Video
Transcript
Segment 1
[00:08:03] Mayor Ed Lauing: Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order the City Council of Palo Alto special meeting for Monday December 15th, as it is 4:30. That's what makes it special. So uh would the uh clerk please call the roll.
[00:08:18] City Clerk: Of course. Council Member Reckdahl?
[00:08:20] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: Here.
[00:08:21] City Clerk: Council Member Lythcott-Haims?
[00:08:22] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Here.
[00:08:23] City Clerk: Council Member Stone?
[00:08:24] Council Member Greer Stone: Here.
[00:08:24] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Veenker?
[00:08:25] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Here.
[00:08:26] City Clerk: Council Member Lu? Mayor Lauing?
[00:08:29] Mayor Ed Lauing: Here.
[00:08:29] City Clerk: Council Member Burt?
[00:08:30] Council Member Pat Burt: Here.
[00:08:31] City Clerk: For the record six present.
[00:08:32] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Our first item on the agenda this evening is special order of the day, which is a proclamation expressing appreciation to our current City Attorney, Molly Stump, upon completion of her public service as City Attorney. So, um, we'll try to be upbeat about this, uh, in spite of the fact that we're all regretting this day. Uh, but I'll save my comments for later. Um, so I have the proclamation here to read.
[00:09:14] Mayor Ed Lauing: So tonight we are expressing appreciation to Molly S. Stump upon completion of her public service as City Attorney. Whereas Molly Stump has dedicated her professional career to public service, leading a generation of public law attorneys and staff with her intelligence, integrity, and empathy. And whereas Molly first served as a law clerk to the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco after graduating Order of the Coif from UC Berkeley Law.
[00:09:51] Mayor Ed Lauing: And whereas Molly exhibited her legal skill and leadership ability in the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, eventually ascending to General Council for the San Francisco International Airport. And whereas Molly has served the City of Palo Alto as its City Attorney since her appointment in 2011 as one of our four Council Appointed Officers. And whereas after nearly 15 years of service to Palo Alto, Molly leaves behind a legacy of sound advice, calm judgment, a commitment to public service, and a department of nine attorneys and three professional staff who now embody these same qualities.
[00:10:33] Mayor Ed Lauing: And now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Ed Lauing, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby recognize Molly S. Stump upon completion of her public service as City Attorney. Approved and presented December 15, 2025. Thank you so, so much for all of your years of service. Now, um, would you like to make a comment or two?
[00:11:27] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: Okay. Twice. Thank you Council Members. So you asked a lawyer whether she'd like to make a comment, and of course the answer is yes. It has been a tremendous honor, a privilege, and an absolute joy to spend the entirety of my legal career in public service. And over the years there have been quite a few people, wonderful people, who have helped and assisted me and I would like to recognize and thank just a few of them with a couple of minutes this evening.
[00:11:58] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: Let's start with the Council. This Council has created a legal services department for your city that befits the excellence that you seek to achieve in your big bold ideas and in everyday services alike. I think the Council's primary contributions can be summarized in two ways. First of all, you have consistently given us the resources that we need to do our best work. And secondly, when we have delivered our work product to you, you have given it attention and great weight, even when the advice that we've given has been difficult in light of the decisions that you have to make.
[00:12:33] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: These two things are not a given in public service, and they represent a sound foundation for this office. They say to everyone that you are committed to the rule of law and that our office has earned your confidence in guiding you in that. And we thank you. I also want to recognize my ELT colleagues who have been a delight to work with on many complex and interesting projects. This is a group that's talented, energetic, with a dose of humor, and I have really enjoyed working with the group.
[00:13:08] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: I also need to call out our City Manager Ed Shikada, who in three decades of public service is one of the most committed and skillful public servants that I have had the privilege to work with. Ed is a leader who leads with insight and compassion and a deep sense of ethics directed towards public service. And I, as a professional, even late in my career, have learned quite a bit from watching and working with him. Although of course we don't always agree. Don't worry about that.
[00:13:40] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: And then finally I want to talk to you about my team. So when I stood at this podium 15 years ago, I told the Council that I wanted to establish in Palo Alto a top-notch municipal legal services team. And I have met that goal. Most of my team is here or online. Some of them are even online even though they are on vacation. Can you stand? And I think three of us are also on Zoom. These folks are tremendous. They are talented, they're energetic, and they bring all of their abilities towards serving their clients and uh advancing the public's work here in Palo Alto.
[00:14:26] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: I, in my time as a public servant, I have worked on many exciting and interesting projects, but the penultimate uh work of my career has involved bringing these talented lawyers and legal professionals together as a team, supporting them, coaching them, and helping them to thrive as they do the work of the city and advance the goals that Council has set. Uh, I will miss them tremendously. And I will miss you. And I thank you all. And, I'm going to be short because we need to take a picture and get going, the public's uh business awaits. So thank you very much Council.
[00:15:09] Mayor Ed Lauing: Would any Council Members like to uh make comments in her honor? You don't have to call her Your Honor, but uh...
[00:15:18] Mayor Ed Lauing: Council Member Stone?
[00:15:23] Council Member Greer Stone: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Well Molly, when I when I think about you I always think of compassion and competence, integrity, and a good sense of humor. I know those are things that are not adjectives typically used to describe attorneys. But you have been all those things and and more. And I just want to share a story that I'm sure you don't remember but it always stuck out to me, was the first time that we met. It was at, I was a young HRC Commissioner, I think it was my very first year on there, and we were at uh, we were at the Foothills, well now Nature Preserve, and it was a Commission Recognition Event.
[00:16:03] Council Member Greer Stone: And I was still in law school, and someone pointed you out as the as the City Attorney. And so I wanted to go introduce myself and I was so nervous. And I remember just approaching you, I think you were in line to to get food, and I said 'I'm sorry can I introduce myself?' And you were just so kind and you gave me your full attention. I did not feel like I was just this brand new Commissioner that, you know, that didn't really mean anything at the time to to you as the City Attorney, but you were, you treated me like I was the Mayor or like I was a Council Member.
[00:16:40] Council Member Greer Stone: You treated me with the same respect that you have always given me and that I've always seen you give everyone in this community, whether they're residents, staff members, uh the Council. And so I always just really really appreciated that and that has and and so it's been such an honor to be able to then work with you. I am going to miss so much just the comfort that I always feel having you in the room knowing that no matter what we do you're never going to let us get into too much trouble. I will miss your, I'll miss your advice, I'll miss just your your whole approach to this to this role.
[00:17:19] Council Member Greer Stone: And when I was talking with our recruiter just a few weeks ago trying to get some feedback into who we are looking for as the next City Attorney, I described you and the recruiter, because everyone knows who you are, the recruiter said 'It sounds like you're describing Molly Stump.' And I said 'Yeah, that's it. Can you just get me another Molly Stump?' Uh so we're never going to be able to replace you, but the one thing that I feel just so much comfort in knowing is that you have developed this team and that this team really embodies the leadership that you have and that is such a legacy that you are going to leave to this for this city is your current team and also me who you've really just helped develop my own um just approach to this to this job. And so I will always respect you, I'll miss you both as a colleague and as a friend. So thank you for your years of service to this city. Congratulations on your retirement.
[00:18:18] Mayor Ed Lauing: Council Member Burt?
[00:18:20] Council Member Pat Burt: Well thank you. Um, uh Council Member Stone has really captured uh so much about how you have approached uh your uh tenure doesn't quite do it, your commitment, career commitment, 15 years to this city, to this to our city government. Um and uh and really uh your your incessant and uh uh unwavering commitment to uh uh fulfilling your role to the highest professional standards, to uh developing your staff. And one of the things that I've thought about over the years is that your your notion of of uh mentoring and uh uh teaching your staff comes from a prior career in part as a teacher that I don't know if everyone knows that you had uh that career preceding your law career.
[00:19:22] Council Member Pat Burt: And um and that 15 years of commitment to this community, um I I'm asking uh we maybe haven't researched this whether any City Attorney has had a longer tenure in certainly in memory. And um and that was a reflection of just your commitment to this job um and that this is where you decided that you really wanted to uh have as the the uh uh the the principal focus of your uh career and and you have just dedicated yourself uh uh uh all in throughout that entire time. So thank you so much for your service.
[00:20:09] Mayor Ed Lauing: Council Member Lythcott-Haims.
[00:20:13] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um my colleagues have already shared um such great reflections. I'm just going to add, um as a fellow member of the California Bar, I so enjoy seeing the tremendous measure of pride and satisfaction and dedication you feel in your work for this city, with the team that you've built, and with the colleagues that you join. Your pride and satisfaction and dedication and joy are palpable and inspiring. As someone who intended their law career to be about public service but who got derailed by the allure of the corporate world and whose career as a lawyer ended prematurely perhaps, I admire how you do the work and who you are in the work. And I've been privileged that my career in public service has been guided by yours. Thank you so much Molly.
[00:21:12] Mayor Ed Lauing: Council Member Reckdahl.
[00:21:15] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: Yeah, thank you. Uh I've only been on Council a short while but I really will miss working with you. I I really liked your guidance. You told us what to do, but you really didn't tell us what to do. You It was uh you gave an explanation. It wasn't just a one-way explanation, it was a two-way conversation saying the pros and cons and you could do it this way but this is the risk that you'd be taking. And that two-way discussion really helped me. I really valued that. I think it uh gave me more confidence that we were going down the right road and I appreciated that and I'll miss working with you. Thank you.
[00:21:48] Mayor Ed Lauing: Vice Mayor Veenker.
[00:21:49] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Ah. Well, the proclamation says intelligence, integrity, and empathy. And I couldn't agree more. Um, you know, it's rare, lawyers aren't really known for having all three of those. And you uh have that rare combination of skills where you have high IQ and high EQ and it just is so valuable especially in public service. Um and to that list I would add grace, grit, and purpose. Um you are unflappable, delivering unwelcome advice in a calm and gracious manner so that we can take it in, um and instead of stiffening our backs, and that's a real skill.
[00:22:45] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: And your tremendous legal acumen is beyond question, um which allows you to stand so confidently in your advice that gives us the confidence when listening to that advice. But most important, your North Star is always the people we serve. And I have noticed that and tried to emulate that as as I serve on this dais. And you've been really good at putting up with me. You know, uh our City Attorney offers to meet me with new Council Members weekly, try to get them played in and and to answer our questions. And so I very eagerly took Molly up on that.
[00:23:22] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: And after a couple years when some newer Council Members were elected, she gently suggested that we didn't necessarily need to keep meeting every week, especially because I usually took about twice the time that we were supposed to a lot. Um so I said, well how about we just play it by ear and you know we'll just call it off if we don't need it and uh otherwise perhaps we can keep it on the calendar. So she graciously said yes, and I think I've canceled about, I don't know, twice in two years. I like So I really appreciate you being uh very patient uh with that.
[00:23:55] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Um but to get a sense of Molly's stature in the field and and in what high regard she is held by the top professionals who do what she does, I want to share that everywhere I go in this state, when I mention I'm from Palo Alto, they say 'Oh Molly Stump is the City Attorney there, isn't she?' And I have had that happen in SoCal, I've had it happen in Sacramento, obviously around this Bay Area. And I always say yes, 'Oh she's so great,' and I'm like 'I know.' And it it really is remarkable, um the high degree of respect that uh with which you are viewed by your peers.
[00:24:49] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: And as to my views, um as a lawyer I've been lucky. I've, you know, practiced in um I've been General Counsel of an international soccer league, I've been a partner in an international law firm, and I've been privileged to practice with some of the best lawyers on the planet. And so I can say without reservation that Molly Stump is one of them. So we are so lucky that you have graced this city for 15 years with your talent and your time and your heart. So thank you so much. I am going to miss you terribly next year. Thank you.
[00:25:28] Mayor Ed Lauing: Molly, I only want to add a a couple of things. First of all, um like the Vice Mayor said when I first came to Council she said I'll I'll meet with you every week. And I said I I think I respect your time too much but let's play it by ear. Um but I'd already seen how responsive you were and that hasn't gone away. And when I became Mayor you said 'Now do you want once a week?' And I said 'Same deal. I know when I write you I'm going to get a response back and you're going to be on it.' Which proved to be totally correct. Uh and and it worked just fine. So that's really an important trait. Hope your staff is listening.
[00:26:23] Mayor Ed Lauing: Um because it means that you respect the person that's asking you for your advice uh for their benefit as as well as yours. And uh it kind of moves the ball along as well. Um the the second thing I want to say, everybody's said this, but I think you're sort of the the way you process things is is very calm and and very thoughtful. And thoughtful to the point of not feeling bad if you say 'I don't have the answer to that. But I'm going to get you that answer.' And that's all I needed to hear. Because that and the responsiveness together meant we were going to get exactly where we needed to. Uh and in business sometimes I'd get a flip question, well I think it's this and this. I said well why don't you think about it this a little bit and let me know in the morning, you know.
[00:27:29] Mayor Ed Lauing: Uh so I really really appreciate that style which you have modeled for sure. Uh and to echo uh Council Council Member Stone, we have a high risk in recruiting. Because we might just say it's got to be Molly. And not only are you not coming back, I presume, but uh uh you know there's room for slight variations but we're taking that risk. Um very very sad indeed that you're leaving and very respectful of your of your choice. Uh and hope everything you want to do and things you haven't thought of yet uh bring you a lot of joy. Anyone else? Oh yeah. Yeah. You want to bring up staff too? I don't think so. All right, thank you very much.
[00:30:10] Mayor Ed Lauing: The next item on our agenda is uh closed session and I wonder if there's any public comment in advance of going into closed session?
[00:30:17] City Clerk: No Mayor, there's no requests to speak and no hands are raised on Zoom.
[00:30:22] Mayor Ed Lauing: All right, then I'd like to see a motion to move into closed session.
[00:30:24] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: I move we go into closed session.
[00:30:27] Mayor Ed Lauing: And a second please?
[00:30:28] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Second.
[00:30:29] Mayor Ed Lauing: Please call the roll.
[00:30:32] City Clerk: Council Member Lythcott-Haims? [Yes.] Vice Mayor Veenker? [Yes.] Council Member Reckdahl? [Yes.] Council Member Burt? [Yes.] Mayor Lauing? [Yes.] Council Member Stone? [Yes.] Council Member Lu? [Yes.] Motion carries.
[00:30:49] Mayor Ed Lauing: This is anticipated to go approximately one hour, but it could be more or less. And we will return.
Segment 3
[01:47:05] City Manager: My apologies Mayor. The one change I wanted to note for the public was the deletion of item 21 from the agenda tonight, and that's the only notable change.
[01:47:18] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay, thank you. Then we will move to public comment. This is for items that are not on the agenda. How many speakers do we have, Madam Clerk?
[01:47:25] City Clerk: We have 11 requests to speak.
[01:47:28] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Any groups?
[01:47:31] City Clerk: No group speakers.
[01:47:33] Mayor Ed Lauing: All right. We're running about 45 minutes behind already, so I'd like to go to two minutes for each.
[01:47:41] City Clerk: All right. As the Mayor stated, members of the public will have two minutes to speak on items not on the agenda, so please be mindful of the timer on the podium as well as on the screen. Our first speaker is Sven T.
[01:47:55] Sven T: So I've got a couple of slides that I'd like placed before I begin. They're not actually on the... There we go. Okay. I'm sorry. The news about natural gas stoves and their health impacts just keeps getting worse. This is out of Stanford this week, published in the SF Gate. 25% of all exposure to NOx, which is a cancer-causing, asthma-causing chemical, is because of our gas stoves. And that's not something people are aware of.
[01:48:25] Sven T: And we, and I feel part of the responsibility, we as a utility are making that happen. We are causing those cancers, we are causing those asthma. Not good. I'll leave it there. Saturday, I just want... we had the S-CAP meeting, and I just want to thank staff in particular for being there. This is climate change. This was nine to one. They did a really good job of prepping. It's like we are so lucky as a city to have them. So what came out of it is the only way to meet our climate change and healthy air is to electrify.
[01:49:05] Sven T: And that means, you know, where was the gas utility? There was no members from the gas utility present to talk about that. Because as we electrify, the cost per unit of natural gas delivered is only going to go up or go down? Basic economics. It's only going to go up. And then it's going to go up non-linearly and really impact people of low income and those that have not electrified. So what do people need? People need certainty. That is, when are we going to turn the gas off?
[01:49:37] Sven T: And we frame this as if, what it is? This is a cost saving, health saving measure. We as a city are going, you know, are taking these things into account. Lastly, pop quiz, holiday bonus. Would someone please name an aromatic cyclic hydrocarbon formula C6H6 that was gasoline in Italian and causes cancer? Free tote bag! Your time is up. Benzene! Anyone? Your time is up. Did she say benzene? Small. Just get it over with.
[01:50:10] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Prisha G.
[01:50:20] Prisha G: Good evening Council Members. My name is Prisha G and I'm a junior at Palo Alto Middle College. I remember in 2023 I was training on days so polluted that practices had to be shortened or moved indoors. We were constantly checking air quality alerts and trying to stay safe under extreme heat and it shows just how climate change affects our well-being. Gas stoves release harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide, benzene, and methane, thereby causing our indoor air quality to decline and lung cancer rates to increase at really high rates.
[01:50:53] Prisha G: For example, this impacts both the environment and our health. During COVID-19 so many people worked from home and they're at a greater risk of lung cancer now, and cardiovascular problems. For children, the effects are greater as a Harvard Health study shows that children are 42% more likely to get asthma from gas stoves in their homes. As one of many children who have grown up with asthma and a gas stove, I believe it's important to reduce the problems for future generations as quickly as possible.
[01:51:22] Prisha G: I urge the city to make take meaningful steps to accelerate household electrification, especially by supporting accessible pathways for induction stove adoption. Palo Alto can lead by expanding outreach and incentives to help... to help residents transition away from gas, partnering with community programs that support low and middle income households, and demonstrating induction cooking in public facilities and city programs to normalize it for the broader community.
[01:51:46] Prisha G: These actions will not only reduce emissions but also protect public health in immediate tangible ways. I ask the Council to focus on the health, safety, and future of Palo Alto residents and to take the necessary steps to accelerate household electrification for the well-being of our entire community. Thank you.
[01:52:02] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Kanami T.
[01:52:12] Kanami T: Dear Council Members, my name is Kanami T. I am a junior at Palo Alto Middle College High School and although I've never spoken a public comment before, but I just wanted to come here today to advocate for the electrification of household appliances. I appreciate the actions that the Council has taken so far to support electrification. So thank you for your commitment to supporting the safety and health of Palo Alto residents. Thank you.
[01:52:40] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Naomi R.
[01:52:50] Naomi R: Good evening. Um, I know I only got two minutes. I sent the... all you guys a letter, you might have got it in the mail, uh because I'm not sure what direction to take but I talked to a young lady here but, um, 51 years ago my brother drowned on a school picnic. He, um, was in sixth grade at Ventura Elementary School and they named a park in his honor. The, I guess the parents got together to put the park together and in 74 he died, and 95, um, I think they told me the mayor at the time was Joe Simitian.
[01:53:40] Naomi R: He came and cut the ribbon with my parents. Right now my dad is 98, my mom is 88. They've been married 71 years and I promised them that I would try to make sure the park is preserved and never disappear. And so that's why I'm here today. So I don't know what else to... I don't, I don't know how... the process but...
[01:54:08] Mayor Ed Lauing: Thank you, and the City Manager... City Manager is going to get your contact information and work with you on that. Right over here. Thank you.
[01:54:15] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Felicia.
[01:54:24] Ben: Okay. Hey, dear City Council Members, my name is Ben. I'm standing here today to strongly oppose the decision to force the AYSO youth soccer club out of the... our home at Greer Park, Palo Alto. So I'm urging the city to consider this decision for two critical reasons. One is the fiscal responsibility, the other is the community inclusivity. Okay. AYSO meets all the requirements set by the city to utilize the facilities. Um, in the past five years we comply all the rules, so there is no, simply no reason to force AYSO out of the Palo Alto.
[01:55:02] Ben: Furthermore, AYSO currently holds a permit for only single, uh, soccer field. We utilize that field responsibly and fully, 100%. In contrast, other clubs, which are set to take our space away, they already hold permits for multiple fields across the city, but most of the time it's been leave empty and underutilized. So to take the only field away from the club that maximizes the field and hand it over to the clubs with the space they already have, it's a poor management of the Palo Alto public assets.
[01:55:39] Ben: Second, the decision enforces an inclusive monopoly and damages the community diversity. The soccer community should be inclusive, not exclusive. So pushing us out suggests that only the bigger clubs deserve the public resources, with which is contrary to the spirit of the Palo Alto. AYSO provides a unique developmental experience. We have a history of collaborating with the city and raise the young players who go on to play in the soccer club in Palo Alto later on.
[01:56:13] Ben: We are part of this ecosystem. We are simply want to continue providing opportunities to all the kids and enjoy soccer and to be physically and mentally healthy. So I ask the City Council to look at the fact. We comply with the rules, we utilize the field, and we serve our community well. So please reverse the decision and keep AYSO at Palo Alto. Thank you.
[01:56:35] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Aurora L.
[01:56:40] Aurora L: Um, so my name is Aurora. I've been in the AYSO soccer club for five years playing soccer. And we have this field, um, in Greer Park. And we're, um, we might lose it because this other soccer club is trying to take it. And, um, if you guys let them take the field, then I can't play soccer anymore because the other places are way too far. Um, and I hope you guys will help me and my club to get the soccer field back. Um, that's it.
[01:57:36] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay we don't, uh, actually demonstrate in, uh, City Chambers so there isn't any clapping. Go ahead. Next.
[01:57:43] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Ben X.
[01:57:50] Felicia: Um, good evening City Council Members. My name is Felicia and I am a player for AYSO. I want to come here tonight to share some good news but also some bad news. The good news is that just a few weeks ago we won the NorCal State Cup. We worked so hard for this. But instead of celebrating we all feel really sad. We just found out that next year we won't have a home. We heard the city is taking away our field at Greer Park. I have been playing with AYSO for the past few years and it's special to me.
[01:58:24] Felicia: It took years for our girls' team to build this strong bond. We're a family and I don't want to be separated from my teammates just because our field is being taken away. Coach Young has taught us what soccer is. She teaches with so much passion. She cares about soccer and she cares about us as people. Nothing else matters to her. That's why I'm so confused. When we're training I often look around and I see other fields sitting completely empty. Nobody is using them. So I was really puzzled when my dad told me that the city says there is no space for them... for our team.
[01:58:52] Felicia: At school my teachers always teach us to be inclusive, to be supportive, and to collaborate with others. But it feels like the city is doing the opposite. No offense, or anything. Please don't punish us for doing well. Please don't break up our team, and please don't let those fields sit empty while we have nowhere to play. I just want to play soccer with my teammates. Thank you.
[01:59:15] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Min T.
[01:59:23] Min T: Thank you Council Members. Uh, first I'd like to, uh, show my appreciation to all of you. It has been a long day and I thank you for keeping sitting here to support our community. And my name is Min T. We moved to Midtown two years ago near the Greer Park area. Besides the great school in Palo Alto, one reason attracted us to, uh, take Palo Alto as our home is the great community and the neighborhood support.
