City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening everyone. Like to call to order the Monday, November 17th uh regular meeting of Palo Alto City Council. And if the clerk would please call the role. Council member Stone here. Council member Burton here. Vice Mayor Vinker here. Council member Liths. Council member Lou here. Council member Rectal here. Mayor Lowing here for the record. Six present.

Thank you very much. Are there any agenda changes, additions, or deletions for city manager? The only change uh is reflected in your amended agenda which is the elimination of the closed session. So we'll proceed with your open session items. Okay. Our first item tonight is uh general public comment on items not on the agenda. We have to see how many speakers we have. We have seven requests to speak.

Actually, six. Oh, just kidding. Seven requests to speak for items not on the agenda. Okay, we'll go with the normal three minutes and would encourage you to be more concise if possible. We have a lot of busy agenda items tonight.

Our first speaker is Fen T. Good evening all. Thank you city council members so much for your devotion to duty. You were all volunteers here. Sven your 20 almost 20 year resident of Palo Alto chemical engineer dad and your science advisor for induction in natural gas stoves. So just a gentle reminder, natural gas stoves because they are burning a CH4 molecule, a carbon-based molecule, they generate benzene. Benzene is a carcinogen, a known human carcinogen. There is no safe level. In addition, it generates oxides of nitrogen because there is 78% nitrogen. So when you burn anything, you get oxides of nitrogen. Roughly studies show 20% of childhood asthma is caused by having a gas stove. These are big numbers. And why am I so fussy pants about this? Um, it's personal. Um, my dad died of lung cancer and my elder daughter suffered from exercise induced asthma and so it it goes home. but also as a chemical engineer who is concerned for everybody. I mean, you're all my lambies. Everybody's got kids here and that means everybody's kids are being affected and us as adults. So, big picture, it's it's a human health problem. But in addition to that, the natural gas industry, just like the tobacco industry, is manipulating us because they're saying you got to have a natural gas stove in your house. all sorts of advertising paying influencers because that is the gatekeeper into your house so that they can keep

your natural gas hot water heater andor natural gas furnace running. So they are manipulating public sentiment to you that natural gas is safe, convenient and all that and it's simply not. So tonight, what it's a simple ask. Thanksgiving is coming up. I'm going to be gone for the next 2 weeks. I'm going to be going to a place with a natural gas stove. And I would invite you to with me open your windows in the kitchen when you're running your gas stove if you've got one. And to make sure the hood is on, even though they're not that effective, at least it's something for you and your family over Thanksgiving. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Avo S followed by Mark S.

Good evening, city council members. My name is Aver and I'm a member of the Paula Student Climate Coalition or PAS and a junior at PLI. Um I have a few things to talk about tonight, but I'm going to try to make this short. Um the first is last Monday uh me alongside around 20 people on Zoom were hoping to speak for the Dark Skies ordinance. Um I know unfortunately it was deferred but we would greatly appreciate if it could be uh brought back to council uh sooner rather than later. Um secondly, I'd like to reiterate uh my colleague Sven's words regarding the health effects of natural gas stoves and the potential benefits of switching to induction. Um this is proven science that says the partial combustion of natural gas in um especially in stoves where it's not immediately then put into an exhaust um is bad for our health. Um it releases benzene and nitrous oxides which benzene is a proven carcinogen. Um these are things that we know and things that we can take action on. Um, and for myself, I see that the city does a lot of outreach or attempts to work with so many community members with varying rates of success to promote electrification. And I just see limited success regarding natural gas stoves. And I don't feel that we're communicating the health effects of them as effectively as we might. Um, I would urge the city to take further action on that. Um, because these are easy solutions that we can do. we can do more to talk about the health effects because right now I believe the city's outreach on that is limited to as far as I know a small section on the bottom of our website um regarding electrification. There is simply just a lot more that we can do. Um and I don't want to take up a lot of time but I just urge the city to

consider expanding its outreach uh to include the benefits of induction over natural gas. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mark S. followed by Steve L.

Thank you. I'd just like to add in that last comment. We have an induction stove. It's insanely great and responsive. Thank you. Um but I'm here and I'm concerned that the PaloAlto airport weather system upgrade program and FA grant terms associated with need more transparency and a thorough review. It looks more like a package of changes to enable more operations during non-towered nighttime hours than just a weather system. For example, it also it also includes moving the papy lights for to the darker the darker bay side of the runway. These papies appear to be the brighter and more intense LEDs which reach further and enable more nighttime operations but actually aren't safer in fog off or small planes with center props. Not to mention that better enabling more non-towered night landings does not increase safety. We also don't know what the full scope of this package is nor what additional FA mandated changes will be triggered later if the program enables more night operations. You may remember, for example, how the FAA's critical aircraft requirement in earlier grand assurances tied repaving the runway to also expanding it. Moreover, this will restart the clock for another 20 25 years for the grand insuranceances which contractually prevent PaloAlto from exercising its airport ownership rights such as setting operating hours, limiting airport use to private planes versus ticketed commercial operations like at San Carlos, phasing out selling leaded gas, controlling light levels for wildlife anywhere on the airport grounds, or as council found recently, to freely use excess airport land for safe RV parking. and all new FAA grant insurance contractually commit recipient airports to enforce all of Trump's executive orders banning DEI equity, gender and identity non-discrimination, climate and environmental justice programs, as well as to enforce so-called protections for speech. Essentially, how one talks about race, gender, and sexual orientation. I should also note that the airport's previous owner, Santa Clara County, has long stopped accepting FA grant money because of these ownorous and now odious mandatory terms in FA grant assurances. This whole program needs a lot more transparency in view and unders to

understand its true scope and cost. This is clearly not free money nor a no-brainer, particularly for a package that provides no new safety for daytime operations and encourages less safety and noise for nighttime operations. Finally, I've left copies of the Federal Registry announcement listing the 2025 changes to FA grant terms with the clerks. It's one page. They're worth reading. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Steve L, followed by Carol G. I came over first to thank the council for the successful and expeditious approval of finally 660 University and to thank the mayor for running one of the few civil meetings I attended over the 660 project. But the main reason I came is to urge you and the planning staff to find a way to limit future PHC applications and review perhaps to a year and a half perhaps to five meetings. I'd love to see the housing decided, but my main reason is that I think the four years that we took overt tax the staff and pushed off other important items. You now have three PHCs, but you have the San Antonio area plan. You have the SP79 and alternatives. You have a housing fee study that's supposed to take a year and you have other housing applications. I don't see how we get through all of this without somehow limiting the PhD process. I don't know the the mechanics of doing it. But I know that Emily Callas, for example, could have done many other things if she hadn't have had to prepare for nine um 660 university

meetings. So, that's why I came. I hope maybe somebody will think about it and prepare a a colleagueu's memo, but the city's been doing really pretty well on streamlining the housing review process, but the 660 experience suggests that we need to do better for the PHC's for 332 Forest and 414 Calv. And I'm forgetting the other one, but there is one more um that's coming up. So, please let's reform the PHC process and shorten it.

Our next speaker is Carol G, followed by Fred B.

