Council Airport Committee - Regular Meeting

LITERALLY.

YEAH. OKAY.

OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. THIS IS THE COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT COMMITTEE. TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2026. IT IS 531 P.M. If I can call a meeting order and if I can call on Ms. Bonas to do a roll call, please.

Council Member Andrews.

Council Member Simon. May I take this?

Present. Thank you. Moving on to approval of minutes and we will proceed with the motion.

I move the item.

Second. Moved by Council Member Andrews. Second by Council Member Sira. There are no objections that we unanimously cast. Thank you. Moving on to item number two. Actually, let me back up. I apologize. I want to go to public comment before next item. So let me go to public comment. This is reserved for anybody in the audience that would like to make a public comment on something that is not on the agenda. I do have some cards. And these are items on the agenda.

Oh, okay.

Okay. So let's start with Mary Clements.

Yes. Hello, everybody. I'm Mary Clements and I live in Hayward. I live along SkyWest open space area in townhouse community. I wanted to bring up just a couple issues. I was not here in the June meeting, but I did see the new map of considering what the open space would consist of. And the one area that concerns me is the blue area where we're thinking up front of putting in a business park or some business. We at SkyWest is the townhouse community. Our ingress and egress is the same. It's right at the front. It's right along Kennedy Park. It's right across from Target, right along Golf Course Road. So, and then you have coming in, you have SkyWest Drive, Golf Course Road. There are no, we have a stop sign, but there are no lights of any kind. So my question has, has a study, is a study being done about the traffic flow there? Because if there is a fire, and we have had, at one point, we had seven Pokemoner trucks in our community when we had it on fire. So, If you have buildings there, is the traffic setting being done as far as traffic flowing on those streets? On a busy morning, if Hesperian for some reason is blocked by A Street, then people would turn onto Golf Course Road off of Hesperian and go by us and around the corner. So we may, if it's really bad, and sometimes it has been, we may be sitting there for a number of minutes. So my concern is the safety, the ability for SkyWest residents and the huge amount of deliveries, contractors that are coming and going into the property. So I want to make sure that that is involved in the study. The second item we wanted to bring up is, I was not here for the June meeting, but I read the minutes today and they're just fabulous. I complimented her for the minutes, but I could read through and figure out what had been done at the last meeting. And there was a lot that was discussed and proposed regarding what's going to happen regarding meetings, regarding some studies, impact studies. So I wanted to know, and I think in there it was also referred to that there's gonna be more community outreach to us and other people so that we wouldn't be caught in that data center mess situation. So I wanted to bring it up to find out how is that, what has happened? How are we gonna be notified so that we can continue to have ongoing discussions?

Thank you. Next speaker is Cheryl Doctry.

Good afternoon, Mary Salinas and the other council members. I'm Cheryl Doherty. I live in San Lorenzo. And first, I want to thank you for how open you guys have been in hearing our concerns about the open space and especially being willing to consider other solutions that will help preserve the monarch overwintering habitat. And I also appreciate how well you've been willing to just listen to me as a San Lorenzo resident, even though I can't vote for you, right? So I took your advice and we've been getting involved and we've been reaching out to County Supervisor Tams and I understand some of those people are on the phone tonight, which yay, we're very, very, very happy and thank you for listening. My question tonight is about the environmental review. Can you clarify the current status of the CEQA and NEPA environmental reviews for the proposal? Have any of those reviews been formally begun yet? And if so, what documents have been prepared or are currently underway? And then we'd like to know if the public will have the ability to review and comment on those plans before the city makes any final decisions about the development going forward. And thank you again so much for listening to us. I appreciate you guys more than you know. We really do. Thank you. Thank you.

Good work. Yay.

Thank you. If you want, you can have 15 more minutes.

No, we're giving advice for you guys, so thank you. We appreciate it.

Next speaker is Tyler Grigoni.

So you got your honey. Now you need your vinegar. So I'm here to talk about 76 acres, not 76 acres of empty space, but 76 acres that is owed to this community. And right now, the city is considering giving those 76 acres away to development in a city that already has a serious shortage of parks and open space. So let's put this into perspective. Northwest Hayward has roughly one-third of an acre of park space for every 1,000 residents. East Los Angeles has about 0.6 acres per 1,000 residents. So let's compare these two. East Los Angeles, an urban community that is hardly swimming in open space, has nearly twice as much park space per person as Northwest Hayward. Think about that. And what are we doing here in Hayward? We're looking at taking 76 acres of open space and developing it. At some point, we have to ask ourselves, what are we developing for? Because those 76 acres will be covered with buildings, pavement, parking lots, and the open space won't be coming back. You can't say, oops, down the road, Hayward needs more parks. You can't manufacture another 76 acres of open space in Northwest Hayward. That opportunity will be gone. We talk a lot about equity in the city of Hayward and at the county level. We talk about environmental justice. We talk about making sure every neighborhood has access to the same quality of life. Here is a chance to actually do something about it with SkyWest. Don't just talk. Don't just put it in documents. Actually work to preserve the land, all of the land. The people in Northwest Hayward deserve that from the city of Hayward, just as much as people in the hills do, just as much as people in any city, incorporated or not incorporated, and the regional Hayward shoreline doesn't count in this matrix. It's a wonderful place to walk, but it isn't a neighborhood park, and it's not even connected to the neighborhood. It doesn't replace having a large piece of open land where people can walk, ride their bikes, take their kids, see trees, the wildlife, and get away from the concrete that is Northwest Hayward. I'm not arguing against growth. I'm not arguing against development. We can build all those things, but we shouldn't build everything. And I think the data centers have showed us that we should not build everything everywhere. Thanks.

Thank you.

Mary Swan, that is.

Great. I have to follow that, right?

Hey, Mary, if you could press the button on the microphone so the folks online can hear you better. Okay. Is it green now?

Thank you. I'm Mary Swan Perez. I actually do live in San Lorenzo. I have to preface my remarks with Lake Chabot is a perfect example of what our forefathers did in planning and protecting land for our children. our grandchildren, our grandchildren's children. And I think we have a perfect opportunity to do that here at SkyWest Open Space. My question has to do with one of the action items that committee member Syrup brought to the table last meeting. And I'm referencing the meeting minutes, page four and page five of seven. IN WHICH HE STATED THAT HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE COMMITTEE FRAMING THE ITEM AS A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON A SPECIFIC PLAN. HE SUPPORTED ADVANCING THE ITEM TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OCCUR IN THE INTERIM INCLUDING A SURVEY SIMILAR TO THE 2021 OUTREACH EFFORT. HE ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY SURVEY ALONG WITH ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FAA AND HART SHOULD ALSO BE INCORPORATED. HE STATED HE WOULD OPPOSE ANY SITE PLAN THAT REIGNS UNCHANGED FROM WHAT WAS PRESENTED EMPHASIZING THE PUBLIC INPUT AND ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS should meaningfully shape the final outcome. He clarified that his support was for moving the item forward for negotiation purposes only, not as a final recommendation site plan. And I wanted to know specifically if there's been any kind of action or work towards creating this survey. And is this survey going to go to specifically hard residents or will it also go to people in San Lorenzo who are totally affected by the airport and should be able to have their children be able to access that area? Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker is Mimi Dean.

That's the green. All right. So I'm going to speak about some history that Hayward has. So sadly, I feel like the city of Hayward has a long history of not always doing the right thing. And I am going to reference Russell City as an example. We all know we lived in that community. We know that those homes were taken from people, their community was destroyed, and their ability to grow generational wealth was blown out of the water. Okay. Then in the 70s, we had the abandonment of the downtown core, which led to so many businesses going out of business and the downtown core getting destroyed. And then the next big thing we have, there were so many things I found, it was so sad, but the next really big thing that I had a hard time with was the loop. The loop, which was constructed basically for commuters to drive through the city as quickly as they can, but with no regards to the people that live here, the people that cross the street, the people that shop at those businesses, the people that own those businesses, the bicycle riders. So I just feel like we've made some pretty, bad decisions that have not had to put the community first. Now we have the stack data center debacle. I know Kelly and I emailed people a year or two ago when that whole thing was going on and I don't know how it got through without an appeal. And we know this data center is a major problem. It is being built right next to where there are endangered birds The California tern lives at that. I went with Dr. Quack from East Bay Regional Park District. He took the Audubon Society on a tour. And we got to see all the birds that live down there that are going to be totally impacted by this data center. Okay? I think... It's crazy how we put business and development over our own well-being. I think Northwest Hayward has enough industrial development. We've got 880. We've got the data center. We've got the airport. Now we're going to have the staff center. I have to tell you that, oh, let's not forget the Russell City Power Plant. How did that ever happen, right? You know, there's a lot of people in this room who do live in San Lorenzo, and we know the area of influence goes over San Lorenzo, and that's how we're allowed to have a say, and that's how we got it in the county environmental justice element, being able to comment on the airport. You know, we have planes that are supposed to not fly after 10 p.m., and they're flying at 2 a.m., 5 a.m. They're blasting over people's houses, and I'm not talking about those little planes. I'm talking about the jets. I would like Hayward to... Abandon its old legacy of these poor decisions and save sky West open space all of it every single acre this Community. All right, we deserve open space, thank you.