[01:59:52] Min T: Uh, our 11 year old son Mason, uh, who is a long-term AYSO player, now can bike to school and back, pack his soccer gears, and then bike to soccer field for his AYSO trainings every week. Uh, while me and my husband are still... most of the time are still at work. This is a great benefit for us and also a great growth experience for him, uh, to be able to feel independent and self-sufficient.
[02:00:23] Min T: And, uh, I want to... Mason started his, uh, competitive soccer with AYSO actually during the COVID time. And being a smaller size Asian boy, he got great support from Coach Young and the AYSO team to, uh, have a tailored, uh, trainings with their, uh, focusing on, uh, training skills as well as the team collaborations. He made great friends, uh, grow both physically and mentally through his AYSO journeys. And we definitely want this to continue.
[02:00:58] Min T: And I want to acknowledge with the 37 out of total 66 families from AYSO in Palo Alto, uh, AYSO actually has been an essential part of the Asian families, uh, Asian communities, providing, uh, alternative options for kids interested in soccer but might lack the physical strengths initially, and they can take the growth with the team. Your time is up. Okay, thank you.
[02:01:28] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Herb B.
[02:01:38] Herb B: Uh, the... the period for receiving applications for, uh, the position of City Attorney is closed. Uh, you will recall that, uh, you approved the CAL committee's recommendation that the job be listed as dependent on qualifications, uh, and uh, hired a recruiter, but uh, people can also find out about the job through the city's, uh, website where they have what jobs are available and City Attorney is listed.
[02:02:15] Herb B: There's a difference in... in the listings, uh, of the two. Uh, at the beginning of the compensation and benefits, uh, section of the recruiter's brochure, it says the City Council is committed to being competitive with the market while remaining fiscally responsibility... 'salary will be based on qualifications' and comes with salary 365 to 366... and then a sentence about benefits. That information is at the bottom of the page, uh, on the rec... on the job announcement on the city site, and it omits one sentence. And the sentence that it omits is that salary will be based on qualifications.
[02:02:58] Herb B: Also in the, uh, announcement of the job, which is on Government Jobs, it lists the salary currently as a salary from July 1, 2019 and 20. Uh, and that also on Government Jobs is shown as the minimum maximum salary, uh, for the position. And in the job description on Government Jobs, uh, in... in one of them, uh, on Government Jobs the description, it says, uh, it was, uh, revision date was in 2011, which would have been shortly after the current, uh, City Attorney was hired.
[02:03:41] Herb B: And, uh, I guess that's referring to... to the words in the description rather than the salary because all of those documents list the salary as 313, 414.40, which is the salary from many years ago. So I don't think anybody who saw this announcement on the city's website on Government Jobs would have gotten down to the rest of it. Thank you.
[02:04:07] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Ken H.
[02:04:13] Ken H: Good evening. I just wanted to stop by. Uh, as someone who follows both the city and the county meetings, I wanted to... to let you know that our Mayor received a commendation from our Board of Supervisors for his term as... as a Mayor. And I was thinking about it and I've really thought that, uh, you have done a terrific job as Mayor. Um, and you've been subjected to some personal attacks.
[02:04:43] Ken H: Um, I'd like to suggest, and this is nothing against our Vice Mayor, but uh, I'd like to see if you could stay on for another year. We... this is not a... a... a first time because Gary Fazzino served, uh, both, uh, 1991 and 92, and also in 99 and 2000, uh, twice consecutively. So, um, I'd like you to think about it because I think you've done an outstanding job. Um, and then finally I want to wish everybody a Happy Hanukkah. It's been a tough, uh, yesterday, um, for all of us that are Jewish. And, uh, um, again, happy holidays.
[02:05:25] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Roger S.
[02:05:33] Roger S: Uh, my name is Roger Smith and I've lived here in town for 60 years. It's a great place to live and it's many things make it happy. One of them is the great staff we have in running the city, and Ed and his people work their tails off. And then to you all that are on the council with your many, many hours away from your family. Uh, so I really appreciate that. This last week on Thursday a wonderful thing happened to me and the City of Palo Alto.
[02:06:04] Roger S: We received a $50,000 gift for the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. This is the biggest gift we've ever had in the 13 years we've been in business. This gift is unrestricted and, uh, is just a wonderful gift and came from our neighbors, the Zuckerber... Zuckerberg family. And it's my understanding, uh, they have had some of their folks talking to a number of people, and I think many of you on the council maybe have had discussions. Uh, it's a wonderful gift.
[02:06:37] Roger S: Please take a look at today's Post, page six, Dave Price the owner did a great article that I think shows the appreciation from the City of Palo Alto. So, uh, I... I can't tell you how excited I am. And, uh, thank you Priscilla and Mark for this wonderful gift. Thank you so much.
[02:07:00] City Clerk: And that concludes public comment on items not on the agenda.
[02:07:04] Mayor Ed Lauing: Thank you very much to the public for expressing their views on items. We now go to Council Member questions, comments and announcements. Um, not seeing any quick lights, I have a couple, so I'm going to start. Um, I attended as did Council Member Burt the Stanford Next community outreach meeting on, uh, Saturday which had a lot of people skipping the representative which is me, and that's good, and go directly to Stanford and saying here's what I think we should do on housing, etc., etc., etc.
[02:07:36] Mayor Ed Lauing: Held over at the, uh, Community Center and I think it was well attended. Uh, it was also well attended by a lot of Stanford staff. There were a lot of people there, uh, listening. So I was appreciative of their... of their work there. And we have a lot to say to Stanford, so I was happy that the, uh, community came out and did that. Um, I also want to note that, um, last night, uh, a lot of Council Members were at the, uh, Hanukkah menorah lighting, uh, which I had the honor of... of doing, uh, in the horrific contact... of context of, uh, the Australians celebrating on their first night of Hanukkah the... the day before.
[02:08:15] Mayor Ed Lauing: Um, but it went well. There was a lot of celebrating because folks including me said we can't... we can't be put down. We have to keep going. And, uh, the celebration is going to continue for... for our own freedom as... uh, for whatever religion and certainly in... in Palo Alto. Uh, we're not going to have ev... evidence like we saw in Australia, you know, God forbid. Uh, with that I want to shift to, um, tonight giving out a quick report on how the, uh, OSV Ad Hoc is, uh, what they're doing and what they're finding out.
[02:08:47] Mayor Ed Lauing: It's been a couple months since the motion was made by Council. Um, we're due back in four months so I thought the midway point was a good time for all of us on the Ad Hoc to just do kind of a report out on stuff. It's not an agendized item for Council so we can't do dialogue. Um, but I'll make some comments and then of course anybody on the Ad Hoc can... can add which I'm sure they will. Uh, we've been meeting weekly, uh, to try and take prompt action on the items that staff directed us to take a look at.
[02:09:15] Mayor Ed Lauing: Um, I'm going to address the key ones in the motion that you made, uh, but I want to talk about a couple things first that we've, uh, taken a look at, um, and surfaced or confirmed. Um, first we compiled information or confirmed, whatever it was in this case, uh, on ordinances and practices in the surrounding cities. And here's a quick recap. Uh, in Mountain View there's a ban on SOVs except for a three mile, uh, parking zone. Uh, we've learned that their Council is now considering additional restrictions in the area out by the businesses just east of 101, uh, as more SOVs are... are gathering out there.
[02:09:54] Mayor Ed Lauing: Menlo Park as you know just confirmed that there is a total ban on SOV parking in the city. Uh, the Mayor said to me that they... they... they're gone now. So there's not even a residual issue from his perspective. Uh, Redwood City as we already know but we confirmed there's a ban on overnight OSV parking, uh, with specific provisions for permits. Um, but we have heard, uh, that they've had difficulty enforcing those permits. So in summary our three closest neighbors, um, all have, uh, bans on either all or most OSVs so it's no surprise, um, but it confirms why so many are here because they've been previously distributed in a number of other... other cities.
[02:10:37] Mayor Ed Lauing: Um, Sunnyvale may go in that direction as well. Uh, there's a Council meeting the first week of February and they will be considering quote 'modernizing parking requirements and con... and restrictions for OSVs', uh, in Muni Code 10.16.120. They're also going to consider parking permits for some OSVs and new regulations for OSVs near schools and parks. So that's just starting in the first week. Um, we've also raised the issue of homelessness and safe parking for... uh, with the county.
[02:11:11] Mayor Ed Lauing: Both Council Member Lythcott-Haims and I have chatted with, um, Margaret Abe-Koga's new staffer, uh, Jason... Galis... Stasis... and he's the, uh, principal advisor on strategic initiatives. Um, very understanding of the problem, sympathetic of the problem. We talked about, you know, what can the county do? His point of view is it's a regional problem, which of course, but what can we do? Um, and he agrees it's a regional problem and of course the big Catch-22 is that the county is in a world of hurt in terms of financing and they're making budget cuts, not adding. So that's not a short-term, um, solution.
[02:11:48] Mayor Ed Lauing: Um, the second issue I wanted to point out is that we... we've... we've discovered, uh, that there's a shortage of sufficient vehicle storage. Uh, so one of the barriers that we've run into is really lack of enough space in the garages of towing companies to accommodate all of the large OSVs that could be towed for repeat violations. And there... there's a law that says these lots have to be within five miles of where vehicles are towed from. So that obviously restricts the geography. Um, and the lo... location has to be staffed for vehicle pickup. Both of those are reasonable. Um, so staff's doing research on additional, uh, resources in that regard.
[02:12:33] Mayor Ed Lauing: Just want the public to understand that this is a barrier, uh, to towing at this point, not overall but, uh, somewhat. So, um, and then specifically on your direction on the 10/20 motion, items 1 and 2 we just passed last week. Those are approved and can be, uh, enforced at any time. Uh, PD is going to put, uh, things on the windshield to notify that those are in place. Um, item 3 is the s... is the scope of the, uh, street sweeping. Uh, that's been defined and implementation has begun. Uh, there's a months-long detailed schedule prepared for us by Public Works.
[02:13:07] Mayor Ed Lauing: Uh, the first sweeping was on 12/6 in the Embarcadero area, chosen intentionally because those OSV... SOVs had already been moved and successfully moved back, uh, in a very cordial kind of way. So they did that, um, in the... uh, because of the Midnight Run... Moonlight... Moonlight Run, excuse me. Um, they report... Police and Public Works report that the process went very well with cooperation from all OSV dwellers on that Saturday. No OSVs were towed. Uh, and Public Works smartly took the opportunity to also prune trees on Embarcadero which was impossible previously because of all the parked vehicles there.
[02:13:47] Mayor Ed Lauing: Um, by Sunday morning all the SOVs had returned to park on the clean streets. The second sweep was on 12/13. It also went well, uh, with RVs returning the next day and, um, no... no tows. Um, I have... uh, item 5 in the motion references the implementation and enforcement. Um, that is occurring. Um, and results are really not visually significant against the total population of OSV. Uh, and Council knows that because we get daily emails saying that the removal action is not moving quickly enough.
[02:14:23] Mayor Ed Lauing: Um, I got the statistics just of this morning, uh, just so you're up to speed. Since the 10/20 motion, uh, there's been 19 vehicles towed. Uh, and this... that's accurate and that's the most important stat. There's also a stat that is not just OSVs, uh, but there's a lot of, um, what are called nuisance citations also being done. So there's no sense in quoting the numbers just to say because it's not just OS... uh, OSVs. So, um, and then item 7, uh, we try to recruit new RV parking sites on privately owned and congregation-based parking lots. Um, there's been significant outreach to both and I'm sure Council Member Lythcott-Haims will can give us more detail on that. Um, to date we don't have any positive bites yet, um, but there are conversations... they're still going on in that regard.
Segment 4
[02:15:00] Mayor Ed Lauing: Item 9 was a Council budget vote, so that's not in the ad hoc community, but I am concerned that the number being tossed around in public comment and letters, and even sometimes the press, is that we're investing four to six million dollars in this. And I just want the number to be understood that this Council has authorized so far a little bit over $700,000. The larger numbers got into the conversation because they were correctly supplied by staff to talk about what rollouts might cost at the point at which any initiatives were then voted on by the Council. And then lastly, in January, we're also going to start in this ad hoc to start looking at phase two items that you also want us to take a look at. Other Council Members? Council Member Lythcott-Haims.
[02:15:55] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Mr. Mayor, appreciate the report out. I'll add that to your one of your last points about the attempts to recruit more safe parking. We, um, I had a very sobering conversation with a faith leader who said, you know, your faith communities feel we're already doing our part. We've already offered four parking spots in our parking lot overnight for vehicles. That was quite a difficult conversation to have with our neighborhood back when we agreed to this. We're not feeling that we're in a position to take on RVs.
[02:16:35] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: And frankly, we think that it's time for the business community to step up and partner with the City to locate and create space for safe parking. So we continue at that work. Anyone who can, who's listening to this meeting and thinks they can help us, I urge you to reach out to the City Manager's office or to me at julieforpaloalto.com. We're looking for space that we can lease. We don't want to become the repository for the region's poor, low-income, unhoused people who live in RVs, but I think we do want to do right by those people who are Palo Altans who find themselves living in vehicles.
[02:17:14] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: We know that as the population ages here, a number of people find themselves being unable to afford housing. And so while there's a narrative about bad actors and so forth, and we know that there are bad actors in every group, there's a sizable portion of people who are simply unable to afford housing, who are retired or who are working jobs and paying taxes. And so that's why prong number seven in our October 20th motion speaks to the need to recruit spaces for them to park safely, to be out of everyone's way, and also to be safe and not harassed themselves. So we're working hard, but this problem is a seemingly intractable one that other cities have chosen to throw up their hands about. And I do believe that we can be more comprehensive than that in a way that truly addresses the underlying issue rather than simply moving people from here to there and back again on repeat forever.
[02:18:20] Mayor Ed Lauing: Any other comments? Vice Mayor Veenker.
[02:18:40] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Um, well I just wanted to give a couple of brief report outs. I'm just laughing because my computer just signed out. Uh, anyway, so one is on the, uh, the ad hoc on the athletic field turf selection. We did meet again last week. That's Mayor Lauing, Council Member Burt and me. And we expect to finalize a recommendation for Council consideration by mid-January. So that should be on the docket and coming back to Council.
[02:19:19] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Um, on the climate action retreat/workshop we had this weekend, some public commenters commented on that. And I just want to thank the residents that turned out to spend a December Saturday working with us from starting at 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. It was a terrific conversation. I add to the public commenters thanks again to staff for putting together a terrific conversation. We were focusing on economics and incentives around single-family home electrification. So there's a lot of different ways we can go and so we had a really robust conversation complete with a very cool tabletop exercise, which I think Council Member Burt you said was one of the best you'd seen. So again, kudos on that. But it was really a terrific, robust conversation.
[02:20:25] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: We had the Deputy Executive Officer for Policy from the Air District was there because some of the rules out of that entity affect what we will do. And just want to thank everyone who did that in the middle of December so that we can get closer to our climate goals and achieve greater public health here in Palo Alto. And that's it for me. Thank you.
[02:20:48] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. More? Council Member Lythcott-Haims, go ahead.
[02:20:55] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Yes, I didn't know you were going to call on me with the OSV report, so I got a little thrown off from what I was going to say. Thank you for the opportunity to speak then. And yes, I did have a few other comments. The Jed Foundation visited our community last week. As many people know, at Council Member Stone's invitation, they have decided to come on a journey with our community to help us address our youth mental health crisis. And so they were very present last week having conversations with many, many different individuals and groups to try to begin to understand the tone and tenor of things here.
[02:21:41] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: I had a chance to meet with them and they were reflecting a bit. They said that the word that kept coming up in every conversation, no matter who they were having it with, was grief. And it is clear, maybe seems obvious, but I think it's hidden in many ways, that we are a community collectively experiencing a grief that we have a hard time talking about. And I'm confident in Jed's ability as a national leader in this space to help us as a community process that grief, as well as come to some concrete next steps about how to support our youth.
[02:22:30] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: In addition to the Jed visit, I attended Kara's candlelight vigil. Kara is our wonderful grief counseling organization in Palo Alto. It's been around for at least 50 years, I think, and they had their annual candlelight vigil at First Presbyterian where you're invited to come and be part of a lovely program where there's music and expressions of sorrow and grief around loved ones who have passed away. And you know, I think not every community has a Kara. I think not every community has an airport or a Junior Museum and Zoo either. Kara is another one of those things that is really wonderful and special about Palo Alto.
[02:23:12] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: And it's an organization you only stumble upon when you're in crisis, as I first was as a 27-year-old when my father had passed away and I was new to this community. And here I am 30 years later, you know, still missing my daddy and still grateful to Kara for how they showed up for me in my grief then and in the years since. So I want to express gratitude to Kara for who they are and how they show up for us in our moments of grief as a community and as individuals.
[02:23:44] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Vice Mayor Veenker and I also attended something put on by the County last week called 'Belonging in the County,' a convening of local city leaders in response to large-scale immigration enforcement activities in Santa Clara County, which was a wonderful workshop attempting to get more of us on the same page about how to respond to the presence of ICE in our communities. And I know it was very practical and our staff is already working with County staff and staff with the City of San Jose, which is quite far along in their efforts to try to ensure that we have protocols and procedures in place when we are visited by ICE.
[02:24:24] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: And finally, I will say that I know a number of us were at the Palo Alto Museum community sneak peek this weekend. I had already had a visit as a Council Member, but I said, 'You know what, I need to go to this.' I said to my partner and our kid, 'We'll just drop in. Let's just go for 10, 20 minutes.' And then we were going to get our Christmas tree. And 45 minutes later, you know, we were all enthralled by what was happening at the Palo Alto Museum. The exhibit, the design and layout is very evocative, provocative. There's a lot going on. The questions they were asking were really fantastic.
[02:25:04] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: And I have to say, when I had my initial sneak peek with some colleagues on the dais, as a gender non-binary person, I noticed that the bathrooms were male and female. And in my sneak peek three months ago, I said to the CEO, Marguerite, I said, 'Where is the gender non-binary? Where's the all-gender bathroom?' And she said, 'It's upstairs.' And I said, 'That's great that you have it, but nobody wants to walk into a building and have to go to a different floor to use a bathroom. It's a way to convey, you know, kind of a second-class status when you have to go somewhere else, but everyone else is on the main floor.' She's like, 'Okay, we're going to put a sign up that says the all-gender bathroom is upstairs.' And I said, 'Great. Please make it a real sign. Don't just like handwrite it and tape it onto the wall with blue tape underneath the bathrooms like, 'You need a different bathroom? It's upstairs.''
[02:25:55] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: So when I arrived this weekend, she pulled me aside and she said, 'Go over to the bathrooms. Take a look at what we did.' And doggone it, they put a sign on there that says 'All Gender Restroom Upstairs' in the exact same font and color, exact same quality of material as the male and female signs. They really did it. And you hear my emotion in my voice, I think I didn't expect that. And it was such a delight to see. And yeah, they're still on the second floor, but now the signage conveys the dignity and the respect that anybody would want when being directed as an element of your identity to a certain place.
[02:26:39] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: So I just want to commend them for hearing one member of the community's concern and question and responding to it so elegantly. The museum opens in February and it promises to be quite a smart, insightful telling of our history in all its complications. We have so much to be proud of. There are so many ways in which we have grown and become who we are based on the work of so many who are unknown, as well as those we celebrate. And I have greater and greater confidence every time I'm there that this is a museum that will beautifully tell the story of who Palo Alto is and has been. And that's it for me. Thank you.
[02:26:55] Mayor Ed Lauing: Council Member Burt.
[02:27:05] Council Member Pat Burt: Thank you. Um, so we have coming up on our consent calendar is Item 8 and I had been considering, um, uh, attempting to pull it and the City Manager, uh, encouraged me to, uh, be able to just convey some input, uh, through this, uh, period. I'm not sure that going forward this is the process that we want to have and I think when we have our Council member or Council policies and protocols, we should revisit how we might go about this, but, uh, setting that aside for the moment, uh, this is the policy on non-profit partnership work plan.
[02:27:44] Council Member Pat Burt: And, um, there were a couple of things that I wanted to make sure that, uh, we had an opportunity to give input to the Policy and Services Committee when they, uh, review this next. One is that I didn't see in the staff report one of the, um, key elements that was part of the referral from the auditor and I think has been a concern by the Council and was a problem in this last rollout, and that is not having these grants be overly burdensome in several different ways. Uh, just the, the, um, depending on the scale of the grant, what our requirements are, whether they're grants, uh, or they're reimbursements. So those are things that, um, I want to consider, uh, ask the PNS to consider.
[02:28:35] Council Member Pat Burt: And then, um, and then we had really had a couple of categories. We had had the, um, uh, and the that staff report makes mention of, uh, distinguishing between or figuring out what to do with non-profits who might have been eligible for HSRAP or even got funding from HSRAP, uh, and whether they're again eligible in this category. But what we had discussed at Finance Committee and I thought we had discussed also at Council is that we've historically had a number of non-profits that have been, um, really City partners and had different forms of funding or in-kind contributions on an annual basis and they're embedded in the budget at different places.
[02:29:23] Council Member Pat Burt: A number of the ones that actually the Finance Committee and the Council had supported, um, the prior year, uh, actually fall into that category. They're ongoing annual, uh, they're ongoing relationships that are, uh, that the City and the Council have valued over time and are treating as enduring. They're not necessarily clearly permanent, but they're enduring. And so the real question is, should we consolidate those into a category of these ongoing fundings and they're not necessarily part of this annual funding allocation that has a whole bunch of uncertainty.
[02:30:10] Council Member Pat Burt: And how do some of these non-profits that have for years relied on the City as a partner, uh, now go forward with their planning if they have all that uncertainty year to year. So, um, uh, I just wanted to provide those, uh, pieces of input for Policy and Services Committee. Thanks.
[02:30:35] Mayor Ed Lauing: Council Member Lu.
[02:30:45] Council Member George Lu: I'll just briefly note that tomorrow the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Health and Hospital Committee will meet and Allcove and discussions about Allcove are agendized item. Um, the staff report is tough. It highlights challenges, um, with growing the program and it highlights a variety of fiscal difficulties with both cost recovery and just overall county funding. Um, uh, I know, uh, members of the community will give public comment. I know we will have opportunities to continue to advocate. This is not going to be a decisive meeting, um, but I just wanted to give, uh, awareness to the community that this is an upcoming meeting and that this is an issue that the Council still cares deeply about and a program that we want to succeed. Um, to that effect, uh, the Mayor has, uh, sent a letter discussing partial funding, um, and it's, uh, something that we'll continue to follow up on.
[02:31:35] Mayor Ed Lauing: Council Member Reckdahl.
[02:31:45] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: Thank you. I want to echo what Council Member Burt was saying about the enduring partners. I just want to make sure that, you know, I think it makes a lot of sense for us if we have these enduring partners to set it aside and give them an expectation so they can plan for that. If they have to re-compete every year and that funding is uncertain, they won't be able to maximize their use of that money. So and some type of expectation that we communicate ahead of time will improve their planning, which means that it will improve the efficiency of the money that we give them. Thanks.
[02:32:15] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. That concludes Council Member comments and we now are going to go to the Study Session. This is on the Cubberley project and second polling results. Just noting right now for everyone that we're about an hour behind. Ready to launch?
[02:33:33] City Manager: Yes, Mayor, Members of the Council, we are ready to do a quick presentation on the most recent survey results. That said, I thought perhaps our Ad Hoc Chair may want to make some comments first. Council Member Lythcott-Haims?