Greetings, Mealoing, city council members, and my beloved Palo Alto community. My name is Carol Garen, founder and producer of the Third Thursday California Avenue Music Festival and a proud Baron Park Powalta resident of 23 years. For the past 30 consecutive months, it has been my honor and joy to produce Third Thursday for our community. From the start, it has been much more than a public event. With music as the glue, the festival has served as a community engagement hub, a place where nonprofits, city departments, and local businesses connect with Silicon Valley residents and employees of all ages and backgrounds. In the wake of the pandemic, Third Thursday helped nurture our community through the joy of live music, rebuild our sense of belonging, and increase foot traffic and economic vi activity for the Kawa business district. I'm saddened to share that the festival will not be taking place this month. Our team is currently restructuring and working to secure a new fiscal sponsor with the goal of resuming the event in early 2026. I am deeply grateful for the tremendous support from the city of Palo Alto, the ch Palto Chamber Foundation, Stanford Research Park, and the Kala business community. To date, over 70% of ground level businesses in Carfrey Calav have signed the petition urging that I continue as the events producer. I am profoundly moved by the encouragement and appreciation by musicians, nonprofits, and residents throughout Palo Alto, all expressing their hope that I continue leading Third Thursday. I invite everyone to join me on Thursday, November 20th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on Cal Avat. I'll be there to

meet with Third Thursday fans, answer questions, and share festival swag, hats, t-shirts, wine glasses, and other treats. Thank you for your time and your support and your belief in the power of community. I hope to see you this Thursday, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at Calab and Ash. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Fred B, followed by CCK. Good evening, Fred Balon here. On Thursday, you received an email as a CC from Hayden Caner of University Terrace, replete with misstatements and hyperbole calling for a four-way stop at the intersection of California Avenue and Columbia Street. Sight lines are not obstructed thanks to the red painted curbs. Yellow and green pedestrian crossing signs pair each side of the Calab intersection. There is striping along the four crossings and large pavement printed stop and sign at each of the Colombia street sides. A four-way stop is not needed and will generate problems. Equally upsetting is the failure to consult with Color's Terrace neighbors. My wife Anne, who wrote you yesterday, and I have lived on that corner for over 30 years. Since the 2004 initial project plans, neighbors have studied traffic reports and conducted our own data and analysis over the years. We pushed unsuccessfully to maintain a backdoor roadway out of the site and for a legally required street width for fire vehicles. But in the wake of the discovery of toxics on the site, we did succeed with a council with Cory Wbach and Pat Bert to require that Stanford implement state-of-the-art subslab depressurization under houses over that site. Over that site. I trust that that was implemented. Speeding down from the top of Calav in whatever means is a hazard. Lowering the speed limit or adding a second speed table on that stretch could help. Thank you.

Our next speaker is CCK K.

Good evening. My name is CC Kandorf. I live on Grove Avenue in Adobe Meadow neighborhood and I'm here to speak in support of Carol Garen as the um managing person in charge of the uh third Thursday music on Calav. And so I want to read to you the names of the businesses who signed the petition in support of Carol. And it's 70% of the businesses on Calav. Here's a list. Massage Therapy Center, Omni Lash and Anatolian Kitchen, PaloAlto Fit, Zarin's Square Guys Pizza, Laboam, RA Mediterranean Wraps, Roman Ka, Namaste, Cali Kitchen, L Hole Nails, Knobill Hardware, The Form, Izzy's Tech CU, Lotus Thai, Bistro, Campus Barber, The Key, Victorian Ballet, Victorian Art, Joany's Cafe Hair Sharpers Umei Tea Mini Cat Town Leaf and Petal Christ Science Reading Room Ginshu PaloAlto Eyeworks PaloAlto Soul Club Pilates Coberly Spoken Wheel and I'm just sad that it's not going to happen in November or December. and I'm hoping that Carol will once again be able to step up and run the fabulous show that she's always always done. Thank you.

That concludes public comment for items not on the agenda. Thank you very much. Let's now go to uh council member questions, comments, and announcements. Who would like to start? Vice Mayor Baker.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, it's good to be back. Um, I was in Brazil uh up until Saturday afternoon uh where I traveled in my capacity as vice chair of the Bay Area Air District um along with the chair, our executive director, and our public affairs officer. And I just want to give you a brief sense of those meetings tonight because this city cares so deeply about climate action. Um I can share more details at the climate action committee meeting on Thursday or folks can talk to me. But it was really quite an extraordinary experience. Um we first went to Rio di Janeiro where for the C40 local leaders forum um which is a global network of mayors that drive climate action. Um so I was representing our mayor. Thank you. Um but there were close to a thousand subnational leaders there. Um and it was really a tremendous sharing of best practices. But I want to share the main message we got and then the main message we gave. And when I say we, I mean Americans because there's a really great concern internationally about the US backing off of climate action. I mean other countries with extreme drought or flooding or other um you know current uh experiences they're really desperate to reign in climate change and they don't want to see the US turn the tide and also economically um they are very very worried um they not only are they worried about the US backing off of technology development in like investing in development or ceasing to be a significant market for green tech they're very concerned about losing US investment in climate action initiatives around the world. Um there's a lot of strong feelings about the Trump administration starting with the mayor of London who opened the plenary with all of the delegates there accusing it

of quote climate vandalism. So that was the vibe into which we arrived. So what about the message we gave? Well, it was very interesting because what we were saying is that the US is still allin and you know, states, counties, regional entities like the air district, we were all there saying, look, we're still full steam ahead. And it was really interesting because the response was pretty incredible. Um, at one point the mayor of London asked us in this big meeting, if you're an American, could you raise your hand? I thought, I'm not sure I want to. But we did. and the place erup erupted clapping for those of us that were still with the movement. So it was really an unusual thing because when you travel internationally as on behalf of the United States often times there's envy or respect or regard um and here it was almost like empathy and pity. So it's a very unusual posture that we're in uh internationally at the moment but it was very heartening that they were thanking those of us that were still all in. And so the key theme that came out of that week was that the traditional wisdom of sort of the nations coming together was sort of flipped on its head and really talking about climate action being local that this is where we're boots on the ground. This is the implementation. We can go ahead. We don't need permission from um national government. So it was a very interesting bottomup approach as opposed to a topdown approach. And so that was the place where local entities were really talking to each other about it. So that reframing was very interesting and really fits perfectly with the way PaloAlto um has approached things. And I did have the uh I want to give a big thanks to uh director Egleston and the public's works team who gave me some really helpful talking points because I had a chance to um be interviewed by

which is a another global network of local governments specifically focusing on sustainability and we're a member of um and they wanted to talk me to talk about a powalta sustainability pro project so I got the chance to brag about our new horizontal levy pilot it and people were kind of astounded by that. So that was that was a nice thing. So thanks to the team for supporting that. Um so that was in Rio. Then we moved on to BM in the Amazon where um the United Nations conference was happening and boy that was extraordinarily hot, humid. Um, but the really notable thing there is that for the first time in the history of these summits, the US did not send an official delegation. And uh, despite that, we're historically the world's biggest emitter. So, out of the 195 nations on this planet, who else didn't send them? San Marino, which has a population half the size of Palo Alto, Afghanistan, and Myanmar. So, that's the company we're in. Um anyway, uh it was it was quite extraordinary and uh as as you probably read, Governor Nuome was down there. There were only I think six US electeds there. Five of them were from California. Um and um the key takeaway there was that they have are really moving after 30 years of negotiations from from negotiations to implementation and um really again the economic thing. How do we pay for it? How do we achieve these goals? How do we do it equitably? But an important sub theme we don't hear up here is there is an extreme frustration in the global south that the global north has industrialized over the years ahead of them created a lot of this problem and now we're asking them not to use their natural resources to enrich themselves because it might contribute to emissions. So there's a

