they gave us tonight is as well. One part from that memo that notes from the Jed memo, it would be most prudent for prevention efforts to be comprehensive, addressing the leading methods while also implementing targeted strategies at pedestrian rail crossings. I think it'd be great to be able to better understand what those targeted strategies are and for us to be able to then kind of internalize those into into the more kind of holistic approach that we continue to take as a as a city. So, overall, this decision to temporarily close any of our crossings, I think just comes down to how confident we are that our current solution of 24/7 crossing guards is sufficient to prevent further deaths at the tracks and as we've all said, the data shows they are. We had crossing guards between 2009 to 2018 and available records show that no fatalities occurred while those guards were present. And I think we should be making these consequential decisions based on on data. So, unfortunately, nothing is is foolproof, but the guards are worse are working and the risks to the community, both known and unknown, are are just too great to close. So, for those reasons, I'll be voting to keep Churchill open and I I do have a draft motion that I've provided to the clerk. If she could present that. The motion I'll I'll read it to direct staff to explore options for a long-term rail crossing guard contract and engage PAUSD through the City School Liaison Committee regarding a potential long-term cost-sharing agreement. Direct the Jed Foundation, as part of its 2026 deliverables, to return to the Rail Ad Hoc Committee with targeted recommendations and evidence-based strategies to address safety risks at all four rail crossings and authorize any budget adjustments necessary to achieve those deliverables, and direct staff to prioritize and expedite implementation of quiet zones at all four rail crossings with particular emphasis on accelerating the Churchill Avenue crossing quiet zone. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. And um I don't think I need to speak further to the motion. >> Well, I'll I'll combine my comments in speaking to the second. Um I'll just say I think that as Council Member Litgoat Heim said, we've all been affected by suicide in one matter or another, and we all care deeply about preventing suicides in our city and in our community. When I was a child, I shared a birthday with the son of the youth choir director at church. And uh I remember as we got a little older, we ended up at the DMV on the same day to get our licenses cuz of course we were both eligible on the same day. And he told me to be safe out there. And a couple years later, we had lost him when he died by suicide. And that affected me deeply. Um felt a kinship with him, and that was gone. Um my older daughter was in high school at Paly when the first cluster happened. And my younger daughter was in high school at Paly when the second cluster happened. I didn't have the heart to tell them about the third. It was too painful. Yet know it pales in comparison to the pain of the families who have lost loved ones. So, but I agree with uh Councilmember Lowing that our obligation is to optimize for public safety and to balance the risks to all in our community by whatever solution we consider. Um Councilmember Lowing, you talked about cars misbehaving and told that scary story. Also, um kids and bikes and pedestrians misbehave, and my husband and I trade stories on almost a daily basis about, you know, near misses where we almost struck someone but for trying to drive very defensively in this town. Um I worry that decisions like closing that crossing could exacerbate some of this unsafe behavior and safety risks by changing routes and crowding bikes and pedestrians. Um let alone the other ripple effects that uh my colleagues have enumerated that could happen. On the other hand, uh Kurt from the Jed Foundation said that spots on the railway do constitute suicide hotspots and that that status does make restricting access either by grade separation or enclosure an appropriate response um that will pay for itself in the long run. So, balancing these is very difficult, and I I agree with the Vice Mayor's motion. However, I'm also concerned about our community, about our city after this decision and how we how we repair the divides or rifts or difficult feelings that may result from a uh a decision uh a this decision to leave um the tracks open without an enclosure, although we're taking all of these other means which have been effective in the past, and and we hope will continue to be so. So, I would offer a friendly amendment to paragraph three, that uh the one about the quiet zones, that we also explore the rolling gates option that I mentioned last time, in addition to the quad gates, because it might allow us to have our cake and eat it, too. Um just to just refresh us, these gates go across the track when there is no train, and so they form an enclosure and keep people off the tracks. But when a train comes, they sweep outward and close the crossing completely in all directions, with essentially a fence that is not porous, and prevents access to the tracks. So, it would make the crossings safer and enhance our case for a quiet zone, uh cuz I agree that avoiding re-traumatizing the students at Palo at Pali, the neighbors, and all within earshot, uh would be a good thing. So, I would just ask the maker if we could add that in uh to paragraph C. >> Sorry, what was the and the language? >> So, with particular uh let's >> There we go. Yeah. Oh, wait. >> Yeah, explore >> explore rolling gate options in addition to to quad gates. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's fine. >> Okay. It may not work. There may be There's a million reasons it might not, but if that is explored and we could do it, we might be able to have a replica- replicable um solution that might enhance um the result. >> And maybe do you want, I mean, to explore rolling gates and out of there's something else that we could add to if there are other options that would kind of achieve that goal that's not exactly rolling gates. >> Yes. Um, are there options, um, for, uh, enhanced enclosure. >> Works for me. >> Okay, thank you. Council member Let Kathems. >> Thank you. Before we vote, I just want to acknowledge that our colleagues from Caltrain are here. And, uh, we're so grateful for your partnership. I see Novi, I see Jerry. I can't necessarily see everyone beyond this monitor, but to you and your colleagues who are as impacted by this crisis as we are, um, we thank you for the way you've partnered with us, uh, for a long time and particularly since February there's been a degree of, um, concerted effort and care. Just the fact that you show up for all these meetings, it really means a lot to us. And, um, I am incredibly moved when I see the track monitors putting up their hands, you know, to the when the engineers drive through. You know, we're all in this together. And, um, I just want to acknowledge we don't know what it's like to be the engineer. We don't know what it's like for you all to get the news. And, um, thank you for showing up for us. And, uh, I have a lot of confidence in what we will continue to do together. >> And that makes me want to add a similar thank you to our first responders here in the city who have to deal with this in a very personal and challenging way. So, we are incredibly grateful for them. Council member Burt. >> Yes, I, um, had just wanted to, um uh address the amendment. Um I think it's it's better now with this additional language. Um I appreciate that the enthusiasm over a particular design that um but I I think we don't want to try to engineer uh the the outcome from the dais. Um there are a number of possible uh improvements to security at the crossings, which Caltrain is continuing to pursue uh right now. Uh these rolling gates I think is um it's intriguing but not necessarily robust and and as a result uh it doesn't appear like it has been propagated beyond one intersection sometime ago. If if that worked, great, but um I I think that the real focus is uh I I would simply say rather than enhancing closure, enhance security uh at the crossings. And as an example, and we don't have to say in addition to the quad quad gates, we don't have to reference rolling gates. It's just give that direction to an open-ended set of pursuits on whatever may make those crossings safer and more secure. >> At the appropriate time, Mayor, I'd like to comment. >> Yeah, I would like to to hear from you. Let me just if I may, Mr. Mover. Um yeah, I I do think that the language could be better. I had not wordsmith that. I I think it could be to because it doesn't even I'm actually hoping they wouldn't be rolling. That's just what that those were called. They're actually still in uh they're still functioning outside Dublin. I hope to see them in a couple weeks when I'm there. Um but I guess the point was I I would hope we could just do it with gates that would move and not roll. And I do want to hear what the city manager is going to say, but I guess the idea is that we explore gate options for Because because the idea is to try to enclose even though we may not, but maybe you could say for enhanced enclosure or safety. >> I was just suggesting enhanced security measures and it's even broader than than gates. >> We could or safety measures, is that what you want there? I want the word enclosure in there somewhere because I think there's a possibility that we can do that and if we could, how magnificent would that be if we could do both things. We might not be able to. >> Well, enhanced security measures includes that possibility, but it doesn't uh predetermine it. >> I just want that to be something that is expressly explored. So however, so Mr. Mayor, what do you >> I'm fine with what's on the screen now. >> Mr. City Manager. >> Yes, thank you. Perhaps just a couple of clarifications or or confirmations of our understanding. As it relates to that amendment, I'm sure the council can understand that exploring any options can take away from the critical path of really trying to get to implementation of the quiet zone. So would it be accurate to say that we wouldn't want any exploration to not interfere with the time frame for implementation or you know, again, really with our primary focus being implementation of the quiet zone as quickly as possible just to ensure that we don't again paralysis by analysis would be what we would Uh, certainly want to avoid uh, the on section B, uh, the reference to the rail ad hoc committee. I think we assume that to be the rail committee, not the rail safety ad hoc committee that was established for uh, in direct response uh, to this crisis. That's accurate. And again, uh, the reference to authorizing any budget adjustments, presumably all of that would need to come back to the city council for approval since uh, we don't know what those budget adjustments would be at this point. >> Thank you. Um, I hate to put them on the spot, but I don't know if Caltrain I I I sent you a note over the weekend way too late to expect much of anything, but uh, do you have any thoughts on uh, the the the timing of the quiet zone exploration if we were to look at a more than one more than just the quad gates option? If so, I'd be happy to invite you to the podium. Thank you. >> Uh, good evening everyone. Uh, my name's Jerry Garcinio. I'm the chief safety officer at Caltrain. Um, if it's okay, I'll just, you know, this is my first time before this council. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, I have to applaud everybody's efforts here. It's, you know, not the easiest thing. Um, I started with Caltrain in January 2026. I come from the East Coast. I was born and raised in Philadelphia. I worked for SEPTA in Philadelphia for over 20 years. I uh, oversaw their bus and rail system, which was commuter rail, and I had the great opportunity to get be in DC for five and a half years, and then come to this, you know, great organization, Caltrain. Work with everybody here. Um, I did uh, see your email uh, over the weekend. And um, you know, there's as for a time frame, I think uh, you know, it's very tough to look at this right now. I think we're doing a great job with the city of Palo Alto to accelerate these quiet zones and but adding something in with the FRA coordination and the CPUC, it there's a possibility you could actually delay things. But we certainly please >> I'm assuming it would add some bolts of time. I just don't know whether it would be you know, 10% or 100% and I know you can't know, but if you had any kind of way to help us think about it. >> Well, um you know, we've we're going to introduce some of these initiatives which are very thoughtful and things like that. You have to do a safety assessment, a whole risk and hazard assessment on these particular quiet gate gates that we're talking about which possibly could delay this quiet zone um implementation. Now, from what I heard tonight, we want these quiet zones to be implemented in you know, fiscal year 2027 I heard. Um but I would like to add in for the council that we've adopted a crew strategy in February of this year that has different initiatives on every railroad crossing on our corridor to make it safer and look at other opportunities as well. And as the Jed Foundation also mentioned speaking with them as well, looking at um you know, CCTV systems for for enhancements as well. So, we're looking at different things. I understand where we're trying to go, but there's just many things that are unknown at this particular time and I just want to bring that to the council's attention. >> Since since this is addressing all four rail crossings, but I assume that they're each individually assessed. Is that right? Like each each quiet zone is individually cuz like here we're talking about accelerating Churchill. So we could actually accelerate Churchill as fast as possible and then other crossings. At least one other to explore this if it So cuz I guess what I'm saying is then it wouldn't delay this at all, right? Cuz I I assume we're not doing it as a all four at once. Is that right? I mean, you know what I'm saying? The same We need not put in the exact same application for all four. >> With If I could again to your earlier council discussion, I think the the um objective and and the direction is to enable evaluation of options and not prescribe a particular one. I think if the council does want to prescribe a particular one, quite frankly, we've heard concerns about the ability to implement the particular concept on a high-speed crossing and as such, I have to tell you how much time we will spend evaluating that option could very likely delay our implementation. >> I'm afraid you may not be hearing me exactly what I was trying to say. Um may maybe you were I guess what I'm saying is not to do anything different than what was already planned at the Churchill one because that's where we want to accelerate the most and then look at other options. I think that especially if we're going to iterate this four times, to not optimize it, does not seem appropriate to me. And so but what I'm trying to say is if there's you know, great interest in accelerating at Churchill, I will stand down on looking at what I think could be optimal because I'm getting a sense from my colleagues they want to go fast, but I would think that we would want to explore optimization before we iterated it four times. Council member Ricks Dell. >> Yeah, well, if you ask my neighborhood, they're going to say accelerate Charleston as quickly as possible. All the neighbors up and down them hate the horn, and so I think we need to go as fast as we can. So, I would break C into two as one is we want to go as fast as possible, but then without slowing it down, look at these other safety enhancements. Can we do something that's even better? But I don't think we want to slow down at all because I I think the odds of um railroads accepting new technology is really slim. And so, I'd rather be a realist and get the quiet zones in as quickly as we possibly can, and then in parallel in the background, be looking at is there a better way of doing that cuz that's going to be a long-term process. And uh the other thing is that I would say um Yeah, so on the last bullet, we talked about Churchill. I think we want to accelerate it on all crossings. But also, I think we want to not have staff only, but staff and rail committee on C. Include rail committee in that also. >> C went away, so I think you mean B. >> C. Staff and rail committee. Do you accept that friendly amendment? >> That's fine. >> Yes. >> Okay. And I agree with city manager as written it looks like we are willing to take some um chances with new technology, and I would prefer to say break that into two. One is uh or change the wording, cuz we really want to make it clear. We want quiet zones as quickly as possible. >> Okay, after zone. >> Yeah, I'm I'm fine then drop that except move after their zone, drop and explore gates to part D. >> Yeah. >> I'm fine with that, too, and I'll just say that um I'm hoping we can do that relatively expeditiously without a huge re-engineering. There might be more. I don't know that we've looked into it at all. It may be and there may be other reasons it's a non-starter if the FRA or others don't want things across their tracks. I fully realize that, but I just think that given our history here, that it's important we try to do the best thing we can. Councilmember Bert. >> Um yeah, so I think we still have uh some ambiguity here in D where it says in addition to quiet quiet zones, it's not clear whether this motion is saying to combine that at the outset with what's necessary for a quiet zone uh versus to explore this in parallel, and these measures uh I think the reality is if we have other enhanced safety measures, they may follow the quiet zone as opposed to being able to be done simultaneously because the FRA and the CPUC, as Jerry had indicated, um uh they uh they are not uh easily convinced to adopt new unproven technologies that haven't been done in the US. Um and so if we simply say explore uh it says gate options, but I I really think we want to have a broader uh uh direction here. It's enhanced security for the grade crossings of a range of technologies, which would include um gates or uh and the the one um uh design that you uh had identified. Um so I think we want to be clear in what we're uh adding here. Um I am someone who very much uh wants to continue to pursue advanced security measures. Oh, and the other thing is um it it really needs to be in collaboration with Caltrain. This is going to be mostly a Caltrain task who will work in collaboration with us. We're not going to have the city resources and the expertise to uh uh come up with uh a new innovative best technology for grade crossings. >> If I might reiterate that, uh this is very consistent with the work that Caltrain has been doing really for the last several years in in particular, but uh certainly over the last several months in cooperation with the city. >> Yeah, that's great. Um I guess the thing is I I happen to find one that was in Ireland. I don't know if there was one in Milwaukee, you know, or Texas. I just don't know because I'm not a train expert and I don't think we've scratched the surface to know. It might be unproven, it might be inappropriate, it might be proven next door in Nevada. I have no idea. So, I think we can't really make any presumption until we start down that path and I would just like us because of all the reasons that I mentioned, one enhance safety, but also I think the community you know, talking when we talked earlier about they know we're hearing them. We're doing now what we think is best now balancing out the various public safety concerns. What we would be doing here though is still trying to optimize to reduce this problem in our midst. And I guess I just don't want it on some slow boat where we do get into this analysis paralysis. So, I mean, I'm okay with this language. Um, it's not as written part of the quiet zone analysis, so it is separate. Um, but I just urge us to try to find the wherewithal to optimize this as much as possible because none of us want to be talking about this again. >> Well, I want to offer an amendment that is um, on D, says in collaboration with Caltrain explore enhanced security measures at grade crossings. That's inclusive of um, the particular gate design that you had seen, but it is open to whatever they may be. As you say stated, uh, we don't have a a comprehensive analysis, but I I can tell you that from my knowledge uh Britain has technologies that are called screens that go down with gates that are very intriguing. Um there's the this one in Ireland that you have seen, uh but there's not a myriad of these and we just want them we want to survey what's available and pursue whether additional technologies uh may be able to be developed uh in response to Caltrain saying we have 40 crossings for a manufacturer uh that would engineer a better technology. Uh so I just want to make sure that it is not at the outset uh one implying that it's our city staff is going to be the lead and second that um we've kind of have a preconception of what uh technology uh we may or technologies we may pursue. >> Would it be fine to say we're going to to do explore gates or other options? I mean it seems to That's fine. >> Okay. >> Is that fine? >> I Is it in collaboration with Caltrain as the outset? >> That'd be fine. >> I'm fine. In fact, I like in collaboration with Caltrain. I just want the word enclosure in there because this is the one thing that I do not see in any other one that anyone has proposed and there may be other ways to do that, but the things that go up and down, this just is always enclosed. It's It's just the the the the dangerous part of the tracks is always enclosed and I just want to make sure we have that concept. So somewhere in there, if we keep that word, then I will second it. >> To explore gates or other options in collaboration with Caltrain for >> No, it's under the there. it's over there. >> For enhanced enclosure or safety measures in addition to the quad gates. >> But we got to get in collaboration with Cal Oh, there it is. Yes. Okay. >> Oh, and sorry to get clarity I cuz I see rail ad hoc committee highlighted. I assume that that is intended. My understanding is that the rail safety ad hoc committee has completed its work. It is so that is intended to go to the actual rail committee. Perfect. >> Okay, seeing no further lights. Going once. Um Madam Clerk, please call the roll. >> Mayor Vinker. >> Yes. >> Councilmember Lawling. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Yes. >> Councilmember Rector. >> Councilmember Lou. >> Yes. >> Councilmember Burt. >> Councilmember Litcott Hames. >> Yes. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right. Well, that concludes our action items uh other than now we must go to our closed session item. Which I have to find on my agenda. Here we go. Oh. So, this is item three, conference with legal counsel existing litigation. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment? >> No request to speak and no hands are raised on Zoom for closed session item three. >> Okay. Then may I have a motion to move into closed session? >> I move we move into closed session. >> Second. >> Thank you. Take a vote. >> Councilmember Litcott Hames. >> Yes. Mayor Vinker. >> Yes. >> Councilmember Rector. >> Councilmember Burt. >> Yes. >> Councilmember Vice Mayor Lawling. >> Oh, sorry. My goodness, Councilmember Lowenthal. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stone. >> Councilmember Leu. >> Yes. >> Motion carried unanimously. >> All right, thank you. We will recess into closed session now. >> Mhm. >> All right, we're going to reconvene at 9:18 and first we'll report out from tonight's closed session. The city council authorized the city attorney by a vote of 7 to 0 to enter into a settlement agreement and pay $85,000 to resolve the claims against the city in Ann Kramer versus City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Superior Court case number 25 CV 461517. I also want to report out that on May 4th, the city council May 4th, 2026 the city council authorized the city attorney by a vote of 7 to 0 to enter into a settlement agreement to establish a process for consideration of an alternative to the proposed Builders Remedy development project at 156 North California Avenue. Settlement agreement was finalized on May 7th. That is the end of our closed session items. Mr. City Attorney, do you have comment? >> I don't. Thank you, Mayor. >> Okay. Um and so I think the only thing left to do is to adjourn. All right. Thank you all. Have a good evening. >> Thank you.

Good morning everyone. Welcome to the May 7th, 2026 Palato Architectural Review Board meeting. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Yes. >> Uh, Chair Chen, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Adcock, >> present. >> Board member Hirsch, >> Board member Jojart. Board member Rosenberg >> present. >> For the record, we have quorum and noting board member Jojart is the absent. >> Thank you. Next is agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Do we have any? >> None today. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And next is public comments. This is the time for anyone who want to speak an item that is not on the agenda. If you want to speak an item that is on the agenda, you will have it later this morning. And please note we we made some change this time. So this time is only open to people who are in the chamber that you can speak for virtual uh public comments. You will have time later this morning. Thank you. Do we have any public comments at this time? >> Um through the chair I've not received any public comment cards uh at the moment uh for inerson public comment. >> Okay. Thank you. So next I will hand it over to Claire for city official report. >> Thank you Claire Rayold manager of current planning. Give me one moment this up. Oops. Good morning board members. Um stepping in for Stephen today as the liaison. Uh just a couple of quick updates. Uh so the um items uh that have come before the ARB that are coming up to council soon include uh the 7 3781 El Camino Rial, a builder's remedy project scheduled for uh next Monday, May 11th. Um and on May 18th, we currently have scheduled the Coverly Community Center and uh the retail ordinance. Uh upcoming ARB meeting, we are planning for the 375 Hamilton parking garage as well as the 788 San Antonio um reszoning project and uh meeting schedule. Um forgot to note today that uh board member uh Joe Garth is uh absent. Um and just noting again that we will be cancelling the 618 hearing as we don't have a quorum. Uh please let us know if there are any uh dates that you'll be uh planning to miss so we can ensure we have a quorum for any other um dates. And with that I'll turn it back to you. >> Thank you. Do we have any questions at this moment? If no, we will move on. Do you have a question? >> So, uh, in the agenda, we for next meeting, we did have the vice chair and vice chair elections. That's still happening next time. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we do have the chair and vice chair elections. Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. So if no more no additional questions we will move on to our first action item which is public hearing quasa judicial 450 lit avenue request for a streamline housing development review to allow the construction of a sixstory >> sorry uh approximately six uh 76,400 square foot multif family project consisting of 72 residential dwelling units on a 0.43 acre parcel. The project is 100% affordable housing and accordingly requests concessions and waiverss persuade to a state density bonus law. The city is evaluating illegibility for the for an exemption persuade to AB 130. With that, can we have the staff report, please? Good morning board members. Um my name is Nashida Kandikupa. I'm the project planner for the 450 Littton Avenue project also referred to as LT affordable housing project. Um during this presentation I will introduce the project um discuss the project scope uh the applicable local and state codes and any requested deviations that the applicant is requesting under state density bonus law. The applicant has prepared a presentation and will discuss um the design intended approach. Next slide. The project site is located in the downtown north neighborhood of Paul Alto uh one block west of the University Avenue um strip. The sit the site is zoned as a public facility or PF district and is currently a surface parking lot with uh 52 uh parking spaces for permit holders and visitors. The adjacent uses are primarily commercial um with the exception of a multifamily building um diagonally across the street. The project is also adjacent to a category 3 historic structure located at 430 Kipling Street. Next slide. Since the LTI affordable housing project is a publicly funded project, um the project was discussed with city council at several occasions previously. The site was first introduced to city council in January of 2025 um and identified as a viable location to develop an affordable housing project consistent with housing element program 1.4 which plans for the redevelopment of surface parking lots um in the downtown Paul Walto area. In June 2025, uh the city formalized partnership with Alta Housing to develop the project and Alta in conjunction with Py Talk Architecture um presented a preliminary rendition of the plans to city council in October of 2025. The revised plans were formally submitted for staff review um in late January of 2026, which brings us to today at the ARB study session. The application is also anticipated to be heard by city council in August 2026. Next slide. A quick overview of the project scope. The project seeks to redevelop a city parking lot um consisting of 52 parking spaces into a six-story multifamily building for um with 71 units for rent um at affordable housing units and one manager unit for a total of 72 residential units. Although the project is proposing to build at zero lot line, the massing along the rear and the right, which is the two interior property lines, um has been accommodated to have um building facade variations to support light and air conditions for the residents or the units that are facing those sides. The proposed building height as measured to the top of the roof is 62 ft. Um and as measured the top of the parapit will be 66.5 ft. No private open space is required within the public facilities districts and none has been proposed. Um but a large common open space is proposed um which could be accessed for residents from level two. Um and it's oriented towards the right interior property line. Next slide. Here um the slide shows the unit and affordability mix of the proposed project. Uh the project plans for four studio units, 28 one-bedroom units, uh 22-bedroom units, one of which will be the manager's unit and 23-bedroom units for a total of 72 units. The units will be restricted to households making no more than 60% of the area median income with further breakdown for extremely low and very low-income households as shown here. Next slide. I've also included a site plan here um with the red arrow indicating the primary entrance into the building on Linton Avenue. The project proposes to add street trees along both Kipling um as well as Littton um and also will accommodate for uh visitor bike spaces in the public rideway. Next slide. On level one or the podium level um will be the entry lobby, the mail room, property management office, bike storage room, electrical and mechanical rooms and the refuse area. Level one also includes a parking garage for um residents with total of 34 spaces inclusive of compact and ADA spaces. These spaces will either have EV chargers installed at the time of um you know proposal or will be EV ready for future EV charger installation. Next slide. Levels 2 through six consist of the 72 residential units along with amenity spaces including community meeting rooms, service offices and laundry rooms. Specifically on level two, there is a common open space proposed in the form um which is enclosed on three sides and is open to the sky. Next slide. Um here's a quick glance at level three. Next slide, level four. Next slide. Level five and level six. um where the red arrow is denoted um with the roof access hatch. The roof access hatch is also shown on the roof plan um along with placeholders for solar panels and rooftop mechanical equipment uh which will be proposed at the time of building permits. Next slide. Um this is the street view of the proposed project um as seen from Linton Avenue um with Kipling um street to the left and the 7-Eleven or the commercial property to the right. Um the proposed street trees are depicted in gray. Next slide. And this is the street view um as looking from Kipling Street with Linton Avenue to the right and the category 3 historic structure at 430 Kipling located to the left. This applicant has also pro has also provided a rendering um to better envision the building in context with the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide. Um some key considerations um for the ARB um include that the project may not be denied based on inconsistency with the zoning ordinance um objective standards which the project is utilizing um or the comprehensive plan land use designation. Under state density bonus law, um the city will not impose any maximum density on projects located within half mile of a major transit stop. Um since the project is located within half mile of the Palo Alto Cal Train station um and is 100 100% affordable housing project um it is utilizing the affordmentioned density bonus clause. Um whereas the wherein the applicant can request up to five concessions and or incentives and once these are exhausted the additional waivers may be requested um and reviewed by staff. Um and the list of these waivers um or concessions has been listed in the staff report. Next slide. Um lastly the sequest status. Um the city is evaluating the project's eligibility for u processing this project in accordance with AB130 which exempts infill housing projects meeting certain criteria from SQA and also sets uh six strict timelines for city review and decision. Staff is consulting with um Tamian Nation in according with tribal consultation periods provided under AB130. Next slide. Um staff requests ARB to conduct a study session to provide feedback and discuss any adjustments to the application such that it would better comply with the city's objective standards um and pursuant to streamline review for housing projects. Thank you for your time. >> All right. Thank you very much. So before uh uh before the applicant presentation if we have any questions to the staff they say the time. Do we have any questions to the staff at this moment? >> Um just one question. You mentioned you know there this has to be reviewed at a um kind of a faster timeline. What is there months in that um like what's the timeline for uh approval of this project? >> The uh review timeline is contingent upon AB130 when the final consultation is completed. Um so at this time there's no final date when the decision has to be made. Um but that will be determined soon. >> Sorry, just to note it's final consult consultation as well as um being deemed complete as well. Um yeah, >> so this is not complete yet. Is that correct? >> Uh and generally we under AB130 um we basically have 60 days um from the date that those occur. Um, and one 90-day extension at maximum could be requested. We are hoping to move this project forward to council by August though. >> I have a question. uh there some of the letters that we've received have mentioned uh the conflict between it being a parking lot at present and that there are some requirements in the city that have been stated I don't know if they are important or not but for um the parking lot project which is sort of tied to this one is that a correct analysis Sorry, I'm not I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. >> Okay, I'll repeat it and expand on it. Mhm. Is it correct that the it is tied in some way to the parking lot that's on Hamilton that is intended to replace as well the part number of parking spaces that are presently on this lot? >> The parking spaces that are currently on this site are intended to be replaced at that lot D parking garage. And Kyle, maybe you could I don't know if you want to expand on that at all. >> Um, >> no, that's correct. Uh, the the idea is under the housing element program 1.4, uh, when we when the city redevelops any surface parking lots, uh, it >> it will have to replace it somewhere. it will need to replace any parking that is eliminated. And so the idea here uh was to uh replace those parking lots with the proposed garage at uh Waverly and Hamilton. >> Is there any legal connection there between those two projects or can it be done in any time frame that the council decides on >> uh the the new parking facility? There is there is no legal connection. This is a this is a a a housing element program that we are trying to implement. >> And so um you know while we are meeting that housing element program there are no you know hard and fast timelines or sequencing. Um I I do know as a practical matter that the lot D garage uh has been before you all for a major architectural review for one round of comments. receive another round of comments. Uh, and the, uh, city council does have that garage as part of its, uh, capital improvement, uh, proposed capital improvement budget for, uh, this year or next year. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> And their funds are are there somehow for that in case that question comes up. >> Uh, the there is >> funds for the for the garage. >> Yes. So there will be a combination of funding sources used for that project. Um and uh but as as currently budgeted, yes, there there will be funds. >> Thank you. >> Just to clarify on that, so is it required that the garage is constructed and completed before this these parking spaces are displaced? >> There's no sequencing requirement in the housing element. Um I think just as a practical matter uh we are trying to uh expedite the garage or expedite probably not the right word but we are trying to ensure that any disruption in the parking inventory is uh minimized by uh by constructing that garage. um at least as close to the same time that we would construct or the the city would construct the um proposed project at LTI. But there is no nothing in the housing element imposes a specific uh timing deadline as as to the construction of of the replacement parking. >> Any additional questions? If no, we will move on to the applicant presentation. To the applicant, you will have 10 minutes and please state and spell your name for the record. Thank you. >> Good morning, members of the board. Uh my name is Carlos Castanos. I'm vice president of real estate development at Alta Housing and I'm joined here uh with uh by Adrien Stikkin from Pay Talk Architects and we will be presenting to you um the proposal. We're excited to present to you the proposal uh that we have here. Um just real brief background, Alta Housing has been in um a affordable housing developer for 56 years based here in Palo Alto. Uh we have I believe 24 uh other housing communities in the in the city limits and um this is a great opportunity for us to move uh to to continue building into the downtown. Can we go to the next slide please? Thank you. Uh just to give you context, um I know you've already seen the aerial plan, but I just wanted to put in context to our portfolio that uh we have uh additionally 200 other uh residents or um um have apartments in the neighborhood here within 11 block radius. And so this is a great addition to to the housing that we already have um providing affordable housing within the downtown area here. Uh next slide. Uh on this slide again this you've you may have seen this slide previously for our our context on this one is that we we see this as a great opportunity to uh have a very efficient uh cost-effective development on a very nice rectangular site and uh we had this great opportunity to partner with the city on on making this uh possibility. Next slide. Yeah. And here's just some context photos of of the area just uh you know showing us how how the current situation is. Any next slide. And um what I again as we mentioned as the staff mentioned this is 100% affordable and we're looking really at targeting uh families here. um looking at um uh half of the units at least are going to be either two bedrooms or three-bedroom units and um really looking at opportunities to to build opportunity to have opportunities for the for workforce and for u residents who already live in in Palo Alto to be able to stay and in Palo Alto. And um we are also uh like I said the partnership with the city provides a great opportunity for us to to uh maximize um the development opportunities and to minimize the the the constructibility and costs associated with the with the development. We're trying to really control costs right now. our financing um situation. Uh uh really actually having a city-owned site where we could lease our the property and build on it really makes uh for a very um uh um s the financing would be very um have have a good opportunity to get financed there. Um next slide please. And just quickly going over before I turn it over to Adrian, uh our our site what we're looking at as as staff mentioned is a six-story development. And um that is a decision that that we did a lot of analysis with staff and city u u encouraging to see how high we could go. Uh we we we did uh look at at higher densities and then realized and came to a conclusion that that having the six-story development uh really maximizes the financing opportunities that we have out there. There's almost like a a tipping point after when you get taller than this. And so we felt that we were we were very much maximizing the opportunity that we have here getting 72 units almost at about 150 units an acre on this site. Uh and um we are parking almost at about half a parking space per unit here too. And um really I think at this point I'll I'll turn it over to the next next slide. I'll turn it over to um Adrien to continue talking about the the design. >> Good morning. Adrien Styen Pychek Architects. Um you could go to the next slide. What we're we started with is extruding the the site boundaries. Um next slide. and then starting to carve away. We've we worked with um staff and council on orientation of the open space. So, we've carved uh at the interior rear of this or side of the site depending on how you want to look at it. Uh next slide. Uh and then further uh refining the massing to allow for light and air at units to shape and make sure that this is an attractive building from all sides. um that there is opportunities for fenestration on on every frontage. Uh next slide. Uh and then making sure that there are pockets for landscaping and improving the public realm along the ground floor on both Littton and Kipling. Next slide. Uh and so you can go on to the next slide. Um we've shared these exonometric renderings uh both looking south and showing the building in its context of of downtown. Next slide. Um as well as looking northeast um away from the Cal Train and showing some of the taller buildings that are away from from Cal Train and showing it in the context of those structures. Next slide. So ground floor which you've seen 34 parking spaces uh 72 bicycle spaces the residential lobby entry on uh liten um with residential management offices and uh associated building services spaces required for the operation of the building like me uh mechanical electrical uh etc. Uh there's a significant carveout on the ground floor for a site transformer. Um and that we are using as part of the massing strategy to reduce the volumes. Um so taking advantage of that uh desire from the city uh and using it to our advantage to create some massing breaks in the in the facade. Uh next slide. Um, you can see the very simple she C-shape uh podium courtyard with uh community room uh and community resident community kitchen. Um some service offices all sort of associated with that ground uh second floor podium landscape area. Uh there's also a laundry room on this floor. You can go on to the next slide. Um actually go back one the the other uh spaces where we have carved the building to create light and air opportunities those are being used for um storm water management planters. Um so where we're not creating outdoor uh habitable space we we are using it for storm water management. Uh next slide. Um and so the building repeats on uh the floors above the carveout for the transformer um created the studio unit. Um the stair on Linton actually goes all the way to the roof um and has a stair penthouse on the roof. The stair on Kipling is the one with the roof hatch. I can keep going. So you see there the roof hatch um for the stair to Kipling and the stair to Linton coming to the roof and that's been done in coordination with with city departments. Uh next slide. Uh street landscape. You can see some of in the pockets and the recesses. We're doing what we can to maximize and balance parking but also make sure that we're making an inviting streetscape for pedestrians. um and treating all of our on-site and off-site uh storm water management um in in the right of way or on-site as appropriate. Continue uh some examples of the street landscape items um uh public uh bench seating uh planters uh some special paving at the front door, storm water management, uh public bike parking. Next, uh again on the courtyard, a trellis, some screening trees, um some children's play areas appropriate for family affordable housing, uh some benches and lounge lounge seating. Um we'll of course do um bay friendly landscaping and um low water use plantings and then as I mentioned in the setbacks, the bio retention planners um taking water from the roof. Next slide. Uh some examples of those landscape elements um a play structure uh seating uh trellis spaces and of course paving paved areas. Next uh some perspective renderings from the street level uh the intersection of Kipling and Littton. We have um really tried to emphasize the the front door of the building on uh Littton without making a big sign about it. Um there is a raised twotory um stonelike facade material that is um adding emphasis to the corner and then we're dropping that down as we move away from the corner and into the other massing elements. Next slide. And those are further trimmed with um uh cornises to to break down the massing and create a base metal top in the facade in the fenestration. Uh next slide. Uh here a closeup of the perspective rendering on uh for the main entry. And you can move on to the next slide. I see that I'm over time. Um go ahead to the next slide. a view uh at lit at night uh from that same intersection. That might be our last slide. Next. Nope. A night rendering of the entry. Next, uh materials, building materials called out um provided for you. I'm happy to answer any questions. Again, um and more detailed views of the renderings of the elevations, and you can continue on. Uh so breaking it down into multiple masses along the longest facade, making sure that we have fenestration on the interior lot lines um where possible. And next and that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much for presentation. So before the board have questions to the applicant, we will uh hand it over to the public comments. And do we have any do we have material boards here? Is it over there? Thank you. Uh do we have any public comments at this moment? >> Um yes through the chair we have um three public comments. Um I will start with our first public comment. Um one in person and two on Zoom. Our first public commenter is Herb B followed by Echol. So I'll invite Herb to the mic. >> Okay. Thank you. You will have three minute and please state and spell your name for the record. Thank you. >> My name is spelled the same way it is on the card. I submitted Herb Borak HB B O R O C K uh uh Cherinian board members uh when when the ARB was uh created to uh replace a a staff committee that that had in the past done design over 50 years ago. Uh it became involved in the public process including the environmental review process. And so while you would like to have your meetings you limited to the design issues uh if the environmental issues have not been addressed uh it's important to bring those to your attention. I appreciate the comments from uh board member Harrison and Cher Chen relating to the financial and timing respects of the replacement of the 52 public parking spaces that are uh being removed. uh but that doesn't address the environmental issues which are that uh the two parking uh projects are segments of a single environmental project and each segment cannot be analyzed separately for environmental review which means uh that you can't look at this project solely under AB130 you have to look at the combination of removing the 52 public parking spaces from here and replacing them uh at the uh garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue across the street from the Hamilton Avenue post office. Uh depending upon where uh you know the other project is an environmental review, it may may lead to me having to then consider those are financial and timing issues. But to the extent that uh I know the environmental uh document hasn't been prepared yet here uh they do need to be uh considered as a single project for for California Environmental Quality Act. Also uh the parking lot that's there now replaced on Linton Avenue with two structures. There was on the corner of Linton Kipling, I believe, a resale shop and next to it um a uh known as the Palata Peace Center which had a variety of uses and there's already a history with with the Fry site of memorializing a historic situation even though there's been an intervening use. Uh it was originally for the concerned citizens against the Vietnam War. Uh the uh the resistance draft resistance also moved there. the Palo Alto Tenants Union and their food conspiracy that bought food you collectively in San Francisco markets uh and uh the US China people's friendship association was housed there uh and after the project was approved and prop 13 came along it was the site of the initiative campaign for rent relief to get on the ballot an initiative petition uh to get the promises made in Prop 13 for residents. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Christopher B. Christopher, you may now speak. >> Uh, can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Awesome. Okie dokie. Um, I want to say a lot of things and I don't have a lot of time, so I may not be as eloquent as usual, but I was looking at this project quite a bit. Obviously, I care a lot about Palo Alto and um, boy, there's just no setbacks. I mean, you guys are just want to push this right up to the edge of the street. And um you know, I've been observing this sort of uh development in downtown Redwood City and I can't believe how much worse it is. I mean, it just creates such a claustrophobic effect compared to having nice open places. And it's very important to have an interactable streetscape, especially with a large building in a walkable neighborhood like PaloAlto. So, I really don't like that you've pushed this out to the edge here. The building should be set back and there should be plants on both sides of the sidewalk. You've provided minimal on your side, which is just pretty offensive. Honestly, it's very unhealthy to live in a urban environment. You cannot really breathe very well out here with all the pollution and you absolutely need to have more plants. So, this has got to be pushed back and you know, if you got to put an extra story or whatever on top of that, that's okay. I'm wondering if the courtyard is interactable by the public, that would make this a lot uh more of an asset to the citizens of PaloAlto. But I couldn't really tell from the uh stuff I was looking at today. Um I feel compelled to speak out. Um I hear a lot of this um we're going to build affordable housing. It's going to be cheaper. But um affordable housing is subsidized housing which means that this project will raise the rents of every project around it even more than all all projects do that but subsidized projects will do that even more. So in the effort to lower housing prices this will not help. Um, but I should also say because I've been hearing a lot of hysteria, building houses in PaloAlto will not lower the price of housing. Housing is a global commodity. There are about 2 billion houses in the world. So, you would have to build, you know, a 100 million, 200 million homes to significantly uh put a dent in the price. I'm running out of time here. So, thank you for listening. >> Our next speaker is Echo L. Echo, you may now speak. >> Oh, hi everyone. Um I think uh with respect to the proposed San Antonio resoning, has the city and the school district completed a you know comprehensive assessment of the potential impact on public school cap uh cap capacity within the affected attendance area. So specifically, could the increased uh residential density result uh from the resoning create enrollment overflow pressures at the school? Um especially for the middle or high schools and if so uh what sort of mitigation measures are being planned to address potential over uh crowding, you know, CL size increase or boundary adjustments? Um yeah, thank you. Our next speaker is Jeremy L. Jeremy, you may now speak. >> Hey, good morning uh ARB. Uh really lovely conversation presentation from staff. Uh I'm Jeremy Lavine speaking on behalf of Palo Alto Forward. We are committed to promoting housing affordability and multimmobility transit options in PaloAlto and we're really excited about this project. We think it would be a lovely addition to our downtown. It's designed really thoughtfully. Uh we're hopeful that the ARB will provide its architectural insights and urge this project to move forward just as the council did unanimously when they last discussed it. So, thank you all for your time. I'm looking forward to your discussion. And uh through the chair that concludes public comment on this item. >> Thank you. Thank you all for your comments. So we will back to the applicant. You will have 15 minutes to rebuttal uh if you want to respond to any public comments at this time. You don't have to if Okay. Okay. So we will turn we will close the public portion for this project and we will turn it back to the board. Do we have any uh questions to the applicant who want to start? >> Sorry, the applicant does have an opportunity to respond to public comment and rebuttal if they would like. >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that. I'm sorry. >> And they declined. >> So, uh >> I I had one question. >> Yeah. Uh just sort of for clarity sake, you're you're going to be leasing the project uh the property then, huh? Uh out of curiosity, uh what's the term of that kind of lease? >> Uh we are right now working with city staff on on the terms, but usually it's a very nominal ground lease, annual ground lease, and it's usually the term would be uh hopefully close to 99 years. So, it's it's a very long-term grounds with the building's going to be there for a long time. So, we're trying to keep it a long-term lease. Yeah. >> Thanks. >> I have a question a couple of questions regarding um I guess set back and exteriors. Um so, um as one of the public commenters also mentioned, it is right up to the lot lines. Um I guess two questions. One is especially on the south and east side where it's right up against adjacent properties. Um one is if either one of the one is a historic building uh I forget if it's eligible or listed and the other is not if say five, six, eight story building came next door. How does that impact the residents of this in terms of daylight um livability? Yeah, the um south interior property line to the 7-Eleven. Um we did study actually an orientation of the building that opened the courtyard north um with staff and uh that study reduced the quantity of units because in order to provide adequate uh separation of the building and provide sufficient daylight and access to air, we really need to set back at least 10 ft. and we are right around 10 ft for um the units that do face that interior property line to the south. Those units do orient actually towards the courtyard and so those are secondary windows to that unit um on both sides actually of the courtyard. The units that are most impacted by future development are the ones on the east interior property line. Um we did provide about an 11 foot um setback for those units to provide adequate light and air and separation to the interior property line. It also provides some relief for light and air to the adjacent structure by setting that building back. Um, so that's what we've been able to do to sort of maintain a usable uh and adequate courtyard, but also make sure that we're providing some variation in facade and make sure that we give light and air to um the residents in this particular project. Hopefully that answers your question. >> Um, yeah. So, is that also true for the unit that's on the south east? Because that's the three-bedroom unit. Yeah, that's it's really the only unit that faces directly south and it is set back um at least 10 ft from the property line. >> So, what is that dimension from the south property line to that? Um >> I think it's 10. It might be as much as 11, but it's not more than that. >> Looks like 9 something in the >> It's probably 9 ft to the inside of the wall, but 10 plus to the property line itself. inside of the wall of the podium. >> I see. Um so related to that um and so that side is 9 ft. I think the need my glasses. The um west side is less than that. I think it's like eight something. Um so are those windows operable? Um or do they need to be fire rated windows? >> They're allowed to be operable when the separation distance is over 5T. Um, so we we have less we can provide less openings 5T to 10 ft, but we can still provide openable windows and they do not have to be fire rated at that distance. >> So are these are >> and they are planned to be openable and not fire rated. >> Okay, that's it for right now. >> And uh thanks to board member Adcock. I was jumping and uh asking her questions on the side cuz I had similar questions to her. >> Um I'd like to talk a little bit about the exterior um styling of the building. So you've got on the the top you've got these beautiful details for these corbals things like that on the top especially at the Linton and Kipling corner. Um >> around the windows it appears on the renderings that they're pretty flat. Um however I did note that there was a a sort of call out saying that there was going to be some metal trim around the windows. Can you please clarify how you're going to treat the the the window trim? >> So, what we've proposed is a a what's called a deep backset or self-panning window on the street facads, which provides some additional depth from the plane of the building, the exterior facade of the building to the plane of the glass. Uh, and then we're also proposing um a thin fin, a metal trim fin that would project no more than four inches, probably two to three in that would uh create some additional perceived depth um of the window and create some additional shadow lines on the facade. >> Would you consider sort of the overall style or aesthetic of the building? Would you consider it traditional or modern? It's trying to walk a very fine line between both of those things, I would say. Um, we did look to um downtown buildings, including the hotel >> um that have sort of a Spanish style to them. Uh we looked to uh simulated divided light windows. We we that are um there are real divided light windows on that project probably. Um, but we were looking to those kinds of buildings around downtown PaloAlto for our inspiration. Um, and recognizing it's a modern building, it needs to use modern materials. Um, but also still uh reference back to the fabric of downtown. >> Okay. Thank you. And then on the entry area, you have this sort of >> plinth overhang. Um, not quite sure how to describe. And that's also angled as well. Correct. Can you tell me how far that sits over the top of the sidewalk? Cuz that one does project past property lines. Correct. >> It does. It is. It is really the only thing other than the very very top cornis that projects over the property line. Everything else is really contained within the property line. Um that projects over the property line I think at its greatest depth maybe 40% of the sidewalk width. >> Okay. Uh, and then it reduces down to more like 25% of the sidewalk width. >> Great. Thank you. And then for the residential garage entry, can you tell me a little bit about what that system will look like? Is it going to be a garage door? Is it going to open and close overhead? Is it going to >> swing in? Is it going to be chain link? >> We're planning for a overhead door. Um, we haven't gotten into that level of detail, I will honestly say, about how exactly it'll operate, but there isn't sufficient clearance for it to swing um or to roll. So, it will be some sort of overhead operation. >> And then in terms of styling of it, do you guys have any ideas of how you're going to angle this, the aesthetics of it? >> Say your question again. Sorry. >> Sorry. What? So, right now on sheet like A3.04, it basically looks gray. >> Yeah. >> Right. with panels. So, I guess the question is >> we will color it. Yeah, it's a placeholder. We will color it so that it is consistent with the rest of the facade materials. >> All right. And then I'm also gonna hold up the green color. >> Yeah, >> I got to ask about it cuz the in the renderings the green looks much darker. Now, I'm obviously I'm a fan of this color. My phone matches it, but I'm curious where where this sort of green came from in particular. >> Yeah, I think we we have been moving around on that color for sure. Um, and looking for something that is soft and quiet, honestly, as an attitude for the color. >> Go away green. >> Not a go away green, but a but a retreating um not trying to be big bold color. >> Got it. Okay, understood. All right, that's all my questions for now. Thank you very much. >> Uh, come back to a previous question. So, you did mention that the windows are operable and I did find uh on your sheet A3.07 07 that they will be single hung windows which goes back to Kendra's question about you know the style >> of this and your elevations have a 1/3 2/3 proportion on the windows >> but a single hung window would be 50/50 >> it could be 50/50 in this case as a type 3 building we don't have to provide egress um from windows or rescue from windows and so the opening percentages can be smaller um in a family building we also want to be considerate of fall protection for small children. Um so we are still I think working out the details of that exactly but the um the other consideration is operationally and for maintenance the single hungs operate and maintain better than a casement window would >> um in the same configuration. It isn't a single hung window. Correct me if I'm wrong. Kind of the line is down the middle. >> It doesn't have to be. It's most commonly. >> Sorry, I'm going to jump in here. I didn't know that they you guys don't have to have emergency egress compliance with the windows >> in a type three. >> You do not. >> It It's a building code thing. Um it's not a planning code issue. So in theory, if there was a fire in this building, the windows would not be an easy access escape route for the people who are living in this building. >> They're not required to be >> understood. And the way that they are designed right now with the 1/3 2/3 that opening would basically be a 1/3 opening. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> I have a couple of questions on the parking garage as well. Sure. So for the parking uh parking space here are they assigned to the uh units above? You have 72 units and then you have 32 34 spaces. our property management would um when they lease up to the residents that there's not an assigned unit uh parking there would be assigned once the the the units the parking spaces are are determined with the residents who are coming in whether they have a car or not and then that would be an assigned space. Yes. >> Okay. And since this is a rental uh rental property so how will you deal with like the moving conditions? Is there like loading space for frequent moving moving in moving out conditions? >> The um is the loading is that the what we have on the street? I'm trying to remember the design right now. What's >> we don't have a loading zone specified yet? >> Okay. >> We we don't have a loading zone specified yet. >> Okay. And so that is something you will consider later or it's >> I think that's something that we still need to work out with staff. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. to clarify there there's no um there's a car size loading space that is required. There's no uh truck size loading space that's required. Um there isn't sufficient space on Kipling, but we're still discussing um loading on Linton um and what we would like to have onsite, what we'd like offsite. Um technically with the move in um typically what would happen is they would get some sort of um encroachment permit um to temporarily have a truck parked there um for loading. Um that's our you know standard process that um people go through if they need to use the uh ride ofway for moving. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh >> I ask a related question to that. Where's the elevator in this plan? the the elevator if you uh enter in from from Littton, it is uh in front and just to the right of the >> Oh, okay. >> There's a pair of elevators there. >> I see. Thank you. So, it's not access from the garage side in >> there's there's a door from the garage >> into that lobby where the elevator is. >> So, that that lobby becomes that mixing zone of coming in from the street, coming in from the garage. >> Okay. Thank you. And for the uh biking storage currently you only have one door that is connect to the lobby. So do you have any consideration that it can connect to the street directly like connect to the have a exterior door on the kipling? >> We're we're not currently showing a street door for the bike parking. Um I what we have found in properties is that that door is not used to the street. Um people prefer the security of coming into the lobby. um they may or may not put their bike in in actuality in the bike parking room uh bike parking spaces because they may prefer to keep it in their apartment um even though the space is provided for them. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I think we also have some other uh response. >> Yeah. through the chair. I just wanted to to mention that uh in regards to the the loading that may come with um house uh households moving in or moving out. Uh just one other thing that we mentioned to staff when we came up with the unit uh plan that we came up with is that we are trying to minimize the number of studio units have more onebedrooms, twos, and threebedrooms because in our our portfolio we we notice there's less turnover and people t they tend to be more desirable to live in and grow and so so we also anticipate it would be maybe an initial move in and occasional move in move out. the that in terms of the maybe the larger vehicle um loading area otherwise it'll just be incidental dropping off of people. Um I think that the objective standards state that uh it is preferable to have uh the parking entry on a on a auxiliary street or side street rather than on a main street. I live very close to this project so I go by it all the time and I walk on the sidewalk as well. Why didn't you consider the option of putting it on on Kipling Street? There's a sort of a direct connection that and an opportunity to do that. >> Yeah, I can't recall why we we did look at that and study it and consider it and I can't recall exactly right at this moment why we discarded that option. >> Okay. >> Um but we did look at it and study it >> for sure. the predominant location of utilities is also on on um uh Kipling and so yes >> well I mean the >> yeah strangely there's there's good utility access on Kipling and that makes it a better location for all the utility spaces strangely. >> Well we know that the you have a electrical recess there for the >> Mhm. transformer. uh is what are the other uh utilities >> there? There are um there's storm and sewer in Linton, but there I think all of the utilities are in Kipling. >> Are they at the area where you would have if you could do if you would do that connect into uh the major entry into the building off of Kipling? Are they in that area at all? I don't recall off the top of my head. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um >> there should be utility drawings in the set uh that we could refer to. >> Um let me just get back to my list here. So um the other issue is that the actual parking on you know on Littton the actual entry on Littton that that is perhaps now a a somewhat heavy trafficked road >> to Middlefield and up to um Alma. But the area is going to grow in the future. There's going to be more traffic on Linton for sure. There are advertisements, as a matter of fact, out on the street saying some building is for sale nearby. So, one would imagine that the that area would grow. Is it possible to move the parking to Kipling? And I have an alternate thought about that, but mentioning it, I think I'll mention it now. You know, the street itself, the street front, the um uh the 7-Eleven store has a dead wall all along that side. >> And then you're going to come to your parking area, you know, your your entry, garage entry as a pedestrian street. Littton is certainly more used than Kipling is. What made you make a decision to put a parking your parking entry on that street and further interrupt the potential kind of passage of pedestrians on on the street >> as as I I'm going to go back to I know we studied looking at different garage entries and maximizing the parking um at the request of both staff and and council Um but I don't recall at this moment why we chose one of over the other. Um Litton is a larger street um and has better access to the network and the arterial network connector network of the city. Uh and so in that sense I think it is uh not an inappropriate location for garage entry. Um >> yeah, >> we we can certainly look into that um further before this uh project goes before council. Um I I do have a vague memory that um there was some component of considering the historic uses as well and trying to um have the garage not be located um across from those residential and his um from the historic uses. um >> on the on the north side of Kipling. >> Yeah, exactly. Thank you. >> There really only three or four houses there, right? >> Um >> could you repeat the question? >> Across across Kipling >> there there are six. It looks >> there are six of them, but I think they're all currently um commercial uses except for one. Yeah. Mhm. Mhm. >> It it was also I'm not I can't recall if it was part of the consideration, but Kipling is also a very narrow street. Um >> it's fairly narrow. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um yeah, just uh the you know I walk that street all the time and uh I think that uh thinking about about well you know maybe this should come afterwards in our considerations here. >> Let us uh leave it for the moment. Um uh you know, why did you decide that the community room needed to be uh on the same level as the uh outdoor space versus the possibility of it being on the ground floor where it might serve the community as well as the building itself? >> Yeah, I'll address that. Um, what we refer to as a community room means the community of residents. And so it would not be available to the larger neighborhood. And it's it's really and it works really well with the outdoor courtyard that allows for um resident events that would be able to spill out into the courtyard and use in and depending on weather also use the interior. Is it directly connected to the courtyard >> or do you have to go into the hallway to go around? >> No, it's sorry. >> It's directly connected to the courtyard. So, the trellis that you see in this in the plan is immediately outside of the community resident community room. >> Well, the the other reason I'm sort of suggesting the ground floor is it animates the street, you know. So you have a definitely that's an alternate choice. I I think you could have think about the possibility of if the entry were on Kipling, you could have animate that street with the the community room. I I I don't disagree with the activation of the street and the light sharing the life of the building out onto the street I think is a incredibly positive um benefit to the street life of any downtown any walkable downtown. The challenge that we face in this project is the desire for um resident parking um and the demand of utility spaces on the ground floor leave us with not a lot of options to put that community space on the ground floor. It comes it comes at a cho it's a choice. >> Uh yeah I mean clearly it would impact the parking as well. Yeah, >> but there are other possibilities there. Stackers or some some portion of the of the garage could be stackers for longer term parking and they would they could offer the possibility of uh even increasing the the parking if it were necessary. >> Stackers would increase the overall building height um to >> not really not really. you could lower the floor level from garage to to the part to the stacker area so it's sloped and you had and there's always the possibility of going down in stackers rather than going up. I just want to mention too that uh there's from a development standpoint there's cost implications and and we are trying to be very costefficient that the stackers if normally even if if you have to do a a sub half subterranean garage it's going to cost more or are doing the pit and also if we do have to raise the the um the first floor height then and thirdly is that we have um ongoing maintenance costs that will affect the operations of the building. It'll be more. We'll have to have an annual additional costs that that we have to factor in trying to keep the rents low. >> Yes. But you'd have to think about it and you certainly analysis of that is going to be important to you. I can understand that. I've spent most of my life doing affordable housing, you know, supportive housing in fact. So, we were always conscious of costs. Um, and but it would be an analysis that you could make and make make it reasonable to have more access to the sidewalk, etc. the uh community room on the sidewalk. And you know, in all of my projects, and in fact, I think even in your Wilton Court, you have a community room on the ground floor. >> We do. Um we do have a community room on the ground floor at Wilton Court. Um we did also dig down to do a second level of garage. Um that was that coupled with the um the EV requirement was a significant cost add to the project that would not have been present without having to um excavate that project. Um, I have another project in another jurisdiction that um planned for stackers and ultimately removed them uh for cost reasons. Another uh affordable housing project. >> Did it just out of curiosity, did it include uh stackers for the whole of the garage area? >> Yes. So this might only be small percentage of stackers because it's only making up for the floor space that you're you'd be losing if you moved a facility down. Uh and the other thing to think about is that actually you have around your open court you have a lot of resident mostly residential units. You have the community room but you also have mostly residential units looking out. So, it wouldn't be wrong to increase the number of units uh to fill in the community room if you moved it to the ground floor. >> The Yeah, certainly the trade-off is um an additional unit or two on the second floor um and loss of parking and so the parking ratio would go down >> or stackers would make up for it. I I think that it's unlikely from a cost perspective that the project would utilize stackers. I'm I'm saying that as an architect and what I see happening every time we consider stackers, they get removed. >> They get killed. They get killed in the process. Yeah, >> I could imagine that if it takes maintenance, a lot of maintenance, and I could definitely imagine it if there were a lot of them. But if there were not a lot of them, it might be a reasonable alternative. >> We we can look into it, but I do also have two anecdotes of two projects. one that just started construction in downtown Mountain View that we removed the stackers to get the project to actually be able to finance and and now it's under construction and another one that we're going to start construction this fall in Mountain View as well where we remove partial they're both partial stackers like partial stackers. >> Yeah. And in the this the second project I'm talking about the one start starting this fall is the first floor had some stackers. We had two levels of parking. So actually we still kept the two levels of parking but we took out the stackers and and it really saved on and reduced and lowered the building height and saved a lot of money. So I also but I but I I understand the point and we we can uh revisit looking at it. I think the idea of activation is important to us. >> Thank you. That's a pretty good answer. Um, just see >> David, can I jump in here with another question about the parking lot while we're still looking at it? >> So, I've circled on the screen this one parking space in pink. Do we really think that's going to be a usable parking space for someone to come in and make that 90° turn to park there and then as they're trying to back out to get out this way, right? Like, it's it's a tight spot snug up against that wall there. Can you comment? >> It's a tight spot. It has the same clearance to the wall that other spaces have in the garage which meet the parking standards of the of the city. >> Understood. But when you've got a car coming in this way and this one's like trying to back out, right? It's >> Sure. >> I I imagine that would be an expert rear in parker and somebody with a motorcycle is going to take that one and just call it a day. I mean, is there any is there any thought to like turning it into motorcycle parking or something like that that's just got a little bit more maneuverability because I'm just I'm I almost don't want to count that spot cuz I just don't see how people are going to have a easy enough time getting in and out of there. >> I >> And then I I don't disagree with you. >> Yeah. Sort of related is if you guys did explore this concept that this is an inn-out space, you've already got these sort of corners nicely notched out and then in theory this would be your one two three spaces there. But it does look like you would lose those two spaces overall. So you'd be down net two. >> I think we would only the the drive aisle is 24 feet, so it's not quite wide enough for three spaces. >> Got it. >> So I think it would be replacing the two at the alternate entry with >> two over here. >> The two over there and the loss of the two on the inside corner. >> Then you'd be netg -3. Okay. Yeah. Perfect. >> And and that may have been the reason why we didn't do that. >> Okay. Well, I'm just learn that one's not there anyway. >> Yeah, >> that's that's all right, though. Okay, thank you very much. And David, thank you for letting me interrupt. >> Uh how how important is the room that is kind of uh in the center of the building there? Um yeah, right there. >> Yeah. How important is that? >> Maintenance, office, and storage. Um there's often um additional refrigerators, um an additional range, um equipment to maintain the building is kept there. Uh these are really usable spaces by the operation and maintenance team um for the building and uh it doesn't take up valuable frontage uh because it's predominantly a storage space. David, am I seeing where you're trying to go with this? >> Yes, I'm I'm thinking about how about >> Can you zoom out just a touch? >> How about a double, you know, how about we've seen in >> tandem spaces? >> Yes, exactly. You got it. >> The and and I are I don't have property management here with us, but we tend to stay away from tandem because unless and perhaps if there's a way you can assign them to the same unit, >> it becomes a real management night. >> Yeah, it seems to Yeah, maybe it's more used in places where people have two cars and Yeah, I could see that. I mean, certainly town homes, you know, is always that way a possibility. >> Um, so it's it it but you haven't explored the possibility of using a piece of that space that way. Well, maybe you have. I think you know overall I I see the the planning of this building is pretty tight in terms of the way you fitted fit all the units in. But some of these things we've been talking about, it seems to me you might consider might be considered especially this uh use of the secondary the kipling for main entry for the parking because the issue of of uh to me of the uh uh litten sidewalk is really kind of critical there, you know, and if you consider that it would be something that would animate the facade on on Litton. I think it's really a very important thing to consider. You know, I I would hope that my fellow board members see that too and walked to we didn't we didn't discuss whether we all looked at the site, but since I'm the one who goes by all the time, I know exactly what the feeling is there. And the uh um the the 711, you know, wall is is disgusting, frankly. And the 7-Eleven entry of cars from both sides is also just not a working corner. It's a terrible corner and it doesn't make a corner either. You know, it's a dead parking lot corner there. >> So, um, my point is I think you understand my point here. >> I do. If you were able to move the community room down, you gain two units there. That's a a net gain in units in the building. I don't see why you wouldn't consider this very seriously. >> I think we'll work with staff on that. >> Okay. >> Do you have any additional questions? >> Oh, no. I I think I'm done. If if you don't mind, I I I do have a a couple of additional questions. So, for the trash collection, uh will you uh take the sideway during the trash collection day like staging the the the beans there or along the sidewalk? How how >> I think they would stage right in front of those doors. Yes. Uh, not on the sidewalk on the street because there will need to be a curb cut there. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> So, it wouldn't be a parking space anyway. >> I I believe they would actually just be pulled out of you think >> Yeah. Typ typically we you know we design it so it's along the frontage so that it can be pulled out of the room so that it wouldn't have to be staged on the street. >> Okay. Thank you for >> pull pulled out lifted put back pulled out lifted pul put put back >> uh >> for all the different waist >> say lifted >> or for the trash truck. >> Oh yes. Yeah, exactly. >> So there will be a guy who closely watch when the truck coming and then they they're ready to pull it out. >> So there would be a curb right there so that there's no parking. So the trash truck would come along, >> they would get out, pull it out and have it Yeah. served. And as long as it's within >> I can't really remember the exact distance. I think it's like 25 or 50 ft. Um they they will do that without additional charges. >> Okay. >> I think it's 25 ft, but it would also be staged like right at the curb, not in the middle of the sidewalk. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I think it we're we're saying staged, but I think it's for the moment that the bin is pulled out and then >> put in a few more minutes. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. And I do have a question about the stairs on the staircase along the litten. So it seems like the roof shape the roof if we go to the elevations it seems like the roof shape the materials used here are different from the rest of the project. Can you share with us about the thoughts? >> We are planning to shape the roof so that it is as minimal of a penthouse as possible. Mhm. >> Um and would I think we probably have a little bit of more refinement to do on exactly how that's constructed. Uh but the intent is to shape it so that the street edge of it is no higher than the rest of the parapit. Um and then it lifts up to grant um fire access to the roof. >> Okay. And another thing is about the laundry room on the on each of the floor. So since this is a family orientated uh property, is it possible you have the laundry in within the unit instead of like shared with different? >> It's highly unusual in affordable housing to do in-unit laundry. It is very very common to have um a centralized laundry facility and in this case we're choosing not to do a single large laundry room but to actually put um two sets on each floor um which we think it makes that more accessible to families and not having to tuck their laundry all over the building. >> And then on the sixth floor you have it noted as a music room. >> Yeah. And then we have an an sort of an extra room. Um we're providing the the required amount of centralized laundry uh plus one actually uh and then have this additional floor. I think we could easily make it another laundry room. Um if that was desired by property management, but it's also just an extra room for teens to go hang out in, for somebody to practice music, to have a quiet study room. um it creates an additional facility for the residents um with the addition of that space. So basically for the people who live on the sixth floor, they will go down the stairs and you share with the other ones. Okay, gotcha. I don't have any other questions if is it time for us to discuss to have internet and comments. >> Thank you. >> Who want to start? Thank you guys very much for your presentation. Um, I admit when I first saw the cover image, I went, "Oh, an old school downtown PaloAlto building. I love it." Um, I have to admit that I'm a little bit disappointed by the straddling of the line between traditional and modern. I kind of wish you would pick one. And if I could nudge you in one direction, I think follow what you're doing with the Corbals. Go a little bit more traditional, a little more articulation around the windows. I understand that affordable housing every every bit matters and having trim at every single one of these, you know, 150 windows is going to be a lot of trim. However, I think that your building would just be quite lovely if you just articulated these windows a little bit more from the exterior, gave them a little bit more life and made it just a little bit more traditional, lean into that cuz the downtown is already highly traditional and I think this would nestle right in with everything else that's going on there. So, if I could nudge you in a direction, it would be that. Um, on that same note, I would prefer just again aesthetic-wise a true um, half height uh, single hung window. Um, the comment about safety, I very much appreciated that that was a thoughtfulness. Now, my argument to counter that is that the sill height is really the biggest issue. So, if it's, you know, a foot and a half tall for a toddler or 2t tall for a toddler of an opening, they're going to climb out if they want to climb out. So, that would be my comment in that. Now, if you're only opening at 4 in, 6 in, that's different. But if they're going to open at least 18 in that a little kid could get out. So just either understand that and and sort of embrace it. But I I see where you're going with the third height. I just personally I think it would look better with a half height. Maybe you guys explore that. Maybe I'm wrong. I mean just it's worth a second look. Um especially when you add a little bit more articulation to the window trim uh on the aesthetics as well. The green um not my favorite, but you know I think you guys are still dialing that in. So I'll cut you some slack there. And uh maybe it tilts a little bit more yellow like it does in the front rendering where it looks more like almost a leafy or um uh living green, right? This one tilts a little blue. I mean, I know I'm getting really nitpicky here, but this one just looks a little um commercial, for lack of a better way to say it. So, um I like the stonework at the base. I actually find a lot of um value on the inside and how you've laid this out as well. I think that the trash is lovely to have. I always like seeing a centralized trash and there's a shoot on every floor and it makes it nice and easy. It keeps the building functionally clean because people don't have to go all the way down. They're not going to leave their trash in the hallway because they're just they don't feel like bringing it down, right? People move the trash through, which is a great benefit. Um I'm very appreciative you put parking in. You didn't have to, right? And so it was noted in the packet that this is not a project that's required to have parking and I really appreciate that you did it. I also on a personal note I I'm not a fan of stackers or tandemss or anything like that cuz you're always fighting with somebody to get your car in and out. Um in the vein of you know these uh Uber andyft and we're seeing more and more self-driving cars and we're seeing the you know the um cyber taxis and things like that. I think we are going to have less demand on parking over the next 10 years than we've traditionally seen. So, some people like me probably will always have their own car, but you know, there's going to be a lot of people that can can do without a car. And so, I think that this is um a nice balance, as I would put it. Um garage door. I would love to see that a bit a bit more information on that. I don't I think if it's just a plain gray or god forbid like a slatted steel one that looks like it's, you know, blocking something off, that would be a huge problem. To David's point as to whether or not the parking should be or the entrance should be on Kipling or Linton, I'm kind of ambivalent to be honest. I kind of like that the facade of the garage door next to the entrance, there could be some balance there. Maybe it's a woodlook metal, something like a clope garage door. They do woodlook metals. Uh I know that's residential, but something like that um could add a little bit more life and vitality to that streetscape. Um getting a little bit nitpicky here. Uh the studio has a massive bathroom. I mean, that thing is like dancing space inside that bathroom. So, I would maybe just re-evaluate the uh distribution of square footage in those studio apartments. Um, while I like the concept of the music room, I think that's actually kind of a really nice idea. Um, I think that it's going to be more beneficial for the people to be a laundry room. I really do. I think that for that sixth floor people to have to just go down a floor, it's just that one extra little bit of nuisance that if there was just those two extra units on the sixth floor, call it a day, everybody's lives are just that much easier. Um, I'm going to wrap up here cuz I know everyone else has comments as well. Um, I think my last item was that the the manager's unit being on the sixth floor. Um, I'm curious why that would be on the sixth floor versus the courtyard floor. I'm I'm wondering if actually being on the courtyard is a benefit or a hindrance and whether that's going to be a easier to rent unit or if it's better to put the manager at the ground level on the courtyard and then if there's people in the courtyard too late at night, the man juror can holler out their window. Um, so I would just put that out for the consideration that maybe the manager's unit is actually one of the ones on the courtyard and also close to ground level and also close to front offices, but again that's a operations question and clearly not up to me in any way, shape or form. So um, last comment. I also really appreciated your exonometric drawings of the downtown area. whoever did those spent some time on them. And it's very helpful to see this building and something so massive in the context of everything that's going around, especially having the um the historic buildings across the street, understanding the, you know, the building we're in now is quite a tall building and being able to see that in the distance. So those Axon drawings were excellent. Very, very helpful. And I appreciate they were cartoony and not like hyper realistic because again, it gives you that impression without forcing things in too tightly. So overall, well done. I think it's a very thoughtful project. Um I'd like to see a little bit more stylishness on it though, if you don't mind. So that's my comments. I'm sure some of my uh counterparts may disagree with me here, but thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> I can go next since a lot of my comments you already took care of. So thank you. um do not love the green and I think it needs to be a little bit richer um more timeless green then this is very going to get dated very quickly on the style as well I think um I agree with Kendra on the the windows and needing a little bit of trim you're spending money on fins I think trim and embracing the traditional look is a better use of that money than the two or three inch fin that you were talking about it's not going to give you any sun shading with that might as they'll use it for detailing the window instead and having a standard um single hung. Um I think uh while you may