[02:33:45] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Thank you, City Manager. Um, as chair of the Council's Ad Hoc on Cubberley on which I serve with Council Members Burt and Reckdahl, um, I will just open with gratitude to the entire community for getting us to where we are tonight. Your affection for this dear old building Cubberley, your persistence and advocacy in community conversations, not just this year, but in similar conversations over the years and the decades and your vision for what it can be and needs to be has arrived us at this point.
[02:34:19] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: So thank you to every member of the community that's shared an idea, come to a meeting, brought others along. Um, we appreciate you. I also want to recognize and express gratitude to Director O'Kane and her Community Services Department staff, Lauren Lai and her ASD staff, the City's Legal Department and countless other City staff who are all working so hard and so fast on the future of Cubberley that it's hard to imagine that you're doing anything else, even though I know you are.
[02:34:48] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Um, just a preview. What's coming from the staff report and our consultants, you'll see that we've got a lot of support for this project to a certain level. And we've got a lot of work ahead to bring all the parts together to make it happen. Nobody said this would be easy, but I think all of us believe it's going to be worth it. And with that, I'll turn things back over to the staff.
[02:35:05] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: Hi, good evening. Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services. First we'll have a presentation from Miranda Everett, a partner at FM3 on the poll results. And then we'll go through a few slides on costing and funding sources. So I'll turn the presentation over to Miranda.
[02:35:25] Miranda Everett: Thanks so much staff, Council, the Mayor, uh public watching as well. My name is Miranda Everett. I'm a partner at FM3 Research and apologies, I'm getting over a cold so I might sound a little froggy. Um, but I'm here tonight to present results of the community survey that was recently conducted on uh the Cubberley Center. Um, just before I dig into the methodology and the results, just wanted to share some high-level findings. Um, as was was mentioned by the Council Member, voters generally support upgrades to the center. Um, they're dissatisfied with the condition of the current facilities. They understand the need for um additional funding for that space. Um, but when we test some pieces of the puzzle in isolation, we see where the the kind of limits of support are. And so we'll dig into that in just a moment here.
[02:36:16] Miranda Everett: Um, important to note in the next poll that we do, we're going to really put together the puzzle pieces and put ballot measure language in front of people. So that's going to be the true test of when we present people with the uh mechanism, the amount, and importantly of course, the things that they get for their hard-earned money, um how people feel about um the proposals we put in front of them. So the next slide has some details about our methodology here. This was conducted in early November, the 6th through the 13th of 2025, using our dual mode approach, which means we contacted folks by landline, cell phone, email, and text message, basically every way we know how uh to hear from them um based on their communication preference. We have 407 interviews represented here, uh that gives us a margin of error of about 5% for the full sample and about 7% for places where we employ a split sample. And we have uh tracking data for many years in the past since we've been partnering with the City for um over 10 years at this point.
[02:37:17] Miranda Everett: So the next slide starts to dig into the specific details. Um, so we asked folks one of two questions. Um, their satisfaction with either the condition of the Cubberley Community Center on the left-hand side or with the services and programs at the Cubberley Community Center on the right-hand side. And you can see there's a real big difference between the two. Um, fully 46% are dissatisfied with the current condition of Cubberley, whereas just 32% are satisfied with its current condition. But when it comes to what goes on inside those buildings, uh 61% are satisfied, 17% dissatisfied. So for the most part, this is a community that is really enjoying what's going on inside the building, but sees the need for uh repairs to the condition of the Cubberley Community Center.
[02:38:04] Miranda Everett: On the next slide, uh we also asked folks about their perceived need for additional funding in the City for updated facilities to provide services including classes, camps, fitness programs, and drop-in casual spaces. So kind of everything that goes on in Cubberley in as few words as possible. And we see here a majority, 55%, see at least uh some need for additional funding. 23% see a great need for additional funding. Um in our March and April survey just a few months back, uh 58% saw great or some need, but just 18% saw great need. So the share who see a great need uh for additional funding has actually risen um by five percentage points, just outside our margin of error, whereas the overall share, the great or some need has uh shifted within the margin of error. So it's trending kind of in the in the direction of folks understanding the need for additional funding.
[02:38:59] Miranda Everett: At the same time, as you can see on the next slide, fewer than one in seven believe that Cubberley's Community Center needs more space. Um, part of what drives that is that there is a good chunk of folks, 36%, who say they don't know. Um, so maybe they haven't visited recently or they just, you know, don't have a sense of of the need for additional space specifically. Um, but notable here to see that while they uh do see issues with the condition of the facility, space is less of a problem. Um, the next slide is where we dug into uh a little bit more of of the proposal specifically. Um, so here we gave people two short paragraphs describing the proposal, um putting them all on the same page in terms of the size and location of the Cubberley campus, a little bit of its history and what goes on there now, as well as the proposal, which is a ballot measure to purchase seven acres of the site from the school district.
[02:39:58] Miranda Everett: Um allowing the school district of course to use those proceeds for improvements of their schools, and then using additional proceeds from the ballot measure to repair, upgrade and redevelop the community campus. And then we put in a little bit of the mission statement here: creating a destination with activities, amenities, and offerings that promote learning, joy, and well-being where all cultures and generations belong. So putting everyone on the same page there about what the proposal uh is overall and a little bit about the the history of Cubberley. You can see on the next slide how people reacted to that.
[02:40:33] Miranda Everett: And here you can see about two-thirds support the concept in principle, 66% support overall, 34% strong support, just 10% strongly oppose. So more than a three-to-one margin of strong support to opposition. Um and about 11, uh 11% here say they don't know either way. They may need more information, which we do provide a little bit later on in the survey. So as mentioned before, um you see in principle folks see the need for additional funding, um they see the condition of buildings as as needing attention, um and two-thirds do support this initial concept that we put in front of them.
[02:41:09] Miranda Everett: Now on the next slide, we start to dig into some of the nitty-gritty details of a ballot measure. And this was a little bit of a unique approach, one that we um don't always take because we don't like to put necessarily the the we like to put put the whole meal in front of folks in terms of the ballot measure. Um as you can see on the next slide, uh we gave people just the vegetables, so to speak. Uh we said this is how, this is the mechanism that would be used to fund the Cubberley Center. Uh you can see that we have uh half opposing a parcel tax, 39% supporting it, and then majorities also opposed to a sales tax, a bond measure, or a utility users tax. But again, this is just the vegetables. We didn't tell people about the uh improvements they'll see at Cubberley or importantly the amount of money they would pay uh for those taxes.
[02:41:59] Miranda Everett: So given the sort of high level of concern about cost of living and rates of taxes in the community, I'm not too surprised to see that when we ask this question on its own, uh responses were uh relatively muted. On the next slide, you can see another piece of the puzzle that we tested and that is willingness to pay. So these are keyed to the bond amounts. Um $250 would purchase land and do minor renovations and upgrades, and these are uh annual estimated amounts per household. 53% say they're willing to uh pay that much for for Cubberley and and do that scope of a project.
[02:42:42] Miranda Everett: And then you can see support goes down as we walk up the scale of uh both cost and scope of project from $500 to purchase land, build a new recreation center and do some of those upgrades, to $1,000 to purchase land, build a new recreation and wellness center, performing arts center, visual arts and technology center, and community service flex space, uh with 71% saying they're unwilling to pay an amount that high. On the next slide, you can see the parcel tax amounts. So these are slightly different. Um 250 was still at the at the bottom of the sort of um number, the number range that we tested. 53% willing to support a measure that would um cost that much and do land purchases with minor renovations and upgrades. Um then we walk up the scale to 650, 900, and 1,100 with similar uh different scopes and you can see those are uh majority unwilling to pay.
[02:43:34] Miranda Everett: So again, specific these are these are divorced from a specific mechanism. And in poll three, we're going to make sure we put all those puzzle pieces together: what you get for your money, how much you're going to pay, and what the mechanism is that you pay for. On the next slide, we also looked at a few different potential additional packages to see if those might be uh helpful additions to the overall um meal that we're putting in front of folks. Um potential additional projects don't dramatically increase support for the overall package, although there are some, um you can see here such as improving a downtown community center with a dedicated space for teens or making improvements to the Rinconada Pool, that more folks are more likely to support than not, uh 42% and 40% respectively. Um they're more mixed about the Ventura Community Center and about a new Asian American history park.
[02:44:29] Miranda Everett: Now in the next section of the survey, we wanted to um you know get some more details about what people's priorities are. What what do they value and see as important as uses for funds for future uh for the future plans for Cubberley. Um at the very top of this the slide you can see meeting current safety, earthquake and accessibility standards. That's extremely or very important to 77% of voters and fully 40% of voters called that extremely important at the very top of the scale we provided. You can see sort of a theme on this first slide. There's there's sort of two things or three things that really emerged as top priorities and that includes meeting those basic standards as well as repairing outdated or deteriorating electrical wiring and plumbing. So again, those kind of basic renovations, as well as outdoor space, trees and green space. Um Palo Altans like their nature and they want to see that as part of this project as well.
[02:45:28] Miranda Everett: Moving down the list a bit more on the next slide, you can see some things that fewer than half uh prioritize and they do so with a lot less intensity, these sort of dark blue bars smaller. Um but when you add up all the shades of blue, these are things that are in the 70% range and higher. So they're broadly seen as priorities but maybe just with a lot less intensity than uh those basic repairs and green space we saw on the prior slide. And that includes providing safe upgraded space for after-school arts education and community involvement, after-school and summer programs, safe spaces for children and teens after school and in the summer, an emergency evacuation center, and a vibrant destination for youth, families and seniors. So again, broad shares saying that's important to them but with a lot less intensity than we saw for those basic repairs on the first slide.
[02:46:19] Miranda Everett: Uh the story continues on the next slide where we see things that were important, extremely or very important to 42% to 35% of respondents. Um so you're starting to see these uh move down the list a bit more. Um this includes anything that uses the the phrase 'central hub,' um as well as 'additional space.' Um those again, I think we saw earlier that there are relatively few Palo Altans who see um kind of at this point a need for additional space for Cubberley. So when we uh talk about additional space, that's not connecting in the same way that some of the things on the first and second slides do. And then the final slide in this series uh shows their relatively low priorities. And that includes an outdoor amphitheater, um the Cubberley Theater, an outdoor swimming pool, or space for cultural celebrations. Um those are things that 20% or fewer are saying are extremely or very important to them. So just much less intensity uh behind those especially when it's stacked up to uh plumbing, wiring, disability, earthquake standards, those kinds of things we saw on the first slide.
[02:47:28] Miranda Everett: Excuse me. So on the next slide, you can see um the next task we had was to provide some more information, both positive and negative, to see um how much how how sort of durable support is as people hear pro and cons that they might hear in the community. Uh the first row on this slide is the same one I showed you earlier, 66% support for the concept initially, 24% opposed. After positive messaging, that lifts to 71% in favor and drops and uh and the opposition remains relatively low at just 26%. And then after both positives and negatives, we still have support from around two-thirds, 64% in favor, 31% opposed.
[02:48:11] Miranda Everett: The next slide shows some of the most compelling positive messages. I won't um keep you here all night with all the positives and negatives we tested, but just kind of show some of the ones that really resonated in your community. Um those top two are really the ones that um come closest to our standard of a highly persuasive message. Um that includes talking about just the age of the buildings. They're more than 70 years old. They were built well before modern internet. Don't meet current disabled access and earthquake safety standards. So um kind of highlighting that need, um not about size, not about necessarily what goes on within it, but just the basic condition of the buildings um resonated quite broadly. And then the repairs message, same thing or a similar thing here, kind of talking about um most of the buildings at the at the facility are beyond their useful life and would be very costly to repair. That's why we should invest in a new, safe, accessible and modern facility for a community to share in the future.
[02:49:10] Miranda Everett: Affordability also highly important to folks. The Cubberley Center being a place where people could uh take advantage of free or low-cost programs, exercise, play, gather, enjoy the arts, all of those nice things. Um and then also providing a place for people to gather and shelter in times of emergency. Um and again, highlighting the earthquake safety and accessibility standards. So those were sort of the the most uh compelling messages that resonated in the community.
[02:49:38] Miranda Everett: Um this takes us to my conclusions on the next slide. So while voters generally support upgrades to the Cubberley Center, about two-thirds initial uh support and near two-thirds support at the end, uh their willingness to invest is limited to a smaller package, one that's focused on basic repairs and upgrades to earthquake, safety and accessibility standards. They're dissatisfied with the current condition of existing facilities and they don't necessarily see Cubberley as in a need of additional space, at least given the uh kind of information and context they have right now. No mechanism tested in isolation without amounts has majority support, although that's not um unheard of when we sort of test things on their own in that way. And we saw slim majority support uh willingness to pay $250 per year for basic renovations. So there's some internal consistency here about that renovations piece. Um some good news is that most are satisfied with the current programs and services that are being offered at Cubberley. Um and the next poll as mentioned is really going to vet ballot measure language, marry specific mechanism, amount, and uses of funds for voter consideration, looking as close as possible to something that they might consider on their ballot in the future, um for sort of a truer test of of viability and and level of interest in investment. So I know that's a lot of information in a short time, but I'm happy to uh pass it back to staff.
[02:51:05] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: Thank you very much Miss Everett. Um, we'll we'll directly cut over to the next set of slides and I think what's key in her presentation was um opinion after positive messaging, which you know total support for that increased to 71%. So that's something that we kind of want to discuss and talk and and think about in our financing strategy and how while the tax measure support may be low in these results, opportunity for other financing sources is uh helps make this project viable.
[02:51:43] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: So in the next slide, um in our last study session with Council, we placed significant attention on phasing this project um to include renovation of existing buildings and some new construction. And the first phase prioritizes the land purchase, repairs, a recreation and wellness center and performing arts complex, and that all totals 392 million. Uh future phases of the master plan total an additional 220 million. And of course these these costs assume construction escalators with an assumed start date of April 2030.
[02:52:26] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: So our financing strategy includes three funding sources over time. The first being a potential tax measure with either a sales tax or parcel tax, use of development impact fees um and or grants, and partner contributions and philanthropy. So next slide please. So based on the results of the second poll, sales tax and parcel tax options will be explored further in the third poll. And in either scenario, these tax proceeds will finance the uh funding needed to purchase the land of 65.5 million and minor repairs and renovations. Uh partner contributions in addition to this would chart a path forward of having the recreation and wellness center and performing arts complex financed and constructed sooner and included in phase one of the project.
[02:53:28] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: Um for the first um potential tax measure, sales tax would generate approximately 218 million and that would be for a half cent or half a percent sales tax. Um there is a 2% cap on how much we can uh impose a sales tax locally. And existing county-wide sales tax add-ons total one and three-quarters of this cap. So out of that cap, we have a remaining 25 point 25% or quarter cent. Um for the land purchase and repairs and renovations to be viable, we have to at least have a um half cent sales tax. Um right now currently the City doesn't impose any additional sales tax and statutory authorization is needed from the state for that half cent addition.
[02:54:22] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: Um to keep that option of the sales tax um measure viable, we staff are working with our uh state lobbyist, Townsend Public Affairs, on the next steps for that um state statutory authorization. Um in addition to that, we're also looking at and exploring um what the split is between resident and non-residents and how much they pay in sales tax. So we're we're looking at that aspect of it to really uh assess what that impact is to to residents. And then finally, um business community outreach engagement is is critical in this to address how that potential sales tax measure may impact uh uh the local economy.
[02:55:15] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: Um the second tax measure that will be examined in poll three is a parcel tax based on square footage that will generate approximately um 102 million with about an average of 250 being the annual cost per household. Um and this estimate includes all single family, multifamily residential and all non-residential square footage. The second component of this funding strategy is development impact fees and use of those fees. Uh currently the City has balances in its community center and parks and development impact fees which could fund eligible costs that are for development, improvement and expansion to community centers and acquisition of land and improvements for parks.
[02:56:14] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: Um impact fees from upcoming development projects can also be used as funding sources for this project. And then use of these funds to pledge against debt financing needs to be explored by staff and its financial advisor, PFM. Uh finally, the third is partner contributions and donations. Um those two revenue sources are needed to fund the recreation and wellness center and performing arts complex. Um and discussions continue to secure financial support from from those interested parties. So that concludes my my presentation. I'll turn it over to Ed.
[02:57:00] City Manager: Thank you, Ms. Paras. I think she really covered all we have at this point. Uh happy to elaborate if uh Council would like to discuss any further. Uh but uh again, the uh results of the survey really do uh reinforce uh the need for a multi-part uh strategy for uh funding uh improvements at Cubberley and we look forward to taking the next steps. With that, uh Mayor, back to you or or the Ad Hoc uh as appropriate.
[02:57:25] Mayor Ed Lauing: Go ahead, Council Member Lythcott-Haims.
[02:57:30] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Thank you uh to everybody for for the presentation. And I just I want to um invite my Ad Hoc colleagues to jump in and then the rest of Council as well. But I thought there were a couple things that perhaps you could clarify right off the bat. Uh one is um I'm not sure the slide showed the voter threshold necessary to achieve the parcel tax versus the sales tax. And I think it's important to articulate that. It might have been in the FM3, but I think Christine when you were doing your wrap up and you were presenting the differences, it would just be we had the money on there, 102 million versus 218 million.
[02:58:15] Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services: Oh, voter thresholds for sales tax versus parcel tax. The voter threshold for sales tax is simple majority, 50 plus one, and then for parcel tax, two-thirds super majority.
[02:58:27] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: So with the sales tax in theory we get for the same for roughly 250 per person, right? Average household, we get 218 for sales tax, 218 million, and only 50 percent of the voters gotta pass it. With the parcel tax we get about 102 million and it requires two-thirds to pass it. That's correct. That's really important for people to hear. Thank you for noting that.
[02:58:45] City Manager: We would uh like to clarify that on the sales tax, that 50% threshold is uh assuming a general tax as opposed to one that is specific. So this would require uh again the City Council uh uh adopting a resolution expressing intent, uh but again recognizing that this would be a general tax.
[02:59:05] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Thank you for that. And sticking with this question of the sales tax, um you indicated Ms. Paras that we are going to have to work with our um lobbyists, consultants, people who help us work with the legislature to raise the cap on what we're allowed to even put on the ballot in terms of increasing the sales tax. Um I was under the impression based on conversations with our consultant that a number of municipalities are doing this right now and that there's optimism that uh this cap can be increased. You guys are looking back at me like I'm not so sure I heard that. Is that cool? Is that true?
[02:59:45] City Manager: Yes, that is uh this this has uh occurred with some regularity amongst cities throughout the state and we expect a a vehicle will be coming together that we'll be able to join in on.
[02:59:55] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Right. So I just wanted folks to hear that it doesn't feel like a super challenging bar for us to soar over.
Segment 5
[03:00:00] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: getting to the right degree of voter support for whatever the project ultimately is, with whatever mechanism we try to use, but this more technical question of can we raise our sales tax cap, um, uh, is seemingly, uh, relatively, comparatively easy. That's it for me on technical questions. Thank you.
[03:00:20] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay, any immediate questions, uh, from council to the consultants before we go to public comment?
[03:00:39] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, just, just to make sure, um, I'm tracking on that, uh, sales tax. So, we have a a quarter cent available left but we want a half cent, is that why we have to go through the statutory vehicle?
[03:00:53] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: That's correct.
[03:00:54] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Okay. So if we were to do a quarter cent, but that just doesn't get us the raise that we are seeking. Right. Okay. All right, thank you.
[03:01:00] Council Member Pat Burt: Yes, um, just on the, uh, the voter thresholds. You said for the parcel tax it's two-thirds. That's if it is placed on the ballot by the City? And is that different if it is, were to be a citizens initiative?
[03:01:19] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: Yeah, that's correct.
[03:01:22] City Manager: Yes, if, if a citizens group placed their own initiative for a parcel tax on the ballot, uh, that would under current law only require a simple majority.
[03:01:34] Council Member Pat Burt: Thank you.
[03:01:36] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay, let's go to public comment please.
[03:01:46] City Clerk: Our first speaker is Ken H.
[03:01:52] Ken H: Yeah, thank you. Good evening again. Um, I think the most important thing is that, um, we need to do something. We, we gotta do something. And, um, unfortunately, the economy is not great and people don't want to pay for things. And that's basically what the, uh, well they do want to pay for the school district because the school district is gonna put out a parcel tax in June of 2026 for 904 dollars per parcel, and their polling numbers are off the charts because it increases home values and we all know the importance of school districts.
[03:02:37] Ken H: Um, so I, I guess, you know, my take is let's do the baby steps first. Um, let's get the land. If you think the seven acres is that important, let's get the land and let's, let's, um, because if you don't own the land then you can't do anything with it. And then I would go ahead and, and do the repairs. And whether you decide on a sales tax or a parcel tax, it's gonna be tough because, uh, we just passed Measure A so the sales tax went up five-eighths percent. Um, the school district's gonna have a parcel tax. So people are not gonna be happy. So you gotta figure out the best strategies, but let's do something. Thank you.
[03:03:26] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Anne C.
[03:03:34] Anne C: Uh, good evening Mayor and City Council Members. Um, I'm Anne Cribbs and I'm the chair of the Palo Alto Recreation Wellness Center, the friends of. We're a 501(c)(3) non-profit formed about three years ago because we really believe that Palo Alto needs a community gym. Um, wellness isn't a luxury, it's a public good. A place where people can stay active, play, recover, connect, and thrive is essential in a small, a strong and healthy community.
[03:04:15] Anne C: The Friends are really proud to support the public-private partnership to build a new recreation wellness center at Cubberley as part of phase one. And thank you very much for all the work that everybody's done: the staff, the ad hoc, the council, and the community to get us to where we're even talking about this right now. Um, our partnership we envision will bring together the City's vision with a community involvement and philanthropy. It allows us to build not only a facility but a lasting community asset, one designed to evolve with the needs of Palo Alto residents across generations.
[03:04:48] Anne C: The Friends organization is committed to fundraising, advocacy, ensuring the center reflects our shared values of inclusion, access, and excellence. Um, but phase one is really more about, a wellness center is about a construction. It's about planting a flag for the future so today's families, tomorrow's seniors, and generations yet to come have a place that supports lifelong health, wellness, connection, and community.
[03:05:22] Anne C: Years ago when I was training for the Olympic games, I was fortunate enough to have access that I needed in my hometown. And yes, I was then honored to make the 1960 Olympic team. As a former Palo Alto Park and Recreation Commissioner, I've seen, and also a mom of sporty kids, I was, have also seen firsthand how essential facilities are to a community. And especially in this case, indoor gym space that serve people of all ages and abilities. The Friends believe that Cubberley is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity for Palo Alto, and we're committed to getting this done and excited to work together to make the future possible. So again, thank you all very much for your support and for your enthusiasm and for your commitment, and I wish you all a very happy holiday. Thank you.
[03:06:12] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Jennifer D.
[03:06:19] Jennifer D: Good evening Council. Want to wish everyone a Happy Hanukkah, um, and acknowledge the horrible anti-semitic attack from this weekend, um, and thank you all for showing up to the first night, um, Hanukkah lighting last night. Uh, I am here to talk about Cubberley, um, to thank you all for all of the work that you have done and that so many members of this community have done for so many years to get us here. Um, it is years in the making. Um, the good news about this polling shows that, um, at least two-thirds of the population sees a need for this work and is supportive of this work in theory.