lot of tricky international politics that go into um the climate work that we want to do. So I'll just close by saying um another couple of thank yous. Um, I want to thank uh the utilities team uh director Curatori and Katherine Elbert for uh talking points for an energy resilience panel where again I got to brag about PaloAlto um that was sponsored by Ichley at the Spanish pavilion alongside uh I learned what's going on in Sao Paulo, Finland, Barcelona and Argentina. And finally, uh, a thank you again to Brad, John Abenshine, and Christine Long with for talking points for a video interview with a group out of Stockholm about our leadership on carbon neutrality. So, um, those videos should be available. So, we are sharing PaloAlto's best practices and brought back a lot of learnings from others and, uh, it's really quite a a fascinating experience. So, that's my report. Council Lithu.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and welcome back, Vice Mayor. It's nice to be a full compleiment of seven again tonight on the DES. Um, just want to report um that as you know, we have an ad hoc of the council working on um the situation with oversized vehicles. I serve on that ad hoc with council members Bert and Rectal. And uh as the city pursues um both addressing the impacts of oversized vehicles on businesses and residents, um we are also looking at recruiting new safe parking spots. Toward that end, if anyone listening is interested in being a part of that conversation, we know it's going to take creativity and a lot of eyeballs um looking at potential options. Uh please reach out to me at julieforpalto.com. Email me and I will um get you plugged into that conversation. This really does feel like an all hands-on deck uh situation where we're um looking for solutions and um excited to hear whatever ideas you might have. Um I'd also like to uh follow up on my announcement that I was hosting a potluck dinner on the 14th for any PaloAltons who wanted to come and just try to be an antidote to the loneliness, create community. And um that potluck dinner went off. Uh thanks to the a grant from the Know Your Neighbors um grant. Uh we did it on Friday night and I thought it was going to go from 5:30 to 7:30. It went from 5:30 to 9:45 p.m. And uh to a person, I think we all felt uh we we haven't had the chance to just let our hair down and have uh engaging conversations with humans without technology present. And so, um, I plan to do this again. And I encourage anybody who's searching for ways to, um, create community at a micro level, um, um, to strengthen us against the larger, um, headwinds we face, um, consider doing a potluck. There's a recent New York Times article that speaks to the inherent benefits of potlucks where everybody contributes a little something

and you co-create both the meal, the space, and the conversation. Uh on Saturday the 15th, I attended the Paloto Youth Council model city council event. Uh council members Lou and um Stone were also there. It was wonderful to see our amazing engaged youth council grappling with some of the issues they feel are most pertinent in the city right now. Uh great group of kids and always am excited to hear what's on their minds. Um and then uh finally on Sunday, yesterday, many of all of us were at the public safety building opening. I'm sure we'll hear more about that. Um just wonderful to be present as something that has been so long in the making uh was finally getting its red ribbon cut. Uh so many people worked so hard on that over the decades and um I think for those of us who are relatively new to the effort of city work. Um it's really um quite a lesson to sit and listen and learn to uh the triumph of persistence which is I think how our city manager put it in his remarks. Um, and finally, I attended the Magical Bridge uh Friendsgiving last night. It was my first time there and a remarkable event bringing together people from all over the community to uh share stories around the table and eat a delicious meal um and a great way to kick off uh a very busy holiday season. That's it for me. Thank you.

Uh thank you. Yeah, I wanted to comment that, you know, I'm I'm I'm still in a buzz from yesterday's meeting for yesterday's uh event. I was just so great to have the closure on that after so much so many years, decades as you heard from the speakers. Um and we could have had a council meeting because we're all there. Uh and and all all the residents were smiling for a change. No complaints at all. Everybody was really happy. So, it was just a terrific event and a great milestone. It was uh it did get coverage um on channel 4 NBC at 9:45 last night. Um just shifting now to the um ad hoc committee on uh OSVS. Um Council Bert is on the SP79 committee and I'm on the OSV committee. I distinctly report putting myself on that committee. So it's you and me.

I'm sorry. We have so many committees. I'm sorry. So

that's right. So um and only thing I want to say about that right now is that we are continuing to meet weekly uh because of the urgency of it and our next one is u again this week and we're we might meet Thanksgiving week uh without staff um if they can't um if it's probably not necessary. So, uh, but but we're staying on this. We're taking this very very urgently. And as you know, there's a couple of um items coming back to council uh at the next meeting on the 8th or I guess it's the second meeting uh approving a couple of the urgency ordinances. So things things are happening in that regard. Um also want to report that last week and uh this this current week are are sort of u both Stanford weeks. Been very active with the Stanford community. Uh last Tuesday I represented Palo Alto on our uh annual Veterans Day partnership with Stanford. Last year it was at MacArthur Park. Uh this year it was on campus at Stanford's Hoover Institution uh to remember and thank our veterans pime uh sort of focus on local but uh not uh restricted to that. Uh there are hundreds of veterans who live in Palo Alto and Stanford. So, it's not uh it's not a distant audience. Um but I will say that I was barely a warm-up act with my comments um for the as you know very distinguished keynote speaker, Secretary Condisa Rice and uh her her reflections uh were absolutely remarkable. just gave an an amazing uh talk uh and spoke about our our women and men who are and have served and how almost every day that has impact on what happens in American lives. So, um just remarkable and Council Burton Rectal were also in attendance. Uh last Wednesday, I attended a reception for area elected officials with President Levan there at Stanford.

Uh at the same time the vote to reopen the government was happening and uh was a little bit distracting for some of us particularly the president uh because you know they're sort of dependent on certain things from the federal government. So they were very pleased at the end of the evening that uh that that was passed. Uh in my role now on the Stanford uh next advisory council snack uh we have our second meeting open to the public I emphasize uh this Thursday November 19th from 6:00 to 8. It's at the Mexican Heritage Plaza in San Jose. Um, you'll recall that SNAC is their community outreach to uh their eventual general use permit application with the county, Santa Clara County. Um, and they're seeking initial feedback from the member committee of 22 residents from the not residents but uh uh representatives, sorry, from from the region. uh um on the role of Stanford in in in the community. Uh so this this Thursday the focus is on housing uh overview with a discussion on housing needs, their programs, regional solutions and information. There's the website uh is uh at next.stanford.edu. Any other council member comments? Council Rectal. Last night I attended a PAPD outreach meeting down at Green Meadow. There's been recently a couple breakins down there and so Captain Pron did a very nice job talking to the people and putting them at ease. Uh and there really were two takeaways from that. One is, you know, we the newspaper has a lot of reports of crime, but still Palto has low crime rate compared to our neighbors and also compared to our history. So things are going well. Crime still does happen occasionally, but it's well under control in Palo Alto. But the second thing is that if you are walking around and you see suspicious behavior, feel

free to call 911. 911 isn't just for terrible, terrible crimes. If you need police response, call 911 and they'll triage it and do their best to respond to it right away. So that do not hesitate. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other comments? Then we are ready to move to the consent calendar. Any additional comments from staff on that before we go ahead? Okay. Mayor, we do have one request to speak for consent calendar. Go ahead.

Our first speaker is Herb B. Uh good evening. Uh usually at the the start you uh ask uh council members if they have any comments such as whether they have conflicts uh of interest. Uh this is an item uh involving money for Stanford. uh as I I recall uh Vice Mayor Vinker in the past has indicated uh a conflict and that participate uh in uh items such as this. I also believe Council Member Lou has a conflict since his his spouse is employed at Stanford Line Accelerator. uh the the Stanford operates that uh place on behalf of the Department of Energy, but she is a Stanford employee. Uh in the same way, I believe that in the previous meeting when uh you voted on uh the Quarry Road extension that I believe council member Lou should should have recused himself. Thank you. That concludes public comment for consent calendar items 2 through 8.

Okay, we have uh two things on here. One is a quasi judicial item as we note when that takes a majority but I think is a super majority or not. No. Okay. Simple majority. And do you need do you need any separate disclosures now on that? It it it would be good to ask if there are any disclosures on that one.