Okay, so public comment and then.

Move on to our second item, which is the Public Safety Center. This is a project update and site recommendation. And I believe we'll have Public Works Director Alex Mary kick this off. And I also just wanted to acknowledge from the Police Department Captain Dan Olson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Dave Hong, Acting Deputy Director for Engineering, is here to present a short presentation today.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Good evening, Mayor Salinas, Councilmember Andrews, Councilmember Syrup. My name is Dave Long, Acting Deputy Director of Public Works. I will be presenting the update to the Public Safety Center project and also on the site recommendation. Joining me online is Jeremy Hart. He is with LPA a consultant who did the conceptual design phase of the project So During the During the February 25th SEAC meeting, we presented the final report that was completed by LPA that detailed the programming, the space needs, and the site assessment for the new public safety center. The design incorporated the anticipated growth through the year 2050, with that resulting in the size of the facility that would be, I'll just quickly go over these few points, a 91,000 gross square feet of essential services building that would include public space, space for administration in all police department divisions, crime lab, dispatch, temporary holding cells and shared staff areas. In the 30,000 gross square feet non-essential services building, K-9 training, special response unit, property and evidence. INDOOR RANGE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF BUILDINGS, ESSENTIAL SERVICES BUILDINGS, WOULD BE FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES BUILDINGS, THESE BUILDINGS NEED TO FUNCTION IMMEDIATELY AFTER DISASTER, WHEREAS A NON-ESSENTIAL SERVICE BUILDING MAY SUFFER DAMAGE AND CLOSE. PART OF THE PROGRAMMING INCLUDES A 29,000 GROWTH SQUARE FEET ANIMAL SERVICES BUILDING a 100-yard outdoor range, tactical simulation building, and parking. The cost estimate for the programming and space needs was done for both sites. The cost estimate is broken down by the building and parking structure costs, site development, which includes things like demolition, hardscape, landscape, and utilities, and soft costs. Soft costs would be things like your design costs, construction management, and it also includes contingency. So the project total costs at the Kang site would be $337 million and $252 million at the State Center site. The city center site is more expensive due to a number of factors. One of them is that due to the size of the smaller site, one of the examples would be needing a five-story parking structure as opposed to a three-story at the King site. Also note that at the city center site does not include the outdoor range and the tactical stimulate simulation building because of the surrounding residential area and car shoes. Because of the cost estimate exceeding the 200 million that's identified for this project prioritization. of programming and space needs was completed to reduce this cost. So this table looks at the two main things would be one is deferring certain items to future phase program reduction and consolidation. For the animal services, it would remain at its current location and deferred to a future phase. Tactical simulation building and canine training would be deferred to a future phase. Workstation spaces would be reduced, but functionality would be maintained. The public lobby space would be reduced, and one of the community meeting rooms would be removed. property and evidence workstations, trying cabinets and evidence lockers would be reduced. The temporary holding cell, the storage space and kitchen size would be reduced and the number of cells would be reduced from 49 people to 35 people. The vehicle exam day would be reduced from two to one. The indoor firearms range would be reduced from 50 yards to 25 yards. And the 100-yard outdoor range, which is included in the Kang site, but the four-lane range, 50-yard outdoor range would be deferred to a future phase. The special response unit would not have a dedicated briefing room. The communications center, the size of the break room would be reduced, and the dispatch console would be reduced from 16 to 14. And finally, the Youth and Family Services Bureau would not have an overflow counseling room, waiting room, and dedicated break room. With these reductions, the Kang site project total is 247 million and 259 million at the city center site. Next, we'll look at where the public safety center can potentially be built. Site option A is at the Hayward Executive Airport at the former California Air National Guard site. And site B is at the former city hall at City Center Drive. Option A is also known as the tank site as an available eight acres to a maximum 10 acre site. Advantage of this site is that it has easier access to I-880 than from the city center site. It is also next to fire station six and the fire training center, allowing for potential joint use. Finally, there's expansion opportunities within the 8 to 10 acre portion of Kingsland. Option B at City Center Drive is closer to downtown than City Hall, which provides the community easier access. But the downside to this site is it's near the Hayward Fault. It is a smaller site. And it is also adjacent to residential development. The cost estimate shows an additional $12 million to build the public safety center at the site. During the February SEAC meeting, the SARE site was brought up and staff evaluated this. It is a much larger 29-acre site. However, we don't own it. It is, however, available for lease, but the lease is tied to a reciprocal agreement, a reciprocal easement agreement, which controls use. They include use restrictions. These parcels are to be used for retail sales of merchandise and service. The other rule is cross-season, meaning vehicles and pedestrian traffic must share rights, such as that mall customers and Sears site users can drive and park across parcel boundaries without restrictions. There are other rules like harmonious exterior design and maintenance rules, but the use restriction and cross-season rules are the major challenges to have the public safety center here. Massing study was done at the Kang and city center site to see how the prioritized programming would fit on the introspective sites. Considering the available site size and overall project costs, the Kang site is a recommended site. With the Kang site as the selected site, we can move forward with entitlement work, which includes zoning. Currently, the Kang site is zoned air terminal aviation commercial with a public quasi public general plan land use designation. We're looking to do a zone text amendment to update the zoning district to include public facilities such as police stations. Since the King site is at the airport property, we do need to work with the FAA for review and approval for the leasehold release from the current aeronautical to non-aeronautical. This also includes updating the airport layout plan as process takes some time. Finally, we continue to evaluate which construction delivery method will be best suited for the public safety center. Public-private partnership is the front runner, but because we haven't done a project using P3, we'll be engaging a consultant who has expertise in P3 to make that staff recommendation. and potentially including them in a future council meeting where if there are questions from you, we can have the experts answer them. So this concludes the presentation. We're here to answer any questions you may have and look forward to the committee's feedback on the site selection. Thank you. Great.

So that's what you're asking us, to select a site and then proceed with a larger conversation of council about the site, correct?

Correct. Okay.

Questions? Who wants to go first?

Sure. Thank you for the presentation. I know a lot of work has gone into this. So I appreciated seeing the cost-saving options. I'm in agreement with most of how you've optimized what were the essential components of the building and what was removed. I think, yeah, you can jump back. Yeah. A few things here. Well, first of all, I mean, how much wiggle room do we have here? I mean, is that what the session is for, is to also talk about how we feel about these adjustments, about what's necessary and not necessary? I don't know if you should be asking me about this. Yeah.

You will welcome your comments. Yes, sir.

Okay, but I guess how much room is there? We're still in the initial design phases, right? Okay. Okay. So I think it means I'm in agreement with most of what's here. What struck me was holding going from 49 to 35. From my understanding, well, first of all, maybe Captain Olsen can help me answer this. How many people does our current holding station take, our jail take in currently?

I apologize. I don't remember the exact number off the top of my head. I want to say it is the low 40s. Low 40s. Okay.

And it's my understanding we typically don't hit that full capacity very regularly, which is also why we changed up our staffing around the jail too. Is that correct? Correct, sir. To my knowledge, I don't. In my 26 years. Yeah. So in your experience, what has kind of been like the, I guess, most or the average that we see? Is it like 10, 20 on a really bad weekend where there's some fights breaking out after a football game?

A few dozen isn't unheard of, yes, sir. But 25 is probably the most I've seen on it.