[03:07:11] Jennifer D: So, um, we've got some work to do to get them to be excited about spending some money on it. Um, but, uh, I am glad you are considering lots of options. Um, please know that there is a large number of community members that are excited to do the work to get it through the finish line, um, once you get there. Um, we are ready to go to work. Um, and so please consider, um, you are working at a fast clip as was acknowledged before, um, and please continue to do that because the sooner you guys get to where you want to go, the sooner we can take the ball and run with it. Um, and we need that time to communicate with the, with the community and, and make sure they understand the importance of this work.
[03:07:50] Jennifer D: Um, so thank you for your work. Um, again, there's a whole lot of us that are excited to continue it and to, um, the time is now. I think you all know that. I think that, um, you are working with the urgency that recognizes that, uh, the building needs desperate repairs, um, and really won't function that much longer as is. Um, so we are excited to move it ahead, um, next November. Thank you.
[03:08:19] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Penny E.
[03:08:36] City Clerk: Penny E, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak.
[03:08:39] Penny E: Okay. Thank you. The button just showed up. Um, good evening, I'm Penny Ellson speaking as an individual. The survey tells us that most of us, can you hear me okay? The survey tells us that most of us agree Cubberley urgently needs to be safe, made safe, up to code, functional, and friendly for community service use. The City needs to own it in order to justify amortizing the cost of improvement of the property. This is an essential first hurdle toward phased, longer term realization of a more ambitious campus vision that likely will be needed as the community grows and that may also draw philanthropic support.
[03:09:24] Penny E: The survey sample is small. Only 407 of 37,350 registered Palo Alto voters. However, it tells us that those surveyed are only willing to support a 250 dollar parcel tax. I would as a voter support this, but I would also pay more. I wasn't asked. I generally do not support additional sales taxes, as sales taxes tend to be regressive, impacting lower income people more because they spend a higher percentage of their incomes. So I kind of hope we'll stick with a parcel tax.
[03:09:59] Penny E: I understand we need a measure that the whole community will support to ensure success for this very important community project. And I, and I plan to support the bond measure, um, with my volunteer time as it moves forward. Um, and finally I have a question. Um, do we know for certain that PAUSD will have a measure on the same ballot? This seems like something that might be discussed at the City School Liaison Committee. We have had three planning processes. Our community is growing. Let's please get this important project off the ground at long last. Thank you for considering my comments.
[03:10:39] City Clerk: Our next speaker is Society of Hearts.
[03:10:44] Yudy D: Good evening. This is Yudy D, speaking both as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner and a board member of the Friends of the Palo Alto Recreation and Wellness Center. I want to voice my strong support for moving forward with a bond measure and completing the Cubberley land purchase. Cubberley is already a vital community asset. It serves seniors, families, non-profits, youth, artists, and wellness programs across generations. What we're hearing clearly from the data and from lived experience is not a demand for unchecked expansion but a need for safe, accessible, and well-maintained facilities that can support today's programs and tomorrow's needs.
[03:11:30] Yudy D: Passing the bond measure and securing the land gives the City certainty. It allows us to plan responsibly, invest strategically, and unlock better long term development, rather than continuing to defer critical repairs or miss opportunities because of fragmented ownership and short term fixes. As stewards of public spaces, we have a responsibility to think beyond the immediate moment and toward the next 30 to 50 years. With clear scope, phases, transparency, I believe voters will support a thoughtful investment that protects Cubberley and strengthens Palo Alto's parks and wellness ecosystem. I urge you to take the steps needed to move this forward and give our community the chance to vote on a clear, responsible path ahead. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and happy holidays to you all.
[03:12:14] City Clerk: That concludes public comment on study session item 3.
[03:12:19] Mayor Ed Lauing: Thank you. Back to the dais for general comments on where we are. Council Member Stone.
[03:12:30] Council Member Greer Stone: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Uh, thanks to the ad hoc for the ongoing work. I I mostly just have a few questions on on kind of the polling. So, I I understand the viability of a sales tax increase is going to be on that third poll. Will you also be polling on the viability of having both a sales tax and a parcel tax on the same ballot?
[03:12:55] Miranda Everett: Um, that's not in the plan at the moment.
[03:12:58] Council Member Greer Stone: All right, I I I think that would be, I think that would be helpful information to to have and I'm also kind of curious how that might play with the the school districts.
[03:13:11] City Manager: Uh, if I might Council Member, for clarification, and we uh should have mentioned this earlier. A couple of uh points from other agencies. First with the school district, we do understand that the school district will be doing its uh measure in the spring, so not in the November timeframe. In addition, there is uh an ongoing effort for a regional transit measure that could be on that uh November ballot. Again, nothing's for sure at this point, but uh we do expect that th there uh may be some additional measures on that November ballot.
[03:13:44] Council Member Greer Stone: We would we would be considering, I guess, I mean, I guess TBD, but a a combination if we wanted to do our own sales tax or parcel tax, one or or both?
[03:13:59] City Manager: At this point we've really only discussed doing one or the other, not not both. Again, recognizing uh the limited uh funding uh potential.
[03:14:10] Council Member Greer Stone: Makes sense. So a kind of a question for our pollster just kind of on on survey bias. Does there tend to be a bias towards selecting the the least expensive option for people taking a poll? So I mean if a if a poll like here proposes a range of 250 dollars to 1100 dollars in a potential parcel tax, I'm not surprised people selected the the least expensive option. So I'm just curious if we were to do another another poll where the least expensive option was 500 dollars, what what impact that might that might have.
[03:14:50] Miranda Everett: Sure. So we actually asked people um individually about different amounts. So they were able to tell us willingness at 250, at 500, at 750, at a thousand. Um so we were able to, we didn't force them to choose one amount or another. Um and that is uh the best practice there.
[03:15:08] Council Member Greer Stone: Okay. And then I'm just a little confused by the summary of the poll results. That was on page 597 and and apologies if I missed this in your in your oral report. It states that two-thirds of likely voters support Cubberley Community Center updated as a visionary goal. Didn't quite understand what that meant as a visionary goal.
[03:15:29] Miranda Everett: Yeah, so slide six. Not sure what the page number is in your packet, but it's the one with the um kind of blue box with two paragraphs on it. That was sort of the vision uh statement that we provided to folks. We said here's some of the history, here's where it's located, here's, you know, the ballot measure plan. Um that's the sort of conceptual vision we put in front of folks which did have support from about two-thirds. Uh which is distinct from when we asked about individual amounts or individual mechanisms where support was lower. So I think that was our our way of distinguishing between those more specific questions we asked a little later on and the sort of bigger picture conceptual question.
[03:16:04] Council Member Greer Stone: Okay. Yeah I I was I was just kind of torn seeing these results. It's great to see that there is so much support in the community for Cubberley, but then when it comes to the the price tag, that support seemed to really drop. I mean it reminded me a bit of like when my wife asked me for my Christmas list this year and I told her I was all enthusiastic and then she looked at the price tag of it all and she said you're not getting that. So I kind of feel like that's that's where we're at right right now. But I'm I'm interested for this of course moving forward and excited to see the results of the third and fourth poll. And I I share the concern of of one of the speakers regarding sales tax being regressive. I don't quite know where I stand on the idea of us trying to get the state to kind of change that. I mean if they change that, they they do. Um, I think there are ways that we could craft a sales tax to, you know, for example not apply to or maybe this is already in the law as far as groceries or other other basic necessities. Um and which could make it which could make it better. Um so that's yeah, those are my my questions and and initial thoughts.
[03:17:26] Mayor Ed Lauing: Others? Council Member Burt.
[03:17:31] Council Member Pat Burt: Thank you. Um, so just a a few additional comments. Um, one of the really interesting uh aspects of the poll was uh where the community, it's on slide number five, showed that fewer than one in seven believe that Cubberley Community Center needs more space. And I just want to dive into that a little bit deeper. Um, first, that doesn't mean that the present configuration is ideal, that we wouldn't really, if if we were to design this as a community center rather than a school, we we would almost certainly design it differently.
[03:18:20] Council Member Pat Burt: Uh, but on the other hand I think the community is uh correct because when we when we looked at the current space that we have uh versus how much we're we're leasing or renting for current community oriented uh non-profits and our own use, um, we're using a fraction of it. We're going to get back um a sizable amount of space from PAUSD if we are successful in a measure that will purchase the land. And that that those buildings are currently generally occupied by for PAUSD functions, they've indicated that they would be giving those up.
[03:19:03] Council Member Pat Burt: So that would become additional community space, although all the existing buildings need renovation. And that's one of the real dilemmas from this even with the uh with the parcel tax. After the um uh the land purchase, uh it wouldn't give us enough funding to do the full-blown renovation that we think is needed, but it would allow us to do a lot. And that may be somewhat disappointing but it's also, we would have a community center that we would be able to have this first phase of Cubberley, uh, of renovating buildings, doing some exciting things.
[03:19:38] Council Member Pat Burt: And that goes into the most exciting part today is the prospect of community partners. We heard this evening from uh the the friends of the uh uh what do we call it, the recreation center. And um and then we have the other prospect of a partner in performing arts and potentially other community partners who are interested in uh in making uh many millions of dollars in investments that the community as a whole will benefit from. And that seems to be emerging as this hybrid model between the contributions that the voters will make uh and those that these really valued community uh uh organizations are are uh indicating they are very interested in in doing.
[03:20:23] Council Member Pat Burt: And so that's the hopeful part. Um, the but those partners need us to acquire the land for them to be able to move forward. And they actually need us to do that before they can really commence with their full fundraising. They're doing groundwork right now but until we get the voters' support for that land acquisition, they can't go forward with their their full fundraising. Uh which is um uh really a great opportunity for this community to benefit from from what they're willing to do.
[03:20:52] Council Member Pat Burt: I will note that on slide 11, uh there's a reference to um the potential additional projects do not dramatically increase uh uh support for the measure. Because one of the things that we were wondering as a committee is if the ballot measure included uh some other very modest projects elsewhere in the city, would it appeal to a broader voter uh base and increase support. And the slide says they don't dramatically increase support but the first two increase it by 12 and 14 percent. And I don't know if I'd call that dramatically, I'd call that very significantly on a on a measure where we're looking at um uh uh needing to gain as much support as we can and it's not overwhelming. So I just want us to bear that in mind as a committee. We haven't gotten to a point of making any recommendations but I that was one area that I would have uh uh titled that slide differently and and uh because I do think that appears to be significant.
[03:21:48] Council Member Pat Burt: Um and then I'd like to call your attention to slide 13 um which is uh it says fewer than half prioritized uh a series of different uses. But um the columns that were added together were extremely and very important. Um but if you add in somewhat important then those numbers really go up. Uh for instance the uh expanding outdoor spaces or uh after school and arts and community involvement um it goes from 51 percent support but if you put in somewhat support it goes to 79, 77 percent. So I just don't want us to overlook the importance of that. Um, you know, just like when we we look at undecideds uh as uh voters who may be persuaded when we get a real campaign uh or they get to see exactly more clearly what the community will get in benefits. Uh similarly I think that um uh when we look at somewhat support uh that's not no support. Uh that's just not their highest priority. So those are just a few additional thoughts I wanted to share.
[03:23:39] Council Member George Lu: Thank you, and I just had a few quick thoughts on the polling as well, echoing several of Council Member Burt's points. Um, just uh starting high level, I don't love our options for sales taxes. Uh, I think we can reasonably include them in the coming poll but uh I don't know how excited I would be at the end of the day. Um, I think for the next round of polling it definitely makes sense to uh include both options for the teen center and Rinconada pools somehow more explicitly into uh the voters' final sort of up down like what would they vote preferences.
[03:24:28] Council Member George Lu: I would also like for us to be able to dig in a little bit on what kind of benefits we could actually offer at 200 and at a 250 dollar level. Um, uh, I think during the presentation we noted that at the 250 dollar uh level uh when just sort of pulled on its own, the community didn't really have a chance to uh understand the benefits of 250 dollars. Uh but at the same time I think it's going to be really hard, like I think that polling level is actually somewhat representative because it's going to be really hard for us to articulate the benefits at a 250 dollar polling level.
[03:25:08] Council Member George Lu: Yes, PAUSD gets some money but that might feel like a paper transaction to a lot of residents. Um where, you know, money just moves between government entities. And then okay then we can do some light renovations. Obviously those are things that the community cares about but maybe maybe it's not actually enough of a benefit that we can actually sell. And so the polling at uh the 53 percent polling at 250 um is just sort of what it is, which is not uh a number I would love to see. So like I hope we can think about how to sweeten 250 and uh poll options for that.
[03:25:53] Council Member George Lu: I like Council Member Burt was uh curious uh about when looking at priorities if there could be an option for something like not important at all or a priority that actually makes someone less likely to vote on something. Uh I just found it interesting that in the first set of bond amount polling there was like a very willing to very unwilling option, but in terms of priorities there wasn't an option to say like uh that this is something that people actively uh dislike. Um uh which um maybe maybe unlikely to uncover anything but might also be useful if uh uh if the polling gets really close and we need to think about what not to sell uh in the final vision.
[03:26:53] Council Member George Lu: Uh and finally uh I echo Council Member Burt's points about just really trying to get as solid partnerships as we possibly can with groups uh that can bring their own funding. Um we would love a visionary project but I think the reality is that the only way visionary project gets delivered is uh through partnerships with uh private fundraising. Um so uh in light of Frank Gehry's passing I've been thinking a little bit about how monumental visionary projects like the Walt Disney Concert Hall or uh the Guggenheim at Bilbao actually get together and actually sort of transformed an entire uh city and civic space. And that is, you know, too visionary and too optimistic for me to sort of fully sink my teeth into right now, but the point is that those were really driven uh by uh the sort of boosters in the community that could uh seize an opportunity. So we just need to make sure we can keep giving and advertising that opportunity. Thank you.
[03:28:00] Mayor Ed Lauing: Council Member Reckdahl.
[03:28:04] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: Yeah, I noticed that 12 percent and 14 percent that Council Member Burt pointed out. It does improve, the teen center for example does improve, but we may gain a few votes but we also dilute the amount that we can apply towards Cubberley, so I'd be inclined not to include that if we're doing a low parcel tax. But uh I have a question for FM3. Uh Council Member Burt talked about the somewhat important. Is that negative or positive or is that like no opinion? What how how do you interpret somewhat important?
[03:28:34] Miranda Everett: Yeah, the reason we put extremely and very to the right hand side is because those are sort of the the priorities that you want to see at close to or exceeding your threshold. So in a lot of communities we see things in the 80s, 70s, 60 percent range uh extremely and very important. If you don't have to add the somewhat because that those reactions are pretty lukewarm and not necessarily motivational of a yes vote. It's still positive um but it's not as uh folks are not as passionate about it definitionally.
[03:29:04] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: So it means that it's not negative but it's not enough to flip a vote. Is that the...?
[03:29:09] Miranda Everett: Yeah, it's it's it's somewhat important. It's it's somewhere it's somewhere between very important to them and and not important at all. So it's it's in a very middling spot and one that's less motivational.
[03:29:20] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: Okay, thank you. Yeah, so overall, you know, when we started this process we had a lot of questions. You know, how big, well first of all does the community even want to spend money on Cubberley? And also um what what kind of scope do they want? How big you want to go? And we did a lot of planning, a lot of planning where we're looking at big scopes and we gave the community pictures of those big scopes and they said no thank you. Just like Greer's wife. Is that you're not going to get that. Um but uh the polling has is adding some clarity here that we know that the community really does value Cubberley and it wants it wants a new developed, modernized Cubberley.
[03:30:08] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: They want to have new wiring, they want to have uh earthquake safety. They want to spend the money and have this be an enduring community center. They don't want a Taj Mahal, right? Uh they don't want to pay for a Taj Mahal but consistently they they are consistent here and they don't want uh a, they don't feel they need a Taj Mahal. So the community is being consistent. They're telling us what they want and they want a modest Cubberley that is the same size as it is today, cleaned up, and a few features added here and there. And I think that's a good message because that's something we can deliver. Between our additional tax revenue and the for example the Wellness Center non-profits, non-profits like that and the tax money we can make this work. So I think we are on a good track. It's we're not getting the Taj Mahal but uh we're going to get something that is even more used and more loved than the Cubberley today. So that's a good thing.
[03:31:00] Mayor Ed Lauing: Uh just a couple adds without stepping on everybody's toes that already spoke, but um I think that, you know, I totally agree with Council Member Stone that, you know, basically what they're saying here about a concept and principle is not a vacation in Tahiti. You know, that 'cause that takes money. So you can think about how wonderful it is lying on that beach. But I think we have to, I totally agree with Council Member Reckdahl is that what we're listening now. And I think we need to shoot lower than we originally thought. But I also think that it's very fair to not just assume but we have some data points that, you know, these partnerships are going to work.
[03:31:33] Mayor Ed Lauing: So if we go out and say, you know, we have to raise X and, you know, we need 60 percent of it from the voters and 40 percent of it from partners, I think that's the kind of thing that could really could really move this. Not 99 percent from the voters and we'll find a few bucks. So that's one specific input that I don't think anybody said, but I think that the percentage uh of of the money raised should get fairly high on the on the uh partnership side to show that uh there's a lot of support in the community from um, you know, important important donors as well where they're going to put their money.
[03:32:12] Mayor Ed Lauing: Um I'm not optimistic that the sales tax is going to poll very well for all the reasons we already discussed. There's already that fatigue, there's more coming. Um I'm not even sure you should poll with it but you might as well get it to to make sure. Um and fundamentally as a public commenter started off this thing, we we need to buy this. We need to own it because whatever we do now can be the phase one as the committee has been studying uh and we can make other changes and uh improvements later. But the focus is get the money we need right now to make sure that it's going to happen when we have the MOU and both sides really want this transaction to happen. Vice Mayor Veenker.
[03:32:53] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Thank you and uh I agree with the Mayor um and I also agree with the theme that's surfacing here from most all my colleagues um that our community values the experiences they have at Cubberley. They like the programming. They want more of it but they want to do it in a place that feels safe and clean and modern and, you know, doesn't have all the issues that we know are with Cubberley. And it is a large site already, so I think that's why there's probably not this clamoring for being squeezed in, it's more a a sense of quality while you're there that you want it to be more modern and upgraded.
[03:33:32] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So I I think we do start there especially when we can't ignore the context of the times uh where people are feeling that uh cost of living is getting more expensive. We just passed a uh a ballot measure uh to to to increase county taxes, now we're it'll be a school district, then we come along. Um so I think I'm really looking forward to the results of the polling. Um and I think that'll have to tell us uh you know a lot about how folks are feeling because I too on on the sales tax um you know I don't I don't love the regressive nature of it either. Um but as was pointed out by uh Council Member Lythcott-Haims, the parcel tax takes two-thirds of the voters and uh looks like it would uh it's it's posited to uh reap less uh dollars. So it's it's a tough call. So it's I think it's still worth doing both of those polls as best we can.
[03:34:37] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Um and you know I was interested also in the polling on the, I think you called it the vegetables without the rest of the meal, the the uh unattached uh uh what type of uh funding mechanism uh with in the absence of ballot question format. And the the parcel tax was at the top with 39 percent. But I also wonder if that's influenced by the fact that we have 40 plus percent renters and they don't feel that they're going to see that tax on their property bill because they don't get one. Now, probably get passed along or baked into the rent somehow but it doesn't feel as immediate or or personal. So, but those are the folks who vote so, you know, it's it's I can sit here and wonder why but uh we we have the numbers to help us make decisions.
[03:35:27] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Um one thing I wanted to um ask about in the polling is that um what's posited is a parcel tax uh a square footage parcel tax as opposed to a flat fee. And I assume that's explained to folks so that it's not also uh a somewhat regressive vehicle. So in the polling I guess I'm asking uh our uh poll polling folks.
[03:35:54] Miranda Everett: Yeah, the way we described it is is uh a parcel tax that would be added to your property tax bill based on the size of your property.
[03:36:01] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Okay, so that that should be made clear to them. That's great. Okay. Well, you know, I I echo again what um has been said which is that hopefully we can get this place, you know, spiffed up, uh get some some, you know, new tenants, um whet people's appetite to want to do more. Um work with these partners, some of whom have already identified themselves and I thank Anne Cribbs for being here on behalf of the friends of the uh the wellness center um and and others that have have stepped up to express interest. But, you know, hopefully when this feels more real we can get more. Um because it looks like for our aspirations we're probably going to need more um but uh I appreciate the work that's gone into this this far and look forward to hearing more.
[03:36:54] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Yeah, I just thought I'd um share my concluding thoughts. Um what a great conversation, what a breathtaking process this has been and will continue to be uh really for uh another uh another year, just less than a year, we'll know. Um, uh I want to underscore how excited I am that we are attracting wonderful potential partners like the friends of the Wellness Center and others who plan to do their part to contribute to the vision for what this destination in south Palo Alto can be and what it can offer and what it can feel like to be there. And these partners are also going to do their own fundraising. It's going to be a key component.
[03:37:43] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: But as we've heard, they want to see that the community wants us before they decide to kind of ante up. As the City Manager mentioned, we can also draw from some development impact fees that are going to come from significant housing projects that are in the pipeline and on the horizon. And then there's the community. The community is going to be asked to do its fair share and only its fair share. Our job is to keep listening and refining and then to make the case for what it will be and earn the community's support. I am incredibly excited and optimistic that we are well on our way to getting there. And I want to underscore again my gratitude to the staff for the tremendous work that has gone into this and I know that in some ways we're only just getting started. Thank you.
[03:38:29] Mayor Ed Lauing: Yeah, thanks also to staff just want to join in that uh Council Member uh for for getting us this far. Um then we keep on running. Thanks very much. That concludes this item. Next item is uh Consent Calendar. Is there any public comment on Consent?
[03:38:54] City Clerk: Yes Mayor we have one request to speak. Our first speaker is Herb B.
[03:39:15] Herb B: Uh Mayor Lauing and uh Council Members I request that you uh remove item 5 from the consent calendar and refer the issue of the appointment of an interim City Attorney uh to the council CAO committee uh as provided for in your council procedures. Uh the the council has not uh delegated uh this task uh to either of the individuals who are bringing this before you. Uh I previously talked under uh public comment uh about how uh the City Attorney uh recruitment information in on the City's, Human Resources website was wrong with the wrong current salary and omitting the fact that the job is for by qualifications.
[03:40:20] Herb B: Uh in in addition to the procedural question of uh doing this the appropriate way by having either the council itself meeting in either closed session or in and deciding on the subject or by delegating it to the CAO committee and having them make a recommendation, which they could if they wanted to after they made it is to delegate it to the chair uh to bring it before you. Uh there's also the the uh noticing the Brown Act requirement since the main thing you'll be doing uh in this employment would be uh changing the pay of one one person.
[03:40:58] Herb B: Uh there is nothing uh here to indicate what the individual's current salary is or what the increase in salary would be and there have been multiple opportunities uh as this item has appeared on your agenda for that to be corrected. And the only way it would be corrected would be uh the City Attorney's office looking at the agenda and seeing that it was missing. So for either of those issues, uh I believe it's appropriate that this not uh be approved at this time and instead to follow the normal procedure where there's uh publicly noticed meeting where uh somebody with the authority granted by the Council uh will come to you uh with a recommendation or you know you could meet in closed session yourself as I pointed out was done uh when a previous City Attorney announced the retirement and the Council met in closed session at the time they were doing evaluations uh and also at that time decided on the process of an appointment for an interim City Attorney. Thank you.