Okay. Let's start with that first. Council member Bert, any disclosures? Council Lou, uh uh I am recused from Stanford related issues. I believe that could cover both item five and um item seven, but no uh other disclosures. Okay. Council uh Vice Mayor Banker,

I've been gone a week and I can't figure out which button to push. Um the uh uh I don't have any disclosures on uh six, which is what I thought you're asking about, but um I would recuse myself from seven and I guess I would ask the uh city attorney whether uh five implicates sufficient Stanford matters. Stanford. Okay. We didn't look at this in detail, but in an abundance of caution. In an abundance of caution, I'll recuse on five and seven. Thank you. Okay. I have none. Yeah. Nothing to report on item six. Nothing to report.

None. Okay. Does the clerk have that? All right. Then I look for a motion to move the consent with those refusals. I move the consent calendar. Second.

Okay, let's call the vote, please.

Council member Rectal. Yes. Council member Liths. Yes. Council member Stone. Yes. Vice Mayor Vinker. Yes. Council member Lou. Yes. Mayor Ling. Yes. Council member Bert. Yes. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Next we move to city manager comments.

Thank you, mayor. When the city clerk's ready, you can ask me ask for some help with slides. Great. Next slide, please. Well, if I could just uh extend the warm feeling about yesterday's event at our new uh public safety building and ribbon cutting as you see here. Actually, I think the term I used was celebration for the triumph of perseverance. Uh really reflected over more than two decades uh in bringing this need to reality. And really congratulations to everyone from the community to our uh public safety uh first responders uh in uh getting us here and obviously our public works and many other uh departments in the delivery of this as a project. Uh really uh really enjoyable event yesterday with community members uh so interested and uh engaged with our public safety departments as well as others. Uh did want to uh note the second bullet here shown on this uh slide for those who do need in-person services from the police department. Those are currently still provided here at 254S or 2754S sorry our um our current uh police building here uh attached to city hall. And uh so if looking for a police report or a similar type of records uh that those can still be reached here at city hall and the number is 650 329-2406 uh for uh any specific information needed. Next slide please. Then uh to quickly touch on uh California Avenue and as noted here music and events update did want to uh state very clearly for community

awareness uh really reflecting what the city has been uh communicating informally but let me just try to make this very emphatic. City is committed to supporting active events music and active events uh on California Avenue. Uh we are greatly appreciative to Third Thursday uh for having proven the concept and the value of such activation and events on California Avenue. And uh as been has been noted previously, the withdrawal of the prior fiscal sponsor has caused a need and opportunity to review what those uh events might be in the months and years to come. am happy to report that today uh a number of us met with California Avenue merchants. Uh a very encouraging positive uh uh discussion and including uh the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation as an organizing entity uh and a restart uh after the uh rainy season into the spring of events, music events and more that we hope will be well we expect will be more than a monthly occurrence. Uh and so there was discussion today of starting uh a working group on really sketching out a calendar uh for 2026 uh of events and again music events and other activations uh on California Avenue as it is now uh proven to be such a wonderful venue uh both for our community as well as merchants and visitors. And in the meanwhile, and I'll touch on this a little later, uh we are uh planning for the upcoming chamber and city sponsored holiday celebration on Saturday, December 6th. Next slide, please. Then uh to hit on the preparation for the holidays, uh this is our annual plug to uh invite merchants uh businesses

around town to let us know if they'd like us uh the city to amplify their uh holiday greetings and any uh promotions uh available uh through the holiday season. Our upliflocal.org/holiday org/holiday uh site provides specific information and uh we are happy to provide uh support to our local businesses uh through this as well as other channels. Next slide please. And then uh just a little more specificity here on upcoming events both downtown and Calav. The Linton Plaza uh tree lighting will occur on Friday December 5th. Our mayor as always will be uh providing MC as well as who knows maybe other talents uh may be shown that evening. Then the following evening December 6th on California Avenue also with music uh tree lighting and uh various performances and we shall see uh all the talents uh that are shown that evening. So, look forward to two successive nights uh both downtown uh University Avenue as well as California Avenue uh holiday events coming up. Next slide, please. Then uh turning to a more serious note, uh just want to note a number of uh uh other engagement opportunities coming up this week. On Wednesday, Project Safetyet is holding a community gathering on the topic of youth mental health. So, uh, we would like to help amplify that, uh, awareness, uh, of an event upcoming. So, it's Wednesday the 19th, this Wednesday at Mitchell Park Community Center from 4:30 p.m. Doors open at 4. Next slide, please. Then, railgrade separations, uh, also very important and, uh, community topic of great interest. Uh, we have, uh, hosted our meetings to this point. Just want to

highlight upcoming dates for community members that are tracking those uh deliberations. This uh actually tomorrow on this Tuesday, November 18th, our rail committee will be discussing discussing alternatives. Then on December 10th, the city council will hold a special meeting on this topic of rail grade separations. Uh where we expect to make a staff presentation, receive public comments, and then have some initial council discussion. Then that item will be continued to the following Monday, December 15th, uh where the city council will consider next steps on uh the selection of grade separation alternatives. On December 15th, we would expect that to be uh limited to city council deliberations and no additional public comment will be taken out that evening. Next slide, please. Then just a step back from that specific to look at all of the upcoming dates. First off, there is no meeting next Monday. It is Thanksgiving week, so no meeting I should believe no committee meetings as well uh next week or not uh formal committee meetings. Then the city council will next meet on December 1st with study sessions on your neighborhood neighborhood town halls both uh retrospective as well as perspectively uh what the plan will be going forward. another study session on the bicycle pedestrian transportation plan. Get additional council feedback on a proposed final plan and then action items related to the uh South Palto bike ped crossings as well as your council appointed officer agreements. Then the following week, December 8th, uh dark skies will be back for discussion. I did mention that to our public commenter earlier, so he has the date. Then noted earlier here, Wednesday, December 10th, a special meeting on rail grade separations. Then your final meeting for the calendar year will be December 15th with a study session on the Kabuli uh

project. Then two action items 4075 Alamino Way and rail grade separations. So with that merit that will wrap the year when we get there. Lot of lot of work still in the next few weeks. Okay. Thank you. Um we're running ahead of schedule and I suggest that we don't take our break now. We'll see the reaction that I have from colleagues on that uh and jump into the initial presentation on turf and we'll find a logical break point for that to uh to get a break. While we're doing that, uh Madame Clerk, we were having a lot of flashing of the slides here on this monitor. So maybe it's just this monitor, but yeah. Perhaps we'll uh hang with it until you take your break. Uh but if it becomes too distracting, we might just disconnect it. Let let us know if you'd like to.

It should be showing exactly what's on your iPads, too. So, yeah, it's on the iPad. Okay. Move that on the iPad. Okay. Very good. All right. Good evening, Mayor Lowing and council members. I'm Kristen Okaine, director of the community services department, and tonight we are presenting on the turf study that assesses the turf systems of PaloAlto. To my right is division manager of open space, parks, and golf, Sarah Robastelli. And I'm going to turn it over to her and she's going to introduce our other guest at the table. So, go ahead, Sarah.