not so required a deliver or move in moveout space, I think even just designating a a parking space for a box truck cuz it is a rental property. There's going to be at least a couple of families moving in and out every year if not more frequently in a 72 unit building. So, I think making it convenient for people to be able to move in, move in their stuff. I mean, these are pretty small apartments, so it's not going to be a massive U-Haul, but just being able to bring your stuff in and out easily, I think, is is important. So, I'd urge you to think about that. Um, agree with the laundry on every floor. These are, you know, intended for families with children. Um there's going to be a lot of laundry um to deal with on the um overall massing. I I am a little sad about like the blockiness and daylight and views particularly, you know, like you said, you're going to lease this property for 99 years and we don't know what's going to happen in the 7-Eleven property in the future. if you can step it back at all on maybe fourth level or something just to make sure that if there is another larger building next door that daylight and views are not you know completely compromised for these units. I think the garden on the community space on the second floor is great. And I actually disagree with David on the the community room cuz in a a place like this, like I used to live in a townhouse community where having a community room and outdoor play area adjacent is so important. Like kids like these all these kids are going to want to have birthday parties, have like friends over. That community room where you can serve your pizzas and kids play outside. That pairing to me is a lot more important than activating the street with that community room because if there's no outside play area, it won't be a birthday party space anymore. And I think that's really important in this uh to make this a vibrant like amenities is what makes this place uh you know a nice place to live, not just your little apartment. So I think that's really really important to maintain that. So thank you for this project. I think it's as you already know it's a much needed project and I appreciate you bringing a for Thank you, >> David. >> Well, I'm sorry you disagree with me. Um because I I think there would be ways to animate the uh street uh make it into a walking street and consider uh a future neighborhood here. Um because the neighborhood will be changing. Um there'll be more more uh both pedestrian traffic and uh uh an increase in uh vehicle traffic as well on on Littton for sure because it's such a a major connector. Um, and you know, at at present, in fact, there's uh neighboring parallel streets to Linton that are being used from uh Middlefield that would be better served, frankly, if there were a little less traffic because they're all residential streets. Um and and Litton after all being next to in the downtown part of the downtown area is is an is an obvious uh area for and it's you know going to have probably probably more commercial than it will have residential in the in the future. or even if it's more residential, it will be uh residential which will uh respect the street a little better than what you're doing here. I don't think what is happening with the garage off of the uh off of Littton is a good is a good idea at all. Um and uh so I I definitely think that the entry uh ought to be on Kipling and uh I hope you do study it seriously. Uh knowing knowing that the traffic turning turns in and turns out etc. from a garage onto a street that is quite busy as it gets down to a middle field and busy during during you know business hours when traffic is is on Linton. And as to you know the community room I don't think really that outdoor deck is is it's a terrific idea you know to have that deck and I think the planning from the beginning has led to what the end result is here. I think it's kind of unfortunate as noted that some of those units are quite so tight to um the property line but I see what you're dealing with. So that in in some way, you know, if you actually had res uh other residential onto the courtyard for two the two units that could make up the um community room space and move the community room down to the ground floor, you would add to the actual community use spaces in the building and that would really be a benefit to everybody. I think a party room etc. uh even a game room for lots of kids that you have here. Uh uh if it's going to be uh it could be easily on the first floor, you know that you have that possibility on the first floor. If it's set back, there could be some separation from the street, but it would animate the street and make the street a much the litten portion of the street much better and not interfere that much with the Kipling, which is a very low uh passenger, you know, low pedestrian street, low low used pedestrian street. Um, so I think I've mentioned it enough, you know, I hope you will look at it again. But my other concern is that the decision, in my opinion, the decision to make a sort of a partially uh traditional building um is unfortunately kind of it's an unfortunate decision. I really think that I know your firm and I know your firm has really terrific capability to design buildings and uh you know you've shown us that that's possible uh with Wilton Court. If you're going to use it, if you're going to go to a traditional form like this, then why not make the entire cornness around the building consistent? All parts of the building. Why should one portion of it not be consistent that way? I just don't think that the breakup and the decision as to how you have done the hierarchy of this building, you've done recesses in order to uh to break the massing into these three larger pieces. um and or maybe it's actually five four four larger pieces you know on the facade that it's to me it it doesn't make sense. I mean the traditional way in which ground floors in Italy are done is you have the ground floor is is one kind of element. The piano noble on the second floor is another element, but the that is the classical tradition of architecture and it's been around for hundreds of years now. And to actually put a facade on two floors of a building and it takes up uh one corner of the building, then go the rest of the way with it and just do do the whole building that way. what but in terms of function it it never makes sense. So that's why I'm thinking that if you turn to a more modern idea and you explored it and really you know what happens in a building like this and I know this for a fact is that you design it from the inside out. You design it for the number of units you need and then you sort of decorate the outside with something that you think is going to fit the neighborhood. I think the proper choice is to use your imagination as architects to do something different. You know, do it with materials uh fresh materials. The build that that street there's such a mixup on that street right now. you know the scale changes so so completely from one end to the other and you have commercial buildings on part of it then you have you know smaller buildings it's a mixed I don't think it kind of hangs together so there's the possibility of doing a more modern building on that corner would would be a much much better expression and how you do it you know then you sculpt it from the outside in some way that you make it work or you use you change materials because you really are using traditional materials in a way that I don't think is appropriate. Um, but if you're going to do it then do the whole thing that way, you know, do do the whole base in in stone up two floors for some reason. It would be nice if it you could change the second floor, but you can't because it's really a restricted housing building the way it's planned and it ought to be planned too. If you had a second floor which with common spaces, etc., etc. Even at the corner, that might be a better way to consider it. You know, if you were going to just do the corner, then do the corner and do it maybe, you know, so that you made a made more of a an expression out of the corner of the building. Those are my feelings. It's aesthetically to me it's not a pleasing building the way it's designed. But, uh, in terms of the planning, I think it's been very well thought out. Um except I don't agree with the parking the way it's working. >> Thank you. Thank you again for your presentation. You guys did great. You are most almost cover everything I want to speak. So uh yeah. So I I I think generally speaking uh this project in this location is wonderful idea. Um it is in the north Palatoto and it's close to downtown. So, so I think and especially this project is family oriented. I think it's really a good addition to downtown area. If we zoom out to see citywide, we have lots of multifamilies on the south side along San Antonio and El Camino Rail. So, this project is a good balance between south and north and also it could be a good relief from the north south side of the Palatoto. So, I do appreciate it. And speaking of the parking uh entrance, at first I thought, yeah, uh Kipling could be a better solution, but when considering since you already speak about you studied and compare the two entrances and also the staff mentioned there may be some restrictions because of the historic building across the street. So if that is the case, I think it makes sense to just leave the garage entrance as it is. And for the um massing of the building, I do appreciate that you add additional details on top of the roof, the coral on on the top and also bring the stones up to the two uh up to the second level to treat the corner unit to be different and also lower the storm stone portion to the rest of the the building. So, um I think it's a good uh treatment for this entire building. But, uh in the me meanwhile, I think the entire building, if you look at the massing of the building, I do appreciate the breakout, the vertical breakout that you created to make the massing smaller. However, uh I'm wondering whether you could do the rest of the building. Say if you want to emphasize the building corner, the corner element, could you please uh consider at the top you also have like an additional horizontal band to visually lower the rest of the building. And then you can the corner element to be more emphasis just like what you did for the stone material on the lower floor so that it could make it different. Other than that I don't have any additional comments uh to my colleague if you want to have any other additional thoughts on that. If not, we will close. Or do you have any questions you have for us? >> Okay. All right. >> If you'd like, it might be helpful. Um, I was just kind of putting together a quick summary. I just want to Do you think that's okay if we can maybe run through, make sure we captured your comments? >> Yeah, that would be a great idea. Would you mind to put it on the screen or uh >> Hold on. I don't quite have it in a format. Hold on. They're still in kind of rough notes, but let me pull it together. >> Um Um Yeah, >> I'm not sure if you Give us one moment for sure. All right, they're up on the screen now. >> So, they were still a little bit rough, but um you know, generally we're noting um consider the program music space to be another laundry room. Uh reconsider the color of the green that's proposed. uh explore modifications to the windows design to have a more traditional look and a detailed trim rather than adding a fin. Um take another look at the studio apartments and the ratio of the bathroom to the rest of the unit as well as the location of the manager's unit. Uh continue the corell I'm not sure about this one, so correct me if um this wasn't didn't quite capture, but continue the coral at the top of the structure to have more consistency across the building. Um, and then, uh, consider emphasizing the corner element by adding a horizontal band at the top, um, to help visually lower the rest of the building. Um, and consider the plan for move in and space to accommodate a U-Haul truck. Um, there uh, there were a couple of these additional items that maybe we didn't have consensus on. Um, but we can, you know, certainly speak to a little bit more as part of the council report of looking into the community room on the ground floor. Um, and looking into revising the parking garage entrance and and maybe why we selected um the Linton Avenue does that >> coral is actually con uh cornis. >> Yeah, sorry. I wasn't sure exactly what was said there. So, thank you. I think you're right. Well, there's a cornice with corbaline. So, just and can you clarify maybe what I I believe that was board member Hersha's comment about um kind of maybe what you were looking for there extending the cornice. Okay. And hopefully that's a s generally good summary. Let us know if there's anything we missed. >> I guess just on consensus right now as designed there's the corner is different with the double height uh twotory um the stone portion and then the corbold cornice and just that corner. So I guess it's kind of um you know not to you know u direct too specifically to the architects but either if that cornice with with or without coral is continued to the other sides than other blocks then that whole you know corner being different gets more watered down. So then consider how that would then uh impact the other facades as well. Okay, thank you. Noted. Okay. Yeah, looking good here. Okay. So, I will close this item here and we will take a 10 minutes break and come back at 10:29 27. Thank you. Okay. So, welcome back. So, we will move on to our action items number three. U public hearing quasa judicial 800 8008 814 San Antonio Road proposal to reszone the subject properties from PC-5622 to a new planned community planned home zoning and to redevelop the site with uh with an eightstory 174 unit residential building with 35 below market rate units uh squa status an addendum to the previous certified housing incentives program expansion and 788 San Antonio mixeduse property EIR is currently being prepared. Um so uh can we have the staff presentation please? All righty. Good morning board members. Uh my name is Joey Den. I am a senior planner with our current planning team and it is my pleasure to present to you item number three which is as you mentioned before 808 San Antonio. It's for a planned community planned home resoning. Next slide please. So, this since this is the project's first review with the ARB, I wanted to frame some of the design concerns that staff is hoping to get feedback on such as um project massing, stepbacks, um the San Antonio road street frontage, the ground floor design, parking and service areas, open space, and also the just the general relationship to the San Antonio uh road area plan. Now, no formal recommendation is being requested today. Um, environmental review and departmental review is is still ongoing. So, the project will return to the ARB for formal recommendation at a later date. Um, but following ARB's uh second hearing and formal recommendation, the project will then go back to uh PTC for their formal recommendation. And then finally, with PT PTC's recommendation, the project would then return to council for a final decision. Next slide, please. So the site is located on San Antonio Road near Lake Horn Street. This corridor is currently characterized by one and twostory commercial and service uses. It is in the transition process um because there's several nearby either approved or proposed housing projects um including San Antonio Road which I will mention later on in this presentation. Um, also 762 San Antonio Road and 824 San Antonio. Next slide, please. A little bit of the project overview. So, for this PCPHZ, the project is proposing um an 8story residential condo building. The listed maximum height is 88 ft 6 in. This is measured to the top of the roof parapit. But I also just want to note that um additional height may be associated with the rooftop garden trellis and um any other mechanical enclosures which will be determined as the plans get refined. They are also proposing 174 residential units of which 35 will be BMR units. Um no retail is proposed. The floor area ratio is 4.7 and they were also proposing 202 parking spaces to go along with it. Um I just wanted to note the current site plan that or the current plan set that we have shows it as 202 parking spaces. Um this is revised from the 203 parking spaces described in the staff report if you caught that. Um, I also just wanted to compare it to the previously approved PC which was, you know, a five-story much lower building. So, essentially the project is now taller, denser, um, and no longer includes the previously approved commercial space. Um, last note is a separate vent uh, vesting tenant map is going to be required to merge and redivide the lot. Next slide, please. So, for the site plan, the primary access will be off of San Antonio Road. Um, this includes pedestrian access from San Antonio Road to uh giving ground floor access to the residential lobby. Um, trash pickup, loading, and also the ramp to the underground parking garage will be located along the singular driveway on the it looks like the north side of the site plan. Now, the current proposal maintains a 24 foot special setback along that San Antonio road frontage. Um, this is really going to preserve any future multimodal improvements being studied through the San Antonio road area plan. Um, staff just wants to notes that PTC recommended an easement over the setback area uh specifically for those future multimodal improvements, whatever they may be. Um so piggy piggybacking off of that um any ARB feedback would be helpful in how this frontage functions in the interim um before those future improvements are constructed and whether this frontage as proposed supports uh pedestrian oriented design. The duck out in the staff report or the rolled curb as proposed is shown here is proposed for emergency vehicle and fire access but this remains to be uh under fire uh department review. The again on the commercial space the current proposal removed that um the previously approved planned community included approximately 1,000 square ft of ground floor retail. Now, this change was made after the council pre-screening to address concerns about right-of-way usage for projects serving operations such as trash pickup or loading. Um, during PT PTC's discussion, there was generally expressed support for having that trash service on site even at the expense of the retail. Next slide, please. So the San Antonio road area plan is not yet adopted. Um so it's not yet the adopted regulatory standard for the project, but this site is within that plan area. So the future corridor vision will be relevant to um any feedback that we get on the frontage design um such as for the special setback and any multimodal improvements. Um the the plan is expected to head to council in June. Um staff is looking for a recommendation on what the core scenario for the area plan will be. Now there's there were many options presented in this draft plan and based on all the feedback that we received through prior study sessions, staff is developing a recommendation for council consideration for this June meeting. Um but the staff recommend recommended option will likely include um potentially a 90 ft maximum height along the southern side of San Antonio Road. So along the same side as all these residential projects um bike pedestrian improvements are also anticipated primarily within the existing right-of-way measurements also on the same side. So along that southern side of San Antonio Road and then recommending that um neighborhoods serving retail be um only located in specific areas such as the North Fabian area or the CTI neighborhood. So not this site specifically. Next slide please. So these are the site plans showing the uh basement levels for the below grade parking. The project is proposing 202 parking spaces where 275 spaces is typically required. This roughly equates to a 27% reduction um or approximately 1.15 space per unit. Um they are also all of the parking is going to be provided in this belowra automated parking lift system. Um staff is still reviewing this parking system um including anticipated wait times um peak hour operations and just how the system will be addressed in the TDM plan. Next slide please. These are going to be the typical floor plans. Um the project includes a mix of studios, onebedrooms, onebedroom units, two-bedroom units and threebedroom units. um 50 about 58% of the proposed units are two to threebedroom units which um is a point was a point of interest um based on prior council feedback. Next slide please. Now I just wanted to note some of the typical upper level floor plans. Um since they did add three stories, the applicant also added common open space terraces on the sixth, 7th, and eighth levels. Um the open space will be provided through a combination of private balconies, courtyard areas, upper level terraces, and the rooftop open space area. Um all of which will provide at least approximately 150 square ft of open space per unit. Next slide, please. So again on the upper floor plans and and the roof plan staff is really seeking A or B feedback on whether these upper floor terrace terraces and the rooftop area will provide usable common open space and whether those areas will help reduce the perceived mass of the building. Um next slide please. So this is the front elevation. This is what you're going to be seeing off of San Antonio Road. So, after PTC's initial feedback, the applicant revised the plans to include some addition some additional upper level stepbacks and articulation along the street frontage. Um, I also want to note that the garage entrance currently shown in the plan, so on this plan set, it's on the lower lefthand corner. Um, it's going to be most likely going to need to be taller to accommodate access and clearance for typical garbage truck uh pickup and trash service. Um this was noted at PTC and the applicant is aware um they've already confirmed that they will be updating this on on future plans. But for the proposed materials, the applicant is proposing a mix of cy uh fiber cement panels, decorative metal panels, metal siding panels, metal trim, aluminum windows, and ex exterior glazing. Next slide, please. So these are the rear and the side elevations along the eastern and northern side. Um the special requirements under code section 1838150 doesn't doesn't currently apply because the project site was is not within 150 ft of a residentially zoned property or or another existing residential planned community district. But and the reason why this is brought up is because the San Antonio Road uh project does have a pending application for a residential plan community plan home zone. So staff is also seeking ARB's feedback on whether what the proposed side and rear elevations should include any additional articulations, stepbacks or any other privacy measures. Next slide please. So now this side elevation, this is what's going to be facing that San Antonio Road uh project. These two projects are right next to each other and they're both I believe they they are both eight stories. Um so this is pretty much what those two neighbors are going to be seeing. Um PTC did specifically request ARB's feedback on this side elevation. So, there was a lot of concerns about privacy, the massing, and then also just the transition to San Antonio Road, 788 San Antonio Road. I apologize. Next slide, please. So, this is a uh section, a typical section of the building and also kind of depicts the interior courtyard. Um, it also kind of shows the relationship between the building height, um, the interior courtyard and the upper level open space. Um, it does provide a little bit of a depiction of what the shadow will look like. So, it kind of illustrates how this proposed building may affect affect light within the courtyard and also some of the adjacent areas within. Um, but you know, this is something that staff is is looking for ARB ARB feedback on whether or not the courtyard and terrace areas are usable. Um, whether this building form provides adequate access to light and air. Um, or whether you think additional stepbacks or other massing requirements need to be considered. Next slide, please. So that being being since this is the first review with ARB and environmental review is still ongoing. Staff is recommending that um ARB provide your initial comments and also recommend that the project return to the ARB for a formal recommendation at a later time. Next slide. With that staff for any questions and I believe the applicant is also available in person but also on Zoom as well. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your presentation. So before applicant presentation, do we have any questions to the staff? >> Just one quick question. So the is the previous approve I I can't remember that was formally approved, correct? The previous PC, >> it was formally approved. Yes. >> So that's just out the window and it's a start over. >> It's it is the current zoning of the site. Uh and that entitlement is still active. However, they are proposing this project in lie of that constructing that previously approved project. >> Okay. So, it is um I guess an option for them to go back to that until this is formally approved and replaces it for the same site. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And was the PC zoning changed based on the previous project? Is it like step one and now that they got their foot in the door, they're switching out for this project or is it like I I need a little bit of clarification here. What's what prompted this massive change? >> Uh that might be a better question for the applicant to answer. >> Okay. But basically, is it still contingent that the zoning is approved based on the building itself or are those two decoupled? >> It's based on the building itself. It's been approved with the zoning for 75 units and that retail component. >> Understand? >> And the design that was previously approved. >> And so if this design is approved, the PC reszoning goes with it. >> Exactly. It would be a new ordinance um reszoning the property. >> Okay. And that would have not have the retail element to it for this version. >> Okay. Understood. Thank you. >> One more question because it went from what was it? five stories to eight and it was 75 units and now it's going to 174. So that's an increase of 100 almost yeahund over three stories. So the um the distribution of unit sizes is start from scratch. Is that how it is? >> I'm sorry. What was that again? >> Like the distribution of units like because there were 75 units before over five floors, right? So that's 15 per floor. But the way it's added now, it's another 30 per floor. Just about 33 per floor. Is that like you know the top three store floors have a higher density of units or like it's a re replanning of the entire building of distribution of sizes and >> I believe it's a replanning of the entire building. I can't recall off the top of my head. Um but >> I believe that yeah like Claire was saying I believe the entire building was redesigned to accommodate those units. It's not just uh higher density just on the top three floors. >> It is a different mix of units overall. >> Yeah. And I also wanted to point out in our packet page 66, it mentioned that the uh city council pre-screening, it also it seems like they're okay with the proposed 120 units with enory proposed five-star building envelope. So it it is more like jumping from 120 to 1175. >> Yeah. I mean um council ex you know didn't make a formal you know decision on that component. It was a pre-screening, so it's just a study session, but there seemed to be um um support from council for considering an application that had 120 units in five stories um which would, you know, was basically a greater mix of smaller units um in that previous design. Um but the applicant has come forward with um a revised formal application that includes a you know taller and more dense building >> and for the sequest status uh they filed an addendum and it seems like it also associated with the adjacent property. So how does it affect this project? >> Yeah. So um the uh EIR that was done for the original 788 San Antonio project uh also included a project specific component of the 788 San Antonio project but it also reszoned uh that project also included um adding the uh housing incentive program to the entire corridor. And so it also served as a programmatic EIR for that evaluated 818 units along this corridor. And so for a number of these projects along this corridor, we are you know doing addendums to that previously approved um EIR u to evaluate you know the project specific components. Um, but overall we've already evaluated 818 units along this corridor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any additional questions? >> Yeah. Um, on the on the drawings, the red red dashed line, that's the absolute perimeter of the build building. Is that including the setback 25 foot setback? Yeah. Okay. answered by the architect. Um, how did is there an F on this? Uh, I didn't see the I didn't note the zoning. >> Yeah, the proposed F is uh >> 4.7, I believe. >> Yeah, 4.7 >> to one. >> So, >> are you looking for the exact square footage of that? >> No, no, no. 4.7 is the number I was looking for. Yeah. So that how does that match up to the uh the uh zone on El Camino? >> Yeah, the El Camino real focus area allows for a 4.0 floor area ratio. >> 4.0. >> Yeah. So it's it's an increase in that. >> It would be an increase in comparison to that. Yes. >> Uhhuh. Okay. Just thinking about that relative to the size of the building or whatever. Um, yeah. So, the parking as shown is all within uh is it's a within the setback uh on this one here. >> Correct. They wouldn't encroach into the setback at all. >> That's good. Okay. Thanks. >> If no more questions, I will hand it over to the applicant for applicant presentation. Please state and spell your name and you will have 10 minutes. Thank you. >> You the design principal at Li Architecture and thank you for your time today. I appreciate it. Uh I know my client who is phoning in from China also appreciates it. Um I don't know if he successfully logged in, but if you have questions for him, he's probably going to be available. So uh uh I think a lot of the questions revolving around this new proposal have to do with the difference between this proposal and the previous. So I'm going to talk a little bit about that. Uh as you can see from the illustration here, this is a eight-story building and uh uh we I probably should show what we showed to the PTC. It was a very different uh facade uh facing towards San Antonio. We've made a lot of efforts to break down the facade into smaller components and uh we can revisit that as we look at some of the other drawings. This is the previous one and it's actually uh for us a little shocking to even see them side by side. Uh they have a very different aspect. Uh the question came and uh I'll see if I can find the right document for this. Hold on. There we go. So the question was why the change and uh part of the answer has to do with uh sorry this is taking some time there you go is that uh it's when the we were presenting uh to the PTC initially for the 120 unit what uh what followed after ours presentation was our neighbors at 788 were proposing an eight-story building. >> And um the reaction was that to have an eight-story building to uh the south of us would have made this building much less tenable as condominiums. And so that was part of part of it was just to be contextual with what is now appearing to be the desired aspect of the street. And then part of it is just because this is condominiums the somewhat the image and salailability. So that was one of the primary motivators. Uh with that I'll just talk about the uh front of the building is at the ground level very similar. We still have the twotory lobby that looks into the courtyard beyond the site plan. Uh you can see the as uh board member Hirsh pointed out the red dash line represents the setbacks at each of the different sides. We on the front the special setback in front we have avoided being within the setback either with the building with any overhangs and then also as you'll see in a moment with the subgrade which was a question I think in the previous um >> so we've got a fully automated parking system and uh uh this is essentially what effectively is three levels of a uh shuttle cassette system that takes your car and uh when we go up to the So you'll see, but what I wanted to point out is that the entire footprint of the garage is within the setback lines, which was a question before the previous one. As you can see, I don't have the setback lines on here, but you can see that it came very close to the property lines and was bleeding out into the setback area. This new scheme avoids that. It's much more compact. Um, we still have some work to do on the first subtraing level. You can see on the back setback, we're still easing out into it. I believe that with some further refinement, we can avoid getting into any of the setbacks on any of the sides. So, uh I'll just take a moment here to pause and talk about the operational aspect of how this works. Uh the user experience is effectively you drive down, you pull into this bay here, this parking bay. it is uh it is uh accessible. So in other words, when you move your car in there, if it's a van, an accessible van, or if it is just a standard accessible car, the way that the dock is set up, it is it complies. You effectively get out of your car and you move, you know, on the circulation spine to the elevator. Then the system takes your car away. And uh there's uh I think I included some links to videos that maybe had a chance to see uh Santa Clair. And it's really fascinating. Um it takes what it does. It takes parking which really consumes so much space that we are trying to set aside for housing and it compacts it because it removes the maneuvering space needed to get your cars in and out. The system does it. the according to the manufacturer the uh return times are a minute and a half. So once you call your car the maximum you'd have to wait is about a minute and a half and then what it does is that it delivers your car so that it's facing out of the portal here. So you get in and you just drive up. Um so all of the maneuvering is taken care of by the system. And then this this again this is the old footprint. You can see that both on the back property line and on the front uh or excuse me the setback we were uh over the setback line which we now been able to avoid. I think the other big feature and we spent a lot of time discussing this during the last round was the trash uh element of having it in the basement and uh I know many of you may still remember that discussion. We had an ad hoc committee about it and uh I think it was very educational. Uh with the additional uh density it was really imperative that the trash operations move to the ground level to the front. And so what you have here, what's shown in the kind of pinkish is the maneuvering of a trash truck as it would come onto the site, would pick up trash in this area, would be able to back out and then move off the site going head forward back into traffic on San Antonio. It uh removes what we previously had, which was a pull out and trash would be picked up at the curb side. Now it's all happening completely within the envelope of the building. That loading dock would also function for uh moveins and uh for uh casual pickup uh so like uh uh self either not self-driving cars which we found out apparently one of the PTC me uh committee members is working for a self-driving car and he said they won't they won't drive into that. uh but for Uber and Lyft that would also act as a pickup spot when it was not being used for those other operations. Uh so one of the points that the staff has pointed out and uh thank you Joy for that excellent report is that we are we've replaced the retail with an additional unit and part of it is that we had um the functions that formally occupied the zone where the trash pickup that took up a bunch of space that we needed to find other homes for. And to compensate, we have the the uh two-bedroom now immediately adjacent to the lobby. You see the bike room is back on this back corridor, one of the bike rooms. There's also a long-term bike room down the basement. So on this level, we have a gym addressing the courtyard. And uh just as a reminder, this is the older scheme where we had the commercial, we had the bike room on the front, switch gear, etc., fire pump. All of that has been relocated. And then uh one of the things you'll see is and part of the reason for the addition of the unit on the ground is that in order to accommodate the fire truck or no, excuse me, the garbage truck operations. This footprint in the upper left has a it's a double height space so that the truck can lift up the bins without colliding with the building. And then we have a series of additional open spaces on the upper levels. And this has two functions. One is to provide more open space for the building. A variety of different types of open space. And then also when we get to the sections, which I'll go to really quickly here. I'm just going to pass through this. I think Jerry showed those very well. I want to point out here this section shows the step back at the uh top two levels. Uh something that was missing in the previous iterations and then this shows the step back um addressing 788. So we are pulling back to allow more light into that uh space between there you can see the front step back on the top left and the ramp. And then here is one of the other reasons for the terraces. You can see that on uh on the lower section on the right hand side, we've removed those units to allow more light to penetrate into the courtyard. Now, this is not going to be a very sunny spot. We uh openly admit that. Um in these days and times, actually having something that's a little bit more shaded for an outdoor recreation or a lounging space is desirable. uh just because it's getting hotter and so we have a variety. We have the roof deck if you want to go sun yourself, but if you want to be outside in the shade, we also have the the courtyard and the terraces. And then this just shows a uh perspectival section of the courtyard, the terraces, and then the adjoining building. And then the material pallet is effectively the same as we had for the previous version and I've included it here for reference. All right, that concludes um oh I know that one of uh I got a note from Claire that there were questions for the landscape architect. Unfortunately, Claire, they were not able to make this meeting time. Um but uh if there are additional questions I can pass them along. Okay, that is um happy to answer any questions or go back to any of the illustrations for clarity. >> Okay, thank you very much for your presentation. Before questions to the applicant, we will open it to public comments. Do we have any public comments for this project? >> Um to the chair. At the moment we have one request to speak and if there's any members of the public um we have two requests to speak. Um our uh first um public commenter is Herb B. So I'll invite uh Herb to the podium. >> Thank you. You will have three minute to talk. >> Thank you Chair Ch. Uh this project has been introduced to you uh as a planned community planned home zoning uh project. But there is no such thing in the zoning code for planned home zoning. Uh the plan community uh zone district regulations are for sight specific uh projects. Uh and the plan home zone alleged regulations are really general regulations, the kinds that you would find in a general zoning district. Uh there there are two ways to enact uh PHZ uh regulations either as an amendment to the existing plan community zone district or as a separate uh zone district regulations, but that has never been done. And although there have been projects approved uh with with uh these ledge regulations uh nobody has had the inclination or the resources to challenge him in court. However, I think it's important to to set into the record that uh there is no such thing as a PHZ uh zone regulations in the zoning code either as a separate uh zone district or as a portion of the regulations uh for plan community zone uh district and that at some point uh somebody may decide that uh that should be challenged and that would put whichever project happens to be challenged uh at at risk of uh going forward. in this particular case uh from what I've heard of your questions that there's already some other project approved at this location and maybe uh that would be considered uh in place and not challengeable but certainly this one in its current state since it's applying for a zone change as part of the project uh would be subject uh to legal challenge if someone chooses to do it for the reasons that I stated now and that are also described uh in the uh letter that uh I submitted by email to you that's part of the administrative record. Thank you. >> And then um I I did want to offer uh Chris B a chance to speak. He uh put his hands down on Zoom. Um, Chris B, if you did want to speak to this item, I just wanted to offer you that opportunity once again. Oh, hey. Okay, Chris uh B, you may now speak. Hey, can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Awesome. Um, I'm on the road here. might be a little more discombobulated than usual, but I live across the street from this development, and so it's um important to me that it be an interactable uh piece of land that the uh community can walk by and kind of, you know, maybe there's some grass or some trees or something, something nice, you know, if it's just a big building, you know, you're walking around. It's really not an enjoyable experience at all. And besides the uh, you know, aesthetic part of that, it's really not a healthy thing to be around, which you really don't want to do. I mean, there is so much traffic on San Antonio, guys. I don't know if you've been out there in rush hour, but like people are literally in the intersection. Like, you can't you can't even move most of the time. I believe uh Ed Lowen gave us an F on our uh movement. So, what you really won't want to do is have all these buildings really close to each other and create kind of like a stagnation of the air. You really want that air to keep moving. Otherwise, people are going to be breathing. Very toxic chemicals. Um, it's really not appropriate to put a huge building here. It's very close to the bay and so it will sink. Um, this is a problem all across the nation, all across the world that people are just not thinking about these sort of things. Um and large buildings are sinking and it's going to be a problem. And um I was reading that New Orleans is going to experience about 7 feet of uh sea level rise very soon and much of the city will be underwater. This is one of those places in our city. This is probably the worst place for that. So having a a very large building is really just not a good idea. Um, and I think this project encapsulates what I'm dealing with throughout the city and throughout the uh Bay Area with this housing hysteria. I mean, you know, it's an appropriate place to expand. Like, there's there's nothing wrong with expanding. We have a relatively robust economy and it's been a while. Like, why not why not expand, right? And then so you have a very reasonable like like an expansion but still fits within the community and doesn't you know destroy all of our values about the environment and stuff. And then for some reason there's just some very loud voices and some very oh something's going on with people where they're like no we need to build as much as we possibly can. Like let's just build as many units as possible. And it's like that's just like what's the point of that? It's not It's not worth it. I'm really not into it. Um I did like that that I saw all the setbacks and stuff. Um there's a lot more to say, but I'm running out of time. So, thanks for listening. I hope you all have a nice day >> and uh to the chair. Uh that concludes public comment. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you for our public speakers for your comments and so we will return to the staff. So, could you please address the the comments from the first public speaker about the zoning questions? >> Sure, I'm happy to speak to that and then the um applicant also has an opportunity to speak. Um but uh to the first speaker's um comments, uh this is through the planned community uh reszoning process. So, they are proposing to reszone the property through um that process which is set forth in 1838 of the code. Um the planned home zone reference um was a term that council coined um that is is the planned community reszoning process um under a different name but same process. >> Okay. Thank you to the applicant. Uh you will have 10 minutes rebuttal. So, if you want to uh speak anything or respond any public concerns, questions, it's time for you to do it. Okay. Thank you. Uh so, now back to the board. Do we have any questions to the applicant? Who want to start? Well, I have one. Have you uh seen the parking operation working somewhere? >> They have several installations actually and uh as I said earlier, happy to share video. It's actually fascinating to watch. This is a company that started out in Manhattan and as you know from your experience there, land is at a premium. So, how do you jam as many cars as possible into the smallest volume? This company, Automotion, has figured out the formula. They're not the only one, though. We have actually been approached by a couple of other manufacturers who are interested in the project. Uh, I think there is there's just growing interest in fully automated parking because of the spatial footprint is so much smaller. Okay, >> just want to jump in here. So, may I know how long the video it is? Is it possible to share if there's two not too long? So, that I think everybody had questions about how the garage working >> two. It's about two minutes. Um, we allowed to share. >> Are we allowed to share that? >> Uh, >> we would like to note this is not an advertisement purely forformational purposes for the public record. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Click the >> Give us a moment and we can >> the uh panelist link. Okay. Got it. >> Sorry. Give me one second. I'll pull it up. >> Thank you. >> Should I jump in and ask a couple of questions? Go ahead. It's being pulled up. Um so and one thing is very obvious is compared to your previous you know street elevation to now the building next door also is much closer to the property line right than previously. So and and it's right on the your cover page as well. It's quite close. So, um I have obviously have concerns about daylight and all that, but other than that, cuz you're like 6'7 from the property line. Um I don't remember my code exactly, but I think you're allowed 25%. >> That's correct. >> Um for the areas of the facade that are within the 5 to 10 foot zone, it's a 25% window allowance. >> So, you are hitting the 25% as planned. >> I'm going to provisionally say yes. I'll have to double check with my team, but we did do window calculations and uh I believe that's correct. And then we have a further setback to the porch the um >> upstairs >> terrace porch doors and so that is under a different standard. >> Correct. Yeah. Um on the um and are these going to be operable windows? >> Yes. >> Okay. So these are large um squares. So, is that case mint? Like what? >> That the that level of detail hasn't been determined yet, but uh typically in a luxury product, we would probably do a case mint. >> Okay. Um and then um I was going through the plans. I didn't quite count exactly, but it looks like most of the units have balconies, but some don't. >> Is there a certain number that is does not have balconies, and is there a reason? It it primarily has to do with um the location. For instance, I think there's a studio in the courtyard that doesn't have balcony. Um there's one at the corner in the southwest corner, so at the bottom left that doesn't because the transformers are located on the ground right at that location. And so nothing is allowed to uh obtrude into that space. But generally speaking, we've tried to be uh Oh, then there's also I think a onebedroom that is located at the northwest stair that does not have one. But typically, except for those studios, um there's one that faces the special setback. >> Actually, >> I don't know if any of the studios have a balcony. And as far as the encroachment into the setback is concerned, the um souththeast right side in plan. >> Yes. >> And the southside and plan are encroaching into the setback. >> That's right. The balconies are permitted. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> It looks like Joey's ready with the video. We have the video. Uh sorry for that interruption earlier. No >> autootion works. The driver pulls into the entry and exit room. Light sensors measure the vehicle's dimensions and with the help of laser scanners properly places the vehicle on the pallet. The driver is then prompted to exit the vehicle and answer a few questions at the automotion kiosk. The door closes and laser scanners and motion detectors scan the entry and exit room ensuring the safety of the vehicle driver and any passengers. The car is then photographed from several angles. The driver receives the automotion ticket and exits the garage. Once the scanners and sensors determine everything is safe, the pallet holding the car is automatically transported into the system and the quick change process begins. The occupied pallet is transferred onto the storage and retrieval unit or SRU. Simultaneously, an empty pallet is placed on the elevator, allowing the system to process multiple cars at the same time. The SRU rotates the pallet to deliver the car to its appropriate parking space and properly positions the car for retrieval. In a continuous cycle, the automotion system is ready to receive the next vehicle, minimizing processing time. When the driver returns, they simply insert their Automotion ticket and swipe a credit card to initiate the retrieval process. The system identifies the correct pallet. It then activates the storage and retrieval unit and delivers the vehicle to the entry and exit room. The >> Sorry, technical difficulties. Just give me one second. >> I mean, I do feel like we all get it from there. The driver is then able to leave by driving >> two minutes without anyone ever having touched it. >> Automotion parking systems. Park, swipe, leave. >> And then the primary difference, of course, is that you wouldn't be paying. You would just be swiping your resident card uh if you have a parking space. Now, now I do have to ask based on the uh quality of the video and the year of the car in there, how long has this system been in operation for? >> I I would have to find out for you. It's been >> It looks like less than a current vehicle in the commercial. So, I'm curious. This has been around for a decade or so. So, >> I think that's about right. >> Okay. >> 7 to 10 years, but I can find out. >> Okay. Thank you. A related question to the parking. Uh so on the on the basement level one uh you have three stalls there but it seems like only two open to the tenants. Is it correct? Well, what is the third one for? >> Let's see here. >> Um sheet eight. >> Oh those are those are the entry bays. So this means that there are three entry points. The one on the top is for nonaccessible vehicles. The two lower bays. So the the garages that you saw the person driving into, that's what is represented in each of these three. I can see that the third one is drawn incorrectly. There should be a garage door on that. >> Okay. Okay. Gotcha. So So there should be three spots. That's right. >> Three uh three bays to operate. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? No questions or Yeah. So, uh I have a question on the bike room accessible. So, you also have a bike room on the level one basement level one. So, how do people get from the street to this biking storage? So, the options are to drive uh your bicycle down the ramp or to enter into the elevator that's located adjacent and to take it across the courtyard. Um, and that that's more of an operational question. I would turn to uh the owner to answer specifically what would be allowed, but those would be the two possibilities. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, and on the on the first level, uh, can I turn on the, uh, first level four plan sheet A 2.1 on the screen? >> Oh. Um, do you have that? >> Can you repeat the the page number? The >> sheet 2.1, the first floor, the ground floor plan. Uh >> there it is. >> 82.1. >> Yeah, A2.1. >> So, uh I want to clarify. Is this the mail room location in the courtyard? >> Yes, it is. Uh it is. It has access from both the courtyard and from the corridor, but it is just a covered space rather than enclosed. >> Okay. So, it's covered. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. And and on the on the front elevation, you show some screen at the front at the street level units. Can you show me on the plan where are they? >> The screens. >> Yeah. The fence or the screens on the ground level to create a courtyard or something like that? Um, and this is the San Antonio facing units. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Excuse me. Let me see if I can find the right reference here. Um, so on page A3.0, zero. Um on drawing one, which is the top drawing, you'll see that there are two screened in enclosures and those would be for those units. >> Okay. So, if we are back to the the ground ground level floor plan, are they projected into the setback or is >> No, no, it's right up along the setback line. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't have any other questions at this moment. >> I have one question if we can go back to the first floor plan. I meant to ask this earlier. Um so if I if we look at A2.1 um there and I think Joe you were trying to explain this earlier. This uh crosshatch in gray is fire access >> proposed fire access. Okay. So the uh the challenge with the special setback is that uh ladder access cannot occur from the street. It's too far away. What we were proposing u this of course has not been decided. We're still working with uh the planning department and fire is at the southern end uh where the number 18 is. >> Mhm. We would have a rolled curb so that firet trucks could make it up onto that surface and we would ensure that the surface can support the required weight 75,000 lbs and then they could fight the fire from within a special setback zone and then when they left they could use the driveway. >> Okay. Um cuz if I go to the landscape plan on L1 um that is um agave planting. I'm trying to like >> Yeah, that that's incorrect. >> All of that would need to be removed and replaced with paving. We uh the directions the direction we got for the special setback zone is not to have anything permanent. If in fact we end up with firefighting access in that zone, all that stuff that you see there will change to a surface as appropriate. Um and I think that uh as I understand it for a ladder truck it has to be a minimum of 15 ft away from the building. So, we would still have a little bit of that zone that could be planted uh as a a buffer. >> And you said from the street, I guess from the driving part of the street cuz you have the step the setback and then there's sidewalk, >> right? That's right. >> Towards the street. So, you are not hitting the 15 to 30 ft for aerial access because you're so far back. >> That's right. That's right. Um, I think it it ended up being something like 40 feet to where they would park. >> Okay. Um, and I guess you're not getting any leeway from the fire department to be 40 ft away versus 30 ft away. >> No, I as I understand it, it's not that they wouldn't want to. It's that the truck itself cannot operate under those conditions because of the can lever. But I would have to ask the fire marshal. I do I do want to clarify that um we are still in discussions with fire about what the appropriate solution is um on how we address the fire. I I know that they do have significant concerns about um the building not being within 30 ft of the curb or the apparatus not being able to park without being able to go up on this um area. Um but we are trying to kind of work out what the solution would be. Um and it is anticipated that um this would require an alternative means and measures report um to document how you know what was agreed upon in terms of compliance with the uh fire code. >> Yeah. Because they're kind of between a rock and a hard place because they have to put the 20 foot step back but now they can't hit the aerial access distance. >> Exactly. Um since this is we're proposing a type four building now rather than previously it was type three over type one uh there may be some relief there that we haven't quite delved into um just in terms of increased fire resistance from the structure itself. So for instance in a type one building you don't need aerial access um you just have enhanced like stand pipes in the stairs that kind of thing >> that might be another direction that we explore with fire. >> Okay. is would be nice to have a landscape frontage versus page. >> It would be >> okay. Thank you. >> If no more questions, we will just turn it back to the board for internal discussion and comments. Anyone want to start? David? >> Yeah, happy to start. Um yeah, there are a lot of uh technical problems to solve in this. Um it's become quite a substantially more complex project, but I'm really really pleased with a number of things. You know, I'm pleased with the garbage. We'll have our little common laugh on that one. Uh, of course it it it means you're using private private haulers instead of the city, I guess, then, huh, for this is that how it what allows you to do this? >> Um, actually the the maneuvering requirements came directly from uh the uh keep what is the name? I'm sorry. Uh, keep it green. No, what is the uh trash >> trash people? >> The trash people, whatever. >> I knew there was green in there. >> Um yeah, >> their their regulations in >> That's right. their their recommendations on the apparatus and the clearances. >> So, they can handle it then >> as we understand it. >> Yeah. Good. Great. Uh well, it's it's just terrific to get all that stuff out of the front of the building. And then the second part of this is the access and the way in which it works. I think you know this is a prototype for the street itself somehow. Uh, and I planning I hope planning is looking at all the buildings along here because it now it clears up the issue of the 25 ft setback and the building extending out into the court into that space, you know, and all kinds of other things. And uh I'm I'm really impressed with that because it's a it's a opposed to the comment we heard from the phone, you know, uh it uh it's an kind of an answer to a busy street that will now have some real access. And so there'll be a lot besides we haven't said anything about the uh delivery and so on automatic cars yet coming into the space. They'll they'll have to figure it out too. Uh but uh that's a real real improvement for San Antonio Road and look to hopefully maybe other people will pick up on that idea, you know. Um but we lose we lose the idea of uh landscaping and it it becomes a little more difficult with the bike path etc on the street too. U however you know I hope that that there's some ways in which that can everything can be put into this package of what happens in the 25 foot setback so it really solves in San Antonio road. Um so in terms of the uh lobby uh I I would like to ask another I did forget to ask here the clubhouse. What is what is the clubhouse? >> Um effectively it is a lounge in the lobby space and uh uh I think the term is maybe slightly misleading but it's just a lounge space. >> A lounge space. So, you know, my my opinion is that uh you don't need it here. This is really taking up space in what is really a very nice entryway into a much larger building. And the object is to get the people in and get them to their apartment somehow. And then there's waiting space for pickup or whatever, you know, and that could happen within this lobby. And with even floating furniture would just work fine in that space. It's a wonderful space and you're kind of cutting it in half with this this separate lounge area. I just don't see the sense of it there. However, a a clubhouse seems like a good idea somewhere else. I don't know if it's possible to stick it on the roof in the corner in the southwest southeast corner of the building up there where it would be easily accessible and then you could related to other functions on that. Now that does that does that further create a problem with the height of the building? Is there some way in which you can zone an exception for a clubhouse on the roof? Just seems like a good idea. Fit the functions, you know. Um I don't know how you would do that, Claire, with the zoning. Is it possible? >> Say that one more time. uh that you could just allow for a clubhouse on this roof structure where there's a landscaped area and people are going to be up there, you know, and it's a great space for clubhouse. >> Are are you speaking to a public clubhouse or p just private >> private private to this building? >> Certainly, they can propose something along those lines. Uh but um I can't recall I can't recall how that would affect uh the height I suppose of the building. Um yeah, because mo you know on the upper floor I mean it would be changing around how you were designing unless you were adding another floor. Um I don't know that there would be support for adding another floor if that's what you're asking. Well, I'm asking for one ex one minimal exception, a kind of a room up there for for community use that allows the the rooftop to be used for people who might want to have a room like this. Seems like a kind of a room that would be very useful on the roof. I could also see it in the one of the projections into the courtyard one floor down, but uh uh definitely out of the front lobby. That's just not a place for it. You've got a terrific lobby space there. And for the size of this building, you need all of it. Um, and then access to the elevator has, you know, if you didn't have the clubhouse, you could create a nice wide access to these two elevators. And, uh, I've I've always been bothered by so, you know, by the fact that you really hadn't emphasized the access to the elevators in every building that I've gone into in New York. You know, that's really important. Um, so you could carry the flooring all the way to the front of the elevator, you know, and it leads you right there. Uh, the front lobby areas is just, you know, it just struck me there are things that you could do to improve it. You could maybe steal a little bit from the trash room and put the put a uh put the mail right there in the front lobby. Uh, so you went into it and back out of it the other side. You keep it open that way for the mail room. And then maybe what you call the mail room could be uh something like a package room because there's always packaging coming into buildings like this and they need a place to go. Just those are just planning considerations as you get into the building a little bit further on. Um I I just noticed that all these patios that are facing the side that were discussed before uh some of they're there the one in the studio is uh in into a living room, dining room, kitchen area, but the ones that are in the two bedroom units are Is it possible to lose a little bit of the area of the living room, dining room, kitchen when you plan these units so that the patio could be part of the living room instead of part of just in the bedroom area on the first on those floors facing on the side. consideration. Also, um, another minor detail, but I don't understand really why you need these projecting glass elements on the front of the building because there's no privacy issue. You have this fin sticking out there. I don't think it really benefits the building that much to use it. If you were using it as a privacy wall, then I could understand it. But it those those balconies are set in. Am I Look, is that is that in fact the case with all of the front of the building? All of the balconies are set back like that. >> Yay. Yeah. >> I I just personally I think that the forms of these the forms, you know, the form of the front of the building is better off. uh without without that little fin. Maybe projections around the windows might make a little bit of sense because it would add a bit more texture to the front of the building and shadow lines, etc. That they're pretty severe shapes and they could be softened by something like projecting surrounds for the windows. I'm sure you guys can figure out what that would look like. Uh the from the front of the building, I really like the way the uh gray material comes down from the top all the way down to the bottom and sort of creates a separate turning element at that corner. And I of course like the way in which you've set these things to the angle of the front of the building too and the back as well. Um but I seems to me that you unfortunately you change from that gray material to something tan on the left hand side. It would really be nice if that were complete all the way through the base of the building. These are sort of hopefully improvements in the design, but um I think you this is really quite an improvement from before. Not just those little technical issues, but the shape of the face of the building is really quite something now. And it seems to me that it sets a again a principle for the whole street here because the scale is brought down to something very un reasonable here and separated it by its shapes. It it's a terrific I you know it's really doing a good job. I think you should consider in all of your public spaces, maybe except for the well, even if you had a little on the roof, too, toilets. If you're going to go to these community spaces, you know, and your room happens to be on the other side of the building, your apartment, it's a hell of a way to go to have to go all the way back there, you know. So, think about the think about think about that possibility. Um, the back of the building, you know, I get a little confused about maybe you wouldn't need some of the balconies and you wouldn't have all of the privacy issues. You could reduce them somewhat. you know, the the units themselves, the the the number of balconies in the back where they're balcony next to balcony seems like a overkill. And so some of them might not have balconies or you rearrange those balconies in some way so that they don't interfere with each other. But the balcony, but the back of the building needs those either it needs the privacy or it needs some rethinking as to your uh use of the balconies where the where you have them. Uh uh um okay. I don't know if we'll have a second round of of it. Of course, you know, the parking is I got to fingers fingers crossed that you can really make a system like that work, you know. Uh I mean, I think it's again, you know, you're right. It's a minimal amount of space for a lot of people. And this is the idea of San Antonio Road. As far as I'm concerned, it should be for more housing and and this kind of housing really works there. Uh see if I have any we'll let I'll let somebody else start jabbering like me. >> And I I'll I'll happily jump in next if that's all right. And uh I admit I am uh I'm a lot less favorable on this project than David seems to be. So David and I like to knock heads. Um I actually found this project to be a bit disappointing to be honest. It's um we have this concept of sort of base, middle, top. It applies very well up to about six stories. And with the previous design, it was, you know, beautiful. We worked it in and everything looked great. This feels like it was just sort of it extruded. And when you do that, it loses some of the the beauty of the relationships and the proportions, right? It feels like there's just sort of this extra big white chunk in the middle and then there's this thing on the top and it just it lost some of its elegance in my mind. Um, it feels like very reactionary architecture. It's very reactive to the building next to it. Okay, they got tires higher so we want to go higher. And while I understand the the theory that it would negatively impact the people living in this building, and I understand why you would want to go taller, um it it didn't feel like the intent that you applied in the first round was applied here. It felt like it was just reacting. They went taller. We're going to just stretch this, make it taller. Um and I do think that there's something lost on the exteriors in that way. Um, the front facade leaves me wanting. Um, I appreciate the blue highlight to remind you where the door is because honestly, it would get lost if it wasn't bright blue. You can't see it. It's not anything super special. Um, I'm going to go on a personal tangent here. I absolutely hate these two build these two units on the ground floor right next to the front. That two build unit and the other one next to it. And then there's a door in between them. And I'm like, is the door going to the balcony of the one-bedroom unit or is it going straight to the street? Why is the door there? Why is the hallway there? That whole little area needs to be just take a second look. Um, and I think part of that is because there was a loss of retail, right? And it's uh one of those things that we've been trying to push for retail in a lot of these larger projects because we do want to keep um invigorating and animating the street level. And this one has an opening for uh cars. Totally get it. Trash. Totally get it. Lobby. Sure. And then two units. And then a switch gear. And it just feels like again reacted, not thought about. Um to David's comments, I completely agree that the clubhouse in the lobby is just taking up sort of unwanted space and especially by extending beyond the end of that second bedroom, it's really creating sort of a pinch point down into that hallway. Um, the mail room could very easily move into part of that location and it would definitely change things. I can't understand why a mail room would want to be outside. That sort of baffles me. Um, I'm wondering if this idea of David brought up a clubhouse as well, which I actually fully support. I think it's a great idea and especially with a large building like this, having at least one community space to gather is a great idea. So, again, I understand that we can't necessarily tell you what to do, but these would be my suggestions, right? um that second bedroom, that two-bedroom unit right next to the front lobby, that could be a clubhouse. It could, you know, orient towards the lobby. It's right across from the elevators. It could walk across the hallway into that open space. There's a lot of potential there. Having a two-bedroom unit right there just logically doesn't doesn't do it for me. The one-bedroom unit, maybe if you, you know, kept the the ground floor really shaded properly and went through the columns and something like that, you could you could make that work. But this two-bedroom unit is really needs some needs some help. Um, I appreciate the efforts for the balconies. Everybody having an exterior balcony. You know, they're they're not always perfect and sometimes they're off of a bedroom instead of the main space like David commented and and that's that's still better than nothing. um to city council's comment on this southern facade um plan at the bottom of the sheet where it will be facing the next door neighbor who is sort of instigating this whole height increase to begin with. Um it's again it's just sort of a lackluster um facade there. But is there anything wrong with it per se? No. Is there anything that that facade is going to be able to accomplish without major overhaul? No. Um, you're going to have privacy issues staring at the building next door. It just is. That's that's going to be what it is. And in highdensity residential, there's some things that we just sort of accept. Now, as a 10-ft buffer, like if you've got 5T on your side and they have 5T on their side, is 10 ft enough to do privacy? Probably not. If the next building lines their windows up directly across from yours, right? So, in those cases, the best bet that we can ask for on either one of your buildings is, can you angle the windows 15°? Right? We've talked about this with some other projects previously. Even a slight angling of those um windows can help with privacy. Having um them staggered and offset from each other can help with privacy, things like that. But again, knowing what's going in next door and being able to react to it is uh only beneficial if you're, you know, trying to compare where their windows are versus yours and things like that. So, um I completely agree with David on the blue fins. I'm confused by them. They're on the north sides of the chunks of building that they're on and they're sort of not providing shade because the the units that are directly north of them are uh recessed balconies. So, they just feel like they're going to be sort of a waste of time, effort, and money. Um, yes, they're adding some color, but looking at your facade, there's so many other opportunities to add color. Uh, I agree with the concept that metal fins sticking out from the windows, especially if they're angled to some extent. you've got some angles in this building, like dig into that, you know, embrace that a bit. Um, so doing angled metal fins at the windows could be beautiful. Could add that bit of texture without necessarily needing these blue fins just sort of protruding off the facade. Um, and then they would also provide sun shading as well. On the note of color, this is all, you know, repetitive gray, white, gray, white, little bit of beige here and there. And I understand the need for a trena or the desire to add some blue. Maybe it's actually taking one of these white chunks and making that a whole different color. It would really break up the facade if it was like a white and then sort of a I don't know muted dusty blue and then something else. It would make this building feel less monotonous. So, actually just changing the color of portions of the white, right? Um I think could actually go a long ways. I'm going to very briefly touch on the interior courtyard elevations. Thank you for providing them. the other project did not have those and that was one of the things that I sort of had been wanting to see and so I was very happy to see that they were on your project. Um again, however, the interiors are just white kind of top to bottom on especially on A4.4 um section south number one drawing. It's just white top to bottom, right? It's very uniform. Same thing on the A4.3 drawing number two section east. Again, white top to bottom, right? And while the white will help with reflectivity and getting some of that sunlight to bounce around the inner courtyard, it's a great idea in that component, you've got such a better successful item on section west number one on that same sheet where you've got that brown texture coming in and even the living wall is beautiful, right? So, I'd say just give it a little bit more um you know, give it another pass and a little bit more love. Um with the interior courtyard, I'm always a big fan of interior courtyards. I think they're great uses of space and I appreciate your new terraces. I think that the new terraces are a great addition and I love how sort of by layer you went there. Uh level six being the largest, level eight being the smallest. I would love to see level seven maybe grow a little bit and instead of being a match to eight, maybe it splits the difference between seven and eight. Um, again, I'm sure you have a reason for why you put it where you put it, but just food for thought that maybe it's sort of six is the biggest, seven's the middle, and then eight is the smallest. Um, roof plan is great. I love it when you guys do uh active use on that roof terrace. I think that's going to be a huge space for people to go and gather. Um, going to raise a very minor concern about a fire pit up there, whether that's attended or unattended or on a timer. Um, so just knowing that there's a fire element on the rooftop might want to just understand how to make sure that that's turned off remotely or set to some type of timer or something like that. I'm going to let this go to somebody else for the moment, but that's sort of my uh my thoughts on this. Um, I I appreciate the amount of housing that this is going to put back into the city and I appreciate your thoughtfulness and trying to move that forward. Um, I just really would like it to have one more pass over it. So, thanks very much. So, I'll go next. Um, yeah, thank you for um sharing this project. Similar comments to uh previous board members, so I won't go too far into it, but um the first floor um of you know the entry lobby, clubhouse, mail room, redundant room, which in the landscape plan looks like another room. So, it seems like there's some you know plan resolution to happen in the first place. Um, I think the mail people get packages more than mail lately. So, just having making sure it's a room where there's space for packages instead of a pass through into the uh open space, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think to um Kendra's point as well, that two-bedroom lobby, sorry, two-bedroom apartment and then, you know, that hallway to the the exterior because stair 2 needs direct access to the outside. Um that whole area needs some rethinking. I think the elevators and the stairs if it actually faced the lobby I mean the elevator lobby is not essential. You can use smoke guard and variety of other ways to not need an enclosed room but make the lobby much more of a welcoming presence versus down the hall or at least do doors on hold open. So like you know where you're coming in to your uh apartment is or condo is you know a gracious welcoming um path. I mean it's all about you know making this a nice uh place for people to live. So all of those you know as how do you enter how do you get to your place how do guests come to your apartment? Just think about those sequences and you know improve on that. And on the same vein like you have a donut circulation and you have this other elevator also very useful but then it's got doors and um in into the hallway again use uh different you know smoke uh prevention method so that the circulation is very open welcoming you can find your apartment not hit a dead end with a with a door. I'm also in favor of clubhouse on the roof cuz again kind of similar to the previous project having places where you know these are pretty small tight apartments to have any kind of gathering with your friends would be great to do that on the rooftop. So having a place where you can warm up food or you know even bring in Door Dash whatever and bathroom like having some you know access restrooms accessible from the the roof garden. Same with the open space the gym area on the first floor. I um you know if you're living on the fifth floor and you're gathering with your friends like anybody need some water restroom you're you know go to the fifth floor. That seems like a lot. So like just make it a lot more pleasant place for people to live but and also welcome their friends and family. Um I think those are all important ways to make the living community attractive to people. Um yeah circulation. I think those are uh my key thoughts on this. Do not love the fins but do like the idea of having color. Thank you. Well, thank you all. So, yeah, agree. There is a huge uh improvement for the on-site trash pickup for this project. I I think this set up a good example along the San Antonio corridor. And I think it not not only uh solved the problem of on-site pickup but also huge improvement to for the bike safety along the road so that we don't need to staging the trash along the along the sidewalk and and interrupt the bike route. Uh I agree with with my colleagues on the clubhouse lobby. I think it's it will be beneficial to open up the clubhouse, remove the walls and have a more welcoming lobby. And also um I understand that I I agree the two the two units facing the street are not desirable, but I also understand you lose the some um some additional space on the second floor due due to the on-site trash pickup. So um I want to ask my colleagues so what if uh they switch the twobedroom and onebedroom unit with the gym and have the gym to be street front. Do you think that would be a better solution or Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I think maybe you can reconsider that route and Yeah. because of the on-site trash pickup. I think I'm okay with with the expense of the retail and also I do appreciate the amenity space at different levels, the open space on the ground level and some terrace on different levels and also the roof garden. You also provide different options between shaded area and the one that is uncovered. So, I think all all of them are nice. And I do agree with the the blue things on the on the street front. Although I think it's it's a good feature for this building, but I just don't understand how how it works and and what the purpose of that. Or maybe you if you really like those blue fins, maybe you could use it as your railings. Instead of glass railing, you could replace it with the uh the blue fins. And yeah, so um on the south side, I know you want to keep the good size of the patios and balconies on the south side facing the adjacent development. I'm wondering whether you could push it back a little bit because so that it it will not be within the setback. It seems like the living room and the living room areas could be a little bit smaller, but we don't have the dimensions here, so I don't know. But if everything could be within the setback, it will it will be better. And that's all my comments for now. Any additional thoughts for this project? sort of second time around, you know, you you're kind of white projecting structures in the front. Uh I think you could I think you could work with patterning, you know, consider some alternatives to, you know, some color color added to that those elements. You know, if if for example the window surrounds had created some shadow and then there was patterning of your material, you know, it's a it's an opportunity. You know, there's so many details to that you've needed to solve here, but you're at a point at which you could play around with some patterning and make that work. I leave it open to you to think about that. Um, I think that, yeah, there's a there's a conflict on the ground floor with the elevator and the unit across. I don't know whether a club club clubhouse down there is a good idea. I think on the roof it's so much better. Um, I would I would keep the unit, but work very hard on making access to that apartment, not right off of that corridor somehow, you know, or or a lobby into into the apartment that creates a way of getting in there. Um but I other than that I really owe there was one one area I I thought about you know you have that uh looked at the plan the black area that's on the top very edge on the right hand side of the elevation there's only like a foot or a foot if if that could be accentuated a little bit more I think it really needs some dimension at the top that it is too tight right now to to change material like that. So think take a look at that. Just see what you could do. But I want to really say once again I think is this this building is is a really nice scale for San Antonio Road. Um, I would hope that other buildings wouldn't wouldn't be too monolithic because it's it's a very big building now, but really uh really useful to have this number of units for the city. Uh, it's a it's a plus for the city if you can make everything work. >> All right. Thank you. So if no additional comments, uh do you want to go through the summary again or just to make sure if you don't mind, could you please pull up on the screen? I have a list. I'm not sure if um Jerry has anything to add to this. I'm going to share my screen. Hold on one second. All right. Um, so some of the things that I captured were consider the location of the um, mail room and bringing it closer to the project frontage. Um, and reconsidered the lobby design in general. um reconsider the location of the community room, including consideration of bringing it up adjacent to the rooftop open space. Um concerns regarding uh the loss of retail um and the ground floor unit design. Uh the color along the main facade is very repetitive. Um, and uh, I think I was still kind of typing this out, but um, I think there were some general concerns about massing and proportionality. Um, one suggestion was consider taking one of the large areas of white facade and making it a different color instead. >> Can I jump in there really quick? >> Yeah, that would be great. >> So, really quick, um, the one bullet point above concerns regarding the loss of retail in the ground for unit design. I think that's two different bullet points. And I think that the retail, if I understand correctly, when they go to condos, it has to do with they can't if there's retail, it completely changes how they can sell these units, something like that. So, understanding that just might be a moot point. Um, but the the ground floor units um at the onebedroom and the two-bedroom specifically um on the front on San Antonio. So, we consider the ground floor unit designs facing San Antonio. So, I would just be that specific about it. Does that sound good to everybody? >> Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. >> Go ahead. I was just gonna had I had a question about the retail because I think only one board member kind of raised that point. So should I you know is that something Okay. >> I don't think I'm sorry. I don't think that we really any of us really felt that it was a big loss. >> It's it's me. It's I get that. And also I do understand I mean I don't know if there's a way to note like concerns regarding the loss of retail but understanding that it might be a mood point right like I'm totally fine with that like just I get that if it has to do with legal ease of how you can consider these units for sale that's fine. >> Um >> is it a concern about like activation of the street um >> which moving the gym to that uh to the front could be a little bit more lively? >> Exactly. the two units. It's not necessarily a retail per se, but >> I mean I mean it is I I would love to see more retail along San I want that to be a walkable street. I think we've talked about >> for retail the parking requirement would be different. Right. >> Exactly. So understanding that like >> I can want all I want. Right. But like it's a real project with real constraints. So, um, but yes, I think activating the street is really the primary, if we zoom really far out, the primary goal is to activate the streetscape so that when people live on the street and they walk down this street, if there's retail, maybe it's not at every building, but that there's something they're walking past as they're getting to their coffee shops and that completely agree and fully support my fellow board members on just sort of re-emphasizing the activation of the street is really the the big picture goal here. So if you lost the one apartment and it became retail down the ground floor, >> it wouldn't not not in this project. I think that that would change everything. So it's like either they have retail and they should go big with it or they don't have retail because of I mean from my understanding from some of the other projects if they have retail there's parking issue requirements and then as far as I understand there's as it's a condo and they're sold then it's also a different thing. When you have rentable apartments retail is easier but when you're selling >> separate garbage etc you know it gets complicated. Exactly. So, I understand if they're just like no retail, I get it. Um, and I think if I'm understanding this project correctly, that's that's what happened here. Um, but that being said, yeah, activating the streetscape so that as people walked, this is going to be a super busy street soon, right? This is 170 units next door is probably about the same. Uh, the Cenote project just a few doors, two doors down on the lefth hand side is going to be elderly residents as well. It's going to be great. Um, but just making sure there's something that they can see as they're walking down the street and it's not just like repetitive, mundane, uh, facades. So, um, I'd also like to say the color along the main facade is very repetitive. Concerns about massing. So, consider taking on large areas of the white facade and making a different color or texture. To David's point, he had said maybe the the line work or something like that on the white. I mean, we see a lot of these projects where they've got control joints. We get it, but like it's been done also. So, let's let's see if they can push the envelope on that a little bit more. So, maybe different color or texture to that. >> Okay, sure. >> Yeah, >> thank you. Um, so just uh moving on, reconsider the interior courtyard elevations as well for the users of the courtyard. Uh, so the south section is designed very nicely, but the other facades aren't broken up as much that generally capture. Um, consider modifications for the fin design. Uh there was support for the pop of color, but the fins themselves don't seem to be functional and could either be revised to be more functional or otherwise modify the design to still have a pop of color integrated in a different way such as using it in the glass railings. >> Uh consider making the gym uh street. >> Did you mention while you're thinking of that the window surrounds >> exactly where I was going to? Yeah, if we add a second bullet point there and say uh reconsider window surrounds to potentially have >> more more >> more depth >> more detail to the facade >> depth slashdetail. Good. Perfect. >> And I just realized I think this >> Yeah, move that up with the other one and we're good. >> Yeah. >> So, are we all thinking about moving the gym to the front? because I I really kind of like it sort of animates the courtyard at the same time. I I would say it, you know, look into the possibility of it. But >> yeah, I'm I'm sort of like if they had like for me personally, I think that the clubhouse, like we talked about with the previous project, the clubhouse being like right next to the um the open space is great. They have the clubhouse, the party flows out to the courtyard. So for me, I think that the clubhouse at the ground level on the courtyard is a great idea. and maybe switching the gym to where that two-bedroom is and maybe they can put another onebedroom next to a half a clubhouse or something, right? But there's possibilities here. Clubhouse, gym, figure out which one wants to go where. Um, so I'm I'm more open to which one's which and then but I know that all of you guys wanted a clubhouse up on the roof. So >> something up there, you know, you have no enclosure too. This is an eighttory building >> with 174 units. >> It's the rear of the building. You won't ever see it from the street side. still if the building height is not a problem, >> right? >> Yeah. >> I think it's the going back to activation of the street. So, >> um a gym like even if it's like, you know, not visible, it's might have larger panes of glass, have some color graphics that will make the the street frontage much nicer than >> Yeah. gray fair wall with a couple of windows. >> Yeah, I'm open either way. I just want people, not private residences. >> Yeah. It's not going to be a pleasant unit on the street. >> Are we good with what's on the screen? David, >> still thinking. Any questions from the applicant? >> Okay. And >> do you need a package? Do you really need a package room for a building like this this scale? And >> since there probably there won't be a concierge, it's likely that the it will be a package locker and we're seeing more and more and more of those. So >> yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, we can figure it out though. I think there's plenty of space in the front to rearrange. >> Yeah. And we do need a recommendation to the cont to continue the project to a date uncertain. Okay. I move >> I move to continue the project with a date uncertain. I second. >> Can we have a vote, please? >> Um, yeah. Board member Rosenberg, >> yes. >> Uh, board member Hirsch, >> Vice Chair Adcock, >> yes. >> Chair Chen, >> Motion carries 40. Okay, thank you. With that, we will Yeah, great job. You solve lots of problems in a complicated situation. So, next we we we will move on to board member questions, comments, announcements or future meetings and agendas. Do we have any comments, questions? Is it? No. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, next we will open our floor to virtual public comment. So, if anybody connected remotely, this is the time for you to speak on an item that is not on the agenda. >> Can I ask is this a permanent change moving forward that the virtual ones go to the end? And why why is that? We've unfortunately had quite a number of um Zoom bombings um where um there was a lot of uh racial um lovely counselors. So um >> we can't have nice things. Okay. >> Modified. >> Okay. Thanks very much. Appreciate that. >> Yeah. And uh through the chair, I've not received any requests online. If there's any members of the public that would like to speak, they can raise their hand. Uh to the chair, I see none. >> Okay. Thank you. Meeting are journ. Thank you everyone. Thank you.