[03:42:02] City Clerk: That concludes public comment on consent calendar items 4 through 20 and 22 through 24 as agenda item 21 was removed off the agenda.
[03:42:14] Mayor Ed Lauing: Thanks for that summary. Any other comments from Council Members about pulls or no votes? Uh seeing none let's get a motion to approve.
[03:42:24] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So moved.
[03:42:27] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: Second.
[03:42:29] City Clerk: Council Member Stone?
[03:42:31] Council Member Greer Stone: Yes.
[03:42:32] City Clerk: Council Member Burt?
[03:42:33] Council Member Pat Burt: Yes.
[03:42:34] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Veenker?
[03:42:35] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yes.
[03:42:36] City Clerk: Council Member Lythcott-Haims?
[03:42:37] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Yes.
[03:42:38] City Clerk: Council Member Lu?
[03:42:39] Council Member George Lu: Yes.
[03:42:40] City Clerk: Council Member Reckdahl?
[03:42:41] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: Yes.
[03:42:42] City Clerk: Mayor Lauing?
[03:42:43] Mayor Ed Lauing: Yes. Motion carries. Okay, thank you. That took two and a half pages of our outline but uh only a few minutes. Uh we're scheduled for a break right now. Uh City Manager comments? Yeah I mean after that. So I think we'll take a short one at least. City Manager?
[03:43:05] City Manager: Well, this will be very short City Manager comments. Uh next slide please. Just going straight to looking at your calendar for the upcoming month in January and beyond. Uh just noting again January 5th is your reorganization date. January 12th being your first business meeting of uh the new year. Uh and items noted there along with uh the following Tuesday January 20th uh in light of the Monday holiday.
[03:43:44] City Manager: And then finally your, oops, that's right. My screen wasn't showing or isn't showing the Saturday council retreat. Uh and then followed uh with a number of items listed in the February timeframe, st still working on finalizing dates. Board and Commission work plans, weed abatement uh recurring item, the S/CAP reliability strategy and two year work plan along with follow-up reports and discussions on Palo Alto Link, oversized vehicle report from the ad hoc committee, and mid-year budget actions. So again anticipated in the February timeframe with dates uh yet to be set. And with that Mayor uh that completes my report.
[03:44:22] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay, thank you. We're going to take about a 10 minute break so that's going to get us in here about uh 17, 18 after to take up the next item which is the quasi-judicial hearing on 1680 Bryant Street.
Segment 6
[04:00:24] Mayor Ed Lauing: And we're moving on the agenda item 25, 1680 Bryant Street. And staff has a presentation?
[04:00:29] Planning Director Jonathan Lait: Great. Thank you, Mayor. And good evening, City Council. Jonathan Lait, Director for Planning and Development Services. Steven Switzer, our Senior Planner with our office will give this brief presentation.
[04:00:40] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: All right. Well, good evening and let's take a trip to 1680 Bryant Street. Next slide.
[04:00:47] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: All right, just to briefly orient ourselves here, this is a property located at the intersection of Lowell Avenue and Bryant Street in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, single-family R-1 zoning district. If we go on to the next slide right here, the project overview, back earlier this year in July, the city's historic preservation consultant Page & Turnbull had prepared a historic resource evaluation.
[04:01:17] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: Following that, the applicant submitted a request to reclassify the historic resource from a Category 2, its current designation, to a Category 3 on the historic inventory based on the findings contained in that July 25th report. It went to the Historic Resources Board at their October 9th meeting and following that we are here today at the December 15th City Council meeting.
[04:01:41] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: So a little bit about the construction chronology. This structure was built in 1914. The architect was John Hudson Thomas, a notable member of the Bay Area Tradition movement. Some of you may know some other notable members, Julia Morgan being one of them. So I pulled a image from the Sanborn Map in 1924 following 10 years after its construction and we can see the orientation of the structure there on the left-hand side of the screen.
[04:02:12] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: Following in around the 1940s, we'll see on the right hand of the screen a, that one-story addition or connection between the building was demolished as well as a porte-cochère on that northern portion of the structure. And as we progress throughout time on the next slide, carrying over the 1945 Sanborn Map image as well as a recent image grab of the City's Parcel Report indicating a new structure that was built at that 275 Lowell Avenue address.
[04:02:45] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: That was demolished, the southern half of the structure in 1997 following the construction of a new two-story residence at that location. And I just want to note that at that time, it was coinciding with the city's efforts to update the historic inventory with that 1997 to 2001 Dames & Moore survey update, but those efforts were reserved for adding new structures to the inventory rather than looking at or evaluating existing structures on the inventory.
[04:03:23] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: And going right along, a little bit about the historic significance. It was added in 1978 at the inception of the City's Historic Inventory as a Category 2 resource, noted as a superb example of the Prairie architectural style, which is a uncommon example of residential architecture in California. That historic resource evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, which is Attachment D in the staff report, notes the existing eligibility under Criterion 2, which is notable architecture, Criterion 5 being a notable architect, as well as Criterion 6 if there's existing design elements of a certain architectural style.
[04:04:09] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: And next slide. At that October 9th Historic Resources Board meeting, the Board voted 3-1-1 with one member absent and one member dissenting to keep the existing designation. Their rationale at that meeting and discussion was that the property would lose what little historic preservation protections currently exist in our municipal ordinance, namely the demolition delay if it were to be downgraded to a Category 3 resource, as well as noting that the current historic incentives are insufficient for property owners to either preserve or maintain existing historic structures.
[04:04:50] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: Some key considerations for tonight's discussion would be the facts in the record from that historic resource evaluation prepared at July 5th of this year, as well as the construction chronology as taking into account some of those significant alterations with over two-thirds of the structure being removed, as well as the definitions for the Category 2 and Category 3 resources in the municipal code.
[04:05:19] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: As for CEQA, this is not a project. Maintaining a historic inventory list or reclassification of structures on said list does not constitute a foreseeable change in the built environment. And on to staff's recommendation as detailed in the staff report, staff is recommending that Council approve the Record of Land Use Action Attachment B to reclassify the building as a Category 2 resource to a Category 3 resource on the historic inventory.
[04:05:46] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: Just noting again that this does differ from the Historic Resources Board's recommendation to retain the existing listing as a Category 2. Staff is aligning with the facts on the record from that historic resource evaluation determination in Attachment D. And with that, I can entertain any questions and the applicant does have a brief presentation to provide as well.
[04:06:06] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: There is also no member of the Historic Resources Board present at this meeting as well.
[04:06:10] Mayor Ed Lauing: Did you say no?
[04:06:11] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: There is no member unless there's one online, so.
[04:06:14] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Let's go ahead and get the applicant presentation so we can get the whole picture.
[04:06:26] Steve Allen: Good afternoon. Uh, good evening, I guess. Thank you for being here this late evening to listen to our request for a recategorization of our property of 1680 Bryant Street from Category 2 to Category 3. I'm Steve Allen, I'm with Stanton Architecture. Just like to describe a little bit more about the original building and then what is the building in its current state and how much has been demolished.
[04:06:58] Steve Allen: Here we have a photograph of the Lowell Street facade of the front of the building. Here we see a lot of the original Prairie style elements and the intent from the original architect. We have two large masses that are symmetrical around the center. The center shows a clear entry with an entry awning in the middle with a connecting portion of the building. And on the right-hand side as well, we can see a porte-cochère, a good sized porte-cochère in the building.
[04:07:33] Steve Allen: You know, we have strong symmetry, we have these twin masses, a clear central entry. And keeping in mind also this facade as the main facade is the main entry proceeding from Lowell Avenue. And as we move on to the next slide, you'll see it has a H-shaped plan. And you can see just how much of the original building has been demolished.
[04:08:06] Steve Allen: We have a new property line running up and down on this page and the gray buildings are the remaining structures. And what we see in red are the demolished structures. So not only is there extensive and permanent changes to the building but extensive demolition of the vast majority of the building. We see the south wing on the left-hand side has been demolished, the main entry and progression from the street has been demolished and the wings, the connecting piece between the two masses are also demolished as well as the large porte-cochère on the right-hand side.
[04:08:45] Steve Allen: Next slide. You've seen a portion of this slide already. On the left-hand side is the 1924 Sanborn fire map. On the right-hand side is how it stands today. You can see with the new property lines, there's also an easement at the lower portion of the image which, as we look at it now, is pretty much unrecognizable from what it was before. The remaining lot is about a quarter the size of the original lot.
[04:09:14] Steve Allen: The intent of the original H-shaped building being on a larger lot, I think is part of the intent of the building with a large rear yard and a side yard. As well as the remaining building is just really a rectangular plan, so very different from the original architect's intent. Next.
[04:09:36] Steve Allen: Here we see a side by side of what the original building was and where it currently stands. In the upper image, we show the two twin symmetrical portions of the building and the entry facing Lowell Street. Lowell Street is also what is still considered by the planning department to be the front facing portion of the building. And then on the right-hand side, you can see the large roof that was the porte-cochère.
[04:10:03] Steve Allen: And the lower image, you see it how it is today. Much smaller, just a rectangular shape. No porte-cochère. And you can see on the right-hand side of the image there is an existing garage which is also considered Category 2. Next. Here we see where the porte-cochère would have been. Would have been a much larger mass on the property.
[04:10:27] Steve Allen: And I wanted to describe also the location of the garage is currently, you know, 16 to 18 feet over the setback lines, which we'll see next, which also makes it very difficult. Because it's Category 2, it also cannot be changed. So it already violates setback lines and makes it very difficult to do anything with that. Next.
[04:10:49] Steve Allen: This is a view of the Lowell Street facing facade. Again, this is still considered the front facade of the building by the planning department. And as you see, we have no entry on this facade. And also sets the depth of the setbacks. Again, south portion of the building has been demolished, the connecting piece has been demolished, and there's no entry on this facade as well as the demolition of the porte-cochère. Next.
[04:11:19] Steve Allen: This diagram shows the current condition with the much smaller lot, the existing building being shown in gray. On the right hand, actually, the setback line is the black dashed line. On the right-hand side, you see Lowell Avenue, which is still considered the front. There's a 20-foot front setback, a 20-foot rear setback. And then on the Bryant Street side, there is a 16-foot setback and the side yard is an 8-foot setback.
[04:11:48] Steve Allen: Which really limits sort of anything we can do with the existing building. We can see on the right-hand side that blue hatched box is an area that cannot be built. Because it's Category 2, you're not allowed to sort of block the view of the building from the front side. So nothing can be done in this area. No additions, no ADUs can be done in this area. The only remaining area that could be built upon is this green hatched area to the left.
[04:12:16] Steve Allen: But that pretty much covers the entire location of any usable backyard, as every other portion is much smaller. Highlighted in red, we have the existing garage, which here you can easily see how much it violates the setback lines. It's pretty much right on the property line. So we can't really modify or do anything with this building. It's also Category 2, so we cannot touch it.
[04:12:37] Steve Allen: On the south side of the building, we see a smaller red block there. It's the location of where there has been an inappropriate addition on the building. This is where the building used to have a connection to the other mass. And now it's been infilled with glass block and then did have a porch on top of it, which has since been infilled with another bathroom renovation. So again, some inappropriate additions onto this existing building. Next.
[04:13:05] Steve Allen: Here's just a few views of the interior of the building. It's in bad need of some updating, but just to show, you know, it has been cut up a lot and the loss of the other portion of the building really limits the size of the spaces. Next.
[04:13:21] Steve Allen: This is a view of the second floor. There is an occupiable roof on the second floor. However, it's sort of unusable. As the two different locations of doors go out onto the roof, the head height clearance of this roof is about 5'6". So it really creates a hazard. So with the Category 2 designation, we still can't modify the roof, the hazard has to stay. We can't raise the roof, we can't modify a portion of it so that's not a head hazard as you go out. Next.
[04:13:54] Steve Allen: Here's the Lowell facing facade. Again, it's still determined to be the front facade of the building, although there's no entry here. And then as you can see on the left-hand side, you can sort of see the inappropriate addition that's put on the back of the building, which we'll see in the next slide. Here, the view from the backyard, we can see the inappropriate glass block, which was not original. It was put in to infill where there used to be a connection to the other larger building.
[04:14:28] Steve Allen: The upper portion, there was previously a porch there that has since been infilled, an inappropriate addition of a bathroom on top of that. The black line indicates the location of the setback as well. So the building currently is very close to the rear fence. Next.
[04:14:49] Steve Allen: What we're asking for is really to be categorized correctly under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. We're requesting to reclassify from a Category 2 to a Category 3. Category 2 is defined as a 'Major Building' and may have some exterior modifications but the original character is retained. Category 3 or 4 is defined as a 'Contributing Building' that may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details.
[04:15:30] Steve Allen: We think it's sort of undeniable that this building has had very extensive and permanent changes to the original building. I find it difficult to believe that the architect would look at this building and say it matches his original intent. Going back to recap again, just showing the extent of the demolition of the original building. Again, it's over 60 percent of the original footprint of the building has been demolished.
[04:15:57] Steve Allen: And on the last slide, just again reiterating the difficulties of this site and how it's very restrained by the Category 2 and that we really can't do anything to the building in its current state without the recategorization. And with that, I think George Halstead wanted to say a few words on behalf of the ownership.
[04:17:08] George Hallstead: Thank you, Steve. Hi. I'm George Halstead. I'm here representing the ownership family. And I just want to make a few quick points. That this is owned by a family that lives here, invests here, and feels strongly about keeping the neighborhood in its good composition. This is a well-intentioned attempt to take this home that was purchased in 2014 and because of some family changes was never moved into, but keep it in the housing stock here.
[04:17:38] George Hallstead: Nobody has lived here really since 2014. In 2019, we made an attempt to rent the home for basically the cost of the property taxes plus not even enough to cover anything close to the considerable expense required to make it into a nice place to live and really habitable. And we were unable to do that. We reduced the rent again. We were unable to do it. And it's been sitting vacant since then.
[04:18:05] George Hallstead: So, you know, we're really trying to make an earnest attempt here to fix this home in a way that we can put it back into the housing stock of the city. And then with regard to, you know, I understand it's probably different for us to ask you to vote differently than the Historic Review Board did. And I want to point out that it was a procedural mistake on our part to not be in the room representing ourselves there because I think there was misunderstanding about why it is that we want to do that.
[04:18:36] George Hallstead: And that's why we're here tonight. And hopefully you can see our side and how we want to make the community better. Thank you for your time.
[04:18:44] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Thank you. Is there any public comment?
[04:18:46] City Clerk: There are no requests to speak and no hands are raised for Action Item 25.
[04:18:50] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Then back to the dais for council member comments. I think Council Member Lu was first.
[04:19:01] Council Member George Lu: Yes. I'll just make a couple of initial comments. First of all, as a quasi-judicial item, I did, both as a liaison to the HRB, hear this the first time, but I also subsequently met with the representative George Halstead, I believe, during my office hours. I don't think there was anything substantive on the record that I otherwise heard. During the office hours, the applicant basically raised a variety of concerns about the livability, the current building, and how a sort of unclear set of potential renovations would be prohibitively difficult.
[04:19:58] Council Member George Lu: I'll just add a little bit of color as well to the record so far about the HRB. The HRB really did love this building. Even in its really altered state, just to see an example of a Prairie modern style home at that era all the way out in Palo Alto felt remarkable. And the prominence, the way it's on Bryant in the bike boulevard, that was all really deeply collectively appreciated.
[04:20:36] Council Member George Lu: There was not a record about what the applicant actually wanted beyond the staff recommendation at that time. So it is true that there was not that much else or another side of a story to go off of at that meeting. And I mean, I do believe the staff recommendation is fair. That based on the rules and sort of predictability that we have actually written into our own definitions, that we no longer meet the criteria for a Category 2 property on this site. And personally, I find that to be fundamentally persuasive that we write down clear rules and so we should respect clear rules.
[04:21:25] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Thank you. Also, are there any other disclosures relative to the quasi-judicial? Start at that end. No? No? No for me. Vice Mayor? No. Council Member Burt? No. Okay. No. Okay. No. Council Member Burt is on.
[04:21:45] Council Member Pat Burt: Um, so I just wanted to confirm what's in the staff analysis that said the HRB voted to retain the property's Category 2 designation and its rationale was based on concerns that the property would otherwise lose historic protections, etc. But the HRB did not disagree with the basis for the recategorization, but merely the concern that they valued the building in its condition?
[04:22:24] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: We had one member, the former Chair of the HRB, that dissented from the majority opinion of retaining the classification. But as for a collective of the members that voted, the three in favor of retaining, not all were in agreement of the designation. I believe that there was discussion as potentially upgrading the property to a Category 1 by one member, and the other member was aligning... the other two members, should I say, aligning with what's detailed in the staff report. So it wasn't a full swing of everyone in agreement.
[04:23:07] Council Member Pat Burt: But on the basis of the technical requirements of the standard, what I read in the staff report is that their objections to the reclassification were not based really on the technical requirements, but rather there how much they value the building.
[04:23:29] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: That would be a fair statement.
[04:23:30] Council Member Pat Burt: Okay. Well, I value this structure as well. I ride my bike past it almost every day and have always enjoyed it. Never realized that it was really just the right side of what was formerly a single structure that was on the adjacent street. But as much as I personally like the building and I appreciate a lot of the work that HRB does, I'm really concerned that we've received a recommendation not based on their objective determination of whether something complies with the standards or not, but on their own value structure and whether we ought to change the standards.
[04:24:25] Council Member Pat Burt: And if they want to make a recommendation to the Council that we change standards and make that case, then that's within their proper role. But I regretfully feel like a need to admonish the HRB that we expect them to do as their own objective interpretation of compliance with existing standards and not to impose values that are outside of that. And our normal established practice when we have such issues with boards and commissions is for the Mayor to take a lead role with the Chair of the Board or Commission, and I'd like to encourage that to happen and convey those concerns.
[04:25:08] Mayor Ed Lauing: Sometimes that's inclusive also of the liaison to the particular board.
[04:25:13] Council Member Pat Burt: I'd be fine. Just, we... I think we need to give this feedback.
[04:25:17] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Thank you. Council Member Stone.
[04:25:20] Council Member Greer Stone: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to... trying to understand kind of how we got to this point because the full structure was classified as a Category 2 in 1979, correct?
[04:25:38] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: Correct.
[04:25:39] Council Member Greer Stone: So when the 275 Lowell Avenue portion of the property was demolished in 1997, was there a decision then to remove that portion of the property out of the historic registry?
[04:25:51] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: No.
[04:25:52] Council Member Greer Stone: Okay. So would that have made the demolition then an illegal demolition because it was a Category 2?
[04:25:58] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: The home constructed at 275 Lowell Avenue was permitted by the city. So, and the subsequent, say, demolishing of the structure or the two-thirds portion. So, I don't believe that probably would be a fair statement that it would be an illegal demolition because it received the proper permits.
[04:26:23] Planning Director Jonathan Lait: So we tried to answer this question as well to understand the sort of the history and the record doesn't provide any information that's useful in this regard. All we can state is it was there, it was designated, it was demolished, it was subdivided. That's the sequence of history that we have.
[04:26:44] Council Member Greer Stone: Okay. But the city allowed for the demolition of that Category 2 property?
[04:26:48] Planning Director Jonathan Lait: Permits were issued for the demolition.
[04:26:50] Council Member Greer Stone: Okay. Well, that's 1997's problem. So I agree with Council Member Burt of where we're at. I like the property. I think it's historically significant, but within our standards... I was a little more concerned about some precedent setting had that not been approved by the city back in 1997 to be able to do so. Maybe we can admonish that planning director. But I support the applicant's request.
[04:27:38] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. I'm going to jump in a couple quick questions. So with the move to Category 3, what are we... what is the applicant allowed to do or constrained from doing? I mean, even down to the details of like, do they have to match the filigree and so on that's there, or what's the status there?
[04:27:56] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: Sure. So a Category 1 and Category 2 structure are subject to historic review per our ordinance. Likely that's elevated up to the Historic Resources Board for their weigh in. And that looks like, say, getting either a historic preservation consultant to review architectural plans to, as you were describing, ensure that say significant integrity of the structure is maintained, whether that's materials, details, design elements. A Category 3 and 4 structure on our inventory, what's classified as say a contributing structure, would be afforded some more flexibility. It is not subject to historic review, but it does get afforded some incentives if you will in the zoning code for either allowances for home improvement exceptions, some bonus floor area, some of those items that are pretty limited in the zoning code, but they are offered as incentives.
[04:28:56] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Let me give an example. So in the areas that would now be considered buildable, if somebody put an addition on there that in light of earlier conversation was a Frank Gehry add-on to this building, would that be allowed? Because it's completely distinct from anything else that's sitting there.
[04:29:19] Senior Planner Steven Switzer: Well, teeing up a nice example there. Let's see. So if we're talking about just general development and whether the involvement of say CEQA, a one-story addition on a structure would be subject to a building permit. So that would be a situation... I think that probably would be an inappropriate addition to the architectural style of the structure, but the city would not be in a position to really condition the project at a one story. So it would just be subject to a building permit.
[04:29:52] Mayor Ed Lauing: What about ARB?
[04:29:53] Planning Director Jonathan Lait: Yeah, so again, it depends on whether it's a discretionary action or a ministerial action.
Segment 7
[04:30:00] Planning Director Jonathan Lait: drafted a one-story addition would be ministerial. And so that example that you described could be allowed, we would permit that example at the, you know, through our building department. There are notably less protections afforded to Category 3 and 4 structures in our code. And, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but demolition is a possible future for this structure as well with this designation. Yes, demolition of the entire structure.
[04:30:39] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Just as a footnote I thought the reports that came in were fascinating. I read all the reports from Turnbull and everyone else and right on point, but given that two-thirds of the structure is gone, I kind of find it hard not to support the motion or to support the staff report. Let's see others, Council Member Lythcott-Haims?
[04:31:15] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Mr. Mayor, I just want to add my voice to the chorus of support for the motion. This seems by definition to be a Category 3 home given what has happened to it over the years and there doesn't seem to be any justification for cramming it into the Category 2. I also, as a matter of public policy and kind of serving the community, I just find it very compelling that the applicant, the owner, wants to do something with this house and have people live in it. And Lord knows we need housing, not structures pretending to be housing. So I intend to support the motion, happy to make it myself unless other people still...
[04:31:55] Mayor Ed Lauing: Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to make a comment.
[04:32:00] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Just just really briefly. Yeah. I mean this looks like it was once a beautiful amazing example of the architecture that was described. And as was noted, a lot of it's gone so it's frustrating to see, you know, that it did arrive to our desks in this posture where it looks like, you know, our own rules were not followed as we might expect. And but what I would what I wanted to say was that I wanted to appreciate and compliment applicants on your demeanor tonight and patience with this process because we often get people come in here somehow think we're going to be more persuaded when they yell at us. And you know it is rare then when people understand that you know there are processes and they can go sideways for a variety of reasons and I just wanted to notice and appreciate your demeanor and respect toward us. It is appreciated. But with that I do support the staff recommendation and I can defer back to you Council Member... Okay. So I will move the staff recommendation if you care to second.