Thank you so much, Kristen. Uh, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, members of the city council. Um, as Kristen mentioned, I'm the division manager for open space, parks, and golf and the project manager to for the turf study. Um, to my right is Anthony Stevenson um from Lloyd Consulting who I will be presenting with this evening. Anthony, would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure. Uh thank you Sarah. Uh good evening everybody. I appreciate the opportunity to uh be here and serve the city and community. My name is Anthony Stevenson. I'm a civil engineer and principal with Lloyd Consulting Group. Uh we are sports design firm uh involved in planning and design of sports facilities throughout the United States. Uh as far as the study goes, we put together a u international team of consultants, academics and researchers uh stemming from Europe, North America and Australia. It was our goal to deliver a comprehensive objective approach to this study informed by international advances but really grounded here in uh local uh context. the team members um or the group of us uh we do all sorts of things including independent consulting for a range of organizations uh major professional sports teams FIFA NFL MLB we also work for a wide range of collegiate institutions school districts and municipalities such as yourself back to you

okay wonderful um if you could advance to the next slide I'm going to provide some background ground of how we kind of got here and um just let you know that the city of PaloAlto um community services department manages natural as well as synthetic athletic fields citywide. We have a total of four synthetic fields at three different locations. One at El Camino Park, two at Stanford Paloalto Community Planefield, also known as Mayfield, and one at Coverly. Uh the synthetic field at El Camino has reached its end of useful life and requires replacement. The CIP to replace El Camino's park synthetic turf was included in the fiscal year 24 adopted capital budget. However, in May of 2024, the finance committee made a recommendation and city council directed that additional study be conducted uh to make informed decisions on future field selection. A study on environmental health, safety, cost impacts um on synthetic as well as uh natural turf was incorporated into the fiscal year 24 budget. So this the turf study was born. Uh the replacement for El Camino Park synthetic turf was deferred pending the study's findings. Replacement of Stamford PaloAlto uh Mayfield has is currently underway and this phased approach has maintained field availability while the study progresses. We are anticipating coverly replacement in 2028. Um the city council also directed that we pause the El Camino turf replacement um directed the study's findings. So

we'll advance to the next slide and um really to the the study is um focusing on evaluation of our athletics fields. It's also focus on environmental and health considerations, costs as well as usability. Um, there was an adjustments to the scope made to incorporate the Santa Clara County public health report that was released earlier this year and um we really focused a case study on El Camino Park since um that is the field we are planning to uh replace next. So ultimately a combination of staff and consultant expertise provided a really balanced approach of local knowledge and comprehensive analysis as best practices. The goal is to provide the city council with the necessary data needed to make this informed decision on future installations. The report covers a robot robust um areas including a bunch of community feedback which I'll um get into in a future slides, data collection, turf overview, products playability, life cycles, health hazard, health hazards, environmental impacts, uh city inventory, and then the case study of El Camino. Next slide. So once um once the project was launched um staff set up a very transparent project web page um for those who were interested you can sign up for updates on the um project web page. You could review the uh project timeline, upcoming engagement opportunities and receive uh newsletters throughout the project. In

July, city staff conducted focus groups. We um had 10 standardized questions that were available online in addition through written comment. And we focused in three areas. Um the parks and recck commission playing fields ad hoc committee in addition to field users as well as the Sierra Club. you um on August 13th, a draft report was released and there was public comment available through September 3rd um on that draft report. Initially, we were set to discuss at the parks and rec commission on August 26. However, that um item was deferred because the meeting ran too late. So, it was discussed for that first time September 23rd and um of of the public comment. From there, um it came back to the parks and rec commission with an updated draft October 28th where they voted um and which is before you this evening. And here we are um at presenting to you this evening. So this um tease it up for uh Anony's on we'll take you through the study. Right. Thank you Sarah. Next slide please.

So I'm going to take a few minutes here to walk through probably the larger overall kind of overview of the study and I'm sure there's uh questions which I'm I'm happy to respond to. But um of this overview, we're going to talk here shortly about the different field system types that were included in this in the study, playability and carrying capacity, cost, health and environmental considerations, um some of the comments that we received um for the draft study, and then final recommendations. Then I'll hand it back to Sarah for some final thoughts. So we can go to the next slide.

Thank you. So the we looked at a handful of different uh products or uh field systems for this study. So we looked at three different natural grass systems. Uh synthetic turf system and then a hybrid system. So if we see down below on our far left the natural grass system on native soil. That's pretty much what the majority of the cities are uh fields are comprised of and very popular for municipal fields to be uh this turf type. The next slide over the natural grass with the sand root zone and drainage. Um that is more per performance-based. So, whoops. Can you go back a couple slides? Sorry about that. Thank you. Um the uh Thanks for catching that. Um, so the the this is more performance type. You'll you'll see it in some uh municipalities um on a recreation standpoint, but you see like a lot more college professional sports where you're going to have some type of like sand root zone growing medium and then in some instances you'll have an underlying drainage system. So Levi Stadium down the street is is a great example. So you'll see profiles like this uh there uh really optimizing per performance. The next is synthetic turf. Uh the city has four of these fields and it's basically some type of aggregate base or filter medium with some drainage and then synthetic turf system on top. And then the last and final is a hybrid system. And so that's where we take that performance natural grass system and they basically stitch in uh synthetic turf fibers. Uh you don't see this a lot um in the United States. It's really reserved for very very high performance. Uh and a kind of a very very small uh market uses this. So if we have any uh soccer or football

fans out there, uh the last FIFA World Cup had hybrid fields. Uh and the the World Cup that's coming here next summer will have hybrid systems like this. I think it's also it's kind of interesting to note that as far as the city's inventory goes about 12 13% of your current inventory is synthetic turf. The remainder is natural grass fields. We can go to the next slide. Thank you. So I'm going to spend a few minutes on this slide. It's it's pretty important uh when we start talking about playability and carrying capacity. And so the city's fields um very very heavily programmed like most municipalities um year round. So when I when I was a kid um I vaguely remember kind of very seasonal um sporting activities and and the climate has definitely changed. We're seeing um year- round sports whether you're training or competing um or just or just practicing. So the the market's changed a little bit since I was a a kid a few years ago. But when we talk about playability, that's the extent to which a field reliably supports the athletic and ra uh recreational activity. So essentially, we're trying to maintain safe consistent um ser service surfaceable uh surface conditions. So when we see fields that are significantly degraded and there's it's basically more dirt than grass, um very low playability. uh when we see pristine grass fields like like you'd see um down the street at on at Levis's u very very high playability. Now that definitely that directly relates to the field's carrying capacity. So that's the amount of use a field can sustain before you start um uh having declining levels

of playability. So it's really the um the threshold. And if we look over to the right, there's a chart that provides uh those thresholds for different surface types. And so the this the turf grass we're we're listing here is cool season grass like we have here uh in the in the city. But our warm season grasses you might see central valley, desert southwest, those are warm season grasses and they actually get more you can get more playability hours out of those systems. It's just more robust. um turf cultivor. So anyways the um but you can see these these different thresholds uh for the different uh surface type um but there's a range here and these are generally used for uh planning purposes like each field itself uh this number is going to change um for a variety of reasons uh anything from the field type maintenance practices level of play on it consistency of play on it the tur different turf species species they use and the seasonality of play and season seasonality is a really big one. Um natural grass is a living organ organism. There's times of the year where our grass is fairly dormant or doesn't want to recover after use and then there's times of the year where um uh it's an optimal growing conditions and can recover. And so for instance the the winter months the grass here is um is not really in recovery mode. a lot of clouds, a lot of moisture. Um it's not very warm. It's not optimal conditions. And so during those winter months, that's when we see a lot of when we see a lot of the program go to synthetic turf because it can withstand the the wet conditions. You can continue to use it and it's not going to degrade. It doesn't need to recover like natural