Okay, good morning. Shall we start now? >> Recording in progress. >> Good morning everyone. Welcome to the April 16, 2026 ARB meeting. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Um, yes. Um, Chair Chen, >> yes. Vice Chair Adcock >> present. >> Board member Hirs >> Board member Jojarth >> present. >> Board member Rosenberg. >> Uh for the record we have quorum noting board member Rosenberg is absent. >> Thank you. And next is agenda changes, additions and deletions for this meeting. Do we have any Stephen? >> No changes planned for this meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. And next is the public comment. This is the time available for anyone from the public who want to comment on this item that is not on the agenda. Excuse me. If you want to uh speak about an agenda item, there will be time for it later this uh for the later in this meeting. Do we have any public comments >> um through the chair? At this moment, I have not received any public comment cards. Um I would invite any members of the public that are joining us via Zoom if you would like to speak uh to raise your hands. Uh I am not seeing any. >> Okay. Thank you. And for the record, board member uh Rosenberger just uh joined us for this meeting. >> Thank you. >> Apologies for my tardiness. >> And next we I will hand it over to Steven for city official report. All right. Well, good morning. Having a little difficulty with Zoom here, but um just note a few items. So, on Monday of this week, we had a builder's remedy project that received approval. So, that was 366 El Camino Rial. Uh that is the 321 unit apartment building located uh in between the cross streets of Matadero and Kendall Avenue. And um if we're thinking of some upcoming items for our next meeting, uh the lot t streamline housing development project as well as holding the chair and vice chair elections. And um as for uh meeting schedules, uh if there's any planned absences, please direct that to staff's attention. And we'll note that for the record um based on some previous feedback that 6:18 meeting will be cancelled due to a lack of quorum. So I can entertain any questions. >> Any questions to the staff at this moment? >> No, I just want to note that I'll be away um July 2nd as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And if not, we will just move on to our action item for today, which is recommend to the city council on outdoor activation standards and pre-approved park plans for the carfree portion of California Avenue. Uh with that, I will hand it over to Bruce for staff presentation. Thank you. >> Great. Um good morning everyone. It's really a pleasure to be here. been looking forward to having this opportunity to to present the work we've been doing and working in collaboration with Musam and Martin the last several months. So been really a very productive process. So I'm very thankful for their participation. So um we can go to the first slide. Yeah. So, u what I what I'd like to it's a probably about 15 or so minute presentation. Um want to just go over a few things. Um council direction. Um some of the merchant perspectives that we've had in working with them on developing these outdoor activation standards and pre-approved parkletit plans. Um a little bit about our ARB ad hoc process. Um, and then I'll get into the really the heart of what the challenges were and the opportunities with the out outdoor activation design. Um, and then go over the pre-approved parklet plans and then uh a pedestrian and bicycle concepts, next steps and recommended kind of actions. So that's my that'll be the content. Okay, next slide. you know, um the direction for council for Carfree Cal Avenue actually started way back in 2023 when they initiated looking at California Avenue for the design of the street uh to be carfree. Um, and then back in March of last year, they made an action to permanently close California Avenue from Birch to El Camino and to designate that as a community street as a car-free environment. Um, for the outdoor activation program, we presented that in June of last year, uh, and received quite a bit of public and merchant and community comment. And after that, what was really clear is the direction from council was to pursue developing standards for for parklets on the carfree portion of California Avenue and consider how to do that for all year round outdoor dining and then to utilize the ARB for design recommendations and review process. And then there were some details about planters, but also looking at the total area for outdoor dining to make sure that's equal to or close to the existing amount of outdoor dining that's there. Um we've also um when talking about California Avenue also been talking about bikes on California Avenue and council direction really back in 2023 was to look at having two-way slow bike lanes down the center of the street and we assume that as sort of a base for how we've looked at the design. Um and they made lots of recommendations in sub subsequent meetings about speed pedestrian conflicts parallel routes using Cambridge etc. So, um, we developed our design concepts, uh, with that in mind. But then when we went to the economic development committee, excuse me, uh, on March 18th and showed them that concept, which we have in this presentation and materials you've been provided, they said, can we look at, please look at exploring alternatives to bike lanes that prioritize uh, you know, pedestrian use of and public space for pedestrian use where bikes are really allowed. So, that's been the direction that we've had. Next slide. Um, so we've been we have ongoing meetings with the Calavan merchants. We meet with them basically monthly. And at those meetings that are on Cal Avenue, um, we've been having ongoing discussions around parkletits and outdoor dining. And just to summarize at kind of a high level, what we've been hearing, um, is they really want to have a a range of investment options. different businesses have different kind of like business models and so somewhat we want to do custom for our you know our for the for our um customer experience others are like well what's the minimum that we can do to be able to make sure we have really nice outdoor dining um the other things they wanted to see permanent solutions um Cal Avenue the car-free portion of it's the only part of the parklet program citywide ongoing that doesn't have uh permits for parkletits so they really said, "Look, have add parklets and have parklets be part of the the uh permit process." So, we've looked at that and permanent solutions interested in pre-approved ones to see uh because they see that that can help expedite um permitting and then look at solutions for all year round dining um take care of speeding bikes. But basically, they're saying if they're going to be investing in the public rightway, they want to have the best possible customer experience for their diners. Next slide. Yeah. So, you know, um after we heard council direction in June, we kind of regrouped to staff uh and then developed a process where we had um Mama and Martin join us as the ARB ad hoc committee. We really went through we've been meeting basically like twice a month which is really quite a lot. Um but it's really necessary in order to really uh thoroughly go through what was what was needed here. But we looked at updating requirements. Um some of that has to do with public utilities. There's a gas mans and gas laterals that are on the street and we wanted to look at what to do about protection and setbacks from those. We looked at precedent parkletits. We looked at examples, excuse me, not just in PaloAlto but you know Mountain View, Sonteo, Albany, Alama. We looked all around the Bay Area, examples of those things to talk about what's working, what's not working. Um, we looked at the the street itself and how it functions. And then we develop these sort of activation standards and pre-approved parklet options. So that's what we've been doing. Um, we've been meeting with merchants every month and saying this is where we are with our ARB ad hoc process. They had a chance to see the results of that, provide feedback, and we've used that feedback to advance the work we were doing. Um, so I think it's been a robust process. Next slide. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, I know that sometimes these slides are also part of the public record. So, I have a lot of text on some of these slides, but I think that the main message here on Cal Avenue is that what seems like should be simple problems with design intention actually have very contradictory challenges around how to actually solve them. And this tension around simple intention but complex challenge for actually resolution has been part of the part of what I think has led to a really interesting and very Cal Avenue specific set of solutions. For example, it's supposed to be car free, but it's not really car-free because every weekend you have service vehicles and therefore farmers market where you have over 80 vendors. Um, you're supposed to separate pedestrians and bikes for safety, but we can't put in any vertical delineators or anything that's sort of in the space because it's really needed for that for emergency access. You can't do the normal things that you would do to separate things out. Want to talk about having to be open and transparent in terms of the parklets because you have no cars, but we also want weather protection and that if you do weather protection that blocks views to being able to see storefronts. So, there's all these contradictions. want permanent parklets, but you can't have foundations or attachments to the pavement. You want to have equivalent area, but we've got to reduce it because of setbacks for emergency eress. You want universal solutions that work everywhere, but the sidewalk varies everywhere. So, you're going to have unique solutions for everyone. And then you want to utilize the roadway for parklets and there's a gas man in there that you can't build on top of. So, it it really created a lot of challenges. The next slide, please. So um yeah, great. So the way we the way to think about the street, we'll talk about the street first. Um is there were really like 10 12 really key design problems. And what ended up happening is you had to really design really a unique designing a unique outdoor dining solution for almost every single business. Um it's not like University Avenue or El Camino where you have just a fixed sideway down the whole street. It varies all the way. It's some places there's no sidewalk, others it's 10 feet or 12 feet or 14 feet or 22 feet or 30 ft. It's all over. Um we need to um really have the central emergency eress, but we have to have emergency eress for each building. Uh and working talking with George Hoy, our building officials, like because the the restaurant density is so high on California Avenue, you have like basically 20 to 25. Waltz is 22 and then all the be up probably up to 25 year um of dens. So they're almost it's almost like one right next to each other. And so if you're going to introduce anything that's going to be a structure, you have to make sure there's adequate space. So if there's a fire in the building that people can get out the to the rightway and then not have the sidewalk cluttered also too much so people have a place to evacuate to. So we had to look at all 30 buildings and what's needed for emergency egress for each building and then how to do that equitably. So so every building has what it needs. So they have to split and share space between each building. So that was a big issue. The sidewalks the tenant front is all very there's a gas man which I mentioned the roadway itself is all over the place right because it's parallel angle parking bus stops turnouts medians. There's all kinds of things in the road that don't make it clear how to use it. in a kind of simple way. Um, and so and then there's all these sidewalk barriers, right? Because you have planters, street furniture, artwork, walls, plant, you know, bike racks, newspapers, think all kinds of things. So what what I'm showing here, this drawing right here is really an illustrative view of if all the businesses wanted to have a pre-approved parklet and they wanted to have equivalent outdoor cafe seating that they have now, how would that lay out on the street given all these constraints? And so that's what this drawing this drawing shows. Basically 19 out of 20 restaurants can have a a pre-approved parklet that could be in front of their their business. to figure out ways to do that. Um, so I can get into the details of that more, but that's just kind of the big picture on why that part was a little more challenging. Next slide. You know, the other things that you know this is sort of a detail. Um, on the left is sort of how to think about the street in terms of its the frontage of a building and its activation zone. We've been looking at the street as you know has the frontages, has a pedestrian pathways, has sort of street furniture, curbside zone, and then these activation areas where you're really using the roadway for um commercial use for activation. And then you have the access way. And so this this plan sort of shows here you have the building frontage, building front, and then you have the frontage zone, pedestrian zone, street furniture, and it also shows this gas man. This a typical it's about six feet away from the it's 29 ft from the face of the building. and and then you have the setbacks and we're doing is 4 foot setbacks from the property lines for each business. So you have basically 8 feet between parkletit structures for emergency eress. Um and and so that's the way the the the space is available for for outdoor activation. So this is how to maximize the public rightway for commercial use of the sidewalk and the roadway. Now given all those constraints, the the drawing on the right is really an illustrative drawing of showing how you can lay things out. And this is has a seat density of of 15 14 you know seats per square foot. Uh but you have the dining that's right along the building frontage. Okay. It can have an awning over for example umbrellas uh you know matra deep sand you know menu stand areas. And then you have the parklet which is an extension of the sidewalk. And then you can use some of the street furniture zone also for dining. So that shows that and this is assuming if you're to be serving alcohol that you can have railings and we've worked with public works being able to attach railings to the sidewalk even with a mosaic glass sidewalks. So you can actually create a slightly deeper parklet because of the narrow thing with the gas mate. But I think the thing people don't realize is because of the gas line you can you actually have the opportunity to have cafe seating on the roadway beyond the parklet. Okay. So you have basically the access way, some planters or however you want to do your barrier, uh cafe seating, ADA ramps to take you up to the sidewalk, you have your parklet, sidewalk dining, frontage zone dining. So that's the basically the the opportunity for how it could be utilized. Next slide. Um so that's like all the site planning stuff, sort of the first layer of trying to think about this. The next one was about well what do these things look like? How are they organized? um uh what are their characteristics that make them, you know, unique to California Avenue as a car-free street. So, we looked at a lot of examples. Um here's Evia. A lot of people like Evia. There's things that I think are really fabulous about Evia, and there's some things I think they're challenging about Evia if that was to be applied to Cal Avenue. Um May House was another one that we we thought was very good. That's on Emerson. And then the barrel bistro and wine and on be street in site was another very good precedent and we can in the questions and answer we get more details about that. What we created was basic guidance learning from what we learned from these about what to do for Cal Avenue and that's like how do you maintain storefront visibility keep things light and transparent minimize enclosure massing stay open to the sidewalk be operable for weather where it's retracted or it's not in use. So you can you can see in this two sketches a sort of sun sunny windy raining areas but in this cross-section which is a section of the plan we just saw before having the uh parklet roof can lever over the sidewalk because the parklet's a little bit shallow is a way to be able to use that street furniture zone and incorporate dining as part of that. I think that was a big innovation and thinking about the plan of how to really make things work. Um, and then what's so beautiful about that part of Cal Avenue is it's like it has almost two furniture zones. It has the old one. We have street trees and it has a pedestrian walkway and it has the new one that's so 22 ft wide. So it really takes advantage of of all that. Next slide. Yeah. And so we we after looking at that, the next thing we tackled was pre-approved parklets and how do we adapt them to California Avenue? Now in the in the current plan you current parklet program you you have basically wood structures or you can have steel structures and what we found out is that very few almost no no businesses were in were actually implementing steel structures. So we said we got to look at maybe another way to to think about this. But the there's two problems that were really paramount. One was how do we create a structure that has no foundation or attachments and like so that took a little innovative thinking as you might imagine because when we went and did the precedent work when we talked with all these fabricators about their beautiful pergolas they all needed foundations so we had to come up with something unique. So what we came up with, our engineer came up with this um is doing flat steel plates with basically a sleeve or collar that's welded onto that and then then then you can actually have your posts in that and the structural frame for all the lateral loading which is basically wind is the moment frames and the connections that are in the roof. So by doing those two things, we were able to create a structure that's actually quite transparent and open and adaptable for any of the street environments that we have on Cal Avenue, whether it's flush like in front of Zen or whether there's a curb or whether you want to be partially on the curb sidewalk and on the on the pavement. So that was the basic structural innovation that I think was really great. Um, the second thing is we thought for Cal Avenue, we should do something that's pre-approved that relates to all the conversations we've had about the character of the street. And part of that been it's mid-century modern kind of quality, the sort of eye clear like quality of residential things. We said, can there be a structure like a cabana versus a pergola which kind of recalls some of those mid-century things without overdoing it, but actually is the minimum amount of structure in order to be able to create enclosure, protect people from the sun or rain. So, we came up with that and then we did the pergola. And the pergola has these um corner brackets that are welded that are able to be quickly assembled on site. Um that is a way to frame up being able to do a a laterally resisted structure with minimum structure and minimum roof. So you have these two different ideas. Um and then you can also have roofless parklets which don't have the 350 foot limitations. So that's kind of that's what we did here. I'm I'm really excited about how they look. They look at cable railings as a way to keep things open. You don't have to have the barriers that most parklets have to protect people from cars. So we removed all that. So we've created options to create a very transparent you know environment and you could see in the cabana view you could see parklets across the street too. So you get sort of a sense of just like the street environment in terms of how these elements would be being be introduced. Next slide. Um so you know we had to do some data analysis. Um this is just showing to address council direction about equivalent area. You know 2024 was 12,620 ft. The red is roadway, the blue is sidewalks. 2025 where we actually able to measure and count. It had contracted quite a bit um for many reasons but the main one was that it there was really kind of post-pandemic adjustments as to what businesses actually need in terms of area. Um and then we look at our activation plan. Um and if you're within the setbacks of all of that then that that would increase in total area. And then if we do encroachments, which is what you have today, where outdoor dining is in front of other tenants, other businesses that are adjacent, if we continue that uh that pattern that's out there, then that can expand even further. And this is through a letter of consent thing. You have to when you um go to get your permit for that year, you have to make sure you have consent from your neighbors that that's okay. So, you know, the key thing is that we're able to meet that requirement. Um 19 to 20 restaurants as I mentioned have pre-proof parklets. And the other thing is that those 400 foot tents that are permitted out there, those will no longer be permitted. So that will actually shrink some of those areas. The covered area be no more than 350 square ft max per park, two per business. But next slide. Yeah. So I'm going to kind of pivot here a bit. And now just a couple of things about pedestrian bikes. Um, you know, we originally supposed to look at how to have a two-way bike lane down the center of the street. Uh, when thinking about that, we thought it needed to be bigger than the 20 ft for this the emergence of the standards for fire trucks for access. We looked at 22. It's much bigger than the 16 ft that's out there now. Um, and when we looked at this, as you can see, this is an illustration from the National Association of City Transportation Officials. They really create the national standards. They're brilliant. They're fabulous. They're state-of-the-art. It's really how cities are evolving and thinking things about mobility. It's a great resource. Um, and then they're looking at shared spaces. This is a a graphic from that. And and what I think is important is that Cal Avenue is a um through bike route. It's commuters go from Cal Train to Stanford Research Park. It's a a safe routes to school route. It's it's a pretty heavily used bike route. And then in this one area of the bike route, we're looking at actually figuring how to make it a shared designated designated space. And the guidance has always been do that, but have them be separate. And then the way they've separated it here is they have street furniture elements that really separate the pedestrian areas from the bike areas where these planters, bike racks, and things like that. And we can't do that on Cal Avenue. That's the thing that made it kind of complicated how you do that. But that was sort of the basic guidance in that. So next slide. Yeah. So here are these two different concepts. The top slide is the council direction two-way slow bikes. We created pedestrian prominade. Uh instead of having crosswalks that go from sidewalk to sidewalk, we really looked at limiting crossings for pedestrians to just the bike way and then adding more of them to help slow things down. you know, at the entrances because of the medians, that sort of changing in direction really helped slow bikes down. Um, but when we presented this at the economic development committee, they felt like this is going to encourage bikes to go faster instead of slower. Um, and that it makes the space feel like it's bicycle dominated as opposed to feeling pedestrian prioritized. So, they asked us to look at how to rethink this problem. So the the solution below as as a uh I think an innovative way to think about how to do this. Basically, there's no bike markings that meet any of the C's or you know traditional municipal uniform traffic control requirements. So there's nothing on that now. So it's thought of as really a public space. And then there'll be these sort there'll be an area that's in the center, but we'll be using these thermoplastic stripes along the street to really kind of define the kind of pedestrian pedestrian environment. Now, what we found is that when people are riding bikes and they go over those, there's just enough texture that it's slightly irritating and the faster you go, the more irritating it is. So, they're going to want to ride on the smoother portion of the of the street. Just human nature. Okay. And so we have a little these little oval dots to help separate who goes on which direction, left, you know, north, east or west. And then we added a um what you call is like a tactile um it's like not really a warning, but a tactile delineator strip that allows people who are disabled to be able to track walking in an environment and know where they're going. And we added that along the southern side along where all the restaurants are. So pedestrians can walk on either side, not just on one side. Either side. And and when they're doing that, there's a way for disabled folks to be able to walk safely adjacent to where all the outdoor dining is. So if they want to go to all that, they can do that. Um, you know, we knew it was important. This had to be legible for children because you have so many kids. So we wanted to make it very clear and easy how to do that. And we wanted an environment that welcomes bicyclists. I think today people still feel when they ride their bike on there, they're not supposed to. So they sort of dash through there. So we're thinking, let's let's not do that. Let's make it feel like they're welcome also. Um, so that's that. We can answer more questions if we need to on that. Next slide. Um, so our next steps, we're going to be at Earth Day Sunday, May 20th, we're going to go to economic development uh committee and uh talk about the recommendations we're getting here. And then June 8th, we want to go to council. And then last last slide. Um, and that the recommendation here is council takes final action. So, it's not like you're making a recommendation. It goes to the planning director for their action. This actually goes to council. Um, so it's about the standards that we have here and the parklet plans. Um, and then any feedback you might have on this public space concept. Um, so I want to thank you for your patience for me to going through all that. I know it's a lot. It's a big project. Um, so anyway, thank you. >> Thank you very much for your presentation. And I'd also like to thank our ad ad hoc committee members uh for your time and efforts working on this with the city members. Thank you. Uh so before our questions to the staff uh we will have our public comments for this project. Do we have any public comments? >> Um through the chair I've not received any public comment cards. If there's any members of the public comment please raise your hand and I will add to the queue. Uh it looks like we do have one. Um give me one second. >> Uh our first speaker is Laura E. Laura, you may now speak >> and please state and spell your name for the record. You will have three minutes to talk. Thank you. >> Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Fantastic. Hi, my name is Laura Ecwall. L A R A E K W A L L. First of all, Bruce, thank you. Uh lovely presentation and I think that it's uh very valuable that you included uh all of the hurdles that you have all been dealing with. I think that that was helpful. Uh one favor is if you could go back and clarify where the bark uh in the last plan with the curvy the last the last drawing that you had, if you could highlight where the bike parking would be. There was uh con um comments a little while back that we might lose the parking in front of our business at Labor Gita and I'm hoping we don't. So, could you clarify that please? Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, please go ahead, Bruce. Yeah, I think that that um where businesses would like to have the bike parking removed as a barrier to their being able to activate their space, we are collecting all that information around preferences. So, if you want to keep the bike parking there, there's no reason for it to change. Now overall for all this parking we're looking at removing like you know maybe 30 bike racks total we're looking at relocating we were to relocate those towards the entrances for where bicyclists come in. So they'll be at the El Camino intersection and the Birch Street intersection and also at Ash Street and then some additional ones in front of Country Sun Market if you come in from Amosa Lane. So all the ways that you could enter there will be bike additional bike parking. >> Thank you. And Samuel, do do we have any other public comment? >> There is one more request to speak. >> It will be uh Michael E. Michael E, you may now speak. >> Good morning. Thank you very much. Uh my name is Michael Ecwall. happen to be Lara's husband and business partner at Labodita. And uh you know, I just want to uh you know, reiterate what uh Lara said. I mean, I want to recognize um the work that Bruce and his team have put into this effort. Uh I feel like their time uh and energy and the commitment to improving the community and, you know, the the area of California Avenue is much appreciated. Uh however uh I'm going to put a curveball in here. Uh I think that you know what the city promised residents and businesses for you know many years now a European style prominade has um not happened. Instead, after spending what you know we see as hundreds of thousands of dollars on outside consultants, we're left with a plan that definitely is falling well short of the original vision. And I think Bruce kind of articulated some of the challenges that we're having. But I really feel like the the lack of support from what we see as businesses, from the community, you know, and initially as this whole thing rolled out, very few people, probably 1% of the residents actually responded to the survey that got the ball rolling on this project. And you know, the reality is that, you know, the businesses are the ones that are really affected by this plan. And you know, many of us operate with multi-million dollar lease obligations and the prolonged street closure has not delivered the economic businesses uh benefits that we were promised and said we've seen declining business activity, reduced accessibility and delays in emergency services. And I'd suggest that you talk with fire in particular to uh address those issues because we've had very very serious delays in terms of their access to the street. And now what we see is what was framed as a revitalization effort is in practice creating ongoing challenges for the businesses that you know this is really supposed to support. So you know after six years I feel like it's reasonable to ask whether this experiment of a closed street has succeeded. I feel like the budget shortfall that the city has and to be honest, most of the merchants on the street really support reopening the street, you know, potentially as a one-way avenue that stills allow allows, you know, thoughtful limited outdoor dining. You know, these plans that Bruce is laying out to be, you know, easily overlaid into something like that. you know, outdoor dining has always been a, you know, a very healthy part of the business community, but if we're going to have outdoor dining, we do need to have yearround, you know, protected outdoor dining. Um, but, you know, even saying that, I don't think that that requires the full street closure. You know, I think we'd rather return to a more balanced and accessible model that can continue the system that benefits all of the businesses. And I think that we should reconsider opening the street. And >> thank you. That concludes your time >> everyone >> and through the chair uh we have no more requests to speak. >> Okay. Thank you very much and we will close the public uh portion of the meeting and return to the board. So if to our board members uh if you have any questions to the staff it's time to ask. Who want to start? David, >> um, you know, that presentation was fantastic. Uh, thank you so much. The depth of what you've gone through here to solve problems that seemed insoluble has been has been incredible really. We can see your thought process through through the whole thing. I mean, something like the horizontal strips just to slow the bikes is such a clever thought beyond what what you might have come up with. You know, I'm not quite sure what the material is, but I trust your judgment on that one that you'll find something that works permanently more permanently with the street. I have one kind of question is that you know there's the original scheme which we haven't really discussed the original sidewalk patterning and glass pieces to it is quite an exciting piece still there and you you didn't actually mention that uh and I wondered whether or not the uh pattern of the black line that follows the edge of the seemingly the edge of the street represents the air that particular area because I would kind of hate to see that destroyed in some way in particular areas where it's very useful. So that's one question that I have. Let's see if I have some others here. Um yeah, the bike plan is just it seems to me the bike plan has to be a kind of flexible plan and represent representing that opinion, you know, therefore maybe the response to something like that would be movable the movable bike racks in some way perhaps colorful bike racks. You know, that's up up to you as to the furniture design, but it seems to me that uh having more bike racks might be necessary. You know, that as the street becomes just more attractive as it will I think it's going to attract bikes. So, that becomes a significant area of discussion. I know you put it at the cross streets there that those are the important areas. Um and of course they need to be lockable etc. Um and they also can be you know we have so many kind of almost playful ideas for for bike racks that can be part of the character of the street as well. >> Um uh I had a com a thought about the parkletits. You know I looking at some that are kind of that minimal dimension. I have just one little thought about it, you know, and that is that if it if it were possible to have a stronger piece of structure on the sidewalk side facing the merchants, wouldn't it be possible to have more openness? So to study that particular structure might be even if you eliminated one or two of the columns and stretched across worked out a bit more of the detail. I think those parkletits that you're showing are kind of very simple and the ones that you showed us from the other other areas of the city are very elaborate and needless to say they're probably more expensive and that this as the one that any merchant can kind of get through the city quickly and get up and operational makes a lot of sense. So I don't have a problem with the concept there and I've seen some of them that have followed that particular design and were quite successful. But it just seemed to me that the as you enter the those parklets, you know, it's kind of better if you have more space to get in and out so that the food delivery is easy and the furniture could be movable. So maybe you'd think about that a little bit. Uh um you know there's some areas of the street that are really kind of dead areas and I I'm not quite sure how you've dealt with them. Maybe you could come back and just describe some of your thoughts about that. I'm sure you thought about it because it's pretty evident where they are. Uh those are kind of my thoughts at the present. I have a suggestion for you which I'll hold till later. Come back to me because I generally have some crazy crazy idea that I think might make it even better as a street. you know, you have done as much, I think, as you'd be expected to do, but maybe there's something else. >> Thank you, David. Who want to go next? Awesome. >> Yeah, I can go next. Um, thank you, Bruce. It's been really fun working with you on this. Um, the uh I do have questions about the the change in the the bike concept, which was pretty recent. Um and I was wondering if um because this is you know not a super long section of this you know for as far as biking is concerned I don't know if it was considered whether this could be a um you know walk your bike only kind of space obviously it is a commuter direction and all people are going to come through with their bikes and I'm thinking of even you know places at Stanford where at like places that want to be pedestrian and prioritize pedestrian. There's, you know, signs for walk your bike. Of course, like 75% of the people follow the the rules and 25 won't. But at least it discourages biking and kind of from this um the the diagram that um you added with the the stripes and the dots. It's kind of trying to discourage speed biking anyway. Or would it make sense to either it's kind of a timed like you know certain busy times is walk your bike only or like during commuter time in the morning for instance or afternoon when actually you know there's not a whole lot of outdoor dining happening anyway and so the street pedestrian wise is not that busy. it makes sense for biking to be allowed and people get to the train quickly uh or towards school. Um but not like kind of a timed way to discourage biking versus allow biking I should say. Um cuz in that with that in mind, I feel like the the dot pattern while it's interesting is feels a little too wavy to kind of really be a bike path. um if you're just commuting to train and back and um I love to bike and when there's like too much obstacles you're kind of looking down at what you're um trying to like basically do an obstacle course through and you actually don't look up and see people you might be about to hit right um so I feel like maybe a little bit simpler but uh as far as commuter time is concerned but um but otherwise like in busy farmers market times and I'll like just, you know, walk your bike through that section of the street. I'm just wondering if kind of a hybrid solution like that might be more appropriate because the way we were looking at it before where there is a bike lane through the middle that's one end of the spectrum uh and I just want you to think about the other end of it uh so that it's you know not more challenging than necessary. who want to be next? >> Yeah, I just wanted to commend you guys on this work and again, thank you to the ad hoc committee for their information on this as well. You can see how much effort's been put in. Um, I'm actually quite fond of this new pedestrian bike path. Um, of course, there's always two points to every uh every comment here, right? Um, I think it's very thoughtful to have the bike parking at both ends of the street so when they're coming off the commuter train if they want to walk they can sort of park their bike and do that walk. Um, I live down in LA and we had the LA prominade down there and that's beautiful example of how this can work really well. Um, my counterargument to posting signs and saying that biking's not allowed is I think that we have a lot of people who really do respect the rules and I think that that would really just make it, you know, difficult for the people that are just trying to get from point A to point B. Um, I think that this winess pattern is quite lovely and I think it really is going to slow down that bike traffic. So, if someone does need to get from point A to point B, they won't feel like they're breaking the rules, right? But they are going to have to pay attention to the people walking around them. Um, so I think this is a lovely solution. I think that it's actually going to work really well. Um the concept that you've got the uh what's it the the tape coming down on the streets um with that slight rigidity so that people will be inclined to stay on that I think is brilliant. Um to to Mus's point maybe this could be you know a little bit less wavy but overall I think that it's it's a really nice direction to be going. Um, I did want to also comment on the two callers uh from the public that, if I'm reading correctly, their restaurant is sort of down near the front entrance towards El Camino. And it looks like on on the map that there's bike parking across the street right at the entrance. Um, if we can pull up the map, I just wanted to sort of point that out. um and just make sure that there's not, you know, a loss um of overall bike parking because I do think just making sure that we've got bike parking and an ample bike parking is going to be pretty pretty important here, especially if it's to discourage people from biking, right? The only people biking through this should be the people getting from point A to point B. Everybody else should sort of park their bike and walk. Um and so if we zoom in here, it looks like, let me see if I can get my pen going. There we go. So, it looks like we've got some parking here. And if I understand correctly, this is the restaurant from the um people calling in the Ecwells. And there's parking here in front of Country Sun. Again, also I think that that's very clever, right? Cuz people will want to load their groceries onto their bikes immediately. Um and then having the other parking over here at the the right end towards the um as close to the Cal Train as you can sort of be at this point. Um so I think that that's a very clever setup. I I might suggest adding a little bit more to this entrance side as well towards El Camino. Um just again to sort of balance out from both ends where people are coming in, how they're going to park. Um and then just as a thought question is if there's any need for bike parking sort of at this Birch Street entrance and how that entrance is going to be handled because I don't think we've really There's a little bit there. Oh, is it right here? >> Yeah. >> Okay, perfect. Beautiful. Okay. I didn't see that before. Thank you for pointing that out. Um, as a question, see as I'm doing only comments at the moment, has there been any consideration about sort of blocking this area off and making sort of a U-turn where cars could in theory come in, have a drop off zone, make the U-turn, and then leave again? Has there been any commentary on that side of El Camino for any sort of drop off point or making that, you know, shortening this um planter strip to make some type of roundabout U-turn that would be a vehicle drop off point? Um again, that's something that the Prominade has done in LA and it's actually quite effective and with the uh rise of Lyft and Uber and things like that, that might be well worth exploring. Um and there's sort of a natural point there already. So has that been considered at all? >> Yeah, when um when we first started we had these two alternatives adapt and reimagine the street and so that that kind of thinking was started being discussed at at that time. Um for this we were looking at what are the kind of first step improvements needed for bicycle safety and so that's what we did in the design of of this and emergency egress and then we put the planters in as they are now in order to help protect people from you know like what happened in Santa Monica example. Um the trouble we were having with trying to bring cars in and around there is that it kind of conflicted a little bit with the simplicity of what was needed for bikes. >> Mhm. >> Um so anyway, it's a good thought. It's worth exploring further. Um we didn't explore further. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thanks very much. Um other than that, I I wanted to also briefly touch base on the um the actual parklet designs themselves. They're elegant. They're simple. I think they're going to be really nice and people have plenty of opportunity to um sort of design them up to fit their own standards um while still having a pretty elegant base to get started on. So um hats off for that. I think that this is um very well thought out and um really quite impressed. So thank you very much. >> Sorry, I did have one more question. Um I wanted to touch base really quick on ebikes. So while traditional bicycles I think absolutely they can be ridden very slowly, people can meander through, is there any sort of concept or discussion on whether or not ebikes will be allowed and if so um speed limits, things like that? We've seen kids tearing through the neighborhoods, you know, three of them piled on one bike with no helmets on. Um so on that front, I would strongly discourage those from being maybe allowed in this area. Do you guys have any concepts on that or um any other sort of motorized vehicles being allowed through this pathway? >> Yeah, that that issue is something that our transportation staff are really looking at as part of the overall citywide pedestrian bike transportation plan. Um you know, there was a recommendation that like an 8 mph speed limit be set for for Cal Avenue. Um, that kind of odd number was considered as a way to get people to stop and actually think about what their speed really is. However, it's impossible. Most people have no way of knowing how fast they're riding their bike. Um, but setting some kind of limit, I think, would be helpful because with the opening of a public safety building and you're having more police officers just in in the the area that would give them ability to do some enforcement around that. Um but yeah, it's so it's we're we're looking looking at that. Clearly, it's a real hazard, you know. Um yeah, >> great. Thank you. Yeah, I guess that would be my my one suggestion is maybe it's just as simple as saying ebikes must be walked, but other other bikes could be ridden um just because they can keep a safe speed because it's manpowered, but the uh the electric bikes really just one little one little trigger and they'll be zooming. So, thanks very much, board member Joseph. Well, I I'm not going to provide any further comments because I had, you know, four or five months available to to me to provide comments. But I just uh want to thank you for going through this process and being like so open to the needs of the community and the businesses. It's very hard to satisfy everybody the needs of the different departments in the city. And uh I agree with I agree with David. I think you put you put a uh square peg in into a round hole. So well done. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. And I understand we still in the question session. And so uh I do have a couple of questions. So on packet page 28 um it noted as there are four types of permitted parklet narrow parklet wide park parklet roadway and sidewalk parklet. So could you please clarify when you mention narrow and wide park it will be the covered and the road roadway and the sidewalk is like roofless park. Is it correct? >> Yeah. Um yeah, the way we're we were thinking about the I mean you can have a roofless parklet. Um but uh this was trying to define kind of what the shapes were and how they fit in the in the in the roadway that this is basically saying like the spatial conditions where parklets can be located in ter that's really kind of defining the types. So a narrow ones are going to be like you see in the diagram above, right? the a wider one is like what you see in the pre-approved park plan. of what they would look like. >> And the reason why we we distinguish these is that we had two other exceptions that we we wanted a permit. And that's that if you have a a sidewalk that's 22 ft wide, like basically from, you know, Izzy's Bagels to to not quite Joany's, but like to where, you know, um tea is there or sort of that zone right there was 22 ft that you could actually have a parklet that could be encroached partially onto the sidewalk also. So it could be up to 10 feet 10 ft wide. So we wanted to identify those as opportunities. Um and then also if you have a park if you have a sidewalk that's 30 feet wide >> you know that you can actually do something on that sidewalk too. That's the reason why we >> actually pull up the site plan the overall street view so that we can know which specific sections you're talking about. >> Yeah. Bear with us while we pull that up. Yeah, you can. Um, if you go, we can use this one. Do you want to use this? The other one was the earlier one that had the kind of issues and the challenges with it, but we could we could use this. This is if you go back one more. Yeah, that might be easy to see. Okay. So, you know, basically from, you know, on the south, we'll say south side of the road from Izzy's bagels all the way to really, you know, Mediterranean wrap, that sidewalk's 22 feet wide, right? And then when you look at where the um Yeah, thanks. your basically the the the cat place, Mottown Cats, you know, right there across from Mosa Lane, that's 30 feet wide. And then uh where you have kind of Umei, Sequoia, Labawam, that's narrower. It's I think it's like 14 feet. It's not as wide, right? And then where Jones is is back to 22 feet. So it varies in here. So, we're saying like if you're 22 feet wide, you could take advantage of the curb furniture zone that's on the sidewalk where there's trees and planters, then you can extend your parklet into that area. That's what we're saying right there. For example, and if your sidewalk's 30t wide, like in front of PaloAlto Soul and Son of Wolf where Summit Bikes is over at the Asht Street intersection, right? You could do a 4ft deep parklet cuz basically you have 34 ft from building phase to where the central access way is. But a 4ft parklet's awfully small, right? You really can't that. So we're saying, well, let's think about how do you remove barriers to outdoor dining? You know, we're looking at well, we're looking at some the cost of some capital improvements to be able to, you know, pave over some of those planter areas, put trees in tree grates, remove some of the walls that are in there, maybe relocate public art. We're looking at what's needed for being able to do that because you need permission from the donor of the artwork. But then in an area like that, you could do a a a a park that could be up to 12 ft wide on that sort of area. That's that's the reason why we we did that to sort of make sure that every it's the 23 solutions. It's like we wanted to make sure everyone has an opportunity to do something to be flexible. Yeah. >> Sure. Thank you very much. And thank you Kendra for circling it out for the carrier. Um, another question is I know uh, California Avenue could be different from the standard uh, parklay design. So I want to understand like the maximum 350 uh, square foot requirement is it like so why is that? >> Yeah, the the 300 um, when an applicant files for an encroachment permit, they have to provide sort of structural drawings. They need to meet the California building code with what they're doing with that or they can meet this American Society of Civil Engineers Code for Outdoor Structures. But um after 350 ft, you're required to have sprinklers. So So that's really the issue. Um that's really what's the limit on that. Got >> But if you have no roof, you can have a larger parklet. >> I see. So for uh for the for the uh restaurant or stores whoever have the longer uh street frontage which means they can build two separate parklet >> yes that's correct two parklets up to 350 ft each so that's like 700 ft respecting all the limitations >> understand thank you and I do have another question about the park design thank you so much for providing all those details and and design options But let me see for the plan view. I think I noticed the column to column distance is 8 ft maximum. So I know why because say if there for a regular table for four the table would be 3 ft wide plus the uh the seating area 2 feet on each side that would be 7 ft. And then for 8 ft that is column to column then it's quite minimum like there's no spacing between the seat and even for the wider ones maybe you you will lose one table so that you can serve the the table at more in the in the deep area. Yeah, we we we looked at this um what a couple of things is we talked with our structural engineer about what we can do to increase those spans, right? And his basic response and I know a lot of structural engineers who do this, but um was that because it's a kind of a a roofbased moment frame, you know, and it's no there's no foundations, he needed to have more frequent posts in order to be able to stabilize the the roof. So that's that was the basic issue around that. So I said okay let's talk to our architects and say are what can you do around the seating arrangements and accommodation in that case and we had them look at it and they did like 10 different layouts to show how you can accommodate seating with differentiz tables from two seats to four seats to six seats. And you know for uh in all cases they were able to really come up with the 15 square ft or less per seat. So all those arrangements were flexible and they allow equivalent amounts of dining as is already out there. So we felt like given those two things and if someone wants to do a custom parklet, they could do a custom parklet and arrange it however they want. Um that there's sufficient options to be able to meet all kinds of different dining configurations. Okay. >> Thank you. Do we have any other questions? >> I have a follow-up question actually. >> Sure. >> What you asked about the square footage because I know in this um cuz trying to be all weather almost, you know, 12 months a year. Um they all the pre-approved parklet designs here all have solid roofs which then requires a sprinkler if it's larger than 350. Um, I know we didn't really discuss like could it just be a trellis and in which case I forget if it's like 50 or 75% open then they could be bigger than 350. Um, right. And um, would that have to go a custom route or could we have an another version of the roof that is open trellis and then also allow larger than 350 if there's space allowed? >> Yeah, it's a great question. I think I'll talk to our George Hoy, our chief building official about that. Like what actually is the enclosure of the roof requirement that sets that area requirement? Because if you can have it be mostly trellis, which is probably more than 50% open, >> why not have it be larger? Yeah, I think it's a good question. Great question. Thank you. Yeah, following up with exactly that question. Same question is if a part of it can be, you know, roof structures up to 350 enclosed, trellis could be the other portion or it could be roofless, could that base all still be connected and uniform and it's really just the roof enclosure. So, just going back to that is just understanding where those limitations lie. if it applies to the roof or the foundation. Um, well, I guess not foundation, the base structure. Um, and just understand that better because it would be really nice for some of those larger places to have that flexibility instead of having to build two separate ones that they could build something that connected to some extent. But yeah, I understand we don't have the answer right now. So, thank you. >> Is there any additional questions? If no, oh, go ahead. >> I don't know if it's a question. Maybe a windup comment. Yeah, sure. Then we will we can just move on >> at which point you >> Yeah, we can just move on to the internal discussion now and have your comments or feedback to to the uh to the city staff. So, so uh uh before doing that I would suggest that maybe we could start because there there are so many things that we can discuss. So I would suggest we start with like the high level street scale discussion and then we can move on to the parklay design which is more detail oriented. How about that? >> Okay. Thank you. So, you know, back when earlier work was being done on this, I remember we we looked at the uh El Camino end of the site and thought about the entry. And by the way, I just like to make a comment. I just don't think it's a good idea to have uh have that interrupted by vehicles at that end. It's of course it's a very very busy street. You know, it's periodically kind of a highway and then it's nothing and then it's another highway. It's a kind of a interrupted transit like that. Um but what what we thought about because we we were thinking about how do you make a a symbolic entry to this whole street and I think that might be one of the thing that's kind of missing here. um and something that could sort of carry it over the top and make it really something quite different. And it seems to me these long lozenhaped elements offer a real possibility sculpturally. You know, it reminds me somehow I think about that uh is it Marino the horse big horse sculpture that's all a frame of a horse you know it's seen it's a very dramatic element I'm not thinking of that specifically here but I'm thinking of scale and somehow if the two elements that are the end the green lozenge elements were a piece of combined kind of comment or sculpture that defines somehow the excitement of the street. It could be a lighting could be a part of it. Could be open structures. Must must be some kind of an artist element to this that that is up and beyond the level of the street uh that's in the middle of the street. I think it would animate all of the life of the street in a in a very exciting way. So I would like to see if it's possible for you to find some way to include that, you know, as a object. Maybe it has to take some years to get it done, but it it ought to be a consideration that you have. Um, again the thought of the comment that was made about the traffic end entering the end of it because I think it brings up an issue as to how how the street is used for deliveries, you know, and uh midday type deliveries or days when it's an active street. And I I think you really have to explore your connections to the perimeter a little bit more in order to sort of enter the uh in order to kind of respond to potential sort of delivery issues. I think that, by the way, would hopefully keep the cars off of the street itself because there's plenty of parking all around the perimeter. And I'd hate to see all of a sudden cars reenter entered re, you know, the whole idea is to get rid of the cars and make it 100% pedestrian. and so therefore answer that those issues with the availability of parking and access to it. I think just about everybody in this community knows where the big parking garage is or the very long ones on you know Cambridge. Uh and there's there's a huge amount of parking around the perimeter. So it makes you know makes that street viable. Uh okay anyhow that's my comment I think you know those ideas about the yeah as you can see said the detail of maybe some of those suggestions seem to me to be very interesting. I just want to put my comment in there that open open closed possibility and actually answering the issue of dimension as was discussed I think ought to be part of your package somehow. So that you get your if you had your architects study it then we should see it. It should be part of the package. Um see if there's anything else you know the bikes have been discussed in detail. I think you know you've got re things to respond to to there. Um well that's that's my those are my thoughts. Again, I repeat, I think it's going to make a great street. Thanks. >> Who want to go next? >> Um, I can go next. Just a few overall um comments. Um, thank you again, Bruce, for um this very thorough uh package. Um just following up on what uh David was saying about the ends. I think you know you had your list of challenges uh you know uh that you're dealing with which is really helpful and clear and like trying to make this you know 95% of the time pedestrian and um and then but then you have the deliveries and the fire truck. I I believe if I understand this correctly, the the green bubbles, they have to be flat because that's part of the fire access, right? That's part of your 22 ft is between like on the the right end on Birch Street end of it. Between the two bike lane Yeah. If you could pull up the plan, um between the bike lanes is your fire access. It has to be flat. So, we can't really put a elevated sculpture on. Is that correct? Well, um, >> sorry, it's comment time, but please respond. >> I'm gonna, this is an important question, so I'm respond. The setbacks are greater where you have the medians, >> right? >> So that there's roadway that's available for emergency vehicles. So the median is not included in the space for emergency vehicle access. So you could put artwork in there. >> Okay. Um, that's great to know because I thought that was included in the um the emergency vehicle with um and I think uh yeah because if it's possible it like would be really nice here is to have a layer of greenery as well. We have the street trees in all of um these green bubbles including the uh diagonal parking islands like as part of this activation. Also adding um you know enhancing uh the greenscape of this area would be uh really lovely. Um and kind of like between what I was talking about earlier and Kendra, I I think the I really like the dots um and the lines pattern but just straightening out a little bit between um uh like the intersections just so when people are biking it's relatively simple. But I mean just from you know the hope is that when people with bikes are coming through and there's a lot of pedestrians they choose to just walk their bike for that length. Um so kind of want to make it bike friendly and pedestrian friendly without having conflicts and also not making it too difficult for people who are just trying to cut through the this area. Um I think other than that um this uh I know we you know don't have a budget to make major changes to the streets. I think that's one of the uh uh public comment was uh as well. But I think making it another layer of development in the parkland where if um people are able to make it a little bigger whether it's with trellis and use more of that street um for this activation um other than you know the 22 ft down the middle um from even like both sides like where I'm looking at right in kind of the middle of the plan uh where you have the widest Oh, actually I can pull like Kendra and draw on the screen. U here we go. Um like for instance, yeah, right here um this section of street that's left over is I think wider than 22. Like even if there's a possibility for these park lids to go get a little larger the dining area while leaving the 22 ft open. um or like how that might get developed over time if like I forget what this business is if they wanted a parklet um in the future if that becomes a restaurant. Um how like kind of keeping the 22 ft minimum clear but kind of maximizing what businesses can do from each side. um and loosening that 350 ft if we can um even if it's with an open trellis because sun shading is important half the year and then rain cover for the other half. So, um I know the goal was to really make it 12 months a a year, but if we kind of think about, okay, what are the other possibilities to make this even more increase the possibilities for the merchants would be great. But thank you so much. This is really great. >> And I'll jump in here if that's all right. Um I just want to say hats off again. I really think this is a beautiful design. I think it's going to be a really fantastic space for the street. Um, I think that, you know, just to touch base on, uh, one of the comments that had been brought forward by the public earlier, uh, I think keeping this as a pedestrian friendly area is actually pretty crucial for this city. We have plenty of places where the cars go. Um, and I've been a lifetime resident of here. I've been going to California have my entire life, and it's been such a tremendous improvement in my mind, um, and a benefit to the community to have this being a walkable space that people can really go and sort of spend time at. um right versus driving in, parking your car, and then leaving again. So, um I'm just to make a you know, personal opinion comment on that, I think that it's going to be, you know, much better to keep it as the pedestrian walkways. Um my one comment about the dot line, uh per uh board member Adcock's comment as well, it it looks like it was done with a pencil, right? Very detailed. And I think you need to like get a big brush stroke, and that's how you find that curvature of those dots. But the the plan is good. It's just stretching it just that little bit so all of those curves are just a little bit smoother. Um, and I quite like the color stripes. I think they're lovely. Um, my only comment if I could make a request is to explore the concept of drop off zones at each end. So, the one on Birch Street and the one on um El Camino, if those could be U-turn areas, whether it's shortening a little bit of that grassy zone, but just even at the Birch Street side, whether it's just a pull out area towards that. And again, there's the complications like you brought up where you have to provide access and then also barriers at the exact same time. Um so whether it's a paving barrier or whether it's a speed bump or something like that just to denote where you pull in and don't pull all the way in. um or whether it's you know temporary um ballard something like that but I think that this is a that's that's really my only sort of wishlist item is to have those sort of drop off zones at either end but other than that I think this is a great plan really looking forward to it so thanks very much >> thank you so any other comments board member Joe >> no additional comments >> okay all right thank you so much again for your presentation the and the study I think wonderful work and as all the other members just talked about, I think the pedestrian priority scheme is really successful and we we I think we all love it and yeah, while while it would be hard to ban the bikes entirely, I think like some concepts already mentioned like a time limited access would be helpful or or at certain areas we can just walk our bikes in that career and uh also um similar to to David comments I think it it will be uh helpful to like incre uh create some some like interactive uh activities or uh inst or maybe work with the public uh art uh art for some art installations along the street so that uh other than the commercial zones parklet we can also have some social loans. We could put things like some giant chest there or a connect for for people to kind like stay and play so that when people stay longer it's actually a benefit to the local business. Yeah. So that's all my comment and um other than that I'm not sure uh whether we provide good information on the park park design because you mentioned there is challenge. We want the park to be year round weather protection. So it seems like there is some challenges there because we also want to provide the transparencies for the design. So, anyone have any additional thoughts on that? >> Yeah, I had just you know the suggestions that uh you board other board members here have made might make it worth spending that little extra effort to have one design that's standard part of the standard with uh the open roof concept built into it. you know uh given given giving that option seemed like a reasonable suggestion. >> Thank you. If no more question do you have any additional questions or feedbacks you want to hear from us? No, I I No, I think this has been really great and really good suggestions and I really appreciate the feedback and I'm available if there's any other comments that you want to want to make. >> I'm curious if uh we can go through the packet with just like um for each page the type of options that you've um included. I know we've talked quite a bit about it, but I'd like to hear from other board members um to if this is kind of clear set of options because the whole goal is that merchants can take this packet, you know, checkbox series of choices and they're, you know, 90% there to building this other than, you know, um and then there's color choices and such. Uh but just running through the pages. Um for instance the um starting on the page zero uh A0.1 um like say um I'm just going to make random choices and kind of see if people have thoughts on it. Like say I'm a merchant who wants to use cabana. They have a choice of uh narrow or wide depending on the space they have. And a steel base is a pretty much a a fixed thing. It it kind of looks like a fixed thing on this um for Cabana, but uh Bruce, isn't it true that the platform base could also be an option if they go the cabana route? >> Um so should that be included in this? Um >> that was that I think that's somehow missing. >> Okay. >> Yep. Um and then uh the flat so flat or pitched is an option for cabana but for pergola it's only flat right? >> Yes. >> Um and then the overhangs are pretty clear. And then uh if we go to the next page on a 0.2 two um these are all options on the lowest the lower part enclosure and the upper portion um that's kind of shown slightly dotted um I can't remember if that was also supposed to be options um how would the merchants choose what happens above the railing >> yeah those are um sidewall options >> and they can extend from the platform form up to the full height of 6 feet or they could be above the sort of low wall structure and those are primarily you know um for screening. So they could be the sidewall notes address what those options are. Yeah. >> Because wasn't the screen supposed to be another layer of options? >> Yes. Now roll down screens are another option and that's in the um in the detail sheets there's yeah there's under the sidewall notes there's a section here that says roll down shades too >> okay so uh if I'm a merchant making choices I get to this portion with the check box and then there's a subset for the sidewall notes correct Yes. >> Does anybody have any thoughts or any clarity questions on >> And if I may, it does note uh optional sidewalls shown dashed a note under each of the checkbox options. So um >> one other thing that might be helpful just clarification is that the way the current program works ongoing um is that um an applicant comes in and they meet with public work staff they meeting with John McCarti basically and uh rather than using the um the um parklet they have like a handbook like a you know user guide for the handbook. no one's really been using the user guide. So what they do is they come and they meet with John and John goes through this with them around the selections that they want to make. And so they come up when they leave they have a clear selection of all the elements that they want as and the requirements for what they have to submit in order to advance. So it's there is that part. I mean yes I totally agree it should be completely clear here. Um but also that's just another part of it is process-wise staff is supporting being able to help make those decisions. Yeah, because we want to make it as easy for the merchants to kind of make the choices and come pre-informed when they come meet uh the staff. And uh as I was looking through this again on A2.1, there is the parklet roof uh plan with a trellis. Um but that was not on the checkbox options there. So if you could, you know, follow through with the clarity on if this is one of the options or how somebody might use that has come a long way. Um the developments there's probably another 5% of cleanup to go with this. Yeah. >> My my one I hear that >> my one comment would be is is as we all know going through many years of architecture school often times when there's no comment it's because it's good right so it's it's the nature of this industry is that you only get critiqued right we only nitpick the things that we find that are wrong so the fact that there's very little comment on this I would you know encouragingly say because it's well done um looking at it right now I think my one almost comment would be that you've got this divided to roofless cabana and um excuse me that word just flew out of my head pergola. And I'm I'm almost wondering if you even need that division if it's just really walking through. Okay, do you want a base? Um that's the full base or do you want the steel post? Okay, do you want what do your railings look like? Okay, do you want it to have a roof structure or no? If you have a roof structure, right, then you divide into this further. Do you want covered or open? And then add-on bonus. Do you want the drop down shades? It's it's I I understand why it's categorized into these three different things because that sort of is an easier thing to digest for the public, but it's kind of almost a choose your own adventure from the get-go. Um where just going item by item. What do you want your base to look like? Do what do you want your rails to look like? Do you want a roof structure or not? If you want a roof structure, do you want it to be sloped or flat? Do you want it to be solid or or open? And that's it's pretty straightforward. I think it's very much um like a kit of parts that really works well. Um, so my only comment would be if we even need the three categories, but I understand why you have them. Uh, because it really gets people sort of started in a good direction. So, no complaints. >> I'd like to ask, do do people on the parklets come in with an architect usually or uh do they not have an architect with them? >> Yeah, I I um I don't know the details of all the submitts have been done, but it's really varied. Some do have architects, some just have their contractor come in. >> Yeah. >> So those thoughts could be useful that way. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> If no additional comments, we will close this item and thank you so much for your work again. >> Thank you. Next, we will have, >> if I may, I do want to direct attention to packet uh page eight. Um, I believe that staff was looking for a recommendation for these two items since it is going uh to some subsequent hearings. >> So, we need a motion for this. >> Yes. Okay. Thanks. >> Cool. Uh, >> okay. I'll go ahead and move that we follow staff recommendations one and two as written on packet page eight. I don't feel the need to read them out loud. Um, but as written in the packet page, move to approve that. >> I'll second. >> Second. >> Oh, you second. Okay. >> Um, board member JJarth. >> Yay. Uh, board member Hirs. >> Yay. Uh, board member Rosenberg. >> Yes. >> Uh, Vice Chair Adcock, >> yes. >> Uh, Chair Chen, >> Motion carries 5-0. >> Thank you. And next we will move on to our two approval of minutes. So, is there any changes? and uh through the chair I just wanted to share but briefly that um everyone was present for both of those meetings so no one would have to abstain. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So for the meeting March 5th any modifications on the those meeting minutes? No. If no, I will I move to approve the meeting minutes as it is. Do we do I have a second? >> Sure. Second. >> Thank you. >> Board member Rosenberg. >> Yes. >> Board member Hirs. >> Yeah. >> Board member Jar. >> Yay. >> Vice Chair Adcock. >> Yes. >> Chair Chen, >> yes. >> Motion carries. 5-0. >> Thank you. And for the next meeting minutes is uh April 16th. I do have a minor change. >> March 19th. >> Oh, wait. Oh, yes. Oh, March 19th. Thank you. Uh I do have a minor change on the packet page 86 on the fourth paragraph starting with Mr. Ken commented the package page 50 and then line one two three four five six seven eight nine 10 on 10 line 10 chair chain observe uh observed the taller buildings would be a good sound blocker. It could it should be a sound a sound barrier or sound blocker not sound blocker. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other changes? With that, I will I move to approve the meeting minutes with the minor changes just mentioned. >> Second. >> Thank you. >> Board member Jar. >> Yay. Board member Rosenberg. >> Yes. >> Board member Hirs. >> Mhm. >> Vice Chair Adpock. >> Yes. >> Chair Chen, >> yes. >> Motion car 5-0. >> Thank you. So, uh, next we will move on to board member questions, comments, and announcements. Do we have any? No. >> Okay. >> This is the shortest meeting we've had so far. So, >> thank you guys for your efficiency. >> And the reminder is we will have the election for next meeting. So, if anyone plan to absent, please let Stephen know. And yeah. All right. Meeting adjourns. Thank you.