[04:33:13] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: I second.
[04:33:15] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Any other comments? If not let's go to a vote. Madam Clerk.
[04:33:42] City Clerk: Council Member Burt? Yes. Council Member Stone? Yes. Council Member Lu? Yes. Council Member Lythcott-Haims? Yes. Council Member Reckdahl? Yes. Mayor Lauing? Yes. Vice Mayor Veenker? Yes. Motion carries unanimously.
[04:33:55] Mayor Ed Lauing: Thank you very much. Thanks to both staff and the applicant for getting this in order. We now proceed to Item number 26, only Item 26, but the last item on the agenda for the preferred alternative. It is a continued item from last week and we'll have a consultant re-presentation and as we discussed last week there's no additional public comment tonight. Staff is on their way downstairs. Okay. I thought maybe they were all on Zoom tonight. Here come our tired heroes who worked all weekend on this.
[04:36:55] Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia: Good evening honorable Mayor members of the Council, Ripon Bhatia Senior Engineer with Office of Transportation. So tonight...
[04:37:04] Mayor Ed Lauing: Just before you start we have to have a recusal again. Okay.
[04:37:06] Council Member Keith Reckdahl: Yes. My house is still 500 feet away from the intersection. It hasn't moved. So I will recuse myself from this item. Thank you.
[04:37:20] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay thanks. Yes we are we are back on time on the schedule. So you can go on for hours if you need to I guess. Who's starting is it Ripon?
[04:37:50] Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia: All right. Sorry for the delay. Good evening honorable Mayor members of the Council, Ripon Bhatia Senior Engineer with Office of Transportation. So tonight we are continuing this item from December 10th about grade separation at Churchill, Meadow and Charleston. And tonight with me supporting in this presentation is Ria, our Chief Transportation Official and team Caltrain team, Jill Gibson to my right and Edgar Torres and also online Whitney DiGiantomaso and Navi Dhaliwal in the audience as well. Next slide please. So we like to seek Council direction on the alternatives to advance to the 15% and this is a continuation meeting from the December 10th and therefore we were we are going to be responding to some of the questions that came up during the Council meeting and the regarding the traffic studies, traffic analysis. Next slide. So at this time Ria will be, I'm handing it over to Ria.
[04:39:08] Chief Transportation Official Ria Hutabarat Lo: So on the 10th of December, Council Members requested some more data on the traffic analysis as well as expressing a desire for the data to be completely accurate. So I'd like to tackle the second part of that which is kind of appropriate expectations for what traffic models can do. So standardized traffic analysis is done via a 4-step model which simulates various types of trips like home-based work trips. And in the model it has four steps, the first step is trip generation which estimates the number of trips based on forecasts of trip producers like homes and trip attractors like jobs based on the average rate of trips generated for each transportation analysis zone. The second step calculates the trip distribution to and from each zone based on those quantities and then the distance time or impedance between each of those zones. The third step is mode choice where trips are allocated to motorized modes based on the average mode split, relative travel time by mode and features like express lanes and paid parking. And then the fourth step assigns all of these trips to the street network using some software like Synchro and SimTraffic. And so the results are then represented on a scale from A to F for automobile level of service. One public commenter last week compared these grades to school grades which we would not recommend that you kind of absorb the data in that way. The community may have other goals for their city. So a street that performs well gets a level of service A for automobiles may not perform well for user safety which was one of the key goals of this project or economic vitality. So traffic is just one element that needs to be considered. Also the cost of providing enough capacity to achieve a level of service A or B is often not a good use of public resources or an efficient use of public resources. So it's not like A is always better than C. Often C is, you know, better in other ways. So the four-step model is a standard process in the US and it's helpful for simulating traffic delay. But at best it's a forecast. And like a weather forecast, it's not a deterministic exercise. It's a forecast based on inputs and the inputs are all best guessed approximations. So we can only be so accurate with this. Also the assumptions typically reflect some version of business as usual or an expansion of business as usual. So if there are policy choices being considered then that, you know, is not well reflected in in our typical traffic models. A more critical perspective is that the standard models have known flaws. When the US was building out its highways, the discipline of transportation engineering and transportation planning emerged, we borrowed wastewater engineers to help us with thinking this through. Wastewater engineers had been very successful in solving a prior public health crisis by building out a network of sewers to, you know, transport waste away from houses. And so this mental model of traffic units as water molecules is embedded in our system in our models. And you can see that in the language of flow, capacity, volumes, and also the mechanics of the models, the gravity flow, the network analysis. The model is really helpful, but it's incomplete. Vehicles are not inanimate units that naturally flow through a network. They're tools that are controlled by people. And people driving the vehicles make choices, they respond to their environment, and their environment is shaped by decision makers, by agencies, by cities. So some researchers have suggested that maybe perhaps a more appropriate mental model could be traffic as a gas that expands to fill the space that it's given rather than a liquid that flows through a network. And this has been borne out over three decades of research on induced travel demand. I was actually involved in some of the research that happened in Berkeley with Robert Cervero. So induced travel demand is the causal relationship between transportation capacity expansion and an increase in traffic volume after controlling for population growth and other factors. So the economic explanation for this phenomenon is can be kind of thought of in terms of supply and demand curves. So goods in the market have an equilibrium point where supply meets demand. And so for example here if the travel time is shorter then you tend to have more flow, that's kind of like a cost of a good. And then also as you get more flow however, like on a freeway for example, the travel time goes up. So that's our supply and demand curves. And there's a point at which the market has like an equilibrium point. So in terms of, so this kind of is a way of thinking through this. When we expand the capacity of a facility, we get some travel time benefits. That's effectively lowering the cost for users, which increases the consumer demand. And then the market kind of finds a new equilibrium based on that kind of demand curve. And that's with some short-term changes like changing your travel time and and changing mode. Over the long term people may also invest differently. They may decide to move further away from where they work. And so there's also induced investment here as well. And so you end up with kind of a similar in a similar situation to where you started and the roads fill up faster than they would have otherwise as a result of the capacity expansion. So we have very sophisticated models for analyzing traffic that are useful for simulating conditions under assumed and forecasted conditions, but we need appropriate expectations for their accuracy and their utility. And over-reliance on our standard models is associated with a predict and provide kind of approach where we're trying to build our way out of traffic congestion by widening roads and expanding capacity. So standard models that are based on the mental model of traffic as a water provide decent forecasts but don't do a good job of capturing induced demand or forecasting conditions where there's a change in behavior or policy. And it's important to remember that there are a number of human choices and policy decisions that affect the volume of traffic including the density of land uses, diversity of land uses, the design of a like urban design, the transit that allows us to access destinations throughout the region and demand management strategies. And with that extensive caveat, Project Manager Torres will present the requested traffic analysis results.
[04:48:27] Edgar Torres: Good evening City Council, Edgar Torres on behalf of the integrated project delivery team. A few items that I'll be presenting in response to your questions from last Wednesday. Please be aware that there are some updated numbers that will be reflected in in the slides in tonight's presentation and that can be provided to you as well. So there's a slide update from the deck from this morning. First, there were questions with regards to the overall network delay and what that means in terms of the total time cars are stopped or at least how much time all users, all cars, are stopped within the network. And you'll see on the right hand side the network that was evaluated as part of the traffic analysis. So item number 2 or circle number 2 is the intersection of Meadow and Alma Street with the rail crossing. Intersection number 3 is Charleston Road and then finally some of the upstream and downstream intersections from those two points to be able to understand again how those two crossings influence the network at writ large. The other pieces of information that are within your packet and we will be with regards to response to your questions last Wednesday is the approach delay, in other words when you're coming up to the intersection, the anticipated delay for that, how that affects travel time for the users and finally how much queue, in other words how many cars are stacked up from the intersection. So that information is also in your packet. One key big picture item that I want to be able to at least frame for for this for this body is that there is a trade-off. You will see in the numbers that the underpasses do have a substantive reduction in delay as a network. That comes at a trade-off with the ability to make certain movements. And so there are going to be some users that benefit very well and some users that do not. And that is an intrinsic nature with these types of alternatives. The second is that the work is not necessarily done but there's with regards to each of these alternatives there's still refinement that can occur. And so it is a work in progress in terms of the iteration and that's okay. This is the information that we have at hand is solid information that that can be used for decision given the state of the project that we're at, the status of the project. So with that I wanted to give some brief information with regards to travel times. This is again Council Member Stone your question last Wednesday. Regarding the out of direction travel times I want to give some quick context that the travel times for vehicles was calculated using a common point A and point B, travel points. Essentially an adjacent intersection. We're not analyzing everyone's travel path just a common travel path through the intersection. And then the average or typical delay experienced at that signalized intersection along that path. For cyclists, we calculated that time considers the distance of the path as well as the travel speed by that mode. So cyclists are typically cycling somewhere between say 8 miles per hour and 15 miles per hour and so we take that into consideration in terms of the travel time for cyclists. Now if you bear with me I'm going to skip to a few slides. I'm going to go directly to the comparison for Charleston. So my apologies for scrolling through those. In this comparison table, back to your question Council Member Stone with regards to out of direction movements and the comparison of travel time. And so on the screen you'll see AM and PM peak hours, so and then there's three movements that were evaluated. The Eastbound to Northbound, so you're going Eastbound on Charleston Road and making a left onto Northbound Alma. The second movement is the Northbound Alma to Westbound Charleston. Okay so going North along Alma and then making a left onto Charleston. The third is Southbound on Alma making a right turn onto Westbound Charleston. So if you visualize yourself along Alma you're driving south you're about to make a right turn to cross the tracks or where the tracks would have been when the separation occurs. All right. So in these movements for Charleston Road there are two key things to to acknowledge. One is that in the Eastbound to Northbound, so this is the going from Charleston to Northbound Alma, there is an increase in travel times in all three of the alternatives. Now for different reasons. First for the hybrid, the reason there's a slight increase in travel time is that when the separation occurs, there is likely a retiming of the signals. You re essentially look for opportunities to re-optimize the signal operations. Well in this case because the demand is so high on Alma Street, specifically Northbound in the morning and Southbound in the afternoon, that leads to essentially a little bit more delay occurring on the cross street because you're looking to serve the higher demand along Alma Street. So that's the at least that modest increase on the hybrid. There is a more substantive increase for the underpasses for both the roundabout and the direct access ramp due to the out of direction travel at least in the Eastbound to Northbound. Now I'm going to show the Northbound to Westbound next. In this case you can see the distinction, while hybrid is less time, substantively less than the existing, you see the underpass with the roundabout at least for that Northbound to Westbound movement has an increase in travel time going through the roundabout. So Northbound on Alma making a right turn going around the roundabout coming down underneath Charleston to the common point of Wilkie Way. In the underpass direct access ramp you see that that travel time is substantively reduced to 65 seconds. In this case it's because that direct access ramp bypasses the out of direction travel, goes directly to an intersection down below with Charleston and then an easy left turn to be able to go to Westbound Charleston. So I wanted to be able to at least frame for you how the roundabout at least for those movements show an increase in travel time. Now overall it is a reduction and I'll show what the network benefit is but for those particular out of direction movements it's a it's an increase in travel time for them.
[05:12:13] Council Member Pat Burt: Just a definition, does travel time including stop time?
[05:12:19] Edgar Torres: Yes. Yes it is.
[05:12:21] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Just to help Council Member Stone if he wants any other of the layers to help him understand?
[05:12:27] Council Member Greer Stone: So I thought I saw on um on this one of the slides you showed regarding the the travel time a No Build... Oh sorry that slide that's up. Does that I guess I'm that means if we do if we do nothing in 2040?
[05:12:48] Edgar Torres: Correct.
[05:12:50] Council Member Greer Stone: And we're better... I guess I'm just surprised in certain scenarios it gets it's better to not build? Like Eastbound to Northbound 2040? The no build option is better than...
[05:13:10] Edgar Torres: Yeah so that would only be for those particular movements which is why um we do show the context of the overall network benefit. So when you look at the overall network benefit you can see that the all the alternatives have an improvement in the overall network benefit. It's so what you're what we saw what we showed you was the out of direction movements so it's it's in many ways just picking out only piece small pieces of data. This aggregates it and summarizes it as a whole for the network. So instead of 12 movements being presented in that slide it's 3 the out of direction movements that was the follow up to the question. Okay.
[05:14:14] Council Member Greer Stone: Yeah. No this is really helpful I appreciate you putting this together in such a short amount of time.
[05:14:19] Council Member Pat Burt: Thank you. I first I just want to make sure I'm understanding for instance on slide 27 where we're using the term Southbound and Northbound. Which direction is being referred to because our overall concept of that is different from the true north and south.
[05:14:38] Edgar Torres: Yes so in this case it is Southbound is essentially along Alma and Northbound along Alma and then the cross streets are East West.
[05:14:48] Chief Transportation Official Ria Hutabarat Lo: So maybe I could suggest something. So I think that the Northbound portion is would be equivalent in each of the options. So it is kind of the same thing. But it just has that Northbound portion for this. It's the same subtraction from each of them.
[05:15:00] Council Member Pat Burt: But that says Southbound to Northbound. Um so I'm I'm still confused. What is meant by Southbound to Northbound and how that equates um Westbound? That's really what we're doing in the morning and Eastbound in the afternoon. Those are the primary bike flows.
Segment 8
[05:15:00] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Right. That's a 12.8 second delta. So, um, we're a little faster, but it's not so great, especially when you look at the underpass going from 62.6 to 12.5 and the delta is 50.1 seconds. So that's a four times increase. We're not talking 10%, 50%, twice as much, it's like a four times increase in time saved, so in what progress we make.
Segment 7
[05:15:15] Edgar Torres: So in those trips... if it's referring to Southbound for the cyclist it's common point is Park Boulevard going south... and then trying to get to the East side of the tracks... There is an access point that's... if it could be a road cyclist or it could be a pedestrian.
Segment 8
[05:15:29] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So then I took a look at the Charleston intersection, and again, I'm obviously looking at 2040 data. And I started with the 106.4 second delay in 2025. And for the hybrid, we only get that down a little bit, only five seconds off. For the underpass for the roundabout, we get all the way down to 14.6 for a 91.8 second gain or reduction in wait. And for the ramp, depending on which one of those two, it's either 91.2 or 98.7, but all of those, you know, we're comparing a five second gain to somewhere in the 90s. So it's like almost like 18 times uh improved an improvement.
[05:16:43] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So that was pretty striking to me. And so then I began to think, well, if we did the hybrid even at at both intersections... So then now I'm adding up my 12.8 improvement for the hybrid at Meadow and the five second improvement for the hybrid at Charleston. And I say it's 18 seconds more. So if we did both hybrids, it'd be 18 seconds more. And I know it doesn't work exactly like that because of your network chart you taught us about tonight. Um, but I had what I had, so that's that's kind of where I'm starting. Orders of magnitude.
[05:17:33] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Um, so then I thought, okay. So I made another chart. So now I've got all my little deltas. So I've got for the both hybrids, 18 seconds, for the underpass at Meadow, 50 seconds, and the other underpasses in the 90s. Right. And then I thought, okay, so why, well, well I thought why are we looking at doing two underpasses if any one underpass can do multiples of what the what both hybrids do? So, or at least why are we looking at doing them right at one at once? Like why don't we see what kind of gain we can get with one underpass and because it looks like it's going to be substantially more than the hybrid and then figure out if we need another under just pause perhaps.
[05:18:45] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: But that would of course cause us to choose between the two underpasses. So then I looked at acquisitions. And, you know, for the hybrid as we know, there's no full acquisitions and uh three partials, if we were to do both. Um, but if we did just Meadow, there'd be two full and six partials or just Charleston, either three or one full and 25 or 23 partials. So I can't figure this all out tonight, but it seems to me we should consider, I'd like to hear from my colleagues, we should consider whether the conversation ought to be should we go to one underpass, um, which is kind of where Council Member Burt was ending up a moment ago. Um, and you know, talk about, you know, because because it wouldn't we wouldn't have to do all the acquisitions at both intersections. So, you know, there'd be less acquisitions than if we did both, and it would be a lot more of a gain than if we did both hybrids.
[05:20:28] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So assuming I'm not way off, which you may be about to tell me I am, um, I I guess it's something that I would like to see us have a conversation about. So are there things I've really messed up big time? I understand your network let me say, I I bet one thing you're about to tell me is that the numbers will change a bit if you're just doing one intersection, right? And so they won't be as big perhaps of a gain or they'll change in some way, but there's such a delta. So anyway, I'll stop talking and let you reflect on that.
[05:21:18] Edgar Torres: In this case I I will go back to Director Lo's uh slide on the recalibration or the new equilibrium. So, gonna go back to that. Because this is this is what we would be looking at if if there was only one uh underpass. So what would likely see as as uh Director Lo uh mentioned is that one location will see a substantial decrease in travel time in a particular movement, not all movements, but in a you know, in a particular movement, right? Or or set of movements. And so that will attract and I that I can say with certainty that will attract users. It will you'll see a system recalibration across and system rebalancing to a new equilibrium.
[05:23:03] Edgar Torres: But that's assuming the same demand profile. There will be a change in the demand profile. And that's where this D3 comes into place. That's where you see a new equilibrium happening. So if only one were to be done, say for the sake of discussion Charleston underpass, you will see a gravitation of traffic towards Charleston. That that's a high likelihood. Now what does that mean for Meadow? We we'd have to analyze that further. However, that's that's a likelihood is you'll see a recalibration of traffic.
[05:23:44] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, I'm actually counting on that, right? Because we don't want to live with to with the projected delays if we do nothing at either intersection. So I'm counting on a shift. The question is if even if the numbers aren't as good at at at at both, if they're way better still for the under for the underpass than the the do nothing one, then if we did hybrids at both. It's worth a conversation there. And it seems like given the sheer order of magnitude that would be likely, but I think you'd probably want to go back and think about that and give us some better data if there was interest in exploring that option. Is that fair? Or do you think we have enough here?
[05:24:44] Edgar Torres: I think that would be fair in terms of how to deliver the alternatives. In other words, once you've chosen to be able to advance 15% drawings, in fact that analysis could occur concurrently with with the drawings. Um, I think if if that information would be if the council felt that it need needed was needed prior to making the decision on advancing to the 15% drawing, that would mean a change in the schedule. Um, and that would uh mean that we'd come back to the council at at a future meeting before we can proceed with 15% drawings.
[05:25:40] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Well, I guess to decide that it might be helpful if you had an expert opinion on whether it would change, you know, within, you know, 5, 10% of these numbers or there would be a reordering, a reshuffling, which I would be surprised at, but I'm not an expert.
[05:26:03] Edgar Torres: Well, I I I I'm not the traffic engineer that would be making uh a statement like that with um but I what I can say is that there there would be a rebalancing for sure. What I can also say is that that rebalancing may not be small. Because if you look at for the sake of discussion, the the delay at Meadow... Uh, I don't have... Actually I'm going to go back to you slide. What was it? Slide 61? All right.
[05:28:09] Edgar Torres: So, what you can see is at least for for Meadow, the that delay at least in the PM peak is about 62 seconds. If because the delay in um Alma Street would be substantially lower, say for the sake of discussion the 14 seconds that you pointed out or the 15.2 seconds, there there will be a shift towards that. And it's not necessarily going to be small. We I can't say exactly how much yet. Um, we would want to confer with the traffic engineers.
[05:29:09] Edgar Torres: I I think with regards to uh and I with regards to the direction seeked, which is whether to proceed with the 15% drawings with either alternative, um, I don't think it's going to substantively change the numbers. But I can say that I can't guarantee how much or or state how much it is now. I do think that it is worth um further analysis as it relates to implementation. So as to whether it's one crossing or two crossings, uh that can be done as part of subsequent work as the 15% drawings are completed.
[05:30:08] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Sure. One very last question and that is about the assumptions that went into the charts we got last time, the one the one you have up there. Was that what was so here we're looking at Charleston. What was the assumption about what was happening at Meadow?
[05:30:27] Edgar Torres: That the comparable improvement was occurring. So if it's a hybrid at Charleston, a hybrid at Meadow was being explored. If it was an underpass at Charleston, an underpass at Meadow was being explored.
[05:30:39] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: And that's why if it were a 2x improvement, I might not be asking this question. But when you get up to 18x, it feels like even if we got rid anyway. I think you all get my point. But thank you so much. Appreciate it.
[05:30:53] Mayor Ed Lauing: Yeah, I was going to ask you an easy question and then a hard question. I think, maybe they're both hard for me, but uh uh but the first one is that philosophically I just want to sort of press you on with intersections that are that close. I thought you were driving towards doing the same thing whatever it was at both Charleston and Meadow. So philosophically are is that where you are or not not necessarily.
[05:31:20] Edgar Torres: Oh, well, I I I don't have an opinion as to whether it should be one or the other. I I can state that technically, from a technical perspective, we did explore the possibility of one being an underpass and the other being a hybrid. We wanted to see if that was possible physically and from a constructability perspective. We can say that yes, that is something that can be explored as an option for implementation. One being underpass and the other one being hybrid.
[05:31:52] Edgar Torres: Now, in terms of construction, um, when the two being underpasses is more challenging at times because one crossing has to be open. So effectively, one underpass would have to be built, opened, and then the other underpass would then be built and then opened. That's to be able to make sure that there was a community connection uh in this area or as part of this community. With the hybrids, there's a some complexity there as well. One would have to be open at all times. Um, and then there it's a shoofly complexity because the shoofly would have to span both locations even though one is closed and one is open.
[05:32:52] Edgar Torres: So that's that's the the tradeoff there. Um, so from a technical perspective, you can build one Charleston uh sorry, one uh as a underpass one as a hybrid. The most complex to do a sequence, in other words, years apart, would be a hybrid at one and then the hybrid at the other. Because that's moving the track vertically twice. That is the the more challenging one. Is it it it it's uh not only more more challenging, it it becomes more expensive. Um, if they're both hybrid but say implemented for the sake of discussion 15 years apart due to funding. Uh so I'd at least wanted to be able to provide that context, those facts.
[05:34:02] Mayor Ed Lauing: No, I was I was going to say if we if we what you just said, if we did the underpass first and then did the the hybrid, that could be an advantage to us because of funding and and doing it consecutively. So that could be an advantage. Okay, now I'm going to go to the hard question which actually was asked last week. Which is uh, what do you think about going forward with both of these options to 15%? You were going to give that some consideration relative to schedule particularly, bracketing cost for a minute because we feel I think we feel pretty committed to try to stay on this schedule and you were going to see what you could squeeze out.
[05:34:39] Edgar Torres: So, in this case, the schedule we would anticipate there being some delay. Um, we were hoping for mid-year uh to be able to come back with 15 drawings with one alternative at each location. If we need to do another uh pair of alternatives, um, and it's not just the alternatives themselves, as I just mentioned, there's the combination of one being underpass and the other being hybrid. So when we when we're looking to get market pricing uh for these, um, we're not looking at just two alternatives per location. We're talking from a corridor perspective or a segment perspective, um, more many more variations. So that's that's the challenging part. I will just just uh lay it out there um from facts.
[05:35:52] Mayor Ed Lauing: And and would the delay, I I know you don't know, is it like a 90 day delay or a year delay or?
[05:35:58] Edgar Torres: We're um, I would say it's likely closer to three to six months. I not I don't want to be precise only because we we're just we're work planning as we speak.
[05:36:05] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. And and the staff, where does that put us on our grants?