grass does. So the last item I want to uh add on this slide is we like to take a look at synthetic turf versus the natural grass fields like what that ratio is as far as a playability and carrying capacity. So for example, let's just use round numbers. Um, if a synthetic turf field can generally achieve 2,000 hours per year and say a native natural grass field can do 500 hours per year, that synthetic turf field can basically meet the demand of three to four um native soil natural grass fields. So that's where that um kind of general ratio comes from. Just kind of a rule of thumb, usually your synthetic turf field in at least with the um in this environment with cool season grass can replace three to four natural grass fields. So, and obviously that's a planning purpose. You can we can drill into details and look at different things and maybe the number's two, maybe it's five. It it really depends on the specific requirements. So, if we can go to the next slide. Uh so cost efficiency is another item we we looked at in detail. And so we did do a 20-year life cycle cost model for these different surface types. And so this was we did our best to apply this to local conditions, local environment here, but it's not sight specific. Um different sites require different um grading drainage. the synthetic turf products might have pads, might not have pads, might have a a special infill or other products that impact these prices. So, we just try to be kind of general and consistent across the board. Um, but so as we put these numbers together, it's really important to note that these numbers really rely they need to be consistent across the board and

then it really needs to or they rely on the carrying capacities being maxed out. So, like for instance, when we look at the cost per hour, which is about $79 for synthetic turf, um that's assuming it's being used 2,000 hours a year. If it was being used 500 hours per year, this number would go way up. And really, that's really the where the benefit of synthetic turf comes. It can take a lot of use. And when you put a lot of use on these fields, the cost to operate them goes down. With that being said, they are significantly more expensive to build and renovate than their natural grass uh counterparts. Um, but you can see the ranges here. You're about $80 an hour for a synthetic turf field. And that's when you're using it for 2,000 hours. And that'll change if you have um uh a site that needs additional site work, grading, drainage, etc. That number can go up. um if you use that that field for more than 2,000 hours, that number uh can actually go down. And so, for instance, like El Camino, which has about 2,700 hours of use on it, that that actually comes down to about $70 an hour when you consider the cost of I think it's $7 or $800,000 for the for the next renovation. So, the numbers aren't set in stone. There is some flexibility to them, but it gives you a good range um at least for for planning purposes. Not many people I know will use these numbers for like the primary reason to go synthetic or or natural, but it's just something good to keep in the back of our minds. If we can go to the next slide, please. So, we're going to talk a little bit about health and environmental uh concerns and we'll spend a couple minutes on this. I I think it's definitely worth wild worthwhile, excuse me. So, the first item we're we're going to touch on are uh microlastics in synthetic turf. Uh, synthetic turf is

made with plastic. Um, and you really have two parts. You have the fibers and then potentially the infill. So, the infills can be a lot of things, but historically they've been sand in in rubber. The fibers themselves are generally like a polyethylene or or similar. And so, we do see micropl plastics making their way into the environment from these fields. and and that really happens one of three ways or all three in combination. One, the fiber loose fibers or infill can adhere to athletes and equipment. Um I'm sure people are have seen the the black socks after they leave the um a field after practice. Uh you can also see it through maintenance activities. So fields are going to be groomed and swept on a regular basis and you're going to have those fibers uh swept into a catchment, bagged and then likely disposed of as as regular refues. And then there's also the environmental factors as well. Ren, w excuse me, and rain can blow fibers, uh can blow infill, etc. Uh so those are kind of the generally three uh ways for these uh uh to get microplastics into the environment. The there are ways to further mitigate uh this this migration and that's contained in the report. We can talk into more detail if you're interested. Uh but a really a really big way to limit or reduce those microplastics is to use non-plastic infills. And so the fields you're seeing the city install now are basically sand and cork. Um there's there's no plastic in that in that infill like we've seen in in previous fields. Uh the last item I want to touch on is POS. The um which has

really been a hot topic in the synthetic turf world and it's being uh really thoroughly evaluated for a wide range of products as as you are probably well aware. So currently there is not an industry standard for PAS thresholds. Uh we're seeing manufacturers um have claims of PAS reduced or PAS free but those are those really rely on manufacturer um qualifications that they're putting on the products which is which is a good start. And if they are claiming uh a maximum threshold for PAS, there's independent testing you can do to verify that these um limits are are being met by their products. So ultimately there's um and I know we're just cuing here on synthetic turf. natural grass um has some challenges, but you're not seeing a lot of direct microlastic um uh in the environment through natural grass, etc. But essentially, each natural grass and synthetic both have benefits and drawbacks, and it's really up to the owner to prioritize one over the other. We go to the next slide. So, as Sarah mentioned earlier, we've gone through a series of draft studies, and we've re we've received a lot of feedback uh from the community, from commission members, from city staff, um etc. And it's actually been it's been pretty good. It's helped us to kind of massage the study, redirect to some point, provide clarifications just to better meet expectations uh of this study. And so we are on the the final revision here, which I'm sure you guys have all read numerous times. It's it's

a light read, but from our through the draft, we've received 21 unique um contributors and those come from organizations, residents, u non-residents as well. And so generally what we've what I don't want to oversimplify the um the comments. Uh you're they're in the study. You're welcome to review them line by line if you'd like, but the health and environmental concerns really focus on the PAS microplastics in the environment, surface heat of the synthetic turf, uh, end of life recycling as as well. Um, and there's and that group also has an interest in op optimizing the current natural grass fields, which we'll get into here in a little bit later. Um there's also some questions and concerns on how we took the city reservation data and converted that that to use hours. So like for instance um if uh half of the field was rented rent rented we counted that as a 1-hour rental which some folks didn't agree with us was with us on it. Uh but the way we look at that is it doesn't matter if a team is using half the field or or the full field you're still getting use. you're and frankly for a half field you're getting higher density use. So especially on a natural grass be better if you did a full field rental so you can distribute that distribute that use and it doesn't get localized in in certain areas. Uh we did receive feedback from the recreational user groups. Uh they were in support of synthetic turf as it provides better fle um playability, excuse me, meets the program um demands and offers a lot of flexibility especially during those uh wintertime months and and it provides more access um for a lot of different different user groups. So ultimately there weren't any I would say like significant or major uh changes to to

the report. there was a lot of clarification and so we added um additional context, we added additional items to the appendix um just to be more as transparent as as possible. And so I do feel like through a lot of the comments we were able to make this report even better, even more uh trans transparent. We could go to the next slide. So final slide before I hand it off to Sarah. So, these are our general recommendations and it's probably oversimplified a little bit here, but as Sarah had mentioned, the synthetic turf at El Camino is at the end of life and needs to be resurfaced. Um, or with synthetic turf or replaced with with natural grass. Uh, replacing with natural grass would cost about 1.5 to$2 million total project. Um, that that's our estimate. And we anticipate the total project timeline would be about 18 months to complete. That would be through design procurement, construction procurement and and growing of of the natural grass. It would also reduce the capacity of the field and programming. So right now El Camino gets about 2,700 hours of use. Um that would be very difficult to meet that demand with even a high-profile natural grass field. So you would have to u you're either going to have to one reduce the uh programs um or f potentially find additional fields to to offset that use. Um so ultimately our recommendation would be resurface El Camina with synthetic turf. Then while that's going on it's going to buy the the the city some time to really evaluate natural grass and natural grass grass options. And so we've termed that as a pilot program which could be of a small lift or a mediumsiz lift or even a larger lift depending on the the city's appetite for that. But it would give us

the opportunity to really um do three things. It would allow us to review and optimize the existing fields, see how much uh more carrying capacity we could get out of those. Uh potentially make minor and major renovations of those existing fields to get them even better. and then uh potentially plan gives us time to plan for additional fields right to meet the the current and growing demand in the city. That's it. Sarah, back to you.