That's a very, very high end. Okay, so that's why I was wondering. I know we're trying to build this station out for... in the future. So 49 to 35 makes sense. But when I see also youth and family services not having a waiting room, which I think is a very important part of maybe the experience of receiving publicly funded counseling, I wonder if, you know, saying we cap it at 32, like, is there some kind of trade off that we can make for square footage and cost to bring back the waiting room for youth and family services?

Council Member, if you just express what your priorities are, we'll try to accommodate them. Okay.

Thank you. That's probably a better way of going about it. I was just concerned about the jail size itself, too, because I have heard that we're underutilizing our current one. I was wondering if that felt like a little bit of overkill. And then, you know, a lot of folks have concerns about the state of the animal services building. And so we're talking about a future phase. Do you have a sense of how much more of the price tag it would add to bring some type of animal services building into the first phase? Or do you have a sense of what could be shifted out of or pushed to a phase two to bring animal services in earlier?

I think in terms of costs, Jeremy, do you have that information?

Jeremy, you're on mute.

Sorry, I was finding my mute button. The cost associated with the... I'm going to give you a really rough... ballpark estimate, but the cost associated with building new animal services building was going to be approximately $38 million.

Okay, thank you for the rough estimate. I understand that would increase prices significantly. Do we have any, I mean, similar to what we've done with West Winton with a few retrofits to the building as we prepare for this new project, do we have any plans on temporary upgrades to the current animal shelter site?

That's a great question. The situation is that if we don't make use of the existing building and the building is demolished, then the city has access to 4.3 acres of land there. I see. That has value. So we are going to take a look and see if refurbishing that building and using it makes sense and bringing it to full council.

Refurbishing it for the purposes of a potential animal shelter? Or any of that. Okay. So that's, I mean, we're talking like we're not demolishing that building until we have the center operational. So that's like a decade plus. I mean, I don't know why I say a decade, but we're talking about some years. Okay. Yeah. Well, I think you see my interest in trying to find a way to make sure we're supporting animal services if they're delayed to a cycle later phase. And then last question is for the Sears, I mean, Generally, I'm supportive of the King site selection. It makes sense to me. But in this report, we're talking about the small adjustments we'll make to the rules in order to use that space. So I'm a little bit confused by us getting in the way of, or the rules getting in the way of the Sears site as a potential location. Like, aren't we in control of that? Or is that a private easement with? I think they have a new owner now, right?

Pride and Eastman.

Pride and Eastman. Yes. Okay. And from my understandings, I thought the entire building was owned by one person. Now, there's still two separate owners for Sears and the larger Southland Mall. I thought it was all acquired by one buyer recently. Okay.

To my understanding, the Sears building and that address itself is separate from the mall. It's a separate parcel. It's a separate address. And it's still one owner from the building as a leaseholder and then someone who owns the land. Interesting.

Okay, so it's still kind of confusing. Very much so. Before, it was like four families owning different pieces of it. And I was hoping that that recent purchase consolidated the ownership to make this kind of easier for development. But nothing is simple in government. Okay. I think those are my questions for now. Thank you.

Nandar, they purchased the mall portion, not the sales portion. So there was some consolidation on the mall side, maybe, that would have been there, maybe?

Yes, ma'am. If you look at the slide that Deputy Director Hung had, that red line really delineates where everything to the left of the mall and then from the red and up, that is all one address. That is the mall property. The big red one Southland Mall square. That is the second.

That's supposed to get broken up again because round one and the other portion is getting sold. So it's going to get more confusing, right? I mean, that was in the paper. Yeah. It's on the market. Okay. I wanted to know more about the jump from... 150 to 240. Is it just because of construction materials over time from the first original estimate to now? Is it a particular reason why it went up so high? In the stack report, it said 150, and now we went to 330, and then you devalue engineering to 247. I just want to see how do we... What were the materials or what part of the project made it jump still to almost $100 million?

So the initial estimate for this years ago was actually in the $60 million range. And it went up to $100 million and $150 million, now the new numbers that we see. The reason is, of course, escalation in cost, labor costs, material costs, some of the issues. But right now, this is the growing rate. estimate that professionals have come up with.

Okay, so it wasn't just one particular aspect of the project that was escalating. Okay, can we go back to the slide where we're looking at the different parts that we value engineered out? Okay. And the communication center is dropping from 16 to 14. And then are we expecting growth in the communication center in the future? I'm just concerned about break room and making that smaller.

Yes, and we are hoping for growth. This does take into account our ability to hopefully grow into an EMD situation for emergency medical dispatching, which is something we've been working closely with the fire department on. So this is just more of a... still good to have, not as nice as it was to have situation, but this still gives us the room for growth in the outlying years.

You mentioned the existing one, how many stations we have right now?

I think it's eight to 10.

Exactly.

That was my point.

Okay. And are there any opportunities for partnering with foundations to to build out or improve the animal services location, similar to what we did at Weeks. I know we were able to obtain some grants. So people who are interested in animal welfare, have we looked into maybe partnering with them until we can add this as a feature of the Public Safety Center?

We are definitely going to explore that. But we are going to also talk about that DEVELOPMENT DURING NEXT PRESENTATION, WHICH IS THE CORPORATE.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'M INTERESTED IN THE KING SITE ANYWAY. FINALIZING RECOMMENDATIONS.

A QUICK FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. JUST IN LINE WITH CONSULTANT center was also setting aside some space to try to add in more communications infrastructure and maybe that's why this value engineering is working is because there is some space for some comps related work at the fire training center i guess i'm just trying to understand uh can you help me clarify what's the latest on our efforts to use part of the fire station six and some of their i don't know where i'm going with this i think like i just heard that we're trying to use fire or that's been set aside?

You know, generally speaking, one of the advantages of this site is that it is adjacent to that center and there are

economies of scale and other mutual uses yeah they can be explored okay my understanding down in the fire training center they built out two consoles two parts of the training center okay mainly for training purposes both to get people up to speed to actually move into the real calm center have that also to run scenarios at the training center with their own consoles right there okay that made sense and I mean I think it would be silly to have them in separate rooms so I understand the consolidation here and just want to

see on how we're utilizing the centers or the consults that I knew we were setting up there. So thank you for verifying.

One more quick question. It said you have $45,000 left in your studies. Is that enough to do all what you need to do for the rest of it?

No. If we're doing our FAA work, that's going to take a little bit more work because it does involve our consultants with the ALP.

So, so you come back to council, but it's not coming out of general fund.

No, no.

Okay, thank you.