[05:36:14] Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia: Uh, so our FRA grant requires us to be completed by um October of 2027. We need to ask for the extension, which we could likely get it, but we have to go through amendment and extensions. It's the next grant that we have the timeline for that is constrained.
[05:36:37] Mayor Ed Lauing: Well, it's just obviously, which is why we brought up last week, we just get so much more information if we can push both both of these options just a little bit farther. So. And you know, a related question there is uh that I had anyway, but is do we think that by spending a little bit more time on the on both of them that we could also engineer some reductions in any of the partial takings? I mean you you might come up with that in either case, right? Because we we ranked that so high just in the criteria in the rail committee.
[05:37:15] Edgar Torres: The the tradeoff with regards to partial takings... um... can... Sorry, put sorry, correction. Prop potential property acquisition. My apologies. Um, that will depend on two things. One is whether the um the geometry of the lanes themselves are further adjusted. That's not something we would typically do at 15%. Um, and whether additional um use of Caltrain right of way would be permitted.
[05:37:52] Edgar Torres: Now, please, one of the things that I I'm mindful of in terms of the implementation of a project of this sort is that we the purpose of the 15% drawings are to be able to establish a stable project description and project footprint for the environmental process. It is not intended to be the final decision on design or the final decision on components of the design. It's intended to typically to be conservative, thoughtful, reasonable, and the reasonably expected uh improvements. It is and mind you, it's not going to be the final set. Uh I for these types of projects there are many changes between now and uh um drawings for construction. And so this is about being able to establish a footprint for the environmental process.
[05:39:04] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. And if we did that, then you could go back and study another alternative? I mean, assuming there was money for it.
[05:39:13] Edgar Torres: Uh, it depends on the alternative. In some cases, the alternative may be a small variation or a a a variation on an already considered alternative. So for example, between the roundabout and the direct access ramp. That would be considered an option or variation from an environmental perspective. Um, however, um hybrid and say or if you looked at a completely different alternative, uh that would be a different a different proposition.
[05:39:40] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Council Member Stone.
[05:39:44] Council Member Greer Stone: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I I just want to second what the what the Vice Mayor was was advocating for. I mean, I've been trying to do my own kind of real time math on the information presented and trying to better understand the delta between hybrid and the and underpass at the at the two crossings. Uh, you know, I mean overall I find the overall network delay on slide 10 very helpful, but that is that's treating the Meadow and Charleston kind of crossings as as the same and doesn't allow, at least not showing us what happens if we do break it up with the hybrid at one, the underpass at the at the other.
[05:40:51] Council Member Greer Stone: So then the only other data I really have is slide 17 and 19 as far as vehicle travel times, but that's only showing us two different movements and there is other movements. What is the the reason for these movements as opposed to being able to see others? Because it looks like Meadow, based on this information, the hybrid is definitely the better way to to go. And then for Charleston, the underpass with the direct access ramp is the better way to go. But then I also understand if we were to pick and choose and do a hybrid and underpass, that's going to change the the traffic studies as as well.
[05:41:52] Council Member Greer Stone: So this is where I'm kind of stuck and where I I I like where the Vice Mayor was going about can we can we craft this in a way that just makes the most sense but really kind of keeping our eye on the on the ultimate prize, which is the traffic reduction, but I'm I'm still struggling to be able to kind of make a decision.
[05:42:14] Edgar Torres: Yeah. So in this case that that would be other slides that could provide additional context. Um, so that would be you know, in terms of you know, the the approach delays or the um average queues. Oh, I apologize. Let me share my screen really quick. And again, these are snapshots. They're um in from a practical perspective, a grade separation is such a substantive change in the transportation network that it's going to lead even, you know, to the recalibration of these queues and these travel times. And there will be some winners in terms of movements and some losers so to speak, right? Some people will will see a substantive improvement and some will see, you know, a potentially increase in in travel time.
[05:43:57] Edgar Torres: Um, as a whole, you saw how all three of them did provide a network benefit. For the hybrid, it was half the amount of delay. For the underpass, it was further further reduced to approximately a quarter of the delay if not less. And so if we're looking at, for example, uh as seen on the screen, just how Meadow's queues are performing um for certain movements, you can see that there is an improvement across the board um in the queues. If you look at in the same thing with regards to um, you know, the approach delays. There are some that are increased because of the recalibration of of signal timing with the removal of the the rail crossing.
[05:45:08] Edgar Torres: I think with um the the question then is whether this information is is necessary to be able to um proceed with 15% drawings, in which case that would mean additional traffic analyses and delay in in the 15% drawings for a potential alternative. Or both alternatives are advanced to 15% drawings concurrently while a traffic analysis is performed to maintain schedule. That would there there would be a cost adjustment or a budget adjustment uh necessary for that between preliminary engineering and these 15% drawings.
[05:46:09] Council Member Greer Stone: I mean I think that's making the most sense to to me at this at this point. Um, I would like to see and I would I would like yeah, I would like to see what's the sort of what's the the tradeoff by if we were to select under underpass and and that hybrid model. Um, I I think there's definitely direction that I'd be comfortable with. I don't see I really don't see much of a benefit to the to the roundabout on saving time. I mean I I think being able to now have this a better understanding what it does to the entire system, is how you're yeah how you're phrasing it, was really helpful and that made it much easier for me to to prefer the the direct access ramp rather than the the roundabout, especially with the mitigation in in full acquisitions is a is a is a big plus. Um, and it seems like but again it's kind of challenging to to digest all of this this evening as far as then Meadow.
[05:48:01] Council Member Greer Stone: So what am I looking at here? The the number is is seconds?
[05:48:06] Edgar Torres: Yeah. That's correct. That is the amount of delay by approach at the intersection.
[05:48:12] Council Member Greer Stone: Oh, okay, but so this is not so this is the intersection itself but now but not the fuller network.
[05:48:19] Edgar Torres: Correct. Yes. It's specific to the Alma Street and Meadow Drive intersection.
[05:48:24] Council Member Greer Stone: Yes. Okay. Which for me I just don't find this as helpful as the vehicle travel time for the for the network. Um, okay, yeah, those are my thoughts. Then on Churchill, which we haven't even touched, I mean I'm definitely in favor of advancing 15% the the partial underpass there. That's my making sure I didn't miss anything. That's good for for now.
[05:49:23] Council Member Pat Burt: Yeah, um, so this is really helped uh informed our next part of our discussion which is what are what's before us tonight. And it's it's not determining necessarily or probably which alternative we'd go forward with. It's which ones we want to advance to 15% and what additional information will we get by advancing it to 15% that we don't have now. Um, and so for me, um, first we have a question at Churchill. If we're going to uh likely mothball Churchill uh because we're far from having the funding to do Charleston, Meadow and Churchill. And it's really I can tell you there's envisioning where that might come from is difficult to come up with at this point in time.
[05:51:04] Council Member Pat Burt: Then why would we go forward? And for me a lot of it is to see if we if we're going to mothball it, do we mothball something with still some moderate but greatly reduced property impacts um uh or do we uh try to have that design refined even more and further reduce those impacts on paper before we mothball it so all those residents don't have uh as much hanging over their heads. And that that's the main reason I'd go forward.
[05:51:44] Council Member Pat Burt: On Charleston and Meadow, it's really a different well, it's a set of of reasons we might. One is we really don't at this point in time know the costs. The the initial costs projections were uh at a different time, um very different costs. And uh we've talked about with the hybrid, would we have a hybrid that's all earthen which was the basis for the original cost project projection or uh a podium hybrid or some combination of earthen and podium and that affects the costs. It increases the cost of hybrid, but it may be if we were to choose the hybrid, it would be uh more favorable in some ways.
[05:52:37] Council Member Pat Burt: Um, as we've talked about tonight, uh if our objective our objectives were historically threefold: How do we deal with future congestion? How do we increase track safety? And how do we deal with the environmental impacts which are now primarily noise, horn noise, which we're going to have quiet zones on. So that one's pretty the third one's solved. It's no longer really a factor for us. So that leaves the other two. We have the at-grade safety improvements which will have some significant increased safety but not as much as uh a full grade separation. And we don't know exactly how much.
[05:53:37] Council Member Pat Burt: Um, and then we have the property impacts which uh as Edgar noted, uh we have some possibilities to reduce the property impacts uh particularly of the underpass uh with negotiation with Caltrain and other design uh possibilities. And one thing uh one other design improvement that we may see is whether the bike flow can be improved at all. Uh but it was interesting that when we look at travel time on biking, um the the notion that going directly with a signal at Alma is not necessarily faster than an indirect route with no signal. Um, we also have concerns over safety on that bike movements. So those are things that still would be flushed out more with um with the 15%.
[05:54:43] Council Member Pat Burt: And so a a question for us is do we want to move forward with all these at 15% or are there certain ones we want to peel off and say um uh we really think we've gone far enough like we did at uh at uh the bike and ped underpass at Seale. Um, although we haven't actually acted on that. We tentatively had discussions in that direction. Um, and um so that's I I just want to make sure that we're thinking about that, not trying to leap beyond what we're doing tonight and figure out what that decision would be at 15% but which ones really need 15% for us to make our best decisions. Because it has a a time and a cost consequence. And as Edgar pointed out, if we uh are only looking at one location, then that's some other complications too.
[05:55:52] Council Member Pat Burt: Um, and I do want to note on that cost standpoint, um with the way that the costs have escalated so much on all these up and down the peninsula, um the funding that we have from Measure B is around $400 million. And maybe Ripon you might be able to inform us a little bit on the state and federal funding that covers this grant that we've said it by proceeding this we're we make ourselves more likely to get follow-on funding uh from those entities. Do we have any sense of the dollars that we might be able to uh obtain through those grants on on Meadow and Charleston that would inform us whether we are really looking at Meadow and Charleston or Meadow or Charleston?
[05:57:15] Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia: So Council Member, we don't have any um prediction on how future grants will come on. However, we note that we are we are informed that if a federal projects grants are awarded in earlier processes, that there is a greater chance of receiving those grants in future for construction. So we do have federal grant for our 35% preliminary engineering and environmental. That gives us a little bit more confidence that there will be that our projects will be ranked higher when construction is grants are sought for.
[05:57:53] Council Member Pat Burt: That's what I understood. I was hoping you had even more than that that uh but we so we don't know to what degree uh we would be able to obtain additional state and federal funding. We we stand a a better chance than if we didn't haven't qualified for this stage of grant, uh but we just don't know what the ramifications of that are.
[05:58:18] Council Member George Lu: Thank you. Uh, maybe just a couple questions about money first to start. Um, so for a current set of grants to uh consider uh different options at 15%, what would it look like if we did not move forward with Churchill say today and uh we decided to mothball it uh uh uh just using that term. Um, would we be leaving grant funding on the table or would there be some sort of positive association whereby sort of removing that, we can do Meadow and Charleston 15%, a little bit more than 15%, a little bit faster than we would otherwise if we had kept Churchill on the table?
[05:59:26] Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia: Uh, Council Member, uh we already have a commitment to perform 35% preliminary engineering and environmental analysis for all three crossings in federal agreement. By not doing it, we are not meeting those expectations and we they will withhold the funding and we will not be considered a good candidate for future projects.
[05:59:50] Council Member George Lu: Okay. That makes it easy for me to understand how to move forward on Churchill. Um, I just want to double check how much movement we can actually get on cost for Charleston Meadow at this 15% phase. And just in terms of relative understanding, like is there any scenario where the underpass will not be hundreds of millions of dollars more expensive than the hybrid?
Segment 9
[06:00:00] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: grade separation. You're saying that's not allowed as an option.
[06:00:04] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: That does not solve the issue. If the property remains a part of the project in any way, it is our understanding that federal funding could be jeopardized by an early action that is not approved by the federal government under their procedures.
[06:00:16] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Okay. Thank you. That's it for me.
Segment 8
[06:00:20] Edgar Torres: I can't say that with certainty. That it all depends on how the the projects are sequenced. In the purpose of the 15% drawings along with having a stable project footprint and project description is to be able to provide that um contractor based or market priced market pricing for those alternatives.
Segment 9
[06:00:20] Mayor Ed Lauing: Vice Mayor Veenker?
[06:00:22] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, thank you. Um, I first want to just quickly, uh, Council Member Lythcott-Haims, I actually had thought about the, um, the means restriction that grade separation provides. Um, and what I was hoping, um, and it's sort of outside the scope of tonight's conversation more deeply, but was with what would have been a much larger amount of money spent at that intersection, we could do other types of means restrictions at that crossing. Um, I know there's a lot of new intrusion technology, intrusion detection technology and others, but I'm wondering if there's even more physical barriers or things or tunnels or we could still do like a bike ped or I don't know. I think there might be things that we could do there other than this full grade sep, but I do think that's a worthwhile discussion, um, and something to keep in mind as we move forward.
Segment 8
[06:00:39] Council Member George Lu: Okay. I've heard uh some from the public that uh with advances in construction technology, prefabricated uh tunnel structures basically, that the underpass option could even be less expensive than the hybrid option. Is that plausible just given looking what were you know the price discrepancies we have in our early estimates?
[06:01:06] Edgar Torres: It it can be a possibility. I can't state with confidence that it will be or that it's a high likelihood. Uh one thing to note that even with precast elements which is going to be explored for any alternative being advanced, um because the more uh modular and sequential the work can be and the easier it is for the contractor to be able to build it. Uh so in this case it would be um the drawings would need to be developed in order to be able to provide that for the estimator.
Segment 9
[06:01:18] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So, I, yeah, I had also been, um, sort of leaning toward the hybrid when I first came back to this. Um, so previously I've been a hybrid fan, but that's also because I thought it could be more of a podium. Um, I don't love this berm thing. Um, and so I'm leaning away from hybrid now, but if we were to go forward with that, I would really want to see that analyzed. And I don't know if you can analyze both with the, I mean, if hybrid were chosen, can you look at both berm and podium or would we have to even pick between those at this point?
Segment 8
[06:01:39] Council Member George Lu: Okay. So uh overall takeaway is that there's nothing definitive we could say even about the relative costs of these projects, which of course would be a huge issue for me just wanting to get these uh uh get these done um for traffic improvements and for rail safety improvements. Like there's no statement we can say right now about whether one will be hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper most likely and therefore whether it will be more constructible in the end.
Segment 9
[06:01:57] Edgar Torres: To clarify, are you referring to a podium to essentially an elevated guideway that's on a, for lack of a better description, a bridge structure from Charleston to Meadow?
[06:02:09] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah.
[06:02:11] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So basically a lower viaduct.
[06:02:13] Edgar Torres: Yeah. Yeah, that is a separate alternative. Um, we can look at what that design option would be.
Segment 8
[06:02:14] Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia: Council Member, we do have previous estimates but that can reflect some kind of you know information on previous you know calculations on the cost, but moving forward we don't have any look better understanding of how that would or better you know constructability reviews and and the cost keeps going up for all scenarios in different so.
Segment 9
[06:02:23] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: I'm smiling because that was not my impression when this left council last time at all. In fact, we specifically talked about it, but I, okay. So that's frustrating. So then I totally lean away from hybrid if it's just the berm because that was part of what attracted me last time to support it advancing to this point.
Segment 8
[06:02:41] Council Member George Lu: Well I'm trying to feel that out. Like the uh hybrid is hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper in our current estimates but it sounds like we don't necessarily believe that that would hold um or that we don't have any particularly strong opinion about the uh cost at the end of the day for either scenario. But maybe I'm overreading uh of course your reasonable desire not to make promises.
Segment 9
[06:02:45] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Um, so, but with the, um, the underpass, um, yes, uh, thank you Council Member Lythcott-Haims, you described my point better than I did, that, um, you know, that if it were good enough, could we get away with one and have cost savings at and just do one of Meadow or Charleston. I don't know which, probably Charleston, but that discussion. Now, I understand from what you said a few moments ago that we have to look at all three intersections apparently somehow under this grant. Is that correct? Is that what I heard?
Segment 8
[06:03:09] Edgar Torres: Yeah, in this case if there were assumptions made previously and the estimates were made um prior to the electrification of the railroad. So that is a layer of complexity that was not explicitly um in in in the estimates or there are now new guidelines and new requirements based on the reality of an active electrified railroad. So my in this case we we would we would request to have the 15 15% drawings in order to be able to provide that um more uh certainty in terms of the the cost if or at least based on that information.
Segment 9
[06:03:37] Edgar Torres: Yes, we'll have to complete preliminary engineering and environmental for all three crossings.
[06:03:44] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Because what I would really, really, really like to help us get the, I think the information we need to go further, like after, so what I would really like out of this next round would be, even if we look at all three intersections, is to somehow know what would the cost, what would the traffic modeling be, what would the implications be if we just did one of those south two intersections. Because y'all have made, you know, such a good case for some of these. I mean, even under the overall network delay, there's still a 3X and 5X difference between the hybrid and the underpass. So if we can get, you know, as much bang for our buck, potentially, you'd have to do that analysis by just doing one of those two intersections with respect to traffic improvement. It saves a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of construction, some people's homes, and I don't know how we can responsibly not look at that. So I'm struggling with how to fit that into this federal grant framework. Um, because I mean, if I could say it and make it so, so we'd look at, um, the hybrid, well, I guess we could look at the hybrid and the underpass at one intersection, uh, although I would strike the roundabout, but that's just me. Um, so I don't know, is there any way that you can look even maybe look at the hybrid at one intersection, the underpass at another, but somehow then also give us if you just did that one thing, what would the traffic impact be as opposed to the traffic from both? I think, I think you know what I'm trying to ask.
Segment 8
[06:03:52] Council Member George Lu: Okay. Um, I have a couple other questions but just based on that information it seems most prudent to me to go for 15% on both hybrid and underpass options because um if one option does end up being decisively uh more constructible and clearly more affordable, um that will just be exponentially more likely to finally happen. Um, but uh I'm about at my time. Maybe if I have time for another round I'll squeeze in some more questions about induced demand and how to think about traffic outside peak periods.
[06:04:38] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, it's funny, it's my end of my third year on Council and I don't know that I have participated in a conversation that feels so weighty um and impacting the next 50 to 100 years of our community's existence. Um, so I just want to commend those of you who are experts in this field and um, Ria, it was amazing to hear you give us the uh caveats on what traffic analyses can do but can't do and the whole gas and liquid um analogy. Uh, we really learned a lot. I certainly did. Um, um, I um I want to say that with all the data that's been given, I think we now have greater complexity uh to grapple with but also greater clarity provided by the numbers and the charts. I really appreciated the Vice Mayor's uh going the extra mile with her own um drawings and trying to figure it out and um coming to the important question, well wait a minute, if we achieve all of these traffic improvements with underpass, we could actually just do one underpass and get way more benefit than two hybrids.
Segment 9
[06:06:05] Edgar Torres: So Council Member, I just want to state that that would be some additional cost and timings for that additional analysis that would be required. And so that additional cost needs to be analyzed and also, uh, scoped and added to the agreement and we have limited costs, um, you know, funding availability for this project at this time. So just want to note that and we'll like to see if there is any way we can do within our existing contracts, but there is a likelihood of some additional need for funding.
Segment 8
[06:06:14] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: And I found that, you know, to be sort of an aha moment. Um, and yet I want to bring us uh to an important reminder which is although this is not the main reason we're doing grade separation, means restriction in a city that experiences suicide at the tracks is a very important consideration. And I think there are many among us who long for a day when it isn't possible for humans to intersect the trains um anywhere in our city. And except at the train stations. And um so I just want to remind us that that's out there still and I worry a little that if we were to reduce to one option at Charleston at only tackle either Charleston or Meadow, um that we would not have gone far enough to um toward that other goal. Um appreciating that Churchill is also potentially being mothballed.
Segment 9
[06:06:42] Edgar Torres: Um, but we do have funding to proceed forward with two alternatives at this time to the 15% if that helps in the cost of the two alternatives, say hybrid and underpass. The only thing we would like to narrow some of those alternatives, um, like so that at least there are not multiple iterations like direct access ramp and or roundabout. So we need to at least narrow down to some of those alternatives.
[06:07:10] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah. So I mean, I would be happy to strike the roundabout that just has always struck me as strange and I think it had, I mean, I'm glad to see an alternative to that, but there are others that may have put more thought into that particular aspect than I, but...
[06:07:25] Mayor Ed Lauing: Can I just clarify what you said? I think what you said is we could do like a hybrid at Charleston and an underpass at Meadow, and that would be 15% for each of those, but then we would learn about that. And if we wanted to end up doing the hybrid in two places when we get to 80% engineering, then we could still do that.
Segment 8
[06:07:29] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Um, so with underpass becoming um in my view increasingly attractive from where I was, I was a hybrid person and now I'm really appreciating the benefits of underpass. And certainly the public comment we've been getting in emails has been like 20 to 1, 30 to 1, 50 to 1, I've lost track of the count but in favor of underpass, at least that's by my crude account. I find my so I'm I'm trying to listen to the community but also the community is really desperate for information on eminent domain. And we did we did bring that up a little bit last week on the fact that perhaps we haven't been as forthcoming with information to help the public become more educated on what eminent domain is, when it starts to kick in, how offers get made, the whole tax basis carryover thing.
Segment 9
[06:07:51] Mayor Ed Lauing: No? I thought that's what I heard. I'm just asking a clarification point. Not interfering with you, Robin.
[06:07:55] Edgar Torres: Yes, we can look at these independently and we can look at to see how they would match up, in other words, in terms of the puzzle pieces. We could also look at the implementation strategy, um, if one is an underpass and the other one is hybrid and the potential sequencing of that. So we can look at that as part of the 15%. And the reason why we would recommend to do so if both options or both alternatives are advanced at either or both locations is that it will have a material impact on the cost estimating process so that we are very clear for the estimator, the likely sequencing of the work, uh, so that they're able to understand then how to price it.
Segment 8
[06:08:28] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Um, and one of the public commenters last week, Nadia Naik, mentioned that she had been in dialogue with the city a year and a half ago, May of 2024, about the importance of sharing this information. She attached some slides from VTA where VTA does a lot of FAQs on here's what it is and here's how it works and um she was in dialogue with city staff about that then and she shared those emails with us. So it it seems like there was a plan in in May of 2024, sorry, to kind of start to put information out that uh we haven't yet done or um perhaps we have done it and some of us aren't aware but I'm asking this now because as we hone in on the potential of underpass uh as one of the the options, uh I I'd like us to know how we're going to narrate to the public about eminent domain um to educate people and hopefully ease concerns. Um give provide people with more information so that they can make a more informed decision for their own lives um as soon as they might want to. Um, so I don't know if that's for City Attorney, thank you.
Segment 9
[06:08:40] Mayor Ed Lauing: Yeah, I get that part. What I was getting clarification on was could we say, okay, we're going to put hybrid at one intersection and we're going to put, um, underpass at another. And we do that study and then we say, from what we've learned, we decided to put underpass in both places. Right. So we're sort of doing a test market of each alternative. I know it's going to be a little bit different based on the intersection because of a lot of things, a lot of variables. So I mean, I don't want to speak for you, but I wouldn't want to throw one away when we're done and say, well, we don't know if it's going to work at the other place, but at least we would get some advance there. Back to the Vice Mayor, sorry.