Yes. So I on the next slide you'll see the staff and parks and wreck recommendation before you this evening. one is to receive and accept the findings of the recommendations of the study assessment of the turf systems at the city of PaloAlto's playing fields. And then um the second is direct staff to proceed with replacement of synthetic field at El Camino Park in the manner consistent with the study's findings and recommendations. And um thank you Miss Robustelli, Mr. Stevenson, mayor, I'd just like to close out the presentation by recognizing their efforts as well as efforts of our partners in public works and also to the many stakeholders who have provided comments throughout this effort and contributed to this report. Um, as you can imagine, this wasn't an easy effort and um, it's a topic that can be quite divisive, honestly. Um, but we do feel that the report reflects a fair and unbiased assessment of PaloAlto's fields and that the recommendations in the report reflect that. So, I'd also like to just let council know that we will continue to monitor and research the latest advancements in products to help inform decisions related to future projects. So, this um report isn't the end of this conversation. um we'll continue to um keep apprised of the latest in technology and um help use that to um help council inform future decisions as well. So thank you mayor and back to you.

Okay, thank you very much for the presentation. Um it was had a lot of content and was uh nice and concise uh and and supplementary to the the staff report which is also I thought really well written. So we can do like a round of questions first and then we'll check signals and maybe go to public comment after that. Vice May Baker is your light on by accident. Oh okay I do have a question.

Well let's go with council rectal first again. Okay, thank you. Yeah, this is a lot of work and I appreciate all the work that you guys done. A lot of outreach involved. I appreciate that too. Um, I have a question on packet page 184. It talks about the PRC recommendation and it said that PRC wanted the addition of moving the risk mitigation measures, the RMM back into the general recommendations. Can you talk about what the RMM is?

Sure. Uh, okay. Are you sure? Um, council member, the RMMs are uh risk mitigation measures and it's u this is actually coming out of Europe. So, and they're pretty darn advanced on um uh the synthetic turf and the environmental impacts. And so, really the the main goal of the RMM is to reduce microlastics into the environment. And so you're doing this through a whole slew of different uh means. Uh a lot of them the city is is already addressed and but um a couple things that the city can continue to expand on would be uh filtration in your in your storm water catch basins. So if you have a if you have a catch basin, water is going to get into it. Um infill and fibers can potentially get into it. And so there's opportunities to put in uh basically filter membranes in those basins. um the grooming and sweeping procedures where you're going to basically sweep up or groom and then sweep up any loose fibers. Uh making sure we're we're on top of that and have good working uh equipment, which I believe the city does. Uh and then setting up any type of uh physical barriers as needed. And so things like um I grew up in the Midwest and by the front door you've got like a boot brush, right? You could brush the the um dirt off of your your shoes or boots. And so just things like that just to collect the fibers in the infill that stick to you. The city's done a really nice job in the fact that um they've moved to natural infill. So they've kind of eliminated the opportunity for microplastics in the infill to to make their way uh into the environment. That's that's the general gist of these uh risk mitigation uh measures. So nothing huge, but it's just those little things you can do to continuing continue to protect the environment. And are those difficult to do? Difficult or

costly?

Generally, no. Um, and especially for fields like El Camino, which has uh well, the basically California storm water management policy already um includes some of these indirectly. And so you're generally not seeing um uh these fields, you're not you're not seeing open grates on these fields. You're seeing subservice water. So like what happens is is that it rains gets on the field for the most part it's going to filter down through the the stone material then into a perforated drain and then it'll either be retained on site or or go somewhere else. So they're generally not um um so the things that we're talking about here are generally not um huge cost impacts to to projects to implement.

And do you know whether the current El Camino fields include those? because we had a picture from a member of the public that showed a lot of plastic blades being washed away from the field.

Sure. It's my understanding a lot of those um measures are already included at El Camino. Now, if there's I think I I've seen some pictures where there's there's fibers and I don't know the total um complexity or complexity of that. And so that would come to um updating the grooming and sweeping procedures because you're going to have especially for El Camino, you've got some loose fibers. And so if those aren't being swept and and uh picked up and bagged on a on a regular basis, um they're going to make their way some of them are going to make their way into the environment. And do those blades shed more often at the end of life?

That's a good question. Um, it really depends on uh the turf product and and the turf type. And I' I've been on fields that are like 15 16 years old and there's not a lot of loose fibers. And I've been on fields that are much younger that than that and they're they're really shedding a lot. And that's usually through like some type of um uh fiber failure or um tough bind failure. And I I can tell you like the the generation of the current fields like at at El Camino was an older generation. So like your monofilaments, they didn't have the tough bind that the fields have now. And so they're you're more apt to lose fibers on on those fields. In my opinion, some of the better newer fields like believe the city's um been planning to put in.

Okay. Okay. And finally, uh, in our motion, we requested PAS-free blades. Mhm. How would we test that or verify that the this turf that we're buying actually is PAS-free? Sure. Um, you want me to start or

Well, it that's a great question and I think maybe Anthony can assist, but for the Mayfield field, which is currently being installed, we are doing conducting an independent lab. um having them test and then also um have a peer review in terms of um basically two two different peer reviews on the lab results. So do you want to speak to a little bit more of um what the turf studies recommendations are because that's kind of what we're mirroring with those testing.

Yeah. And uh the PAS is a really interesting topic because there's there's no like regulation right now that says, "Hey, here's your maximum threshold." So like what we're seeing now is is the the synthetic turf market has reacted to that and so they're putting their own thresholds on that and um hence the testing to say hey if you're saying you're going to meet this maximum threshold but we're going to test your product um through certain tests just to make sure that what you're publishing and putting in your contract you're actually providing on site. But just to reiterate, there are no current standard regulations for te for testing.

Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. The the other challenge you run into is that um at least from my understanding is is there's no testing protocol um to be able to confirm like a comprehensive sample. And so in what I for example is would a accurate testing sample be just clipping a few blades on the corner of the field or do we need to go 10 different areas in the field and collect some unit weight right to get a representative sample. So, those are the things that um I think that's why Sarah said they're using uh certain testing agencies and getting some um feedback on that on what um probably setting a little bit of a a precedence or trying to provide some level of comprehensive uh testing until regulations uh are are imposed or passed.

Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor Baker. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, and uh, thank you, Mr. Anderson. Is it Stevenson? Stevenson.

Thank you and and welcome. You should know that a majority of the council also has roots in the Midwest. So, um, I have three questions. The first is, I think, fairly simple. Um on uh the slide with the general recommendations and it talks about the 18 months to complete the uh if if there were a natural grass installation and then it mentions replacing with synthetic but has no time associated with that. How long would it take to replace with synthetic? Um, synthetic is we believe we can start we may not finish this fiscal year but it would be started this fiscal year. So we're but the target for completion June 30.

So how many months? Yeah, six or seven. Okay. So it's basically six versus 18 months. It's not zero versus 18 is the point. Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Um second question is um so we're talking about you know shedding fibers and various things during the life of the product with respect to concerns about microplastics and such but you know even if at the end of life it's recycled and comes back in benches or the other things that I think were in your report still the concern over microplastics people sit on them even if it goes to a landfill and sits there there's still concern about microplastics. So with plastic there's concerns about microplastics, right? So it's just we're we're we're in a heapload of trouble generally, not just with respect to turf fields, but just in life with uh with respect to plastics. Um okay, third, I I want a little help understanding um some of the a particular aspect of the report here. So, I I'll save my comments for later because I think mayor just wants questions now. But I I I do have to say that this is like choosing between my children to choose between, you know, sports and athletic fields. I've devoted a lot of personal and professional time uplifting the game of soccer. You co-founded a professional soccer league. I hope that is between that and environmental sustainability. This is a tough one, which is why I asked that the hybrid uh turf option be included. And so, thank you. I did see that there was a lot of analysis of that. Um, but what's confusing to me is the carrying capacity comments in here because I see a whole lot of different ones and so I I want to get drill down a little bit on that and understand it a little bit better. Um, the staff report basically dismisses it. There's literally one sentence. It says hybrid grass systems may enhance stability but do not substantially increase total carrying capacity. So actually so before I get to the carrying capacity, what does stability mean in that context?