So we can remove. The civic center site, and we can remove the seer site off the table. So, okay, good. Um, you know, as much as I really wanted to, you know, the Southland site to work. You know, it's unfortunate that it's not. And, you know, I certainly don't, you know, I know when there was some early conversation about the Civic Center site, you know, I'm leery of putting a brand new building right on the earthquake fault. So I'm glad that's off the site, which is good. So the King site, you know, I know we've had a lot of discussion about that. I know that there was a, you know, there may have been potentially other large parcels in the city that, Um, that could be perhaps available in the near future. Um, but I think fundamentally the difference is we don't own them. And so we would have to buy them. And so anyways, so the king say is fine and, you know, and it does reduce the price to some extent. So I'm okay with that. Um, you know, I was looking at, uh, uh, Um, the square footage and, you know, I had the same question around, you know, the size of, uh, jail per population. And I don't know what the, I don't know if there's a science behind that or a metric behind that, but I do know, you know, I mean, by the time this is built and, you know, the next 20 or so years, I'm sure the population is going to be bigger. And, you know, not that I anticipate more people going to jail, but I, you know, we're, uh, you know, so, uh, uh i was thinking about that and so the the response that i got was that i heard it was fine um you know since we're sort of you know tinkering with this now and you know and i'm you know i'm looking at this and uh one of the you know one one thing i was thinking about is is you know i know the the training center the the firefighting the firefighter training center uh has one but what about a like a um like a classroom or, you know, I was thinking like a lecture hall or, you know, I know it would be extra, you know, I'm sure it would be extra, but, you know, could we think about and just see how it might work if we include a space for a large gathering of people at the center, you know, like a classroom or, you know, I envision sort of a lecture hall. I know You know, we haven't seen a rendering of anything yet. We don't know what this is going to look like. But, you know, if we're, you know, if we're planning for the future, you know, it'd be kind of interesting to see what kind of public space that perhaps we might be able to include in there. I know there was some discussion about that in here, but, you know, I wouldn't want. I wouldn't want us to build, you know, a facility like this and not have, you know, a space where we could do citations, where we can do community support and, you know, the other informational kind of things. And when we build it out, building it out as if it was like a smart classroom or some kind of, you know, that was just something I thought about as we were sort of, because I was reading this. P3, well, I can tell you, you know, I have been, I'm glad you referenced the mayor's conference here. I've gone to two U.S. mayor's conferences, and I have been attending all P3 sessions on this. The mayor of Atlanta swears by P3s, and there's uh other mayors of large cities um you know p3s you know and i'm not saying this to say we should go p3 and you know i i you know um i listen and i'm learning about it and you know i was just introduced to p3 probably eight months ago or nine months ago but um um But I do know that, you know, you know, big city mayors have used P3s to to do infrastructure building in low income neighborhoods. And it hasn't only been public facilities. They've done P3s with housing, P3s with commercial developments. And so, you know. p3s um you know when it's explained in presentation format it makes sense but uh you know um but i'm i am excited to see uh that we're looking at that uh and um and see what we can gather from that. I do know that a P3, if we do a P3 route, if we go a P3 route, we could potentially get this thing built sooner than later, right? And so I'm pretty happy about that. So anyways, I know this year there's, I think there's a mayor's conference in January, and I'm sure they're going to have another P3 session, so I'm going to certainly plan on going to that. But other than that, I'm glad we're where we're at today, and I look forward to Future discussions on this, and so, you know, I know we have to go to public comment, but I, so what I'm guess I'm hearing is king site. It seems to be a consensus up here, but okay. If there's no more questions, I will end here. I'll go to public comment and see what folks have to say. I do have a card here with with Mimi Dean.

Oh. Say it, but this is pretty disappointing. Here we go. We're getting in one more thing. It has less than desirable. This site is perfect for the development that the airport wants to build on SkyWest Holden State. That's what this property should be used for. It should not be used for any kind of public safety building. we take away that open space at SkyWest, we're never getting it back. And this is the perfect opportunity to use this area, which now we see is primarily vacant, and use it for high density business park that the airport seems to need because they've put in all these runways, they've brought in all these giant jets that have wrecked their runways, and now they're expecting the community to pay to fix those runways that the people that fly in those big planes enjoy. So this is breaking my heart that Northwest Hayward is getting asked to do one more thing. This is very unfair. And I can't believe that we want to put this in over there. It seems like this part of Hayward just gets trashed constantly. And, you know, as the crow flies, I'm less than a quarter mile. And, you know, the planes fly over my house and the jets fly over my friend's houses. And this is really hard to hear that we're going to take this space that could have the business park and put something else there instead of saying, hey, Doug McNeely, We got a great location for you. You don't need to kill the other grove of monarch butterflies. So really sad. And I don't know what else to say. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have any more cards for public comment, but Councilor Saar. Thanks.

So can you go back to the slide with the phasing? Thanks, I just want to express if you call this is here and then also here at my colleagues think. I think that the i'm happy with what was prioritized reduced cost here, I think, as far as what future phases may look like it means you're going to be different larger capital projects that we have to plan around. But I really want to emphasize that big animal services should be the first of those future phases. I think that takes a precedent in our community over the other two planned future phases. I just really want to strongly recommend that. I also am curious if, because we created mock buildings with the fire department, if there's any full purpose use or retrofitting of the fire structures for tactical simulation building versus building something entirely new. Maybe that's unfeasible, but I just have a little bit of heartburn around building something like that. And I want to see if we can repurpose pre-existing use cases to help save costs. But animal services definitely comes first. And then for YFSB, I've already been clear that the more we can improve the experience of YFSB, whether it's reducing the folding cell by three cells or just finding the right cost ratio would be helpful. Whatever is required to just help the youth and family service to grow experience a little bit. a little bit better for our committee members. Yeah. Let's see. I think I just want to speak really quickly to some of the comments that Mimi made. I think it might feel jarring, but this is a conversation we've been having for a long time in this public safety center here. This is a resource for the general public. This isn't a corporation coming in to attract profits. West Cambridge is going to have some of the fastest response times in the entire city by virtue of having this center here next to a full-fledged fire training center. It's also not mutually exclusive with the business center. From what I hear, there's a discussion around how big or where a business building might go if it's on the golf course or looking at other places that the airport also owns if it comes to business development. So for these things to somehow be intentional with each other, I don't personally agree with that. If you look at the staff report, the building that the police officers are operating in right now is in really poor condition. And I've not been, you know, if you know my history, the police and I have not seen eye to eye by having toured the facility. This is like, to me, for us to be compliant employers, we need to have safe buildings for our workers to be in. And this is a necessary capital project that we've also campaigned on as a city. And so we need to make sure it serves the community properly. That's what this conversation is about tonight. So we might have disagreements afterwards, but I just wanted to speak to that. I don't see this as something that's being done to West Hayward. This is a massive investment in West Hayward and the communities of West Hayward. And what happens in the golf course to be a separate conversation. And I think you already know where I stand on the conversation of the golf course. And I think outside of that, yeah, just recap. Prioritize animal services for future phases. Improve the Family Services Bureau aspect of this. If we're calling this a public safety center, it has to be more than just the, I think, services that are traditionally perceived as being police-oriented only. Like, the infant family component is a very important part of our police department. And... Uh, last thing is we had a friend of the public library that formed to help us raise funds for the 20, our, our library here. Um, I know there was some interest around developing some kind of foundation structure for, um, the stack center, but maybe, you know, grouping things like the animal services component, the stack center, kind of more of our social services package and figuring out what it might look like. Maybe this is a, I don't know how much the city can store this conversation, but thinking through, um, Yes, the PV route might be the way we afford this, but how do we fund its future phases and future capital projects we have to find? Having a more deliberate strategy to engage with the philanthropic community, I think would be really beneficial for us to accelerate some of these projects and some of these phases. Because the idea of animal services having to wait like another decade before they see any kind of new facility also feels really difficult for me to stomach. So those are my thoughts. Thanks.

Would it be possible to identify who's on the call today?

They're the people on the call. I don't know all the people on the call.

Oh, you mean the staff?

The staff that's on the call?

The Alameda County supervisors that are on the call.

Oh, I don't know if... I can't see that small. Ryan Hughes? Oh, good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

I actually...

I have one more question about the . I know there's obviously better to have things consolidated, but have we all thought about that being off-site too? Just wanted to know if that was something to talk about.

I think the gentleman in my ranking, correct me if I'm wrong, it's going to be on-site, but a separate building.

Okay.

Separate entrance, separate exit, access, ingress, egress is all going to be kind of separate, but it's just an adjacent building, a non-essential services building.

um yes and then how many other locations besides the two that you looked at just in general conversation uh about this public safety center because this is a large piece of land that is required for this type of use just wanted to know if there's other parts of the city that you looked at besides these two locations is there any other opportunity i'm just i just want to speak to the the company here of folks who are asking the question about the other sites.

So the only other site that comes to mind is the former Kaiser building. We pursued that, and that wasn't available for these students.

And then there's concern about the activity in there and the noise due to the proximity of the residential literally being across the street, as well as the traffic on Hesperian, I'm sure is a concern as well on that side of town.

Yeah, and that site is no longer available in any case.

Oh, okay. Yeah. All right. So we literally looked everywhere.

Yes.

Okay. I just want you to hear that. Thank you. All right. So, yes, we can move forward with that nomination. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. You know, I know, you know, the, you know, the prioritizing animal services and I don't have a problem with that. If we can figure out a way to do it, I know there has been conversation and dare I say it, but I know there has been conversation about Whether or not we even continue with animal services with the police department, I think right as of today, we're 1 of very few cities in the county. That actually have an animal services, you know, are sort of our own animal services, but. But anyways, I support it. If we can somehow figure out a way to keep it, that's fine. But I do know that this is a conversation that I'm sure we're going to be having probably in the near future sometime. Um, you know, do we prioritize it? Sure. And, um, if we can make it pencil out, you know, that would be great. Um, and so it was, I guess I'm not disagreeing with you. Um, but I'm just, you know, I think over the last eight months, we've had very several conversations in a true and untrue uh around this center but um but the good thing is is you know what we have said and what i have said is that um animal services has been a has been a service that we have valued in the city we have kept it in the city and um you know uh and i think uh you know it's a value that i think we're gonna you know that we're gonna continue uh but i know there's another conversation out there in the near future um secondly is the youth and family services bureau um i'm glad to hear that it's going to be in a separate building and and you know its own ingress and egress all that that's great um and uh so i guess the the you know um reducing you know you know reducing the size of you know the the holding center i mean does that even matter i mean

It won't provide that much more space.