Well, Greg will join. >> Where's Hal? >> He'll come in. He usually comes. >> I mean, we can't, you know, he describe everything. >> He'll he'll join >> right in the air. Describe that. Do you use um tools now to do any of the note taking and things like that? >> Well, our our our clerk a few years back just did action minutes. So, we don't actually do full note takingaking anymore because we record. Yeah. >> So, it's actually very easy. We used to do notes. >> So, >> yeah, the recording is great. Actually, I was >> looking into one section of it for >> her mind the presentation and that was really great actually to look at that. >> Okay. Well, it's 2 o'clock and uh I think we have a call to order. Get started. Everybody ready? Okay. Do we have to have a motion for starting? No, we just start. Okay, great. But thanks for reminding me >> like I can't remember. So, we have some Do we have any public comments? We have a space for public comments right now. >> We do, but I don't we don't have any >> there's anybody >> anybody registered or online. >> Nobody behind me this time, right? Awkward that one. I was like, >> okay, so no public comments at this time. Um, what about agenda changes, additions, or deletions? I don't have any suggestions. Anybody else? Okay. Nobody has any changes for the agenda. So, the next item is approval of the previous minutes are very short and sweet. So, >> yeah. So, um >> I read them through. >> Yes. Excellent. >> Uh I have no comments on it, but I will move to approve them. >> All right. I can second. >> Okay. Then do we all vote to approve the minutes? Yes. >> Yes. Okay. So, wow. All right. Well, just motoring right through. So, we approved the minutes. >> Um and now we're on to the new business items. Is is grand yet? No, not yet. Well, that's unfortunate, but yours have. Um All right. So, the updated terms is the next item. >> Oh, yes. >> And I was all like, my has time how time has flown. >> Yeah. So, I'll be up for my term in October. >> Wow. >> Yeah. >> Is that after? >> It's my first term. >> After the next meeting is when you're >> That's a good question. We don't know when the next meeting is, do we? >> We'll probably have one before your term expiration. Usually, we have one before October 31st. >> We'll take that. We'll take that into account, I think. Right. because we do will need to do usually October, November time frame. We do >> the previous year's budget actuals. >> Uh I think it would be good to do it with this committee since you guys are reviewing the proposed today. I think that it would only make sense. So we'll we'll >> I'm not the only one who I personally I'll just share this. I'm gonna reapply. So >> Dina Dena is terming out and she's not planning on reapplying. She's been an active committee member for a very long time and she's I mean she's also a mayor. So she's been part of our our um community for a really long time. So >> Oh, there's Greg. >> Hi Greg. Welcome in. Do you know where we are on the agenda now? >> Yes. Do I have to make a statement? I believe >> can't hear you, Greg. Oh, can you hear me? >> Test on the >> Can you guys online hear us? Greg, can you hear us? >> I can hear you. >> Oh, there you go. There you go. Now we got >> Okay. I think I have to make a statement. >> Have we started or should I do it now? >> No, why don't you do it now? That would be perfect. >> Okay. I have just caused to attend this meeting remotely under the Brown Act. I have attended zero storm water management uh oversight committee meetings remotely this calendar year. This is my first. I must attend this meeting remotely because I must provide caregiving to my son in this room. I'm accompanied by no one over the age of 18. >> Thank you, Greg. >> Thank you. >> Get to see the kid that he's taking. >> Yeah, prove it. >> No, no, no. You don't have to do that. So, it's uh Dena, Hal, and Catherine. I'll turn them out October. So, we'll definitely have another committee meeting before that one. >> Um just Greg, just so in case you missed it, we went ahead and approved the minutes of the previous uh meeting. And um so, okay. So, with the updated terms really the only issue is that we all are aware of that and you guys are going to schedule the next meeting appropriately. The other thing is we're actually they're actively commi um recruiting commissioners and they're struggling to find >> um commissioners so you can spread the word. I know that the the one nice thing this is a good entry point to get people engaged because it's not one of those ones where you have to meet monthly and also the packet's not dense. So, it's a good way to get introduced to staff and it's it's not dense in terms of a lot of reading material, a lot of staff reports, I know in terms of that report, but it's a nice way to kind of get exposed to what >> what government work is, that kind of stuff. Um, and not and it's really a fiduciary duty in terms of what you do. So, if there are people that want to just get exposed to being part of the committee and get a sense of what's what it's like to be part of a commission, this is a good way to the the the ask isn't too large. Some of the other commissions meet a lot and the ask is pretty it's a lot of hours. This one's not. So, that's maybe for those that are you guys could help sell it to because we're trying to get some people to to um actually put in for the storm water committee. >> Okay. Yeah, we've had no applications for >> so really appreciate >> like accounting is the main main qualification really when you think about everything we were supposed to do. Well, I think it's interest, you know, we, you know, everything in have to look at that number. Did we do everything we're supposed to and that, >> right? >> That's the audit, you know. So, >> but it's also I mean, I think it's if you're if you're interested in in numbers, but you're also interested in storm water, you're interested in making sure that the fiduciary duties of what the committee is supposed to be doing. And then if you have an also environmental, that's I think those are some things that might be different things. and if you just want to get dabble your foot into what how the public sector is. So those are some things if you're at a a dinner party. >> So is the application link open right now? Refresh. It is so maybe we can reshare with the committee so you guys can share with anybody who might be >> we get emails. >> Yeah. >> Is there is there already the application process open for the October? >> Correct. >> Okay. So that is open. All right. I'll go ahead and >> Yeah, they're actively recruiting now. >> Okay. Um, so I think we have concluded the updated terms. >> Oh, here comes House. All right, let's just wait for him. >> Is there an action meeting? >> I don't think there's an action. >> No, there's no action. >> Unless we had somebody who's not on the committee wandering. Welcome Hal. >> Hello. >> See you. >> You were saying >> Oh, I was asking whether there is an option to do an exception if anybody wanted to extend that term beyond the two years. >> I am not sure. >> No, beyond the two years. >> Between the two terms. >> Two terms. Sorry. >> Oh, beyond the two terms. Yeah, >> they could do more than two terms. >> No, because they just started doing that. So, that's a new thing that they didn't have a term limit. >> So, how might I know? Do you know if there's a No, >> usually knows because he's been part of this committee since >> since the very beginning. >> Well, maybe we could talk to the clerk's office if we still continue not to get any more applicants. Yeah, a current committee member is interested in extending. Maybe we could >> figure something out. >> So, is up to >> Yeah, >> we were just talking about how the term limits for in the recruiting. >> I'm hitting term limits. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. In October. Well, you're hitting the your term is a Catherine, yours, and Dena's. And Dena is not looking for to renew hers. >> Um, and you think you're hitting the term limit. >> Is that what you said, Hal? >> I think so. >> Okay. >> Maybe we check with the We'll check with what that means. Yeah. >> We're not getting a lot of interest in our committee. So we need if you know anyone >> and for how do you want to repeat the next meeting if they happen? >> So we're definitely going to have the next meeting before October 31st. So make sure that we have the current folks that know about our committee. So So that's agenda item two that we're pretty much wrapping up here. No action needed on that. So, if everyone's okay, then we'll move on to uh agenda item three, review the proposed budget for fiscal year 2027. No action needed there, but assume there's a presentation. There is a presentation. Uh Michelle Nelson, senior management analyst for our public works department. I'll be walking through the fiscal year 2027 proposed budget. Uh what that all entails. Uh reminder as you are all well aware uh the purview of this committee is to review our proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. Uh we do that around April time frame and then also review the actuals for the previous year and we do that Octoberish time frame. Uh so we're great >> and we might also add there is a formal audit. >> Yeah. >> By an auditor. >> Oh yes. So in the past we said we assume God is done correctly. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Goodbye. >> Right. I mean essentially because >> Yeah. >> They do apply the law. >> They do. >> And that's what we're trying to do is by the law of the when with the bond issue. >> Right. Exactly. So uh review and ensure and oversee that we are adhering to what is in that ballot measure. So >> yeah. Uh that will lead me into giving you a little update on our fiscal year 2027 budget development process. Um so where we're at right now, we staff have been working over the last probably six months or so to develop the budget that you're going to see today. Uh that budget has been vetted by our office of management and budget here at the city, our CFO, and our city manager's office. We've packaged it up prepared to present to you all to this committee today. and then hopefully garner your recommendation to our finance committee during budget hearings. The fiscal year 2027 proposed budget hearings for our finance committee are Tuesday, May 6th and Wednesday, May 7th. Believe I have those days right. Let me check. Yes, Tuesday. No, Tuesday is the 5th. Wednesday the 6th of May. So um this budget starts with fisc 2027 proposed budget starts with a fee revenue increase that is also dictated by the ballot measure. We under the parameters of the ballot measure are allowed to increase fees by annual CPI each year or 6% whichever is lesser. So this year the annual CPI index for the area is 3%. So we've updated B revenue 3%. >> 3%. >> That was nice. Remember that >> gasol I mean I don't even know how a trucker works. I mean it's unbelievable. >> So and it's based on a certain index too. So keep that in mind. Right. It's not >> the Bay Area. Bay Area index and that's the standard index we use across the city for general CPI index or CPI increases like this. >> Uh that equates to $270,000 in fiscal year 2027 of increased revenue. So that's what you will see in the revenue increases. The operating expenses, we have very minimal adjustments uh outside of the revenue of the fee, the fee revenue alignment and then some general CPI increases and uh staffing increases through contract. Uh let's see, no changes to maintenance or gsi or innovative project budgets. Those are going to stay set at what the ballot measure set them at. uh brief update on capital. This just kind of a really brief overview. We'll get into more detail on all of this as well. Uh we do have some planned reappropriations of funds in one-time capital projects. So, what that means is we have an adopted budget for the one-time projects and we won't be spending it all in fiscal year 2026. So, we are going to reappropriate it to 2027. So, when you're looking at our proposed budget in the budget book that's published and some of these slides that we'll look at, you'll see some dollars in there that include already approved and adopted budget numbers, just shifting them to next fiscal year, >> but they don't show up in each year. >> So, we'll get into those on the slides. I've I've broken it down. When you look at the main budget book, it gets kind of confusing because it can show up in there, but I've broken out the slides a couple of ways for you guys to see that movement. Um, one of the main points which I think later on in this presentation Michelle Jeremas here will speak to, we have shifted Lewis Road forward in the 5-year plan. It was previously adopted in fiscal year 2027. We're moving it forward a couple of years which uh when we get to CIP updates, Michelle will share the strategy on moving that. So that is a change uh to what was adopted in fiscal year 2026. We're shifting Lewis Road forward to 2027 design 2028 construction where previously it was in 2029. Okay, we can move on to our first budget slide. I keep with the same template and format uh since we've started this ballot measure um just for familiarity and keeping things uniform. Uh today we are you know focused on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2027. I like to provide you with some context and what that means. So you see I also have fiscal year 2025 adopted in actuals as well as 2026 which is the current year adopted projections of where we were at uh this is a couple weeks ago now and then our projections on where we look like we'll end this fiscal year just have some context when you're looking at the 2027 budget how it compares to the last couple of years. So the first section is the revenues. Uh the main component of that is our fee revenue. Uh you can see there from the adopted 2026 to the proposed 2027 that $270,000 increase I was speaking to that equates to the 3% CPI. So that's there in the fee revenue. Uh we have some lesser revenues, the interest earnings and then violation fines and development review. The violation fines and the development review fees are entirely variable and dependent upon external factors and activities. Um fines ideally we don't really want to have much revenue on fines. Um but it's a budget line item and development review fees is you know based upon what kind of >> so that number you have to get tougher on paper. >> Yeah. I mean, ideally we don't want to meet our our fine budget, but um Yeah. >> Could I? >> Yeah, of course. I'll break between each section. Yeah. >> So, fees are for each utility uh user. Uh do those change yeartoear the number of >> So, who we're charging the fee to? >> Yes. >> Yes. I am not as well versed as you are on how we are charging the eru to residents and businesses. How many people get to >> I mean it's probably much but I'm just wondering >> so so we do charge the fees to the resident it's basically similar to any other utility your water gas water whatever so you charge the fees the fees for residential there's broken down by based on parcel size so we collect a certain amount and then based on the commercial build businesses business campuses those pay based on impervious areas so we calculate a certain amount it's basically on ballot measure was 2500 in square feet of impervious areas is one eru. Um, and we do the math and then that gets charged routinely whether or not the project the parcel is developed or undeveloped. So, it's kind of an ongoing thing. As development projects occur, we re-evaluate those fees. It's sort of working with other departments as well, the development center, working with our utilities, um, revenues. So, we do work with them. They don't change so much. I mean, they do change, but I think collectively everyone's paying for their fees and when the rates go up, then automatically those rates go up. >> Um, but for the most part, I think single family residents, the parcel sizes aren't going to change. Um, parcel sizes, which are a large portion of our parcels, you're either a 6,000 square foot or you're over 11,000 square foot. So, you're not changing too much. >> But not but not the co not the cover. I mean you don't change if they have impervious resources per base or >> for the most part I mean the changes are occurring but again it's not not going to affect us since we we're basically on residential parcels we go based on the parcel size not the impervious where the impervious comes in is for the business campuses for the office spaces those are the commercial properties those are the ones that we calculate and those change and those could change especially as more partials are being developed right Um >> I'm sorry. I should have made myself clear. Uh there's a lot of pressure to increase housing. >> Yeah. >> And I suspect that the number of single family >> Yeah. >> homes is not going to increase in any significant fashion. But what happens to you know multif >> family units? Aren't those utility users that >> have to pay a fee? >> Yes, they would. they would pay a fee and but we would charge them based on our eru. So we look at an entire parcel. So for example um we would look at the impervious area that those properties are generated and >> so the entire building >> get >> so there there would be like for example a master um service so that the master pays for the entire say it's a say it's a five unit parcel that gets subdivided we would find somebody for the contract. So maybe it's part of the um um agreement for that development that this is how we break down and then they could decide to split that for each of the five residences that contribute to it. So that that way it's either one followed by one main house um meter not meter but a a service versus each individual. Uh for example, somebody sells that property, you know, they're still paying for it. So everybody else who's contributing to that uh service could still contribute to it. >> So the customers they accepted what you're doing. You think anybody tried to fight it? >> I don't see that there's any issues with it. I mean I haven't heard of any. >> Well I mean they're fighting over ADUs and all that >> but for example so so the single family residence is also includes duplexes. So even if you're adding another ADU on a property that still would consider as a single family residence. So we don't consider that any separate. It's when you're dealing with more than two distinct residents that we start counting it as a multif family or commercial property. >> Multif family is just based on the >> peruse area. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh one other item of note on the revenue that I've spoke of before but I want to continue to call attention to under the other revenue category. The bulk of that is the EPA grant that we have, Environmental Protection Agency for GSI and City Park. Um, and we will hear more about that later in the agenda from Pamboo's online. Um, what that project is right now. That grant is sitting in adopted fiscal year 2026 um and not showing in the proposed of 2027. However, um whatever is not reimbursed will ultimately be reappropriated and shown in the 2027 line item, but we're keeping it in 2026 now until we close out the year and see how much reimbursement we get. >> Um again, the main main >> question. So, the EPA grant has stayed as it is or were any changes? >> There have been no changes to the a dollar amount uh approved and authorized on that grant. we've spent a little bit. Um, and then as we ramp up the project, the grant is a reimbursement based construction grant that we have actually in coordination with the city of Santa Clara. Um, as we expend towards that project, then we can file reimbursements to the EPA and receive the income and then draw down that revenue that you'll see here. And that adopted line will shift to increase the actuals, lower the adopted uh until we get full reimbursement, >> but the dollar amount has not changed as of yet. >> And can I ask which project areas this grant is for? >> So Wabionis Park and we will have a more uh detailed presentation later on in the agenda from Pam who will be talking specifically about this project as well as other projects too. So that one is a really interesting one for sure. A little bit worried about EPA money. >> No, >> not for this one. >> Okay. >> No, not for this one. >> So, >> good. >> Yeah. >> Not yet. >> Not yet. No. No for concern yet. >> Two already. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was just wondering whether there's a need to prioritize utilizing that one. the challenge is is getting it done. It takes time so and and staff resources. So, um but it's there's a lot of uh with the municipal regional storm water permit requirements. It's it's we're working through it. So, yes. >> Andrew. >> Yeah. And we'll have more again opportunity to talk about that specific project. Um we definitely included on the agenda for that reason. Um okay can we ready to move on from revenues? Okay. Expenses uh for this fee are split up into the base program and then projects and infrastructure program. So that's how I try to present you guys our uh fiscal information here. So the base program that's going to be your flood control improvement, water quality protection, emergency response, our in-house maintenance of the storm dream, kind of all those day-to-day operations to keep things moving. Uh administrative staffing costs are are a lot uh most of which are found in this section. Um again, the increases on these items are mostly CPI if anything. CPI and uh staffing increases based on bargaining unit contracts between the city and those >> uh street cleaning deal. Is that could it continue? >> Street sweeping is in the refuge fund actually. So that that's not paid for out of our storm storm water management fee. Uh street sweeping is paid for out of our refuge fund. So that you see uh in your refuge bill for >> as far as we know it'll just keep going I hope >> correct it is we have that's also in public works so you're asking right people >> correct >> yes it's all connected right but it is funded out of a different bucket of money but it's going to keep continuing on yeah for sure >> correct >> yeah uh if you're ever interested in that we can send you some details on that >> I have a quick emergency response. So, I take it that the storms this year didn't >> we did have some storms, but they didn't really cause any challenges. Is that correct? >> Were there any issues that came up? >> I think we had nothing significant I recall, but I do recall a few trees, branches. So, we did have crews u standby. I think we had equipment staged just in case. I think so. I think we've had a few, but I don't think we had anything major that I'm aware of. Well, um I figured from the numbers that that's what what the case was. >> Yeah. But I mean sometimes we we may have something for example um in instance we don't know like we have to something breaks one of the main lines or something breaks in those cases we have to have a crew go out there and place it immediately right >> um or more trees in the in the creek. I think the two years ago the storm washed a lot and the big tree front. >> So >> yeah, but we did get some FEMA two years ago. So that uh didn't totally hit our storm fund a couple years ago. >> Uh I will say on the emergency response, this is on that line item is just a linear projection. I do think it'll probably end up being less than this 145,000 projection on here just because you know the storm season is ending we did have but >> somewhere in between the >> two date actuals and the heat on that one. uh and sorry >> yeah the storm water quality protection and in general all of the expenses seems like it's now April we have already used bunch of that and projection because many of them are higher >> um speak to that a little bit >> and particularly I was interested in the storm water quality protection >> so again that's a I just did a linear projection on that one um where we are at we're at today two weeks ago was, you know, I I anticipate for the water quality protection line item that we will probably come in very close to adopted budget if not slightly lower. Um, it's hard with those ones because some of the budget is contract based and so it's a timing thing. It's not really ideal to do a linear projection on some of these buckets within there. Um, so timing is a piece, but I don't anticipate us coming in over budget like this. Um, and if you look back at previous years, we usually come in right around like 2025, you can see usually coming right around what's there. But that also does include staff time, which um can be somewhat out of our control sometimes with the contracts with the bargaining units. And if someone just retires, so we'll have extra money for staff. >> Yeah. And then vacancies will affect what's in there. >> At least this year. >> At least this year. If we look like we're spending higher, we won't. >> But I don't think, and I can pull up, if you guys are interested, some some several years back Yeah. budget taxuals and on all of this really I have it all on the file. It's just collapsed down for otherwise it would be 10 years long. But I don't think we've ever come in over budget on that area. >> Honestly, where the only places we've ever really come in over budget are in that base pro program component for our in-house crews over times with storms and whatnot. Um that's kind of more the area that we come in over budget. Um, >> yeah. >> Yeah, but we'll definitely keep an eye on that. Yeah. And I I can look at how to better project out on that line item, too, and break it out a little further if that's something you guys are more interested in. I can look at that, too. >> Sure. Okay. Moving on to the project and infrastructure program section. That's going to have our 13 capital standalone capital projects. That's the capital improvement projects bold line. Our storm drain system repairs is the recurring rehab capital project. And then we have the debt service which dropped off a couple years ago. We have the engineering staff that was added under the ballot measure. Then we have the green municipal infrastructure funding and the innovative projects funding. Um, I have a little asterisk that didn't seem to print on here. This screen is not going to show the reappropriations that I referred to earlier. So, that is not double counted. I want you guys to see the clear picture of what was adopted um without kind of those shifts around. can be confusing um when you're looking at a one-time project that the budget might keep moving to different years, but the overall budget always stays the same and doesn't draw down our reserves any further. So those reappropriations are not reflected in this picture that we're looking at here. And then I have another table. Same data just kind of grouped and bucketed a little differently and rolled up some of the revenues so that you can see kind of the most important B- revenue. Uh rolled up some of those base programs so that you can see them in larger buckets and then break down the project infrastructure in a little bit more detail so you can see what makes up the gsi, what makes up the innovative projects. Um, but it's the same dollars just chopped up a little different. However, is easier for you guys to digest. >> And we can send you the one without the packet numbers over the numbers. So, you >> Wait, what? Oh, I have my own. >> Yeah, the packet number right over the actual numbers. >> Well, that's on on the one that we were looking at before, too, or just >> Yeah. >> Copy. We got the PDF. Let me >> Oh, yeah. That's annoying. Let me tell you what that number is. That number is 1241. >> 1241. >> Yeah, it just unfortunately automatically propagated it right over. >> See that it's helpful and not helpful at the same time. >> That's why I printed my own. I'm like, wait, what? Well, I know just a test to see if you're paying attention. >> It's a test to be sure you guys are paying attention. I'm looking at >> and then on the next one, it's the 9776 that you see in the total expenses on our previous one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Since we're required to put the packet numbers on the thing. >> Yeah. >> Well, maybe I'll have to work with Mariah next time to manipulate my slides so it doesn't go like that. >> Yeah. to figure this out. >> Um, okay. Now, let's move on to the next slide. Uh, some budget information on the projects themselves. That this does include our reappropriation. So, this is going to show you where and I think this is I and if it's not, please, I welcome any feedback. I think when we're looking at the big picture of the fund, we just want to see what was for each one of these projects, what's adopted, and then when we drill down and look at the projects themselves, let's see where those reappropriations move, what years they're going into. Um, kind of in a more granular look here. So, you can see we have one, two, three, four, five, six of the 13 ballot measure projects in the five-year CIP. Most of them are in the coming years and I'll speak to that in just a minute. Uh fiscal year 2026, our office of management and budget added this storm water management fund administration CIP SD26002. That is how the office of management and budget is tracking the salary and benefits on this on on all funds across the whole city. Actually, when you're looking at the budget book, every fund will have a similar project. Um, it's it's a cleaner way for them to break out the salary and benefits spending because when they were charging them to the individual projects, it wasn't showing up in salary as salary and benefits. It was showing up as construction dollars based on what timing and it just kind of got convoluted and and skewed, you know, the actual project hard costs that we want to be able to be really transparent about. So they've pulled them out, put them in this admin CIP. But that is our staff cost for the whole program for the whole CIP program. Those costs do include um support staff, small pieces of support staff, like our accounting department has a little bit of uh FTE in those dollars as well. And then we have the two other projects that are not part of the 13 adopted, the rehab at the very top and the gsi at the very bottom. So when I look at this table, it looks like there aren't any other CIP projects in 2029 and beyond >> yet. So that's where we'll talk about >> some left over. >> We still have, I believe, five projects that we need to budget. >> You're not seeing them planned. I'll remind everybody the five-year CIP only the first year of that is budgeted. So right now we're working on the 2027 to 2031 only the first year 2027 is actually budgeted. The four out years are just a plan. >> Okay. >> Um and then when we get to them there is an intentional reason we don't have anything budgeted here. And this, if anybody was following along with our finance committee rate adoption last week, which will be kind of the next slides we get to, um, we are doing a lot of analysis and work on the remaining years of this ballot measure and the remaining CIPs that we have to construct. Um, the CIPs, the 13 CIPs that were adopted in the ballot measure were defined by the 2015 storm drain master plan. >> And our estimates for those projects are from the 2015 storm drain master plan. So, we're now in 2026, so those numbers are most likely out of date. um we do our design inhouse and at this point in time we don't have any better estimate than those 2015 numbers but we are fairly certain that those numbers are not going to be what they end up costing. Um, so in the financial projections that I've done that we've talked about in previous years on this committee, I anticipate that we would have sufficient budget to build those projects at the estimates from the 2015 master plan. >> So TBD if we will have the funding sufficient funding we don't know what those bids can come in it. So, myself, Michelle Holly Boyd, who's the assistant director of public works engineering services, and Brad Eglesen, our public works director, have been looking at this and trying to get some information on how much the projects that we have completed ended up costing in comparison with the 2015 storm drain plan, the ones that are in construction, how they're projecting to end in comparison to the storm drain uh 2015 storm drain master plan to try to give us some information on on what the next projects might cost. >> Um, we are certainly in the 2028 budget going to start programming some of these projects. We've already started to play around with where we could put them in the out years of the ballot measure. Um, we'll have to start doing some preliminary design work um on Michelle's team to decide if even the scope of those projects is still exactly relevant um based on some of the other work that's happened. Maybe the scope is lesser, maybe it's more. Um, so there's a lot more work that needs to be done on the fiscal side and then on the technical side to kind of see where we're landing in terms of sufficient funds in the ballot measure. >> Um, it's hard to say and it'll be hard to say until we get another one out to bid probably. I would think that until we get another one out to bid in construction, I don't know how how much our projections will be more than just a guess. And I I was going to add we did one of the things to keep in mind is also even though the ballot measure took it into effect in 2027 2017 uh Rejie was working on the Mandadero Creek pump station which was a carryover from the previous ballot measure. Um, in addition to that, I think we needed to accumulate enough funding in order to start some of these CIPs. So, there was a little bit of a delay between when we finished when when this ballot measure took in and the first project that we started working on. Um, Vicki was working on Lom Verde and I think that was during COVID. So, then so there was in-house design that took place. Um, so we are mindful of the projects. I think that there is a couple projects, some that may be easier than others that we can try to take tackle, take a look at. Um, but we've also sort of changed some of our priorities given some of the flooding events that have happened. Um, meaning that some projects get advanced of others. Um, >> what would be examples of that? >> So, the one that we advanced, Hamilton Avenue and center. So those two projects that were lower in the priority list and they were in 13 projects, but we moved that one ahead of Lewis Road, those two ahead of Lewis Road um given the New Year's Eve events and the flooding that occurred. Um in addition to that, we're also tackling in rehab work um outside of the 13 projects and some of that was also brought to light to maybe prioritize Alistister as a rehab project, which is the area around Duban that was flooded. So, we're we're taking some of those in right now as we speak. Um, >> yeah, >> I will also say um I think we'll get some more information on being able to estimate and project out these projects once we move into design and construction uh preparations for center and Lewis. Those are the next two. Uh, also on here you'll notice the rehab CIP is only set at 300,000 per year. The ballot measure allows for about double that in these years. Um, but that's a lever that we are able to kind of shift a little bit. If we need to reduce the funding in that CIP a little bit to divert it to the other ones, we can. Um, so those those out years 28 through 31, you'll see is only 300,000. The ballot measure, I believe, allows for closer to 600 in those out years right now. Um, but we've set it a little bit more conservatively to, you know, just allow for what may come. >> Every time you build something and there's an O andM function that goes with it >> and that is not going down. So you're at some point you have to to but to balance it I would think because you got to keep what you got going. >> Yeah. >> And then you add something else and now it adds more and and that's where back to this very first thing I was talking about. So on and costs are got to be going way up. I mean they have to be. >> So yes and no. I mean replacing 12in pipes for 48 inch pipes >> actually creates efficiency. Yeah. I mean, but there would be an O and M for example for the pump stations, but the two pump stations that she's under working on right now. So, there will be an O and M, but and that's new because they're brand new stations, but they're small stations, but better than the flooding and the >> the costs that we have to spend on maintenance of old uh infrastructure and emergency response, I think balances out somewhat the uh ongoing O andM and those conversations. The the other infrastructure is creates efficiencies. >> Um I just want to say thank you for explaining the intent of this table. >> Yes, that that really clears things up. Um and also >> I guess sort of kind of core to the committee's uh purpose is to also learn more about how you're handling the future. Yeah. >> Planning. I mean, it also goes back to some other stuff that we've dealt with in the committee and I'm looking forward to seeing that and understanding it better because that's kind of why we're here. So, and I'd like to know if any of the other committee members have something to add on their or questions on that for the future or >> No, I think you've covered. >> Okay. Well, I I do think uh it's our responsibility to look at all the 13 projects >> and if any of those I know it's unfair to to ask, but if any of those might fall off the uh >> well, under the last ballot measure, one of them did shift into this ballot measure. So, that did happen. I also want to say um the remaining projects, one of them is one of the most costly in of the 13, but the other ones in magnitude are far less. So I think a couple of them are around $300,000 from the 2015 estimate. Um I think one of them is maybe 600,000. So you know in in the magnitude compared to some of these others that are you see you know corporation way was like four million, Hamilton 7. So even if even if say you know worst case scenario it comes in double it's 600,000 instead of 300,000 it's not great but the impact is not as dire um there is one and I can't and Louis no there's another one Fabian >> no small >> one of them is 6.9 >> um million of the 2015 master plan estimate so that one will be the on to keep our eye on. But I do want to tell the committee, you know, while we do have five projects left, four of those five are far far lower cost in magnitude based on the 2015 master plan estimate. So, um, just to keep in perspective, you know, we do have that one really big one, but all five of them aren't upwards of 5 million. >> And maybe that's something we can put on the agenda for for future where we're at because we're not there yet. So, >> yeah. So, this is something we'll be talking about with the finance committee. >> Um, and then >> then we can come back. >> We can come back. Uh, I do have >> a financial document that projects out the rest of this ballot measure through 2032 with the rest of the projects built in. And like I said, that document, if the estimates come in based on the 2015 >> estimates, we're fine. We're great. You know, enough for reserves, enough for everything. the likelihood that that's gonna happen is is not great, you know. Um, >> your crystal ball, right? >> Right. So, I think I think actually for today's agenda item, we've covered everything. >> Yes, we have. >> It's just I think a a a feeling that we should pay maybe paying attention in future meetings to how the future is. I think that's very smart of you and especially now that we're, you know, halfway through the the ballot measure fee and we're getting, you know, seven years out, six years out from the end, >> right? Is that right? Seven, >> which is awesome, >> which is great. >> We need to start thinking about, you know, how how we're going to finish it out. Um, >> and then we're going to need to upd update the master plan again. And then do we need to go back out to the voters? It is it is a little tricky because for the first few years of this ballot measure, we weren't able to do any capital projects because we had to build up the revenues in order to pay for it. So that just puts us that farther removed from the 2015 estimates. Um, and so not being able to kind of jump on them because we had to wait for those reserves to build up kind of, you know, puts us towards constructing at the latter half of the 15 years. But that's where we're at now. More information to come and we're we're looking at the information that we do have and once Michelle and Rajie and Vicki start delving into design on uh, center and Lewis, I think we'll have some more information. and then be able to refine our estimates and projections. >> Maybe not for today, but maybe in the future, you know, one one of the future meetings, maybe we can have a just a glimpse of what 2015 looks like, what this project comes to. >> Yeah, I think we have that on this next on one of these next slides actually. It's super interesting. Yeah, I think Michelle's got a map. >> My computer died on me. Oh, there it is. Uh I think we have a map if we're ready. Well, We got >> we have I think we have that later in the agenda. >> Yeah. >> Um but I Yeah, let's get to the and we can talk about all of this >> as much as we want. >> I think we're ready to move on >> from this particular agenda item. Okay. And move on if that's okay with everyone. And then we're going to move on to the next one which is about the memorandum for fiscal year 2027 proposed budget. Um, and this is something we do every year. >> And let's see where we're at with the memo as presented in the packet, proposed memo. And actually, I have a question about the proposed memo that's in the packet, but I'll let you all kick it off. Any comments >> to move it forward. May I move the adoption of this proposed memo? Well, actually I have a question about the proposed memo. So then we will I'll come back to you Kathy. >> Okay. >> So in the memo that we uh agreed to last year, >> there was a sentence that we inserted about actually the future and whether we um well I can read you it's not in this memo so I can read it to you. >> Thanks. uh based on current staff analysis, there is no indication that present funds will be insufficient to complete the 13 capital improvement projects. So my question that I came to with uh came to this meeting with was what happened to that sentence and what are we going to do about it if anything? >> I think we intentionally took it out of this memo because of what we just talked about. >> I see. I see. >> I would Yeah. I would say again kind of the update to that sentence from a fiscal standpoint is We have sufficient we I anticipate that we would have sufficient funds to complete all 13 projects at the estimate from the 2015 Storm Bay master plan. That is not that's the reality of that is it it it doesn't Yeah. I mean >> but you understand why we put that sentence. >> Absolutely. Yeah. I don't know if you want to put it in again. That's up to you guys. >> Well, I sort of just asked the question >> I think >> in the presentation. >> Future cost Virginia are difficult right now. >> Right. >> Right now, >> asphalt's going to triple. Diesel's tripled. I mean, everything that we that you use to build something, if we're building things, we can't say it's going to be just doo doo, you know? Right. >> It's tough time right now. Right. We we have the reserves to pay for what? We have the reserves to pay for this. As far as you know, this is for a fact. We have the reserves to pay for this. the rest of the projects. Um, you know, we're tracking. Well, it will it will depend on the design, the scope that comes out of design, the final scope. And I think once we get some bids in on center and Lewis, we'll have a lot more information. And they're right about something to the effect of uh staff is continuing to evaluate um yeah based on >> you know conditions or stuff >> right >> I'm sorry I didn't >> yeah no you're fine whatever you guys are comfortable >> putting in the map >> but you're you just explained u something that I was impressed with that you know how complicated it is to take the 2015 ballot measure and bring it up to date. >> And to me, that's something that I needed to hear. I think the committee needed to to hear that. >> And it would be great if this memo somehow reflected that what I think is a very positive um and responsible uh activities going on. >> Yeah. Um I don't know the language. >> They proposed like staff is continuing to evaluate and monitor the um the the projections of what was in the 2015 ballot um measure of the 13 projects. Yeah. To current >> um construction dollars. >> I mean you saw some breakdowns of what what we're doing, right? And >> that could be one thing, right? some of the breakdowns are going to change. >> They are. I mean, because you're especially if it's physical or if it's equipment related or anything, right? >> I don't think that sentence is letting anymore continue to be evaluated is all I can say, right? >> So, so I I brought it up because I was noticed the change. >> Yeah. >> Uh I'm not I'm not criticizing or or doing the opposite. I was just asking the question. That's >> But as I reread the memo, you know, every time I reread this memo, I So this is about this one is about the 2027 budget. >> Yeah. >> So what happens after 2027 may not be relevant to the memo. I mean, I don't know. I mean, this is very specific and I don't really know how this and the finance committee and the city council >> read these, but if this is extremely specific to the 2020 to the annual proposed budget, then maybe talking about future >> risks or estimates is not relevant. On the other hand, yep, >> on the other hand, as a member of this committee, I think it's it is not that it's actually kind of prudent to say that we as we have seen with the staff are also looking forward. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, but I don't know what a good way to say that is. >> And I think that's you you hit the nail on the head. The reason we haven't had a future-looking sentence in there historically is because, you know, we're recommending the 2027. But like I said, >> as we get deeper into, you know, the 15 years and closer toward the end, I think we have to look ahead and we have to start and our finance committee is as well, um, thinking how we're going to wrap this up. So, I I don't I don't think it's inappropriate to put a future sentence in there. don't know that that sentence is one we want to put in there. I don't think that's a clear picture, but we could certainly in and probably should put something about the future. >> Okay. So, I would be very open to removing the sentence that was in last year's memo as written and coming up with something that's more appropriate to 2027 memo. But I don't really know how to >> maybe you say something like this committee and staff has had had discussion on the future uh fiscal outlook of the ballot measure and have planned to do that at future meetings. Um something like that. Yeah. recognize the complexities associated with the components that create the project, right? Whether it's cost driven based on staff or cost driven based on contractor's availability or >> the price of oil has gone up. So I think yeah, I think we should say something along the lines of and help me out with this. The committee because this is from the committee, right? The committee recognizes that staff is fancy way to say that >> continuing to evaluate >> is is sure is continuing to evaluate the I don't know what the the uh availability or the uh >> resources >> the res something like that that the future is you know continuing to keep an eye on future uh revenue and expenditures. It's really the assumptions that go into the into this estimate. >> Yeah. And then you just continue to evaluate your assumptions. That's typically what you do. And >> so if the assumption 90% of it is based on fuel then but if it's only 2% but so you just look at your assumptions and continue to >> Yeah. >> Because it's it's it's a weird time right now >> and we only have the 2015 master plan estimates to work off right now. Once this team gets into design, they'll have a much clearer picture of what the estimates of these projects will be, >> but um we can't start doing that really just yet for all of the pro. I mean, maybe we can we have some internal discussions on on what's going on. >> That's okay. Let's come up with some actual verbiage that we can get into >> into uh onto the memo. >> I don't know who we have to do that. We should do that. >> We should do that. >> We should do that right now. So did anybody write down? >> I I wrote uh committee recognized staff is continuing to evaluate the future revenue and assumptions that goes into this estimate. >> Yeah, revenue and expenditures and expenses >> and design work I guess and the design work that is in progress. >> This is a key piece. Yes. >> Thank you for writing that down. >> Yeah. Really? So the committee held a discussion on the fiscal outlook and the 13 projects included in the ballot measure with particular attention to the complexity of the individual project components, right? >> And staff is continuing to evaluate and monitor the 2015 ballot measure, you know, and then we can also and then maybe that we're going to try and >> do something else like bringing it up to current >> dollars. Yeah. I don't know. I'm trying to >> I maybe not get into the weeds on that. The committee recognizes. >> Yeah, >> maybe we just had the committee and staff held a discussion on the on the fiscal outlook on the 13 projects included in the ballot measure and just keep it keep it at that. >> Yeah. >> And that's that's enough. Say that again. >> The committee and staff held a discussion on the fiscal outlook on the 13 projects included in the ballot measure >> and we can probably say and it doesn't impact the current budget. >> Right. >> That would be great. Staff will come back >> and that staff will and staff will will return and continue this discussion. >> Yeah, we will continue this discussion. >> Okay. So, do we have enough in the notes to move forward? >> And then what I recommend is what we did last year, which I thought was very good, was staff sent out the revised memo and said, "You have until this particular day, and if we don't get any responses back, then we're moving forward." >> And I thought that was nice. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We'll let you guys have input and make sure the language is exactly how how you want it to look, >> but give us a deadline and if you don't get it back, if you don't get if you don't get input from us, then it's good. >> I suggested a comment or something. >> Good. >> That was good. >> We love it. We love >> um anyway, how are we doing on this conversation? Are we >> I like that you brought it up because we talked about it >> and it didn't show up in this >> chair. Yeah. And you know, I miss Dina, so she was the one who championed this extra language. >> It's I think it's I think like you said, prudent language to include at this point in time. >> Okay. So, if we're all good, the committee's good. >> Um, do I get a motion to move forward on revising it and then finalizing it by email? >> So, move. >> Thank you. A second. >> Second. Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, she got the second. >> Okay, then we have a vote. Is any good? No. Any nays? Nay. Okay. >> Well, thank you very much uh staff for all that extra information and careful discussion. It's much appreciated >> and the work you're going to be doing. >> That's that's kind of mind-numbing. >> That's fun. >> We like it. >> Okay. So, moving right along. Um where are we? Storm water management fee rate increase. No action needed. >> No action needed. Uh we did go last week to the finance committee to get approval of the rate increase. Um I talked about this a little few minutes ago. The proposed increase is a 3% CPI equates to 278,000. We included, in case you guys didn't get a chance to see, we included the presentation we gave to the finance committee. Um very short and sweet. Very short and sweet. uh they had not a lot of questions in that staff report. We did also say that essentially we are not sure if we're going to have sufficient funding but we did say that in that staff report we are you know staff is not sure I don't I don't remember the exact language but it was essentially to the effect that we don't know that we'll have sufficient funding or not and that we will continue these discussions >> uh at the finance committee budget hearings and you know into the future. So they did say that they were looking forward to having more discussion on that end during those budget hearings in May. So follow along. We will be having more discussion with them >> um and getting some feedback on how we can proceed and what what outlook to take, what strategies to take. But uh the presentation here is kind of breaking down the components of the fee. 55% is for the base, 45% goes to project and infrastructure. Um kind of the details, you know, this is a pretty standard item. Whenever you're increasing utility rate, you got to get the approval from the finance committee to do so. So, it's kind of a just a standard operating information, but I did we did want to share the slides with you. And if we move on to the next, the map here is what um you guys were interested in. The 2015 storm drain master plan estimates are on this map. So you can see No, are they not? >> Uh there they are. They are. Yeah. Okay. >> Sorry. >> Um and then also some information on the projects that were are completed now, where we are on the ones that are in progress, and the ones that are not started. So those black ones are the remaining ones that aren't started and aren't budgeted. And you can see Oh, it is Lewis Road. That's 69. >> So, um, by the way, I love this graphic. Love the map with the statuses and all the extra information. My one little question is when was it last updated? Um, I want to say this map there. So, there's two maps. So, there's this one and there's the other one that you've seen that you saw at the board's commissioning. Yeah. Um, this one was probably updated. I want to say because it says design of Hamilton. This one was probably last year. Um, but >> this map needs to be replaced with the one you saw last week. So, I would have to look at the one I saw last week again. Yeah. But I would think it would be valuable for those looking at the content to know when it was last updated. So it might be like a small little updated date somewhere in I know there's just a lot going on, but >> it's just a little question I have. >> Yeah, I'll send the committee the one that we shared the commission presentation because that has a different map, >> right? >> And the finance committee um this this one had to get published before the the finance committee has that had the updated map that Michelle gave me. This one was published before That makes sense. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, we have a few maps that are they're all the same content just that ours was a little bit >> it makes it makes sense. I think we at one point we used to have data on it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, you have a lot going on. So, okay. Just comment there. >> All right. >> Yeah. But no, there's lots of maps and lots of detail. Um, >> so the rate increase meeting went fine. >> It went fine. And now, so that was the finance committee meeting. It was probably the fastest rate increase approval ever, which is great after the meeting the night before that we had. We're at So, you're uh you are all blessed that your committee chair decided to stay at council till 11 o'clock at night for Michelle and I. >> So, uh thank her and she presented for you on Monday night so last week. So, you can thank her for that. The question remained with the finance committee too and I think everybody you know is 3% enough unfortunately our hands are tied for development or that we can't we can't do more but um the questions that you have are the same as our larger finance committee and they're they're important questions to be asking and looking at and um also something to be thinking about as we develop our next bot capacity upgrades what I see I told and so the basis of the capacity upgrade has to be in part land use change I don't think so. No, >> I don't think there's any land use >> uh for I mean the only You mean >> land use associated with these projects, these individual projects? >> I think that >> um we came close to land use corporation way because we needed to encroach in private property and secure easements. We have another project here in the pipeline that's going to get us the same. East Charleston is going to be another one that's going to be fascinating to work on. Um but land use doesn't change land use for most of these are all in the public road right away. >> So the capacity issue >> the capacity the capacity is the storm drains. So a lot of these are storm drain systems or 12-in pipes meant to handle small nuisance flow but now we've got significant storm events. We've got a lot of the private systems that are draining directly into our storm drains. So we're increasing the capacity to 10year storm events. Um and the capacity meaning it's the capacity of the storm drain system to convey flows before it over tops or it drains floods streets. >> Something happened. I mean everything there is a capacity change. >> Yes. Correct. >> Something drove that. >> Um the master plan the master plan determined and said from here on out we're going to focus on the 10year storm event. Um in the past I don't think we had a storm event that we were designing too. It was >> so the year changing. >> Um right now I don't know if we can. I mean we're designing everything to attain your storm event and that's the capacity and a lot of it. It's also in reality is our streets have so many other pipes underneath them that it's really hard. you're trying to fit designing trying to get around sewer, gas, electric, electric that's actually concrete encased. So, we've got a lot of other infrastructure. We really don't have a lot of room. So, >> last master plan was in 1992. >> So, that was very old >> item. Yeah. So, I don't I don't want to get us too far away. >> Yeah. We should move on. If if we can, I'd like to move on to agenda item six, the CIP update. Perfect. Thank you. Uh so I'm going to start us off but I'm going to hand it to Rajie and Vicki to present the projects. The way we've presented this agenda item number six. Uh I try to convey or try to present to you what the problems have been. As you are well aware of we've got um currently four projects under construction and Vicki is going to get another one soon. So we'll have five projects under construction this remaining spring, summer, fall, winter. Um right now we're focusing on getting the projects built by the end of the year. Um the first project I think we focus on primarily for the purposes of today's meeting just the micro tunneling effort. As you remember corporation way west beayshore and west bay shore capacity upgrades. It's three projects two pump stations and pipeline upgrades on all the all on both east and west bayshore. I've asked Rejie though from the purposes of your benefit focus primarily on uh the micro tunneling component. What does it entail? What does it look like? Forget the pump stations right now. Forget the wet wall. So, let's focus on that. Um Michelle earlier did mention the map. So, we kind of briefly looked at the map here, but if you have any other map questions, I refer back to the October presentation that we did last year. That other map that we shared at the commission is in that. So, go back to the packet from October. there is mapped in there and we can also come back at a later date and give you a better perspective um once we finish up these and briefly just before we hand it to and continue is right now they are wrapping up these projects all these are slated to be completed by the end of the year so next year when we will be picking up a center the design in Lewis Road I think previously before we had these bids on their projects as you might recall corporation. We we went out to bid three times. So, we kind of pushed out Lewis Road and there's two Lewis Road projects. We pushed out the one project we could further out because we weren't sure what the cost on his was going to be. So, now that we have a cost, now it's under construction, we're bringing it back up to 2027. So um once they're wrapped up with a project, one will jump on center, the other will jump on Lewis Road. Both design and then we can try to schedule construction. >> Um with that said, I'm going to leave it up to Rajie. Um first slide. >> Yeah, the first slide is my tonic work on East Road. It's about 640 ft length. Um originally the design was for the open cut excavation but due to a lot of challenges with dearing the water ground water table about 8 ft deep and the depth of the excavation about 2250 >> excuse me the water table is >> 850 from the surface >> 8 ft from the surface >> and there's all ground water and then the whole excavation about 2250 >> so there's a lot of shoring work and there's challenges for the traffic control plan and there a lot of other utilities conflicts too like there's like a 42 in shore line that crosses eastb crosses highway 101 so that in the conflict to 42 shore pipe and there's c gas line there's a 24 in uh PG& gas line that goes all the way to San Bruno that's was right along east shore so there a lot of challenges contractor came back and said look there's too many complex cities out there so we want to propose uh micro tunneling so we looked at it and we said okay I think this is a viable solution so we kind of supported and then we will we will do it. So another big advantage was that to open cut they said that it's going to take us six or seven months for to install that 6740 met of pipe but the micro toning say about four weeks three to four weeks and I think just last week they completed the 630 ft they installed it so the micro toning work is done and this week I think they're they're kind of demobilizing and they're doing all the cleanup work. So next slide. So yeah so uh the challenges are you know the sheep piling so protection of gas line working during rainy season you know uh the other is there's also other challenges like uh we had to look at with the settlements. So one through the microonic work we wanted to check if there's no settlements happening on the surface well and there settlements on the existing utility lines too. So in order to do that we had to establish utility monitoring points and the ground settling monitor it's called SSMP surface monitoring points. Uh so we we kind of look at them. We had our surveyors go in there and then go to the next okay this we had to go to we had our C survey go in there and and do all the surveys for all these points every day making sure that there's no settlements and the settlement the the limitations are not more than one inch >> one in >> one inch. So we kind of monitored every day throughout these four weeks and we found out there was no settlements at all. One inch over what? What depth? >> The ground. >> Yeah. >> 40 feet. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, there's a not with more than one inch of settlement. >> There's a 40 42 inches shore pipe that's about like 16 ft deep. So, we had we kind of excavated. We pole. We put a cylinder right on top of the shore line. And then there was a disc and we monitor the surveys. Every day we monitored that the SH pipe did not settle and we we found that it didn't settle at it was less than a lot less than H. So it was within the margin we those are the challenges you know and the other slide >> and the other one I will put the vertical settlements. So there's a lot of force that is in for the jacking for like maximum capacity like 800 tons but the force that was used was like about 40 30 to 60 tons and we want to make sure that the vertical soil there was no displacement too. So there was inter for vertical display we installed in it's called the inclinometers like you can see there's a on the first slide the top there's a thirst block over there and there's a inometer over there that does the reading so that there's no displacement of the soil but >> what slide do you want it on >> this is the block >> I thought you said you wanted on the next slide >> that's the inome if they don't meet your criteria of one's >> but there's a lot of first thing we stop right and then the attitude of procedures changes like there's a steering like what what the torque is what the force is or what the speed is so maybe they have to make the changes on that so they try to make the changes on that if nothing works then I don't I have not this is the first time I did a microonic work I don't know what the process are of that but I do know that there's a lot of other operational method that they have to make an alteration on the torque, on the speed, on the force. Maybe they have to make changes on on the jagging force, on the speed, the way the blades when you start rotating it and goes during through the tunnel, the torque, the rotation. Maybe they have to change maybe the direction the way they do the direction on the on the on the cutting blades. Maybe they have to make changes on that. Uh so those are those are the things that they can make and change. Apart from that if it disaster doesn't work then I don't know the work stops but it didn't happen. So we were successful and we completed last. >> Congratulations on that. >> Yeah that's wonderful. >> And the other >> next slide >> next slide that slide is the operating room the computer room that's where everything is monitored everything is the direction of the micro tunneling. They have a laser system that guides the pounding work and you know it's we were I think they were able to hit the target within within one inch the target within a distance about 6 and 40 ft the target point about one inch the difference is one in the margin of error. So >> and you said that's all on site. >> Yeah operate on the site and that's the >> that's the operator working. >> Yeah. And the pipe that is used for micro is the special pipe. The other this is the are the pipes is the fiber reinforced pipes. Those pipes are special pipes for micro. The pipe that we use on cities are usually are all high polyethylene pipes. But these are fiber reinforced pipes. The difference is that this has a capacity of 200 tons. A capacity 20 tons load whereas our SDP pipes normal pipes that we install are only 20 tons. So 20 ton pipe these are 200 tons. So these are really special pipes. This is it's not normally used for stone but it's only special purposes by for micro. Next slide. So yeah this is the on the right side you see this is the hydraulic force. This is where all the hydraulic systems are installed where they use for the hydraulic for the hydraulic forces. This is the water tank that we re with the sea we supply we gave it to the contractor to use from the fire we supply water to for the cooling purposes of the microconding machine they need a cool they need a they need a fresh water they couldn't use a we have recycled water but they said that recycled water a lot of chlorine content so they can't use recycled water for the cooling purpose of the machine they need fresh water so this will be provided fresh water that's the tank u next slide It's in the separation tank. Once once the hydraulic machine goes through the tunnel, what it does is it does a lot of excavation, right? All usually take the dirts out, right? So for all the dirts, it's a slurry field. It's a slurry with the dirts and then is pumped to the separation separation tank separation unit over there and that separates the water with all the dirts. So all the dirts is hauled off. All the water again from the separation it goes back to the tunnel and it is reused. So it just goes on recycling over and over again. And we have all the flow meters and all that out there that show what the total discharge is going to the separation tank and what the total >> water that is going back to the that's the one. These are the flow meters. The flow meter going into the tanks and the flow meters. There's a flow meter that's that show the water that's going back to the toning machine. Uh next slide. So that's the SSM that's those are the settlements. We monitor the settlements through this disc. Once you open the disc, there's a plate. There's a disc over there that goes through the ground over there. And then through that disc, we monitor the elevations for settlements. >> And this was over this 42 in sewer line. >> Sewer line. >> So this is a >> the sewer line and the storm water are completely separated, right? >> Correct. And the storm drain is doing this underneath it. The sewer is crossing it right over it. And we wanted to make sure that it's not moving as we dig underneath it. >> We had to monitor the shor line. And this is a permeable grouting for the shorelines. So like Michelle, there's a shorine crossing going high one. We're doing micro right underneath. So we want to make sure that the shor lines are fully sodium lines are very sturdy as it goes through it doesn't settle. And the way to do it was it's called permeable grouting. >> Uh the grouting contractors came in and from the surface they put the disc they excavated they part hold it and they injected slurry. It's called a bentonite with a b chemical bentonite mix with with cement slurry and they injected it around the sewer pipe. So all around the sewer pipe where the plumbing was going so that once is what it settles is a concrete. It's like a concrete around the sewer pipe. So once you push the pipes underneath the sewer pipe doesn't settle. >> And how thick is that >> coating? >> The coating is about like a foot maybe >> a foot all >> Yeah. All around it. So you inject it all around the store pipe. >> And that was done before the micro. So that >> next slide. So it leaks the night and it keeps it from leaking. Um, >> no, it's not from leaking. It's that's mainly for settlement. The bentonite >> bentonite prevent is a clay layer. So, what what it's not so much for the leaking, but keep in mind we're injecting water through the augur. So, making sure as we're injecting the water, the water doesn't displace the soil around the sewer. The bentonite protects it and doesn't prevent water to infiltrate from from the augur. Yeah. So, >> so what happened was when they I think sometime in 1987 the pipe was installed when they installed it around the store pipe they put gravels around the pipe. >> Oh yeah. >> So between the gravel there's voids right there's void on there's voids. So the contractor came in and said okay when you push the pipe we don't want there's a possibility because of the voids sure the pipes should collapse there's void. So they wanted to inject the slurs around the pipes to fill those voids. Yeah. So that's what they did and the purpose was to fill those voids between those gravels so that it's it's a compact. >> That that wraps up um corporation way west. So now we have Vicki doing presenting Hamilton Avenue. >> So as you guys may know um we have the Hamilton a capacity upgrades project. That project limit is from Roads Drive all the way to Center Drive where that traffic oval is. Um uh we started construction January 5th of this year. Uh right, you know, at the beginning of the rainy season, you know, so um here is project update. So right now we're in the process of installing that 48 in HDP pipe just to increase that capacity. some of those existing sizes are like 12 to 21 in of RCP pipe. Uh and we're installing uh 72 in manholes uh along that street. Uh so in these pictures you can see the picture on the left that is um the base of the manhole. So typically the first part of construction they'll pour the base before they stack on the barrel and top to make that cone shape. Um, and then that picture on the right, we have um, uh, the excavator dropping in that 48 inch pipe into our trench. Um, so that's what's being installed out there. Um, today every day until we're done. Um, next slide, please. Great. Um, over the past few months, we've had a couple of project challenges. Um, a few of these are groundwater, uh, working in wet seasons and utility conflicts. So, I have a picture of each of the challenges that we're facing. So, starting on the big picture on the right, wet season. If you're going to work in the wet season, there's a lot of rain. So, as you can see in this trench, which is like 10 feet plus deep, um, we get a lot of water. So, not only are we getting the water um that is coming out from the streets, it's going to the storm drain and we're starting at the most downstream end of the project at roads. Um we have groundwater, we can capture ground water about 8 ft deep into the ground. So, when we have excavations like this, you can see it can fill up really quick. >> Um so, there are some days that they will be working in the rain. So, they just have to increase um their pumps. So I think we're running about a 6 inch dewatering pump on days like this >> and it's just running continuously. So they'll run it for you know a while until it gets to a low point and then they can start work. >> But you're I mean it's the whole groundwater issue that changed the way stuff is built in in how well to do groundwater zone and you if you start bringing the houses around you start cracking up uh and and things bad things happen. So you still have to look at if you're pumping water, what's going to happen where you're pumping from. You see what I'm saying? So it's a So if you look at that flow flow curve, >> you have to design based on that flow curve because you can't let these guys settle down. And that's what happened to the people that were in the and so you can't build now if you're within 10 feet of groundwater because of that. And same kind of thing here. I'm trying to say. >> Yeah, this is a little bit different though. They're just trying to dewater an active construction site where there's a pipe so they can get the pipe back in. So, a little bit different than what you're talking about. >> Yeah. So, >> and that picture in the top middle groundwater. So, on a non rainy day, I think that's like middle of last month. Not too bad. You know, maybe you got like 18 inches of water. It's not >> used to build a lot in water country. You use you could use a a bed night trench to essentially as a to keep it from coming in on you. >> Clay. Yeah. >> Yeah. So good old Wyoming if they run out of it. It all come all comes out of out of the mind of Wyoming. >> The Amish officer. >> Yeah. >> Um and then we have encountered a lot of unmarked utilities I've seen in some of the pictures. just abundant utility crop is quite in the way of where we want our surroundings. Um so that's been interesting. And then sewer laterals in this uh in this side of town we have a lot of um sewer laterals uh that are made of PCP vrified clay pipe and over time they get really brittle and they break. So, as we're doing construction, we're exposing these laterals and um some of them already have fractures and cracks on them. So, we've had to replace a couple of them or they may break during construction. So, uh those are some of those. Um >> so, do we end up picking up the cost of that or so are plans for it? >> Um the budgeting. >> Yeah. Yes. So for budgeting purposes, we do subt cost a lot of those which I think on the CIP pages when we talk about the master plan did not include that measure. So that's what some of the costes the cost overruns are on things that we didn't forecast in the master plan. Um in some cases if utilities if they know and it's a really correct one utilities might come in. So we end up picking up the cost of staff >> or the alternative was we get contractors. Some contractors are great to work with, some not so much where they call standby. We can't do anything. We're going to stand still until you guys come and fix it. So, we can kind of deal with >> I mean, you you used to do contingency about 10 10 >> 20 or whatever. >> Yeah. But with the unknowns, Val, I mean, that contingency must be going up is what I'm trying to >> It's currently being paid for in the contingency cost via change orders that are already part of the do approved contract. So, right now, it's not increasing the cost, but it if we ran out of contingency, it could. But that's what that built-in 10% is for which is already here in the 20 26th. So it's already part of the project cost the contingency. >> Great. >> Um and here we have the Storm Drive reef head replacement project. Um so this is regarding the 12-in pipe on Alistister Avenue. We did have this as part of the bid alternate uh on the Hamilton Avenue project, but the bids came in insanely high. So, we decided to bid it out as a separate project to get more reasonable numbers. Um, so I just the bid closed April 2nd. We issued the notice to intent that Monday on April 5th. So, right now we're in that process of getting um uh that awarded and getting that on the council agenda. So, we do plan on uh working on this project while school out of session um because it's right in front of Dick Elementary. So, that is the goal is to do it when the kids aren't there. it'll be easier >> and the cost of that is included in this 1,245,000 that you see on the rehab line for 2026. So we have the funding or you budget it. >> Great. So I think that's that concludes your presentation. >> Okay. >> So now we are done with our um agenda item six and we're on to agenda item seven which is also a no action needed storm word compliance updates. area PM online. >> Hello. Good afternoon. This is going to be relatively quick, but I could come back with more information about the EPA project if you have it. Uh the first is just finally an update. We've talked about trash compliance for a while and we have finally reached our 100% trash reduction goal. Uh we have notified the water board. they've accepted what we've done and we are officially there. So that is a >> big >> big feat for us. Uh as you've heard over the years we've been doing different projects and these are just you know an example of some of the things we've done over the years. This is for about 10 years that we've been working on this. So, uh you will still see sometimes litter on the ground, but we have um various actions in place and systems in place to make sure that even if it goes into the storm drain system, we are working in all the hotspot areas to make sure that it's detained in the system at some point so that it's not going to the creeks and to the bay. So, uh it has been a lot of work. Thank you to Michelle and her team and uh public works services u and everyone else who has helped on this. So unfortunately our main lead right now is out u on leave uh but he Brad Hunt who has presented on this more than once u um worked really hard to get us to the finish line. So really really great news for the city. Um, and the next thing I want to present on, uh, Michelle Nelson already mentioned it and I wanted to talk about an EPA project that we're working on. Um, and part of it had already started about a year year to year and a half ago. Um, the big main component is just kicking off now. So, I wanted to talk a little bit more about it. And I'm I'm not sure who knows about this project. So I just wanted to tell you about the overall project that's being funded by the EPA and then what we're working on now. Uh this is a project funded uh no if you can move up to Thank you. Um so we are working on a project that's funded by the water quality improvement fund. It's an allocation from the federal government to the EPA Bay Area region that is focused on protecting water quality in the San Francisco Bay. we got a grant that um is focused on green infrastructure and some other items within it. And so I'll wanted to tell you a little bit about that. So starting like the the second part over to the right where it says gsi projects uh we uh this project is a partnership with a few other um organizations including the city of Santa Clara and we are acting basically as what's called a pass through. We received funding to um to allow them to um construct design and construct a green and storm water infrastructure project in a park um in a parking lot for at a park and we are also receiving funding to design our own project um which is going to be in uh we're proposing that it be in the Hana Bionis Park and I'll show you a picture of what where that is later. Uh we're also uh partnering with the San Francisco Estuary Institute, which is the leading nonprofit organization that does a lot of monitoring in the Bay Area to help uh identify the health of the of the Bay and to evaluate different projects that are happening within the wastewater and storm water world. Make sure that we are indeed improving water quality through meeting our requirements and implementing our projects. Uh so we are going to be monitoring preconstruction and post construction of both the projects in Palo Alto and Santa Clara. So we'll be looking at how storm water quality improves uh with the addition of green storm water infrastructure. The next thing over if you move clockwise the gsi maintenance training we conducted some maintenance training uh through a certification program called the national green infrastructure certification program and we were able to bring someone who um has done similar training in Southern California. he came up who is certified as a trainer in that program and we had a lot of different city staff uh attend from Palo Alto um uh staff from city of Santa Clara city of San Jose and our partners that were working on we're working on this project with grassroots ecology and San Jose conservation corps uh so we provided four trainings that was a combination of classroom and in field training and We provided enough training to meet the requirements of the certification program. If attendees want to move forward and get that certification, they can do so. Uh we made that curriculum Bay Area focused and u I thought it went pretty well. We had pretty good um survey results on that. Part of that involves um of this component of the project involves that grassroots ecology and San San Jose Conservation Corps will continue to train together in the field and we'll then be conducting some maintenance um once we have these constructed on our green infrastructure that we construct through this grant. Um, lessons learned is um, a component where we're going to write a memo of how this project went, how did the storm water engineering specifications work out for us, what do we need to adjust, uh, how did the water quality monitoring results come out? Um, and how did the training occur? So the different components that we are doing in the project basically evaluating them and coming up with recommendations for the Bay Area for similar projects and and including workforce development which is a big need in the Bay Area in terms of green infrastructure maintenance. And the last one, community engagement coming around. Um that is um a pretty elaborate community engagement component that we've put together in addition to public meetings that we're going to have for the project. We are going to have uh be working with grassroots ecology to do some outreach for us as well. And so if you could move to the next page, I'll be talking a little bit more about the project. So um this this kickoff that we just had uh with a consulting firm called Geocentech and some some consultants uh we are going uh kicks off the design of what we're calling a like storm water park green storm water infrastructure measure in the Juan Bionis Park as I mentioned it's a proposed location based on uh preliminary analysis where we looked at basically where can we get more bang for our buck in terms of how can we treat the most imperous surface with the least amount of money and at the same time meet requirements that uh are in our storm water quality permit. Uh this was the lowest hanging fruit in terms of different challenges like utilities that uh you've heard about from engineering just now. Um, so we are now hopefully going to be finished with the design and also construction documents that would be ready to um so that we can then enter into a contract with a construction um contractor um by fall of 2027. And then what's not approved right now is the funding we need for construction. So right now we um have funding for a design and so the project cost is around 800,000 just for the design which I thought was pretty expensive but things are expensive these days. About half of it is being covered by the EPA grant and half of it is being covered by the city through the allocation we get from the storm drain fund that Michelle was talking about. Um, so there is a CIP that's set up. That CIP is in that list of CIPs that you're looking at. The green infrastructure CIP contains the funding that we're using for this project. There is additional funding in that CIP and uh we hope to be able to use that to u for construction as well and we'll be uh we have no idea of what the cost will be so we can't plan for it yet. Uh but we're trying to basically um you know somewhat you know hold on to that money per se to because once we if we can use it for construction then it will allow us to meet um a lot of requirements that we have in the permit as well. Um without getting into the details of that, we've talked about that we're required to treat impervious surface, a certain amount of impervious surface for um per the population in our city. And so we're trying to meet that requirement through this project. If anyone wants to know more about that, I could uh answer questions or bring more information at another time. The community engagement component for this project is going to include two public meetings. I think the first which is going to be tenatively in June will be at the park uh where we can show um the public what the park looks like and what we envision um and we'll have preliminary designs that are around what's called 10% and then uh we will be following up with um more elaborate designs in November. Uh we are also going to have two to three parks and recreation commission meetings where we present feedback from the public where we present our design um proposal and we ultimately request for a parks improvement ordinance that would then be recommended to council where we can where council would adopt it and then we would be able to move forward with the project at the park. >> That's great. It's great to see a green infrastructure project get moving forward with real scope and that's lovely. Thank you so much for the presentation. >> There's still >> hear more about it or >> sorry. >> All right. And then if you move to the next slide, please. So this is it's hard to Well, I'm not sure what you all can see. I can't really um read it very well, but it's right off Charleston Astadero um by a fire station on the corner and out on the name of that street right there. Um but it's >> uh Juan Biona's Park is is basically Kitty Corner. One part of it is at Charlestonero and then the back of it is at an in a neighborhood. So if you go to the Yeah, >> Mayville Avenue. >> I'm sorry. >> Melville Avenue. >> Thank you very much. >> If you go to the next page just so that I can show you a bit of a zoomed out view. So the drainage area that's in light the area that's in light blue is going to be the drainage area that drains to this u place in the park. if you and it's mostly a neighborhood and partly a school. So, you know, if you're looking at storm water pollutants, it's not, you know, they're not from it's not from a commercial or industrial area, but there are a lot of pollutants that are still associated with streets. And so, we are going to be able to capture the pollutants that um come from that area. If I'm sorry, if you could go back to the la the previous slide, what we are planning to do, please make note that we don't have a design. This is an incredibly rudimentary drawing, but it's just to give you a sense of we're bringing, if you look at the arrow on the left, we're going to divert water from the storm drain, put in a new pipe that crosses the street and goes over to the park. So, we're going to when there's rain, we're going to bring it over. Whatever's in that pipe, we're going to bring it over to an area where um Can you There's a part of this slide to the right. Is it possible to look at that? Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, where that arrow is going, it's actually going to um in the background of this picture that you're looking at on the right, it looks like a bridge. There's a bridge there. Um, and so that water would be going to an area that starts to, you know, depress and then it would be coming down that area that it looks kind of like it's coming toward me when I'm looking at the storm drain and that's where that water would be going. So, it's going to be a pipe that we're going to put under the ground, divert it, and then take it under until a point where we can bring it up to the surface. And then in this area that we're looking at, and it's going to be beyond this the scale of this picture, but we're going to build what we're calling a storm water park. And what's a storm water park? It it can really be anything, but at the end of the day, it's an area in a park. And sometimes it the entire park. In this case, it's a portion of the park where we can capture water, capture storm water, treat storm water, and in this case, add additional features as well. So, if you can go to H forward again, >> the next one. >> You want the ones of the storm water park examples? Yeah. >> Yes. >> Sorry if you can move it over again. Um these are just some examples of other what are called storm water parks might you know some people might just call it green storm water infrastructure or in parks or whatever it is but basically it it will allow us to capture storm water but it will also allow us to you know increase um what's increase the benefits that are for the public at the park whether it's um areas where people can sit whether it's like a walkway across maybe rocks for pe for kids to walk on. Whatever it is, uh we're going to, you know, bring forth some ideas to the public and see what the public would would like. Uh we know that this area, as you know, it's, you know, it's a hill area. We know that the kids do play in that area, but generally that area is not is not used very much. So, it's an area that's currently not used much and we hope to, you know, put in some kind of multi-ben project that will also allow us to improve storm water quality. So, that that's at the end of the day what we're we're planning to do. We just kicked off the project a couple of weeks ago. We're hoping to have the 10% design drafted in June. And once we uh set up the public meeting, we'll definitely add you to the list and and make you aware of any meetings that are coming up. >> Great. Thank you so much. Any questions? >> Um I have one. Uh Pam, why are we thinking about digging and putting a pipe in to get the water? Why not something that's more surface level with maybe a grill to just siphon the water wherever it is needed to go? Like if this is just kind of a water collection and bringing it to a different location I believe you said uh was your question why are we not putting in a surface? >> So why are we digging under the into the why are we digging Pam and moving in the pipes that >> that's be able to >> pipe instead of like something that's more surface level solution. >> We'll be able to capture a lot more storm water if we put in a pipe and divert it. If we want to put something on the surface to try to just capture what's coming down on the surface, we would just be capturing whatever is draining to it from that street. And it would it would be limited because you know at some point the street changes grade and it might flow one direction over another. And so this allows us to capture all that drainage area. That's the only way we can capture a large drain drainage area is when we can bring water over from the actual storm drain pipe. Otherwise, we can only capture whatever is flowing on the surface of the street in that smaller area. >> Can I if I can interject here and I'm not familiar with this project in general when you uh let water sheet flow from the surface, it she flows fast and the soil quality doesn't allow for absorption as fast. So it it it probably the top six inches get filled and moist and water saturates in that area, but we're not taking advantage of the entire depth. By taking water from the street, putting it into a pipe, and then forcing it to pond, basically a ponding area, we're encouraging water. We can change the soil. We can change the material underneath the soil. Um mentioned rocks, putting in rocks and having void space. We can change that by soils and allow more infiltration. So by putting a pipe directing it to an area below grade and in an area that's pvious, we can change the pvious area to allow for more infiltration. Um it's been done in other locations where you do circles and you have water that the deepest and like a target sign the deepest areas at the center of the circle and then as you move up water fills up in ponds. So small storm events can still infiltrate, large storm events have more capacity, >> but this but this all solids still move through and uh so you're really using underground flow to to >> the solids would settle on the surface. So this is sort of a combined effort. I'm talking about the quality component, but there the quantity component, but in Pam's case, she's also dealing with the quality. So the soil, whatever oils, grease that would still get collected or I don't know, whatever napkins, tissues, things that are on the surface would still be collected before it goes into our storm drain system down to like Matadero Creek. >> That's what's so great about the green storm infrastructure is use the plants and soils and all the other things to absorb it, nature systems, right? >> The natural system. And then this the reason why Pam and team picked this one as a proposed site. It was a area that had poor the ecosystem wasn't that great anyway. And so that's part of it too is it's trying to enhance that park area. So they did a lot of research looking at all the different parks. How do we get a watershed area so we get more areas that we need to treat? Moving it into a park that we can treat. Um, so it it helps us in that regard. And then we can get more credits for the storm water permit. >> So that's also helping us and and then we can hopefully then we don't have, you know, the next time we do a project. So we're trying to get the biggest bang for our buck. >> L less utility conflicts. Um, less clay this far further up away from the bay. Less clay. I mean, we're dealing with utility conflict on our end. We're dealing with clay and groundwater. You know, less likely to be that of an issue. So >> that's great. So, we're running a little short on time. >> If we wanted to end on time, there's one more agenda item. >> This is your agenda item. >> Um, so agenda item eight, no action needed. It's a council work plan debrief. Um, do you want me to talk about this? >> If you want, it's up to you. >> Sure. Um, so I was invited as the chair to the city council meeting um, recently and um, and they were uh, reviewing work plans from I think four of the other committees and commissions uh, including the public art one and the health parks and wreck. There was one more >> HR human rights. That's right. And then uh our committee, we were last on the on the schedule, >> which was fine, huh? >> For the whole night, >> and they were running an hour over, which I guess is standard. So, it was all good. It was all good. Um and so, uh staff uh kindly put together some slides. One was the famous and beautiful map slide of all the projects with the color coding to show their status. Um and the other was some accomplishments for the year, some nice photographs um of the various work that was been going on. And then um we went over the work plan or we just the royal we went over the work plan um and uh do you guys remember the work plan? there was that threepoint spreadsheet you know where it said oh with their CIP projects and then we have to comply with regulations within they have to be you know conducted under the umbrella of all the regula all regulations and compliance goals and then we track and monitor the green infrastructure. So those are the three big items. Um, and then there were some questions and um, the one thing they had a comment on was I think the mayor actually said how excited she was by green infrastructure. So, it's great that this project it was nice. I thought, oh, that's great that you have a specific project that'll be, >> you know, in a park where kids play and by school and in a nice community that could really uh, that'll just spruce up that park. So, yeah, it was fun. So the mayor is very involved in our sustainability climate action plan and she's on the escap the that that committee. >> Yeah. >> It's a and so Yes. And so that's one of our goals. >> Good goal. >> And it's part of our sustainability. >> Yeah. So that is why she's very engaged on green infrastructure. >> Cool. >> Yeah. >> So yeah, thank you. you all um created and approved this work plan a year ago, last April. Um because >> they it used to go to council in August uh as a consent item. Uh so we reviewed it in our meeting last April and we're ready to go in August and then the council decided they wanted a more in-depth uh review of these work plans and they bumped it to an action item in April. So, it's a it's a bit lagged to say the least, but it still aligns with the year that we were looking at. Um, but I think we'll we'll shift you guys to develop those work plans a little closer to when we're going to go to council going forward. So, we'll do one in no and maybe in the October meeting we'll work on the work plan for the next year. >> Not that it changes a lot for your >> this committee. It's a little bit different >> more straightforward than some of the other ones like public art. We did update I think we updated the fine print and none of them about what were the current projects or completed projects. >> So thank you guys very much >> and I they're they're actively Dena is actually stepped away so they're trying to do a shortterm bill. So I I sent you the I can send to all of you. They're just trying to find someone for Dena's >> right >> bill but not for yours yet. >> Oh ours ours are >> I got clarification during >> Okay, great. So, we'll just keep our eyes open for it >> should we choose to reapply. >> Please do. >> Please do. We would really appreciate. >> So, but thank you for following up on that. Appreciate it. So, I think uh I think we're done. Do we unless comment? >> Uh did we get a motion? >> Yes, please move. >> I got the second >> I can say. >> Okay. And Greg, uh do you have any comments? I don't want to ignore you completely. >> Nope. Everything was great. Thank you so much, guys. >> Well, thank you so much. Thanks for coming in. >> All right. So, I think we're ready. Are we ready to adjourn? Yes. Okay. I don't want to override anybody. >> Second, >> but thank you. >> Yeah. I'm going to go to that. I got a reminder that there's a >> you know, the meeting protocol refresh course of BC. Yes. >> Oh, yeah. >> I'm gonna go to that. So good cuz I can't attend. That's my son's um 18th birthday. >> Oh, I will not be attending. When is this? April 27th or something? >> That was April >> or Brown and >> Oh, no. My other my another senior night. >> I think it was April 27th. One senior.

meeting to order. >> Recording in progress. >> Um, Chair Roman, >> present. >> Vice Chair O Willis, >> Board member Yolinsquez, >> present. >> Board member Eagles, >> present. For the record, we have quorum. >> Are there any changes or deletions to the agenda? >> No agenda changes planned for today. >> All right. And then do we have any public comment on items not on the agenda? Um through the chair, it looks like we do have one request to speak. Um for general public comment um didn't want to ask if you wanted to allow for the time of the three minutes or one minute. >> We'll do uh one minute. >> One minute. All right. All right. Uh Samir K, you may now speak. Hi guys, I'd like to speak and I would like to talk about that [ __ ] is >> um it looks like they're no longer with us. So that concludes public comment. >> Amazing. Okay, we'll move to the first item on the agenda. All right. Well, bear with me while I share my screen here. >> And uh to the chair, for the record, I do want to share that our council leazison, council member Keith Recdaw, is joining us via Zoom. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, here we are in April. Uh, we have some upcoming meetings as listed on the screen. If there's planned absences, please note that for the record. And I believe that in the packet staff had noted that board member Willis was uh going to be absent for this meeting, but um believe that if there's a planned trip ahead, uh we'll correct that for the record. And just some updates for some events. Um yesterday the uh recruitment was um concluded should I say it was extended from the initial recruitment for the remaining seats on the on the board till April 8th. We have our annual report that will be submitted later this month. And we have the historic preservation conference in Riverside that is at the beginning of May. And we have a tenative date for the city hall lobby for those um Palo Alto historic awards for May 28th. So that is the date that we're targeting uh once we have some confirmation from those property owners that staff has reached out to. And with that I can entertain any questions. Um I'm just curious how many applications for the board uh have you received? >> So the the city clerk manages that but uh to my knowledge we've received I I believe uh two from that last recruitment and that was what was extending. Um so for this uh April 8th what concluded yesterday I'm I'm unsure how many applications we've received but that was the reasoning for extending the recruitment due to the lack of number of applications. A quick question. Uh May 28th, uh it's an evening event, >> correct? So it would be in the city hall lobby uh with that conference room with the glass doors that would be able to open. Um and it would be starting around 5:00 p.m. till 7:00. >> Great. Thank you. I think we can move on to the staff report. All right. Well, let's take a trip to 405 Kipling Street. We have a reclassification request from a category 4 to a category 2 as well as a bonus floor app application. So, to orient ourselves here, this is at the corner of Kipling and Linton Avenue. Uh the zoning is commercial downtown with the pedestrian shopping combining district in the downtown north neighborhood. A little bit about the property. Uh it was built in 1897 by a local builder HL upm and it's an early Palo Alto two-story square box example. The original owner um was one of the 49ers. Uh, so an interesting kind of history for our our town here since it's construction. >> Can you clarify a a prospector or a San Francisco 49er? >> A minor. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Clear the record. Um, not pictured not pictured to the right. That's a little bit further down in the um in the bullet points here. So, um, since its initial construction, it's been, uh, minimally altered. There's been some repairs at, uh, the rear of the structure and some interior partitions and some window changes that, uh, we'll get into a little bit later. Um, and some of the the repair work. So in 1901, shortly after its construction, some of the rooms were rented to Stamford students, uh, as well as going a little bit further uh, down the timeline, there was a bookstore in 1955, uh, there was a following bookstore as well as a record store, which the owner is pictured here on the the right, the Turra Book and Music. and that lasted at the property until 1999 when they moved to Redwood City. And since that time, the the property has been a residential use. So, if we go back to 1978, this was surveyed and added to the local register as a category 4 resource. and that is a contributing building um or a group of buildings that are good local examples of architectural styles. So since that uh the property owner uh with coordination through the city uh had Paige and Turbo prepare a historic resource evaluation that was submitted on June 10th of 2025 that found the property individually eligible for a category 2 listing under our criterion two, five, and six. And that criterion two is that the structures are particularly representative of say an architectural style or um a way of life that's important to the city, state or nation. And for that it's the an early example of that twostory square box house type in PaloAlto. And criterion five is that the architect or building was important. And as detailed in the staff report, that is that the HL UPAM was a builder of merit um who made some important contributions to early Palo Alto's uh built environment. And criterion six is that the structure or site contains elements that demonstrate outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, and materials of craftsmanship. So with that, the the building's um remaining uh features that have been minimally altered over the years are outstanding examples of um the two-story box type. Some of those being the shiplap siding, um the molded cornice, uh some of the eve returns, and u the scale cladding. Moving on to the second part of this project request would be the floor area bonus. Uh so floor area bonuses are available uh as part of the say transfer of development rights program to category 1 and two structures that are located in the commercial downtown district or zoned uh public facilities or within our sofa south of Forest area. Phase two, that would be the residential transition 35 and 50 properties. So, this property, should the reclassification request go forward, be eligible as a category 2 property, and it is zoned in the commercial downtown. So, it's a two-part uh recommendation for the reclassification as well as the um rehabilitation and seismic upgrades of the property. So with that, um I think this one differs a little bit from some of the previous examples that we've had that came before the historic resources board. This includes a seismic rehabilitation as well as a historic rehabilitation. So for that additional seismic work grants the property owner an additional 2500 square ft. So that would be a total of 5,000 ft² of bonus floor area that would be available should the property be reclassified to a category 2 and the work that's detailed in the plan set and the staff report commence. So a little bit about the proposal. uh the property owner had submitted plans with their initial request on December 2nd and following that some revised plans were recently submitted on February 13th and just a brief overview of the scope of work. I'll walk us through some of those architectural plans on the following slides, but that would be seismic upgrades with the unreinforced masonry foundation being replaced with a concrete foundation, some window and roof replacements, new windows and wooden siding at the rear edition at the first first floor. A new detached accessory building that would uh have long-term bike storage as well as a trash enclosure. some parking lot upgrades including um some new paving and some additional bike parking along Kipling Street as well as some fencing as well. So if we are looking here at the rear facade of the structure and what would be changing noting that first uh first floor addition on the rear of swapping those windows out um as well as a a window uh in the second floor the roof as well as the trash enclosure and bike storage that accessory building on the left hand side of the screen. Moving on to the Kipling Street facade. Uh noting the gable end of the roof where currently there's an air conditioning unit in that window. So, uh taking that out and replacing it with a inind uh example of say a wooden window. some foundation repairs. Of course, that is that seismic. The unreinforced masonry foundation being taken out and replaced with a concrete foundation. Those bike racks along Kipling Street as well as what we can see on the right hand side at the rear of that accessory structure. And if we're looking along Linton Avenue at the U property, having that accessory structure and the fencing on the left hand side, the roof repairs as well as that foundation work. And throughout the plans, you can probably see a few straggly lines uh that are um cleaning up say electrical uh as well as mechanical items on the on the building's facade. Most notably at the rear of the structure of kind of cleaning that up and letting that wooden siding come come through without the distraction of all of those wires. And again, looking at the eastern elevation. So this would be that shared property line that currently has a fence and having that accessory structure abuing that that wooden fence um and having that foundation work as well as those bike racks at the very front near Kipling. So with that uh staff would recommend that the historic resources board take two actions. Um it can be as one motion but one to recommend to city council to reclassify the category 4 resource to a category 2 structure on the PaloAlto's historic resources inventory as well as recommend to the director and of planning and development services on the project's conformity with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. And with that I can entertain any questions and the applicant is available and believe has a presentation as well. I think we can go to the applicant presentation. Good morning, members of the board, chairwoman. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be make making the presentation on behalf of Thoitz Brothers, our client. Uh John Shank with Thoitz Brothers is here this morning. Um, and we are also joined online by uh Barrett Reer from Paige and Turble, the historic consultant uh as well as uh Sher Van Dornne with Van Dornne Abed Landscape Architects in case you have questions on the landscaping um that we're doing. Um you always that was a wonderful presentation uh plan planner uh Switzer uh you've you've covered everything pretty much but I'm going to go through my presentation. Okay, I'll have to be I'll have to start abbreviating these things. I stole the thunder. Right. So, we're proposing an upgrade from a category 4 to a category 2 um on the local inventory um as well as a um rehabilitation plan for your recommendation this morning to city council. Um this is the fourth building on Kipling that um has been elevated um by the Thoitz family um in the last year and a half. The others being 411, which you saw we're actually in for building permit now on that. 431 also in for building permit on for the improvements there. And then 437 was elevated, but there's no rehabilitation plan for that as it was rehabilitated in the 1990s pretty much. Uh we're talking about 405 Kipling today. It was constructed as a home for Norah Smith in 1897. um and built by uh HL Uppam who apparently was also an architect because he's attributed to designing some of the buildings in PaloAlto but in this case a prolific PaloAlto contractor built many buildings in PaloAlto's formative years. It does represent a two-story square box with Queen Anne um detailing and stylistic elements uh which was a common building type in the formative years of PaloAlto. The immediate neighborhood, as I've just kind of talked about, um is an early 20th century residential block where all the buildings are locally listed um as either a category 4, three, or two on the um on the on the historic list. Um other than this rear edition that I'm showing here, um the uh which was added u sometime before 1924 according to kind of the Sandborn maps. Um the uh the building maintains uh its uh original uh form. The front porch, the tuskcen columns, um the carved corbals, the fascia um and cornice and the returns, the fish scale shingles above as well as the shiplap siding um and uh and multi-light uh multi-ite windows. It's actually a wonderful wonderful building. Um in 1985 uh as uh planner Switzer just explained it was uh put on the historic list as a category 4. Um and then recently um through our client in the city Paige and Turbo prepared an historic report that um determined that the building is eligible for inclusion on the city's historic inventory as a category 2 now as a major historic resource. the uh page and tremble report um determined the building is under qualifying criteria two as Mr. Switzer explain number five and number six. I was going to go into detail on that but I don't think I I need to for you. Um and although not required for PaloAlto listing, it does maintain um the uh satisfy the concept of um integrity. So it has integrity of of place um of location, setting, design, materials, craftsmanship, um feeling and association. So we urge you to elevate this building so it can join um its brothers and sisters on on Kipling as a category uh category 2 um historic project or property. Now I'll explain the rehabilitation plan um kind of quickly here. So um the rehabilitation plan that we're proposing uh includes replacing the masonry unreinforced masonry foundation. So, it's an old brick foundation and I've kind of indicated where that occurs with the red line here on this existing plan. Um, also just for reference because I'll go to the proposed plan. Um, the existing parking lot is terrible. Um, it's got a lot of cars but uh they back onto the street um and it's difficult to maneuver in and it's kind of uh uh run down with trash cans. No, no comment on our clients um upkeep of the property, but they recently acquired the property um and uh they're determined to to make this uh a more pleasing experience here. So um we will be reconfiguring that as well. So um we'll be replacing the existing roofing um on the project uh restoring wood siding, wood windows and doors. Um they're going to take the air conditioner out of the window and put a like uh inkind window back. We will remove um the non-historic windows at the rear of the building and put in uh windows that are more um appropriate and um and more I think nicely um proportioned and located on that facade. And we will uh be going through and and inventorying all of the wood trim and siding um and porch floorboards and so on and be making um any kind of necessary um rehabilitation to those um elements. Um the proposed plan we have here um shows the you see the building. We're gonna um my partner work here. Yeah. So we're going to do a new walkway that wraps around this side of the building. It's just a partial one now. Um this will have new landscaping here. We have a new long-term bike storage facility here that doesn't exist today on the property. We're going to put all the trash and recycling um and compost inside um a covered enclosure. And although we're reducing the number of parking spaces, technically no parking is required, but we still want parking. Um, and then we'll be a having five parking spaces there with adequate backup to be able to back up and pull out forward in the forward direction um onto the street. Uh, electrical sub panel is located here. It's kind of a um unkempt area. So, we're proposing this uh new fence in front of that that would then match the vocabulary of what we're doing um at the trash enclosure and so on. So, this is just a view from the corner. Um not a whole lot of landscaping in in this area, although we are replacing a street tree here. Um and that's going to have a new um carob tree. Um and then uh going around the building you see the the fence here that will be hiding the electrical meter and cable infrastructure and so on there. This all gets landscaped. Um the uh landscaping includes uh new shrubbery um some manzanita, some um uh snapdragon um plants and flowering plants. And then you see the trash enclosure in the distance with uh rolling doors to get the trash out. Um, and just a closeup of that and then a fence of the yard. So, that fence will it actually matches what we've been doing at 411 and 431. So, there's some tie-in between uh all of the projects and you can see 411 right here next door. Anyway, so that's my uh my presentation and the city has determined, I believe, that the rehabilitation plan is in compliance with the secretary of interior standards. Um, and we're looking for a recommendation to move this to council. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> Okay. Before we move to questions from the board, is there any public comment on this item? >> Yes. Uh, to the chair, there is um to request speak at the moment. Um our first speaker is uh John S. Okay. >> Good morning. Um John Shank with Thoitz Brothers and representing the Thoitz family. And I just want to thank you guys again. I it's a lot of your personal time to be involved with these things, but we share your care and your compassion for the historic fabric that is in the downtown. And we're in a way honored to that we get to add this property to the Thoitz portfolio and it's the first residential units they've had in many many many decades. A lot of the buildings used to be residential. Um and and today are not and to have this one is is special for us. Um there's things that you know we can't do under the leases like parking. Residents have parking spaces and we just have to keep these things. But we're excited to take this on. I think it's a beautiful corner. It's a beautiful building and even though Ken Hayes didn't design it, I think it is exceptional. Um, and we're excited to to move forward with your blessing, of course. But, um, I'll leave it there. I just want to thank you guys. Our next speaker is Marinas H uh on Zoom. Marinus, you may now speak. Marinus, are you there? >> All right, the chair and then I believe that concludes public comment. >> Thank you. uh questions and discussions from the board. >> Um I have one question and it's regarding the bonus um square footage. Is the plan to transfer that um right to another owner? >> Thank you for the question. Um, no. We'll we'll we'll we won't use the bonus area on site because there's nowhere to do it. We don't want to mess with the building, but we will retain we'll move them to one of our other properties and wait for a place to be able to use them in the long run. >> Okay. Thank you. It >> this is off topic, but I just thought of it when I sat down. I wanted to mention that it was sort of wonderful for me and also frustrating. There was a I don't know where it was on next door or one of these forms where some residents had seen our sign out front that we have to put up cuz there's a project and there was all this concern that we were going to tear it down and turn it into something else and all these and all this rage and I thought oh I wish they knew that they read you know that was just a histo we're actually going to care for the building but um hopefully they'll see that good things are going to happen but anyway thank you. Was it the the white like Powalto notice of? It says it on the sign. It says, >> I know, but if you just think it's a project, they >> Yeah. >> assume it's going to go away and we're like, "No, no, no." >> Well, that is a sentiment we don't usually get when there's a historic house in a project. So, we'll take that. Uh even though it is misdirected, so sorry about that. >> Other comments or questions? So, uh, I I think this building previously was offices, professional offices >> back in the night >> or is it the other way? It's been >> it's been retail, it's been offices and then it became residential. I think it started as these other uses. >> Okay. And is it residential now? >> It is residential now. And I think in the staff report and the historic resource evaluation u it detailed kind of the change in use. So, initial residence and then from that time kind of transferring over to uh the bookstore and having either a residential as well as um you know the commercial use on on the site and then that transferring in the 1990s uh almost the early 2000s uh with that transfer of that bookstore to uh Redwood City. So, having full residential use since that time. >> And is it a single family residential or is it No, it's multi. because of the it's multi six. Wow, that's a lot. >> There's multiple units. If you look through the plans, you can kind of make out where each unit would be. >> That's great. >> I was wondering why there are so many mailboxes on the porch. >> Well, I I just want to say thank you. Um it's so nice to have that block of Kipling and I think that you know we're going to see a lot more changes in Palo Alto and um it's nice to have a unified area where you can kind of walk in and and see our origins and you know there I can't think of very many other places in Palo Alto where that is possible. So I just want to say thanks. Okay. If there aren't any further questions, um I uh motion to recommend uh that city council approve the reclassification from a category 4 to a category 2 for 405 Kiplane. Um and the board finds and with the recommendation that the board finds it consistent um uh the retrofitting consistent with the secretary of the interior standards. >> I'll second. >> Right. Um board member Yinskis. >> Yes. >> Board member I ch >> yes. >> Vice Chair Willis. >> Yes. >> Chair Roman. >> Yes. Motion carries 40. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Excellent. >> All right, we can move on to uh board business and announcement and comments. >> It will actually be approval of minutes. >> Oh, I'm Oh, >> I'm sorry. Approval of minutes. >> And then um through the chair, I did want to just note that um Chair Roman, you were absent for this meeting. So when we do um do a vote, I would just need you to abstain. >> Great. >> Yep. >> All right. Approval of minutes. >> And just noting that these minutes are from that March 12th meeting and I believe uh we've had some indication from board member Willis of some uh revised uh text to be on. If we go to packet page >> 58 and that would be uh correcting in the record for what is listed as a licensed historian. So, um changing that to reflect uh the professional um qualifications that were being read from the administrative code. >> So, I'll move to approve the minutes >> as amended. >> As amended. >> I second that. All right. Um, board member Eagle Sanchez. >> Yes. >> Um, board member Elinskis, >> yes. >> Uh, Vice Chair Willis, >> Uh, Chair Roman, >> abstain. >> All right. Uh, motion carries 301. >> Okay. Now we can move on to board business. Uh, this is kind of off topic a little, but um our last category upgrade um I was I'm my uh Whoa. It it seemed it just rattled me that this would move up to a category two whereas um the John Hudson Thomas building that was you know um standing on Bryant as part of a sort of a connected duplex and when we downgraded well we didn't downgrade that category but council did and um I just think it speaks to the fact that we need to look at the whole ordinance and bring it in line because the fact that we um basically still have threes and fours where um I think that the our categories have kind of lost their um I don't want to say integrity but they they've kind of lost their meaning. So um threes and fours sound like they're part of the original inventory. Two ones and twos twos are sounding like they're part of new additions to the inventory or changes the inventory. And I I just think we need to really um within the next let's give us 12 months, we need to face up to how we're going to deal with um equalizing our categories or making our categories sink with each other because I feel strongly that um we're kind of floating with um the public's whim, I guess, you know, and hallelujah. some of them are on our side and I'd say the majority of them are probably not. Um I don't know that for a fact but you know they're certainly more vocal and I I feel really strongly that we need to put in place a plan for um re-evaluating our inventory properties and our categories and somehow coming them making them align because we're this is going to get worse and worse. you know, people are going to go, I want it this way. And council seems to go with the owner. So, I want it this way, it'll be this way. I want it this way, it'll be this way. And I think that we need to really put some good language in place so it's clear that, you know, to council that we're not being arbitrary, which is what they basically accused us of with the John Hudson Thomas building. Um, that we need to have support for our decisions. And um and I think it's really important to look at our ordinance update or whatever piece of it we need to do to make this happen. And I I think we need a plan for to get this agendaized and get uh some kind of flow to this process so it doesn't just stall out as it seems to have done for the last 20 years or probably more since we did the original inventory. Can I make one comment which is I think the reason city council went the way they did on the John uh Thomas Hudson building was because Paige and Turnbull recommended it and whatever Pent Turnbull recommends they seem to sort of default to them instead of what our recommendations are. So, do we need to have a strict conversation with Paige and Turnville and say you define the terms and we'll try and agree with your terms because I just feel like I I know you're right. Um, but I I don't really want to out question their integrity. I just want them to explain to us. >> Yeah, I I don't know what to do about that either. Yeah, I think we could agendaize this, but I I I think because they are an external I think the the point of change and turnable is that they are supposed to be um >> objective. >> Exactly. >> Well, they're professional and we're volunteer, >> right? And they're supposed to be objective making an object. So, basically, city council has two objective opinions. one from us and one from the historic consultant to weigh. Sorry, Stephen, I cut you off. >> Oh, uh, if I may, just um I I believe if we recall back to that, um, there was a detailed historic resource evaluation that, um, evaluated the criteria that we have listed in our ordinance. And I >> supported them all. I mean that was a very good report until the conclusion because it supported that it was on the inventory for three good reasons that it was a an amazing architect that it was one of the last buildings of his standing. No, the report definitely supported us. I had no problem with the report except the conclusion and if you recall that report it was very strongly supportive of the building. I mean, I was kind of amazed that they did this great report and then here's their here's their conclusion. >> Right. So, uh I believe, you know, if just to um I think we're getting a little off topic of a decision that was already made off topic. My point is that we need to avoid this in the future. >> So, we need a a plan as a board. We need a plan so this doesn't continue to happen to us that we need to define our categories in such a way that it's totally clear. And I think that when we started adding to the inventory, we're not adding any threes and fours. And I think that to me that makes it very clear that our categories need to be adjusted. So that's my only point. It's not going back to the past trying to change the past obviously. Um, but I do feel like we need to work on our work plan and we need to make some progress and if we're only meeting once a month, we need to, you know, get some something in place where we can move forward during the year and get some results. >> Stephen, what's on the agenda for our upcoming next couple of meetings tenatively? So, there are a few uh projects that are nearing um packet ready, if you will. Um there's a property at the Gamble Gardens that has a a project waiting for uh their plans to be resubmitted. Um and I believe that there's a recent submitt for a category 2 structure. uh it's a residence that will be undergoing some uh rehabilitation and um as of that that's kind of the the notable examples that would be coming forward. Um just wanting to note while I have the board's attention if there's any changes to our ordinance that would need to be directed by council um that would be a council directed initiative not a board directed initiative um to update that ordinance. So >> yeah, so we would need to advocate it advocate for it with council. Um I and I will say as far as priorities for the year the I mean it falls under the work plan trying to get more um up. Did we put that in the work plan? No, we didn't put updating the ordinance. we put education on the ordinance. Um, so it's really up to the subcommittees to to spearhead that and advocate it for advocate for it with council. >> And further on that note, I mean, the board is more than welcome to either prepare some draft language themselves, but if there's an ask of staff, of course, that would go back to say the the council directed initiative. So, um, there there's nothing precluding board members from proposing language or preparing a draft. And uh if that u initiative is coming from the board wanting to present that to council to get some buy in, I think um that would be an appropriate way to approach this. >> Any other comments or committee updates? >> Um I just want to say that May, as we know, is preservation month. Yay. Um and um the past heritage is doing their presentation and their um awards on Sunday May 3rd. Um I think it is from 2 to 4 in the afternoon and also past is doing tours during the month of May. Um some on Saturdays, some on Sundays, 10:00 in the morning. Um I think they have about seven tours. They have a bunch of tours this year. So, I would encourage everybody to check their website um and attend as many as you can. They're sort of branching out beyond Professorville in downtown, so it's kind of nice to learn some more about different areas of town. Um I think that's all I got. >> Thank you, Caroline, for liazing with um past. Um, there was something that I Oh, uh, no, I lost it. I don't have any updates. Uh, >> I'm trying to think. Do I have to call for >> wait comments? So, um, do we want to run through a little bit about the inventory update and what people what we think might be, um, appropriate to put on the web as the sort of list and what might be, you know, what doesn't need to be on that list. No. Okay. >> I can give a brief update that we've been working on the inventory. Um, I Caroline did some great work of um adding uh basically I created the I took our current inventory from 2012 and added um some information to it including the year built um the builder, the architect and Caroline has done a great job of going through and uh updating the year built and I just need to update that sheet. Um, we are hoping to by the fall have something that we can uh turn over to staff for uploading um to replace the current 2012 inventory. >> So, this would be available online for people to Okay, take a look at >> Yeah. and we can provide um a copy when it's more solidified uh for feedback. I can't remember off the top of my head. I thought I brought it with me. Oh, I can bring it. >> I just we've kind of been adding this and that. So, you know, we have um if it's in a historic district, um we have notes if it was known by a different name, historic name. Um and you know, right now it's so bare bones that it's just an address and a category. sorry, address and category and district. Um, and I, you know, we could stick with that and that would be pretty easy, but I think that it would be nice if somebody could click on the list and pull up everything in Professorville or everything that was built in 1896 or um, you know, there's certain categories that we would like to um, be able to sort by. Um but you know maybe um maybe we don't need like otherwise known as names you know maybe those are just on the DPR sheet. So I think if you guys would you know think about what you would really care about having on the master list and if it's more important to have it really simplified and people just click through to the DPR sheet and they don't really need a lot of information on that. But I think, you know, Sam and I kind of started and, you know, went down the rabbit hole and, you know, we added everything and um and I think that, you know, hopefully when we um when we get it on the web, it will in a be in a much more editable form than it is right now. Right now it's in, you know, three different places at least, maybe more. Um, and you know, I I think that that it it it we will be able to change it more easily once we get it done, but I think it would be nice to kind of start as close as we can to what we're looking for in the end. So, if you guys have thoughts on important categories or things that might like to be sorted apart, that would be a great feedback for Sam and I, I think. And if I may, just noting I believe what some previous discussions um there's an announcement if you will uh that the city will be getting an intern and one of those tasks is to do just that. So the work and efforts of uh Chair Roman and Vice Chair Willis um will be greatly appreciated to kind of help shepherd that along to actually have that come uh to fruition and be posted online. So, um, any of that work that you guys have done, I think would be greatly appreciated, uh, to send that over, uh, when you feel it's it's ready and available. I think we might start sending you updates monthly or something, you know, just so you kind of know where we're going and, you know, how far along we are and clutter your mailbox. >> Great. I forget. Stephen, do I need to call for Do I need to ask for public comment on the announcements or No. >> No. >> Great. All right. Well, then I move to adjourn >> or I journ. >> I will second it. I need >> Thank you everyone.