[06:09:26] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Well, maybe just for purposes of moving this along and in and in trying, uh, to see see where where where we stand. Um, I would suggest, and I don't know if it's premature to make a motion at this point, but, um, that we look at the, um, ramp underpass at Charleston because that gives us the most benefit, I think. Um, and the hybrid at Meadow and we may choose when we get this back to mothball the hybrid because we've, you know, and if there's some way to get an impact study of if we only did, you know, one crossing, only did the underpass crossing at, because I think if we just do one hybrid, it's not enough. Um, that, that's what I would like to see. Um, and maybe before I give up the mic, I'll just say, uh, on the Alma tunnel, can I switch to that for just a quick minute or you want me to stay with this?
Segment 8
[06:09:53] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: I can start and staff may jump in. So we did we did in fact um forward and provide some information to the public from general authoritative sources. Um, and that was presented in the form of a staff report um slide decks that were presented to council. And so it didn't separately get elevated and permanently on our website and that's a step that we can take to provide that information. Um returning to the theme of level setting however, um this type of generally available information um is what the city can provide at this early stage and it won't answer everyone's question, primarily the questions about is my property going to be affected, what will the plans ultimately be. Um, and it will provide general information only and we we won't be able to actually begin a customized process um with property owners at this point. So in terms of easing people's minds, I think it remains a difficult subject um nonetheless um despite providing some general information. But we will do that. Staff have anything else to add?
Segment 9
[06:10:53] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. That's fine. But if it's in the motion, you should include Churchill.
[06:10:57] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah. So, uh, Churchill, yeah. Um, so, uh, I we spoke briefly after, um, Council last time because I had the question about the, uh, east side of the Alma Street ramp. Um, that and exiting on the east side, I was concerned about bicyclists that were coming onto Seale. I didn't want them necessarily crossing there. Do you think, I mean, obviously that would be part of what you would come back with, I suppose. Well, actually probably not. Yeah, so that would be in the next phase. But are there things like, could you do a protected bike lane down that first block of Seale or could you just give us a little more color on how we could address the safety issue of bicyclists coming out of that ramp?
[06:11:47] Chief Transportation Official Ria Hutabarat Lo: So my understanding is that what you're asking for is, or what you're suggesting is a preference for the Alma Street ramp, but addressing the connection to Seale to make sure that it's somehow protected or safe for bicyclists coming out of the ramp and then go out Seale and vice versa.
Segment 8
[06:11:48] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Um, I know that one member of the public has offered to sell their house to the city. Um, and um I think people want clarity on when is that a conversation that can be had.
[06:12:05] City Attorney Molly S. Stump: Thank you. So, um we were able to uh clarify that because this is a federally involved process, even at this point, we will need to follow federal procedures and there are detailed procedures. An early acquisition, even one using solely local funds, is only available if it meets some very narrow exceptions and is approved by the federal government. And the um federal uh government's concern is to protect the NEPA process, um which is the the federal counterpart to CEQA. And not begin to do parts of something before that environmental review process is complete, which it is not at this stage. So we can ask the question of whether those narrow any of those narrow exceptions might apply. Um, but there will be some consultation with the federal government. And ultimately this is not a fully, well it is not a local decision. Which we were sort of surmising last time, well maybe it would be since it would be local funds, but it is not.
Segment 9
[06:12:08] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yes. Exactly.
[06:12:10] Edgar Torres: Correct. And that will be included in our 15% designs.
[06:12:14] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: And we feel pretty confident that we could do that. But I guess what I'm wondering about is like when we look at the drawings now of the ramp, the Seale ramp, part of the concern is it takes away parking on both sides because of the breadth. Well, the Alma thing might take away parking on one side if we send a protected bike lane down because we've got bikes going two ways, for example. I don't know how else one would do that, but so I just don't know if my colleagues want to, if there's more you can say about that that my colleagues should consider at this point.
[06:12:43] Edgar Torres: Yeah, the trade-off of having surface improvements is in some cases easier than doing full utility relocations and construction in between the homes. So there's ways to be able to explore how to provide the safe connections, whether it's a protected lane or other safety features, that can be explored. So at least in principle, the concept itself can be advanced. And then as part of the direction from the Council is to explore how to make the connection safer or provide safe connections between that ramp and the surrounding community.
Segment 8
[06:13:10] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: So the notion that we could acquire a house with city funds and not fold it into the spreadsheet of costs for this project is not a possibility? Because we can acquire property whenever we want for whatever purpose. Are you saying if we acquire it for this purpose, we are hamstrung?
Segment 9
[06:13:16] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Okay. And fine, we can wait for that to come back. I just wanted to point out that whereas it may not have utility or other implications, it could have parking implications, right? And so, um, but it seems like that's something we need to wait on. Is that right? That's okay. Um, so yeah, why don't I go ahead and make a motion just so that we can discuss it. Um, that we advance the underpass, uh, at Charleston, the roundabout version and the hybrid at Meadow and the Alma tunnel at Churchill. Is that cover what you need?
[06:14:02] Chief Transportation Official Ria Hutabarat Lo: Did you say the roundabout version?
[06:14:03] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Oh, so I'm sorry. Thank you. The ramp version. I did say that and I did not mean it. The opposite. Thank you. Thank you.
[06:14:12] Mayor Ed Lauing: That's partial underpass at Churchill, right?
[06:14:15] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: I don't know.
[06:14:18] Mayor Ed Lauing: It's the partial underpass at Churchill which we've already decided on so we just wanted to advance that.
[06:14:24] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, the bike ped part of it. Yes. Sorry. Yes, not as opposed to the whole grade sep thing.
[06:14:31] Mayor Ed Lauing: No, we have to have the grade sep thing because it because we have to authorize 15% engineering stage of that as well.
[06:14:38] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: For that too. Okay. Yes. Okay. So that addition to it then. Yes. Um, there was one other question I had, but now I've forgotten it. Um, okay. Well, we'll go with that.
[06:14:53] Council Member Greer Stone: I'll second the motion.
[06:14:54] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Oh, and and and I don't know how much we have to put this into the motion, but getting the information about if we just did Charleston.
[06:15:06] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Council Member Burt.
[06:15:13] Council Member Pat Burt: I um I will want to see the real wording of the motion. Um, but while we're awaiting that, I just want to offer um one important point that when we were looking at cost comparisons, I think Edgar referenced that what one significant change from when we had the initial cost comparisons was Caltrain coming forward with their new technical and design standards, which greatly impacted the construction methods and construction impacts but haven't yet been folded into the costs. Um, so that's something that will get out of that. Um, and while we further wait, I on the issue of um how we inform the public on property acquisitions and we all have to keep reminding ourselves it's property acquisitions, which are usually not through eminent domain. And eminent domain is a last resort, but we just have to keep reminding ourselves that it's that. We actually have a state law that we haven't talked about, which is SB 698. Uh, Molly, I don't know if you're familiar with that. Um, and what it what it does is uh actually require at some point in time, and I'm not quite clear on it, uh notifications and spells out what notifications have to be provided to affected properties. And we may not be at that point and that law does not um stipulate uh uh the public agency providing all the information on tax advantages. Um, the League of Cities and the county uh state county association and three other uh bodies put together a pamphlet that is actually a good guidance on specifically eminent domain. That's not the totality of what we were looking at. Okay. So, um maybe we can all just take a moment and digest this.
[06:18:12] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: I think that under the first bullet, the first two are kind of put together together. I think you want the Alma Street ramp is with the Churchill and then the um underpass at Charleston or you could just say the direct access ramp. Maybe maybe that's what you're trying to do there. Okay. So instead of the Alma Street ramp, do you call it, is it the direct access ramp? Is that the right phrasing? Thank you. Yeah. So, uh, Madam Clerk, and that advance, yeah, Alma Street should be direct access.
[06:18:59] Council Member Pat Burt: And it's it's not a preference, is it? It's a direction.
[06:19:04] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: One moment. Um, staff just sent me a better language. Is this, does this look better?
[06:19:11] Mayor Ed Lauing: You might want to put each of the crossings in a separate bullet point for clarity.
[06:19:16] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yes.
[06:19:29] Council Member Pat Burt: I I just suggest on the Churchill that we break up what we're directing on vehicular in one sentence, what we're directing on the bike ped in another so it just gets clear. Um, I'm not sure what the second bullet is saying.
[06:20:15] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Oh, I see. If we not one crossing underpass, um.
[06:20:22] Council Member Pat Burt: Yeah, underpass shouldn't be there. I was just waiting till she got the other two. I assumed there was going to be two more bullets in there.
[06:20:28] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Oh, I see. But yes, you're right.
[06:20:36] Edgar Torres: Council member, for the second item, can we say implementation study rather than the impact study?
[06:20:41] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Sure. I don't, yes. I don't think we, yeah, I was just waiting to deal with that language, but.
[06:20:49] Edgar Torres: And if we can clarify that would be Charleston underpass?
[06:20:53] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Well, aren't we waiting, aren't we going to have two more bullets? If we did only one crossing which is Charleston underpass crossing?
[06:21:01] Mayor Ed Lauing: Yeah, the second bullet point should be Charleston and then say underpass. And the third bullet should say Meadow hybrid. And whatever else has to get wrapped around that.
[06:21:12] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, I was just assuming she'd been sent all the language, but sounds like not. Okay. Yeah, we need a bullet for Churchill or perhaps two. We need a bullet for Meadow. We need a bullet for Charleston and then we can discern whether we need a separate bullet for the impact of doing only one intersection. Correct. That's what I'm trying to get to.
[06:21:31] Edgar Torres: So for Churchill Avenue, do do we have a preference for with or without landscaping? Maybe we can go one by one.
[06:21:44] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Uh, I don't, but the Rail Committee might have more thoughts on that.
[06:21:51] Mayor Ed Lauing: With or without landscaping on Churchill.
[06:21:55] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: I would take input on that if you have a friendly amendment on that.
[06:21:57] Council Member Pat Burt: I I just want to make sure I understand the question. With or without landscaping strip on Churchill Avenue. Which preferences? Do you prefer with? Do you prefer without?
[06:22:07] Council Member Pat Burt: Oh, what we actually wanted is to explore minimizing the impact. Um, we were leaning toward uh without the landscaping strip.
[06:22:18] Edgar Torres: Correct. Yeah.
[06:22:20] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Okay. I'm I'm good with that. Thank you.
[06:24:10] Edgar Torres: And Council Member, while Madam Clerk is looking at the typing those, um, is it okay if we just state preferred alternative at this time? Because locally preferred alternatives become a federally mandated term. Uh, so if at 15% we want to use that term, that would be preferred by staff.
[06:24:31] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, I don't, this isn't necessarily my language here, so you just tell me what so you're suggesting that instead of select the locally preferred alternative it should just say preferred alternative? Fine with me.
[06:24:43] Edgar Torres: So Madam Clerk, if we can remove the locally word from the first line. And the parenthesis LPA can be removed. Please.
[06:25:12] Edgar Torres: So on Churchill, on the item number one, Churchill Avenue, I think partial underpass at Churchill with Churchill Avenue without landscaping strip with Alma Street Ramp at
[06:25:26] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, so it should so Madam Clerk, I think it should say partial underpass at Churchill without landscaping strip.
[06:25:36] City Clerk: I'll do that once.
[06:25:38] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Without. No, no, no. Oh sorry, you wanted with? Oh, I thought you said without.
[06:25:46] Council Member Pat Burt: So you're right. Um, so that pertains to the partial underpass as opposed to the bike.
[06:25:55] Edgar Torres: With Alma Street Ramp for bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue. Yeah. After ramp if we can include with Alma Street.
[06:26:12] Council Member Pat Burt: Um, I would just make it two sentences. Um, second, uh, bike and ped underpass would include uh the east side ramp along Alma Street. Does that seem clear?
[06:26:41] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So okay, so the bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue using Alma Street Ramp and incorporating additional bicycle safety components or something like that. That's what I think you're trying to get at before.
[06:27:00] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue using Alma Street Ramp uh with attention to bicycle safety on the east side. How's that? Sorry, I might have to, there you go. With attention to bicycle safety on the east side. And if you have better language, that's fine, but I think that gets okay. And so for Meadow, um, the hybrid alternative. I think that's fine. Charleston underpass alternative with direct access ramp and direct staff to conduct an implementation study if we only did one underpass.
[06:27:45] Edgar Torres: I would recommend adding if we only did underpass at Charleston Road crossing, right?
[06:27:51] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, I think that's right because we wouldn't do just the hybrid. Um, direct staff to conduct an implementation study if we only did one underpass. Oops, only did the I think I would take yeah, the underpass at Charleston Road.
[06:28:10] Council Member Pat Burt: And if I might ask, um under the hybrid, I think I only caught part of it, but Edgar, you saying that the a podium uh version of hybrid is not feasible? Did you say that?
[06:28:27] Edgar Torres: No, it it is feasible. It it just would be considered a a separate alternative between uh Charleston and and uh Meadow and it is more expensive than the retained fill.
[06:28:41] Council Member Pat Burt: Understood. It's it's more expensive. Um the question is, so that would have to be studied as a separate alternative from the earthen berm?
[06:28:50] Edgar Torres: From an environmental perspective, it would be considered a separate alternative.
[06:28:54] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: This is not what our materials said last week.
[06:28:59] Council Member Pat Burt: Well, not, I'm not sure. Um, it's he's not saying that we can't do it. Yeah. He's saying that it it's different. And now, I think now my follow-up question is, so do we have a choice of which we want to evaluate under the hybrid? Earthen only or a podium based? And I see they're huddling too. So I'll give them a sec.
[06:29:24] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, I think the the question is do we need to choose? Because I think the default that's been assumed is is berm, earthen berm, but I think we may want to, if we can only do one, we should specify.
[06:29:34] Edgar Torres: So in this case, it could be um a longer bridge because if if Charleston Road is considered an underpass, then at that point the the tracks would not begin rising for the Meadow hybrid until at least a few hundred feet south of Charleston Road. And so then it would start building up. So yes, it could have a podium, but it would be shorter than from Meadow to Charleston. Right. Um, however, it would be longer than a typical bridge crossing uh at a railroad.
[06:30:10] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So can we call it podium style hybrid alternative? And then you just...
[06:30:14] Edgar Torres: Yeah, I think that would be that would be a a wide a widest bridge possible.
[06:30:19] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Well, it would be that the podium would be more than just at the intersection. It would be wherever it started to rise.
[06:30:24] Edgar Torres: Yeah, we can explore a longer a podium as part of that hybrid alternative.
[06:30:28] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: I would like to put that in my motion if it's okay with a seconder and uh I know I have have been not been asking you about any of this. I apologize. It's been a little crazy. Is there anything that you're concerned with that has happened so far?
[06:30:40] Council Member Greer Stone: No, I accept that. Thank you.
[06:30:41] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Thank you for your being gracious. Um, I'm can I say something? Yeah, Council Member.
[06:30:50] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: I'm just going back to my notes from Rail Committee April of 2024. Earthen berm and podium are construction methods and the height viaduct and hybrid are designs. Earthen berm can be full height or low for either hybrid or viaduct and podium can be hybrid or viaduct. Podium for hybrid would give you the benefits of open visibility, shortened distance of viaduct and make it cheaper. By not going as high you don't have to spread out as far and some perme permeability. So this has been a part of our I mean I have tons of notes. I just found these. We have been carrying this idea through for a long time and uh even at Rail Committee meeting in November I think I mentioned we were told we were going to get the option of hybrid with columns why aren't we seeing that. Um so I'm just trying to underscore that this is uh to the extent this might feel like why you guys bringing this up now I think we felt like we had been bringing it up and maybe we've just had a disconnect.
[06:31:54] Mayor Ed Lauing: Well, it's in. So it's in the motion.
[06:31:57] Edgar Torres: Yeah, we can study that.
[06:31:58] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yeah, thank and thank you. That's consistent with my recollection. So if we have that there, I think the language looks good to me, Mr. uh or Council Member Stone?
[06:32:10] Mayor Ed Lauing: But one other Council Member wanted to make comments.
[06:32:12] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: I know but he's the seconder and we have been changing language and then people can speak.
[06:32:16] Council Member Greer Stone: Appreciate. I just want to make sure that the that the language is is clear on I think the the intent that we're kind of studying both that keeps the options available when we get to the 15% that we could and and I don't know if if it's clear enough in the motion just reading it.
[06:32:45] Edgar Torres: Can you please clarify if it is the selected alternative or is it explore podium style hybrid alternative? Because if it is a selected alternative then that's the only you know review we will be doing for podium style which is wider bridge or all the columns all the way down.
[06:33:10] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Whatever gets us the podium style hybrid alternative 15% drawing. If we have to select it as the only one then I'll I would go with that in my motion. If we can get both, um I I don't have any objection although I don't think you're seeing a lot of support for the berm. If we have to pick one I would pick the podium.
[06:33:44] Council Member Greer Stone: That sounds good. Thank you.
[06:33:46] Mayor Ed Lauing: Okay. Council Member Lu.
[06:33:48] Council Member George Lu: I would be a little bit worried about ruling out the berm. I think of course we want to think very long term about what the future of Palo Alto looks like, both in terms of uh traffic but also safety. Uh and we have to when we look long term, look at what is actually achievable and what is feasible. And I think if we look at earthen berms as the standard approach for hybrids, which is one of the more standard approaches for grade separations overall along the Caltrain corridor, I think we would uh be potentially doing a disservice to uh basically explicitly rule it out at this point. Um I think there could be an option in this motion, uh I guess this is what staff was going at to just say hybrid alternative for Meadow, but then have another bullet point asking for some more analysis or comparisons between an earthen berm and uh podium style uh alternative. Um so uh my main or maybe only concern with this motion is that we're sort of throwing up a jump ball and assuming we can pick it up again in terms of uh maybe when we do this analysis we'll have some clear signal that the underpass is actually the best and most viable and most affordable and likely to happen uh at both locations or it could be for the or vice versa for the hybrid. Um and we've gotten some clues or I think we've pro we've poked at this question like uh if we study one for the other look one location can we directly transfer findings to the others. But I think I want to ask that question just very explicitly. So what would we be losing um or what kind of options would be po what would not be transferable um if we wanted to move forward with this motion in terms of transferring any learnings from a hybrid approach on Meadow to Charleston or underpass learnings from Charleston to Meadow. Um for example I think I heard that we are by doing this motion not going to study the constructability concerns of doing a hybrid in both locations which would mean that that would not be something that in practice we could easily transfer to Charleston if we did do the hybrid on Meadow. And so there are these one way pitfalls that I just want to make sure we acknowledge are built into this motion.
[06:37:11] Edgar Torres: So as of per this motion we are you're directing us to advance the the mo these alternatives into this 15% design and to the to the 35 preliminary engineering and environmental phases. So we will if you were to come back and deselect and ask us to move forward with a different option at 15% that would be re additional work than that needs to be done for each crossing, right?
[06:37:42] Council Member George Lu: Yes, and I understand we could always go back and do more work and maybe push back some timelines or uh uh we'll do those things if necessary. Um so what I'm hearing is that what we learn about hybrid costs and engineering on Meadow will not necessarily transfer to Charleston because that would involve doing hybrid on both which would be much more complicated in terms of actual constructability and therefore cost and feasibility.
[06:38:19] Edgar Torres: That that would be accurate. There would be some portable lessons between the alternatives. However, if you are exploring one than the other, in other words a a time difference, in other words not being constructed at the same time but substantially different time frames in terms of say 10 or 15 years apart, then yes the two hybrids would be substantially more complicated.
[06:38:44] Council Member George Lu: Okay. And then when we do we lose anything by looking at the underpass for Charleston but not Meadow? Like is the are utilities wildly more complicated on one or the other where if we don't study one we're just if we only study one we're having a wildly incomplete picture of the other or is there anything like that that we need to think about for how we study the underpass?
[06:39:09] Edgar Torres: Yes, the utilities are more complicated at Charleston versus Meadow. And so that would be the one one crossing that would have more complexity as it relates to utilities. So studying it there would show you the greatest constraints associated with an undercrossing.
[06:39:24] Council Member George Lu: Got it. Got it. So the Meadow char Meadow uh underpass would just be less expensive and less technically complicated and you know obviously no guarantees but you you know we would expect things to move in that direction. Um I mean I think this is ultimately uh likely a pretty reasonable and good outcome. Uh you know hybrid and underpass but um we're uh you know I'm not aware of any sort of substantive discussion or even you know traffic analysis about like what this combination looks like together. Um but uh you know if it doesn't work out at 15% we can always do another 15% and that's what it is. Um I'm guessing I'm not going to get any support for this but I'm just curious whether the maker or seconder would be open to exploring both a berm and viaduct podium style hybrid uh at this phase.
[06:40:17] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: So I think just before you took the mic we were asking that question and I think the or staff can remind us of the answer to that. I think it was that we needed to choose. Is that correct? I mean in terms of advancing an option because they're different?
[06:40:35] Edgar Torres: For Meadow Drive we can the we can explore the options, two options.
[06:40:39] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: You can explore both? Sure. That's fine. Earthen berm and podium style. Yes. That's that's fine with me but I want to ask the seconder.
[06:40:49] Council Member Greer Stone: Yep. I'm fine with that.
[06:40:50] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Okay. We're fine with that. I but I do think that part of the struggle here is that we don't want to not know anything. And the whole point of this exercise was to narrow down and we're going to not know some things. And if we find out we got ourselves into a heap load of trouble, we'll just have to back up and redo it a bit. And that's no one wants to, so we're trying to make the smartest decisions we can. But we can't know. And I do want to remind ourselves that um one of the benefits of the Charleston ramp is that while you know while we had many of us had leaned toward hybrid in part because uh there weren't any um full acquisitions. There were three partials but no full. Um but the um and that was if we did it both there would be the three. But the um the if we did the underpass at Meadow, there would be two full takings uh at uh I that's the wrong word, acquisitions. Uh at Charleston with the roundabout there were three. With Charleston ramp there's one. Now I we still cannot minimize that because for the person whose property is that's that's you know hugely significant and troubling but it's less than any of the others. So I think that um that's another aspect that goes into this and we just can't know everything, we can't afford to know everything, we don't have the time to know everything and I think this is the best of the options and the cards that we've been dealt. I think a lot of us would like to have a real um you know highly obvious best you know clear solution and uh that's just not the case. There's pros and cons to them all. I think this is the best we can do and I think we should move forward.
[06:42:39] Mayor Ed Lauing: Would the clerk please call the roll?
[06:42:43] City Clerk: Mayor Lauing?
[06:42:44] Mayor Ed Lauing: Yes.
[06:42:45] City Clerk: Council Member Lu?
[06:42:47] Council Member George Lu: Yes.
[06:42:48] City Clerk: Vice Mayor Veenker?
[06:42:49] Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker: Yes.
[06:42:50] City Clerk: Council Member Burt?
[06:42:51] Council Member Pat Burt: Yes.
[06:42:52] City Clerk: Council Member Lythcott-Haims?
[06:42:53] Council Member Julie Lythcott-Haims: Yes.
[06:42:54] City Clerk: Council Member Stone?
[06:42:55] Council Member Greer Stone: Yes.
[06:42:56] City Clerk: Motion carries 6-0-1 Council Member Reckdahl recused.
[06:43:00] Mayor Ed Lauing: Excellent job team. Up here, down there, out in the audience. Made some progress. Okay. That leaves us with one thing to say. We are adjourned. Thank you for joining.