Yeah, I mean, because it's still going to be a separate building, right? That was just an idea, but I think Dr. Murray gets my... Yeah, I get it. So, you know... If I could just sort of put this on the table and just say sort of something that, you know, I'll just say what people think about and talk about, and I'll just say it out loud. You know, if we're going to reimagine this public safety campus, the fact that we're even calling it a public safety campus, we are beginning to reimagine this. Part of that reimagination is the Youth and Family Services Bureau. and you know if when we plan and i know we haven't seen renderings of it we're not you know we haven't seen the building yet but you know um i just would like to see the youth and family services bureau building um a you know um a a a marquee looking building a building that you know um that projects the value of kids families mental health you know, and, you know, and what we do to serve kids and families. And I think that's the, you know, I know, you know, you know, that's the vision sort of I have for them. And so I just wanted to put that out there. In terms of the financing, you know, like I said, I'm still learning, like, along with staff around, you know, what the P3 process is like, what that structure is like. And, you know, I'm I'm pretty interested to see, you know, what that will look like and how that might work with us or work for us. And so I do know in terms of, you know, timeline, I would like to see. the building sort of move along sooner than later and if the p3 you know works and if it works for us and if it's a it's a if it's a model that that that we can do um i would you know i would certainly support a p3 you know in this process um or on this project so So yeah, I, let's, the King site is, we're going to, it's okay to do the King site. We can bring it to Town Hall. And I think we're okay with that. Do you need a formal vote or are we just just directionally a formal vote? So I'll move that. We recommend we, we agree or I agree that we bring staff recommendation on the king site to the full Council for consideration.

Just to be clear. This is my direction to pursue. Like, we're going to do a key 3 issue, but we're going to explore the option. Absolutely. Okay. Yes.

Yeah. Can I just we are doing a lot of research, like you said, we may. At the same time, we come back on the King's side with the board council. We may be ready at that point to do some educational session around P3, but we won't be ready at that next council interaction to recommend it. Or we'll be maybe getting close, but we want to first make sure the council understands it and we show you the pros and cons and the different options. So we might team up with an educational piece, but not necessarily a recommendation.

And then just from a public knowledge, P3 is a public private partnership. a dollar price tag. Kind of like a rent-to-own?

Well, it could be. There are other options where you get involved with a developer. They help. They basically take the risk on that. They do the design and construction, and that mitigates our risk in terms of construction, off-situation, for change orders. So it kind of helps us maybe keep the overall price down, which is probably the biggest value that we see on it. There could be, if they ultimately... end up helping maintain it there's a model there's a lot of different sub models and actually maintain it over the life of the project or once you build it. Then we might do a lease, and that might allow us to keep the building in better shape over time. So those are all the different models that we're looking at. But the biggest benefit we see is really mitigating that construction cost increase. And they would come potentially on sooner rather than later, and they might be able to help us fund some of the pre-development and entitlement. That's what we're exploring. And if that's true, then we might be able to get started a little faster. So those are all the pros and cons that we're trying to weigh and analyze. We'll come back and...

make sure we have an educational session about p3 before we make a recommendation great thank you thanks okay thank you oh did you do you need a vote or do you just oh uh second or hi i forgot sorry uh so the mayor selena second by did you second or second by uh council member andrews and if there are no objections it will you know thank you Okay. So item number two is, it's an information, well, it's not information. Well, it is an information. It's an update. Corporation Yard Needs Assessment Project updating.

It's simply a needs assessment. Sammy Lowe, who is one of our senior civil engineers online, is going to make a very quick presentation. Sammy?

Thank you, Alex. Good afternoon, or good evening, Mayor Salinas, Council Member Andrew, Council Member Syrup. My name is Sammy Lowe, Senior Civil Engineer with Public Works. Tonight, I'm here with Haley and Dustin from Griffin Structure and T from LPA to provide an update on the Corporation Yard Needs Assessment Project. The city's corporation yard was originally constructed in the 1960s and has been in service for more than 60 years, supporting public works and utilities, maintenance services, animal services, fleet management, and Hayward Police Department. Over that time, the city has outgrown the courtyard due to its aging infrastructure, inadequate space, and outdated systems, which can no longer effectively support the city's current operations. We also want to plan for future staffing and operational needs as the city continues to grow. And that's why the city initiated this needs assessment project. In April of 2025, council authorized an agreement with Griffin to evaluate the existing facility and to develop long-term options for improving the site. Since that time, Griffin has completed the assessment, developed the conceptual options, and preliminary phasing and planning level cost estimates. One of the key considerations is the parking requirements, which we will provide more detail of the different options in the upcoming slides. And another note to point out is that the Current concepts were based on existing site constraints. City is evaluating the acquisition of additional land from Hayward Unified School District and Winton Middle School, shown in red here. If this additional LAN becomes available, then we may revisit site layout and configuration. And with that, turn it over to Dustin, Haley, and T to walk us through the presentation. Thanks, Sammy. Everyone hear me okay?

Yes. All right. Perfect. Good evening, members of the Council. As mentioned, my name is Dustin Alamo. I'm principal in charge from Griffin. And before we get into the next slide here, objectives, I wanted to briefly introduce Griffin Structures. We specialize in helping public agencies plan and implement complex municipal facility projects. Our experience spans over planning, design and construction of corporate yards, public safety centers, civic facilities, and other essential public infrastructure. So for this effort, if we can go to the next slide. Sammy, is that you?

Do you see my screen? Okay.

I see your screen, but I see the red highlighted area. I don't see the objective slide.

Oh. Let me try it again.

While you're doing that, I'll just kind of talk conceptually about our objectives here. So really, we're looking to develop a practical long-term roadmap for improving the corporation yard. This began by evaluating existing facilities and understanding how each department currently operates, not only the condition of the buildings, but also what operational workflows look like in terms of staff, equipment, and materials across the site. From there, we developed the city's future programmatic needs, looking at a range from 10 to 20 years ahead, and identified opportunities to share resources, improve adjacencies, and deliver services more effectively. Those space needs were then translated into conceptual design alternatives, which we'll show you tonight, and centered on repurposing the former animal services and police evidence building. Well, eventually former. Those concepts are intended to improve the circulation, overall site security, and overall operational flow while maximizing value of the city's existing assets. Finally, we developed preliminary phasing strategies, schedules, and project costs so city can understand not only what the yard looks like, but how it can realistically be implemented over a series of years maintaining operations. So you can see a little bit of the existing yard here, but I'm going to pass it off to Haley to talk a little bit about that and our process and get into the details.

So our project process really has eight steps and four of them are really about data gathering. So we send out a data collection request as well as detailed interviews with the the workers on the site, do a facility condition assessment of the buildings on the site, and really assess the site itself. From there we develop a program that assesses how much square footage is needed for each program on the site and then create conceptual options. The site itself, as you just saw, is about a little over seven acres, has about 56,000 square feet that is used by occupants on the site today, and a little over 200 fleet vehicles that are both maintained and actively stored at the site itself.

One slide, sorry.

Are you able to see my screen? Sorry.

It looks like it's delayed. We're on site to our observations, so... I just want to distract from the content. Thanks.

Perfect. Thanks, Sammy. So here are kind of our users of the site that are active today. So you'll see everything that's kind of in white with the red outline is a corporate yard site and anything that is gray was not observed or not assessed as part of the study. So the animal shelter, the police evidence storage and the crime lab were excluded and we were just focused on corporate yard entities that are active on the site itself. Go to the next slide. As we did our tour, you'll see on the right hand side, there's some photos of different areas that we got to see as we toured. We really came up with four main site tour observations. The first being that units as the site has grown have become dispersed throughout the site. And this is just natural as people tried to find different areas for space. So their shops have become separated from where they store items or the locker rooms themselves. So really trying to bring that back together was a key component of this program. Parking and circulation constraints. This is the second one down, but really it should be the first thing that we heard about from interviews. It was the top area of concern for a lot of the individuals on the site. There is limited parking and circulation. And because of that lack of circulation and access, There's sort of a restriction in how groups are accessing their stored materials. People are parking in front of it. There's stored materials in parking spaces. So really developing a need to assess where we can put parking and create a larger circulation factor on the site. Site security is pretty well, but there's no open facing public door and a lot of these units interact with visitors. So really creating a front door access with visitors was important. And lastly, building conditions are different in different buildings. So there's been some areas of modernization and there's also some low areas that need to be upgraded. Put in the next slide. So from this, our tour, as well as our conversations, we found really four areas where operational efficiency could occur. The first being centralizing some of those facilities. So locker rooms, showers, and restrooms, bringing those all together into one place. Co-locating administration, which is currently dispersed and really creating some more collaborative and functional yard administration that's all in one place. Standardizing that material storage so every unit has different materials stored in different ways and trying to think about how we can standardize that in an efficient way. And lastly, creating some equal access to amenities that are well maintained and consistent. Next slide. The animal services building was a key factor for us right from the beginning. You'll also see we note this as the primary building, so it has kind of two names throughout the study. The building is 80,000 square feet. Its occupants are the animal shelter, the police department, fleet management has auction vehicles in their facilities and landscape. And we really wanted to look at this building to see how it could be repurposed for the yard functions. When we did a condition assessment of the building, there were some urgent priorities that came up in that process. The first is that the metal roof is failing. The solar system no longer is functional and it's causing some leakage on the metal roof panels. There's also a need for reinforcement of the roof diaphragm and structural ties. You go on to the next slide. So we did a facility condition assessment as well as a tier one structural assessment of the animal services building. Short term needs are several that I just mentioned under those urgent priorities, as well as some issues with electrical reliability and life safety efficiencies. Those are really things that need to be addressed in the next one to three years. Midterm four to five years are primarily finished replacements and fixtures, low tier items. But long term is a major HVAC system renewal. So all these factors were things that we were keeping in mind as we did the conceptual options and later did the cost estimates as part of the project to really assess how this building could functionally keep operations running in it if it was to be repurposed for yard operations. I'll pass it over to T to kind of share how we translated that program into conceptual designs.

So what we're looking at here is basically an early baseline overview of the program requirements and you can see the growth and the different kinds of departments and different areas. The goal really of the study is just as stated previously to balance the operational efficiency and future growth for the project. Those are kind of the main goals. The data outlined here is going to give us the square footage needs that we that the staff is projecting and the required kind of access that we need for this project. And with the information here, even though it's really high level, we have a more detailed table that we're looking at, but we're basically trying to refine these to some physical kind of more layouts. So next slide, please. So what you're seeing here are three distinct kind of strategies on how we can get through those program requirements. Option A utilizes kind of a two-story approach where we would add on an additional second story to that primary building. And then to get the remainder of the parking, what we'll end up having to do is basically a parking deck and housed housed in that one would be, for option A, it's just parking. And option A, the distinct factor is that we're putting the fleet maintenance inside that primary building. For option B, the difference here is we're still utilizing a two-story parking deck, but we've moved that fleet maintenance portion into the parking structure itself. moving out of the primary building. And then option C is pretty similar to option B. The big difference is instead of building that second story component inside that primary building, we're leaving it as a one story, which saves on cost because now we no longer have to account for stairs and elevators to get to that second story level. And once we went through these different options, what we decided to do was kind of move forward and look at a little bit more detail with options B and C. So we can go to the next slide. What you'll see here in the color-coded kind of sections are all the different departments. So now, instead of having them spread throughout the entire site in bits and pieces, all the different departments are grouped together with all the adjacent needs, office spaces and warehouse spaces and the like. And the approach that we've done here also takes advantage of reusing the building itself So for this option with that second story, we have admin on that second story. We've grouped everything to where it needs to be. And you can see in the parking structure, the colored section would be where the fleet maintenance would be. And you can see the rest of the site with the site improvements, everything kind of cleans up. So basically on the ground level of the parking structure and on the site itself would be mainly all of your fleet vehicle parking. And then most of your staff parking would be on that upper deck. So it keeps everything really efficient and helps separate the different needs. So if you go to the next option, So option C, again, pretty similar to what you just saw. The footprints really don't change much between these two buildings. The big difference here really is that we've been able to move everything down to one level on that primary building. So we don't need that additional cost of getting up to that second floor. And the way that the departments have been broken up, we've also been able to phase the building in a manner that keeps you guys operational without disrupting anything as construction is going on. So there's a couple of phases that Haley alluded to that she will discuss in further detail.

So I'm actually going to do that, too. Oh, there's not just a couple of phases. There's eight phases. So there's quite a bit to pull this off just to make sure that operations can continuously remain uninterrupted. So we understand that we can't approach this like a vacant site. We have to incorporate operations. So continuity was key. We looked for ways to really minimize off-site relocations. There was one phase, the first one, to move some of the auction vehicles off-site. But essentially everything else was conducted in a way that avoids moving departments multiple times because we don't want to increase additional costs, disruption, operational risk. Parking, circulation, and construction staging also were major considerations in that. How do you accommodate a contractor's lay down area while you're doing all these phases? And how do you maintain parking availability during all this? Make sure it's balanced through each phase. So you can essentially move through each of these phases without and stop if you needed to, without disrupting the organization too much. At the same time, phasing strategy should support the shortest reasonable construction duration without compromising security or safety. So we think we've been able to do that reasonably well. Obviously, if you were to find a temporary site to move everyone to, one phase would be the most optimal solution. But we know that land and money and Timing is always a challenge. So this gives you the ability to do so and pull this off in an incremental way over time. So I think we've developed a phasing strategy in collaboration with staff that really achieves all of these related goals. Next slide, please. So, at this conceptual stage, the total project budgets for the 2 options. Concept B and concept C are relatively close concept B as T alluded to includes a 2 level administration addition within the primary building. and a two-level parking structure with an estimated budget of $137 million. Concept T keeps that administration function in the primary building to one level, but then increases the parking structure to three levels. And that is actually a little bit less expensive because it's pretty expensive to build a second story within an existing building. Now, these are comprehensive planning budgets, in addition to construction, they include professional services and fees furniture specialized equipment and appropriate project contingencies, as well as escalation tied to all the phasing plan so we're escalating out into. The final phase on this is out to 2032. So a lot of future money included in this. You know, of course, if it can be expedited, then there's savings there. But as a preferred concept is selected and design advances, the budget will continue to be refined based on more detailed scope, site investigations, and of course, market conditions. And of course, there's, you know, a considerable amount of detail that that is behind this. These are just really rolled up for the brevity of this presentation. But with that said, I think that leads us to our question slide. Happy to answer anything you might have.

Great. Thank you for that invitation. Before we put in the questions, we'll take one public comment, Yumi.

Thank you. My comment is just about the animals. If we do move the animal services center over to by the airport, I'm just hoping the consultant can speak to that and how the animals will deal with the stress and the noise and all that stuff. Because, you know, I'm a fan of animals and I'd love to hear how we're going to make sure they're well taken care of. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so from what I was looking at, and I know this isn't simple equation, but

It's like $2 million for 14 spots. This is kind of what I was looking at in terms of the two-level versus one-level. And just wanted to see if there's more efficiencies that are made operationally if they were to go to two stories versus one story and have with that impact the different departments.

Dustin, you want to take that?

I think I understood the question.

It's a little bit hard to hear.

Can you repeat that, please? Sorry.

I know this isn't a simple one-to-one correlation here, but I think you had $2 million for 14 parking spots. is kind of how I'm seeing that two different proposals. And I'm just trying to see if there's operational efficiencies for these departments to go to two-story versus one-story. Because I know when I see a lot of cork jars, they usually are one, a lot of them are one-story for a reason. And I'm just wanting to know if that was talked about when you were looking at these two options.

Yeah, I think, I think the, I mean, when you look at Concept B, that has a two-story admin and a two-story parking structure. Concept C is a little bit less expensive because we're staying at one level, but then we have to pop up to three levels of parking. So we're reducing costs there, and there's that delta that I think you're talking about. I think really the way to further reduce that is to gain more site. And so we talked a little bit about the ability to – potentially negotiate something with the school.

Is it better to have it two-story operationally? Because sometimes the cost to me is not that much. I mean, $2 million is a lot of money, but you know what I mean, in the grand scheme of things. So I'm just wondering if there's some efficiencies operationally that we should be looking more at versus the $2 million delta. I follow that.

Okay. Well, I mean, I think that that really is, you know, for administration to be on a second story, not a huge deal. I think it's more of like what level of administration is upstairs. We have, you know, laid that out conceptually here. It does eat up more square footage. You have to accommodate, you know, elevators and stairs so that I think. That is not ideal in a lot of ways. We see a lot of corporate yards being single level, but in urban environments, you may have to go two levels specifically for administration. I think the parking structure is probably the least efficient part of it. Going three stories in a corporate yard does present more risk, more operational, just time going around ramps. So I think you're calling out an important consideration from a policy level perspective.

And I just want to clarify. So option B and C, when we first looked at them, they had a difference of 14 parking spots. When we added that third level, we actually gained about 100 spots. So that price difference for the third level provides 495 parking spots. in option C. And in option B, it provides 391. So that increase does lead to quite a few additional parking spots between the two.

Oh, okay. Yeah, it's different for yourselves.

Yeah, the previous slide was an older version before we revised them. Yeah.

That's what it says, 150,000 per seat. Oh, that's an expensive parking spot. Okay, that makes sense. All right. And then... See, I have been to the courtyard quite a bit. Yes. And just wondering, what are the interim solutions for the courtyard right now that we're thinking of? Because it is a little dated there.

is there something that you need for the program the immediate thing that we are pursuing is if we can enter into some sort of a lease with the husd to get a portion of unused wenton middle school so it's only it's only getting more land as the interim solution for what they're experiencing now nothing there's no like interim projects within the courtyard without wenton

with just Director O'Meara and Greg Novo getting around and then building some parking, which will free up some space. That's the idea. Right. I think parking is one of the biggest constraints.

So parking is the main thing, not anything internally that any upgrades internally.

The facility is all there, so we'll get things we might need to do in the interim, depending on the time frame this takes to build out. But it sounds like the biggest operational constraint is parking, and so trying to get the least property, municipal districts, and then we can do those on a one-year term basis.

And then as far as the animal services, so I've been at animal services a few times this past year. And one time I was there, someone informed me that they were picking up a dog they found in San Leandro. and they're dropping off in Hayward Animal Shelter. Another person I talked to, they found microchips of a dog in Pleasanton. So I'm saying all these antidotes to say that we are a regional hub for animal services. This is not, oh, this dog is going to stay in Hayward and it's going to go to Hayward Animal Shelter. We are a regional hub that needs regional support for animal shelter. And I wanted to know if we can start having those conversations of us having the Hayward Animal Shelter, but start to see, let them know that we are seeing a, it's going to take a while for us to do, to upgrade the Hayward Animal Shelter, but it's not Hayward Animal Shelter alone. It's three generations. So is there any kind of support in terms of doing, not necessarily a temporary, but an additional funding mechanism to help us do the upgrades with the animal shelter? Because I actually do have some concerns about the animal shelter going to the airport as well. I've seen other facilities in the county that have the animal shelter very close to freeways, and I can tell that the dogs have some stress from that. So I just wanted to...

yeah I think we can explore those conversations and try to have them I think it's going to be honestly it'll be hard to ask other cities to pay for that because they're not paying for it now unless we guarantee them certain response and they you know yeah but I think it's going to be a tough conversation right they're already taking advantage of that now and it's going to be hard to ask them to even if that's fair which I agree would be Um, it would be hard to get them to contribute, but it's something we can explore and ask. We had the county level.

Well, yeah, it's really some funding for operation. Maybe some grants.

Okay.

Thank you.

Great.

Um.

Okay, so I'm trying to just understand what it is we're weighing on to. I think we're getting the slides up, but it looks like the overall layout has been more or less decided, and we're trying to figure out for the primary building and the parking building how big or small we want to make those. Is that correct?

Yes, but with the proviso that acquiring that portion of the parcel from USD.

And is that included in this visual here? So like really give us conceptual vision.

One of the first slides.

I remember that red square. The red square, yes. Yes. Is that incorporated in the concepts?

No, no, it is not currently.

Okay. So I think, yeah, well, I think what I'm struggling with is, well, first of all, how many parking spots does the courtyard farm have?

Maybe 200. Sammy, you have that information?

200.

200 plus. And then there's some staff. So what reference material do you need?

Storing currently about 200 plus vehicles on site.

That includes like staff parking?

Correct.

Okay. So I guess when I'm looking at these concept designs, we're talking about a parking structure that can accommodate How many vehicles was it, MC?

Over 300.

So is that 391 parking spots, the lot plus the parking garage total, or just the garage itself?

Correct. Okay. Excluding the Hayward Unified School. Okay. And...

on, I don't see the number for this slide, but on the slide that's comparing option A, B, and C, it says 376 parking spots, 376 parking spots, then 362 parking spots, but then on a different slide, conceptual option C, 495 parking spots, yeah. So is that a mistake on option C here?

This is where we started with the conceptual options. So we started with 376, 362. The actual need of parking spots based on our future fleet count is about 395. So hence, when we started with these options, we knew we were short on parking. which is partially why we decided to refine options B and C, where we had a little bit more leeway to explore parking and to see if we could get a third floor parking deck to give some cushion to the group. So in total, I think there's a little over 200 parking spots on the site, but it's definitely short for that 395 needed for future operations.

The next slide is revised. Got it. Okay.

And then so if you can look at this option to be revised, we're at 391 total.

That's for the entire site.

Okay. And then that's slightly below the need. And is that the current?

Yeah. So I apologize. 391 is the total that we needed to accommodate on the site for future operations. So we're just barely there in option B. In option C, where we hit that third floor deck, there's a little bit of room in case there's additional growth or other operations that end up on the site.

But that only provides for a one-story building. Would that compromise some of the goals we're trying to meet, such as centralized facilities, co-located administration? By removing that second story, I see that the level two and the other options weren't that significant as far as how much additional administration space is being provided. Can you speak to the downside of having a one-story administrative building if options that we're already projecting.

Yeah, I can pipe in and T can maybe share as well. So I think the main big difference is, of course, we said that administration shifts to that lower level in option C. It doesn't necessarily take away from those operational efficiencies we were trying to achieve. It shortens the amount of parking spots that we have inside the primary building. So you see that little gray area in the primary building, that's additional parking that's inside specifically for fleet auction vehicles. So essentially by pushing downwards our administration, we lose a little bit of indoor parking, but we gain that back in the parking garage itself. So that's kind of the big difference between them, but those operational efficiencies still remain.

Okay, so what I'm seeing, going back to customer Andrew's question earlier, is by paying $2 million or less, we can get close to 100 more parking spots. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, and so is the staff recommendation here, is option C what we're looking towards the most at the moment in your professional opinion?

We don't have a recommendation right now. You just show an exploring list.

Okay. Um, do you have a favorite?

I mean, my preference is to be able to work something out in the school district to see if you can get that additional land.

So then just really quickly, I... It's hard. So, I mean, when we looked at this needs assessment, we're taking a holistic view on how to reshape the entire courtyard. And I love this idea of consolidating things behind the primary building. That makes a ton of sense to me. If we were to get more land from HUSD, would that primarily be for parking or would that change the arrangement of, oh, I guess we're just repurposing pre-existing structures here. So it would be primarily for outdoor use.

It will be for parking, and then it frees up some of the space that is dedicated to parking under these options.

I see. So it might be an option to keep option C with just two stories of parking, but because we have the addition of I-C, so there could be an additional, okay. Sorry, go ahead and tell us what we're going to do.

I was just wondering, I mean, maybe in future presentations, we can see the options, how you have it in that other slide, because I think that's what, yeah, maybe go to him. We're getting a little confused on it. The visuals are great. I think if we can have it be seen with showing the HUSD property, I think it can give us a full picture of what we're deciding between. Because I think we're kind of trying to piece it together.

Thank you. And we're already in conversation with HUSD currently.

Having those conversations. And so I've talked to the superintendent and she just, they just lost their business officer and her high maintenance. So she's not ready to make any kind of definitive recommendation to the board until she has a business officer that can kind of evaluate the pros and cons. Yeah. I think she's open to continuing those conversations. Okay. And Director Meary, we've shown her one larger piece, one smaller piece. We've talked about a lease versus a sale. I think one way that might make it more palatable to them if it was a long-term lease.

Yeah.

And with improvements on our world parking, which are relatively easy to kind of, like if later they needed that space at 50 years after our lease expires, then they could convert that back to some sort of field. So we've started those conversations, but she's not ready to make her recommendation yet. do we have or it has the idea of like a land swap input on the table where maybe we have some property adjacent to a husd campus that might benefit them i don't know if that's the way that's been discussed we haven't but we can talk about it i think fundamentally though she's concerned just about undersizing an existing school so i think that's going to probably be her priority is like can she afford to forego that prop that land given the needs of the schools there yeah And that will probably be paramount to her decision, but we can certainly talk to her about a swap, too, if we can think of other properties.

Is this Winton Middle School behind it? Winton Middle School, okay. And I know that they're struggling with the deficit at the moment, and there are certain schools that were slated for closure, but Winton was not one of them, is that correct?

Which is also why there's some consolidation that has to occur, more students just wanting to be careful on just short change. On the other hand, some sort of lease payment, could help the district. So there are some pros and cons.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. So is there a staff recommendation at the moment? We're still working through those details. Did you have any other questions? Oh, last question was just around. So I really thought the approach to phasing was interesting and making sure that we're able to remain operational. So because we're phasing it, it's not like a larger lump sum. I mean, it's $135 million, but it's not all at once. Does that mean we're actually able to make movement on this project? Like as we settle on the final designs, we can allocate portions of our capital improvement budget to begin phase development of this? I'm sorry. I mean, I know you've been chopping that up into small pieces. It's still significant chunks of money. But if the chunks themselves are phased in a way where... I think in the past, we've used the library as collateral for a loan or something. We were able to pay it back over time. I'm just interested in ways that we can finance smaller phases because they're slightly less ambitious for large financial projects.

Correct.

Okay. Will you have information on that next time we bring this forward? Or can you have information on that? I just want to understand how we're going to finance this.

Yeah. I mean, I'll just start moving... can talk more about it but what you're talking about is usually a certificate of participation and even in those cases you might issue debt you still have to have money every year yeah to pay it that money that we find every year has to come from some source yeah but then those types of debt require security and that's where you might secure the debt with an existing facility yeah um they still have to find money to pay for it so presumably this would come you know if sales tax comes back and our economy gets better and we're able to kind of lean the general fund off measure c yeah Obviously, public safety centers are a priority, but then I think after that, potentially using some of that growth over time to maybe help do some of those smaller phases. I think that's probably our best. You know, courtyards, in terms of grants, there aren't a lot of grants out there for courtyards. So... So, but we'll keep looking at it.

Yeah. Well, I would also like to formally set what we're prioritizing with, you know, C and K one. I think the snack community center had been, you know, on the cusp of completion for a very long time. This is a very important, you know, our, our media services, our street service settings are all essential city services. So I see these as all pulling from the, the measure C pod. And that's what I'm trying to figure out. How can we also phase over spending money on to advance these projects? Like we've already given the safety center 600,000 to figure out what was presented tonight. And, um, Yeah, I just want to figure out how we can advance this currently.

Have you thought about packaging for P3? We can look at that. I mean, P3 isn't necessarily, they don't come up with, we still have to make payments, right? So you're still having to finance something and then come up with money every year to pay for that. Different ways of structuring it might have different benefits to us on financing structures or rate tax rates, but our interest rates, but we still have to find money every year. And right now we're using measure C to balance our general fund budget.

What other feedback do you have as council members?

We appreciate the feedback.

Okay. And so this was just primarily for feedback, not necessarily for any kind of vote. Okay. Well, yeah, I'm really pleased that this project is moving forward. I think the courtyard is one of the most underrated aspects of how we provide services for residents, and I'm happy that it's getting the attention it deserves. So thank you for all the work that's gone into this. With that, we'll close that item and move on to future agenda items.

So what makes me think is on the 28th, There are two main items. One is the compost hub that we are going to bring before you, and the other one is community-based transportation plan for your review and comment.

Great. Thank you. And then we did have some comments earlier about just the community feedback process around SkyWest. Maybe a short informational item, not necessarily a full presentation, but if you're able to outline just what the process is going to be or any progress you've made, that might be helpful unless you want to make a staff announcement.

I prefer to make stuff now because I don't think, I think the direction I heard from the committee and Forbes did not necessarily bring that. I think our intent would be somewhat we're, I think, based on a lot of the questions that we heard from the committee from the communities, we felt pretty strongly that we need to do more due diligence and get some answers and definitive answers. So yeah, we're retaining biological consultants, we're retaining other types of environmental working consultants that can advise us. We've retained a project manager to help us manage this process because it is a complicated project. We're in conversations with HUD. So the way I've described it is that we're kind of taking a 90 day due diligence period to get better answers so that we can be more accountable to the community about what our options are. And at the end of that, you know, whether it's 90 or 100 days, you know, don't have exactly to 90 days, but we're going to do all that work and analysis and coordination and then come back. um to do some sort of community outreach and possibly some outreach along the way so maybe um do the survey and possibly even some kind of guided walks and so we're kind of thinking about ways that we can engage some focus group outreach so try to do some things in the meantime and then do a larger community meeting at the end of the intelligence period where we really start to kind of present maybe even have a biologist there to answer questions And then we go to council with that feedback with some clear recommendations.

Okay. So we're actively working on this. Great. Thank you for that update. I'm sure the community appreciates that too. What I'm hearing is that we are bringing on the talent to help develop and execute the next phase of this project. Okay. And that would include community outreach as well as bringing back community. Absolutely. Okay.

And the FAA, we know a lot of questions about, you know, how much land does the FAA go require? Yeah. you know, not, you know, can meet that fair market value. Cause I know that open space can, and the fair market value is a requirement of that. So we're trying to get some of those answers. So we had a lot of questions that we want to make sure we get answers. So an FAA is part of that too.

Okay. So at least three months, just so everyone's aware.

Today?

Yeah. From three months from today?

We started, you know, we kind of called it from the time that we came before, but I think I'm thinking probably, you know, November, December, whatever they do, is that they report like a bigger community. Yeah. You might do some engagement in the near term.

Yeah.

But we have a lot on the plate, so just trying to figure out.

Yeah. So give us some grace. We don't want you to all feel like a decision is going to be made and sprung up out of nowhere. So check in with us when I'm hearing around November, essentially. Absolutely. Okay.

You can reach out to me directly or to Mary, any of us by email. And if you have questions or you're not sure what we're doing and you want it out, then we're happy to respond to those emails.

Great.

I'm just going to use some books for the holidays.

So maybe, Jane.

There's a lot of misinformation.

It would be really nice to have a real bad one. And we're actually developing part of our new project managers, but there's a lot that she's trying to do. So, and our team is trying to do, but so bear with us, but we're working on all of that.

I think the most important thing you stressed was the guided tours, because I think the audience knows I really care about safety, and this is something that I'm really happy that you all are going to just implement, so you have a process to that.

We might not be able to do it all this time, but we want to, as part of the outreach, to talk about maybe we can have a biologist... that's done some analysis, come out and share some of what they're seeing. So we're trying to, we're thinking through ways that we can engage the community in a great way. But this is your biologist, not the airport, correct? Hired by the city. Well, the airport is part of the city, the department of the city. So we retain an independent consultant, but they're a consultant I've worked with on other projects. They have a great reputation. They're independent and very smart, capable people who can give you an independent perspective on the impacts and different issues that we'll have to deal with as we move to reuse the parking. Thank you.

And just one topic I was interested in, I wasn't sure if it will get sustainability or us, but is there just a oral report we can have on sea level rise project to see just what's happening there?

Making a note.

Okay, if there's nothing else, then we will adjourn at 7.16 p.m. Thank you very much, everyone. I need that.

Yay.