Can I jump? So stability would be like the stability of the field. So like foot foot traction um with the uh I could probably do like a dissertation on the hybrids. So I may come to that but I don't need that right now. Yeah. So like so when we look at the the overall field performance we're looking at like stability of the surface like is the footing consistent throughout um is it safe from a hardness standpoint? What does the flatness or planerity of the field look like? Is there good grading and drainage associated with the field?

Okay. So they may enhance stability. You know from what I've read they that that is a big purpose of theirs. But in the staff report it says did not substantially increase total carrying capacity. And then I found a lot of different references in your report which I did quite enjoy reading. Um but I'm confused. So on page 49 it says there are similar annual use hours for hybrid as its natural grass counterpart. So there it's similar annual use. Page 66 says a small increase in resilience but at significantly higher cost. Page 56 says there's about a,000 hours instead of 500. That's double natural gas grass. So we've gone from similar to, you know, increase to doubling. And then um when we get to the life cycle cost analysis, which I very much appreciated and and we'll come back to that in later rounds, it shows the average uh life for the average annual playing hours at 1500 for hybrid versus 500. So now we're at a 3x. So is it the same? Is it substant? Is it a little bit higher? Is it double or is it 3x? I I'm very confused. So I may need your dissertation now because I'm seeing like four different

comparison. Um I was trying to follow fights bear. I was trying to follow the pages. I didn't I can go slowly if you want but I just wanted to know

it's it it it will get confusing because you have different types. So you have the hybrids different performance type grasses and then you got the the native soils but generally the as far as the hybrids themselves go like they're very similar to those performance sandbased natural grass fields we we we talked about. And so the the reason or and I'm going to be a little clumsy here, but the hybrids are used for a very specific reason. Um, and it it does increase stability. Um, it increases traction, a whole slew of other things, especially for soccer, especially for European soccer that is played primarily on juvenile rye grass. And so when you see um the hybrid systems used in warm seeds and bermudas, generally speaking, the labs are are telling us or suggesting that the there's still performance um characteristics there, but not as good as you'd see, not as big of a benefit you'd see like on the juvenile rise. And so as far as putting a a number saying like, "Oh yeah, we can get to x amount more or uh a larger carrying capacity with the hybrid." The jury is still really out on that. What the hybrids are really doing is it's just giving you more performance um for those on those per certain types of sandbased performance fields. Is that even more confusing?

No. Well, it's yes because in the cost comparison chart and in virtually every seller's website that I've seen, you and they say it can handle three times the playing hours of natural grass. So that's what I don't understand. Oh, sure. Yeah. Okay, that's a good question. So like if you if you take like a native soil natural grass field and say you get 4 to 600 hours out of that for for a for a cool season grass. Now if we do a hybrid or just a performance sandbased fields you can you can get two maybe three times the hours. Um

your estimate is 1500 versus 500.

Yeah. So and and that would generally be for um so now we're get really confusing. So when you take a warm season grass like a Bermuda in a performance sandbased system, right, that is going to generate, yeah, you can definitely get just general planning purposes three times more hours than a cool season native soil field, right? So, it's it's we're kind of comparing I mean it's kind of an apples and um maybe Macintosh Gayla uh uh Fiji Apple if that makes sense. But the the ultimate the ultimate thing here is I guess the problem is we we reviewed a large assortment of different field types and they all have unique carrying capacities and unique uh attributes. But um so I don't want to but I want to be careful. I don't want to distract from the point that if the city decided to put in a hybrid um performance natural grass system like in in the study here, you're probably going to push 1,200 hours a year, right? Just for planning planning purposes where your current natural grass fields are going to get 4 to 600 hours. And so like yeah, that's a two to three times um uh ratio between the two. Does that make sense?

But that's that's my point. And that's not what it said in many places in the report. It said similar or a little bit more. It's two to three times. So I think we when I come back to the next round because I have to stop him over time. We need to talk about that because it really alters the analysis of what our options are and what we ought to do. So all right. Thanks very much, Council Member Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And agree, thanks to staff, the consultants, all the community members that have weighed in on this really challenging, far more challenging than I than I anticipated uh issue. So, a couple questions for clarification. I think the first one will be for director Okaine regarding our city's uses related to pesticide use to maintain our city fields. I thought we don't use pesticides, right? Don't we we use what the integrated pest management system? That's correct.

Okay. Um and through that approach, I understand we only would use pesticides as a last resort. there's some sort of outbreak or some sort of emergency condition. So I I was wondering then as far as this report is concerned it's I I did a search pest the word pesticide came up 60 times 16 times uh as one of really the two health risks associated with natural grass fields and that seemed to be a a key consideration in the report's analysis of the benefit of synthetic turf over over natural grass fields. So, can you c can you explain why why is that such at least to me and maybe maybe I'm reading it wrong and you have a different um kind of a different analysis there, but it seems like pesticides was a key a key factor in your analysis when we don't even use those as a city.

I know the um study did call out the IPM policy, but um Anthony, would you like to speak a little bit more? So as far as the these are um I don't remember which section in in the study but when we were taking a a general overview between the systems like most natural grass you're using some form of pesticide some form of synthetic fertilizer some form of synthetic herbicide um and so that those are things to really be considered because there are concerns um about the environmental impacts of those. Now the city as in the report we did say hey the city does use these integrated pest management systems which uh remove a lot of that you're we're using a lot more organic products um than these than these synthetic products but that is not essentially that's that's really not the determining factor that I think we're talking about today and that it's kind of like the use hours it's like that's it's not going to tell you one way or the other. I think really we're with as far as the study we're very comprehensive. We're touching all facets of the debate between synthetic and natural grass, but it really comes to down to playability and carrying capacity. And when we and and I tried to explain this in the slides, but when we talk about synthetic turf, there's environmental concerns that the city has to understand and accept. There's also uh existing growing demand that the city needs to understand and accept. Uh and with that we can work together to find what is the best solution um to basically check as many boxes as possible.

Thanks. And and I can understand from from your perspective why playability and and costs were the kind of the the key um pieces of anal analysis. I think for me cost savings and playability is important, but nothing should be more important than the health and safety of our community, which seems to be put at risk with synthetic turf. And so I and and so I guess I I was looking for more about the the health impacts and and risks throughout the the report, but I'll move on to one more question then with my remaining time. uh how do we currently dispose of our synthetic turf fields? And the vice mayor kind of started to to talk about this, but I'm curious how do we do that and and what is that cost to the city?

Um I can speak to the Mayfield. Um currently we had a chain of custody um and it was repurposed. we have that it's with our zero waste standards. Um and we have checked with a potential of the new field that we are installing at Mayfield that it would be recycled. Um so there is a repurpose option for um an infill system that we are no longer installing. Um, but we're continuing to following city policy for zero waste and reductions for recycling.

And do we know the cost of recycling? And was the cost of disposing or recycling of the synthetic turf included in the study's cost analysis? Yes, it was. Okay. And do we know what the cost is? To dispose of synthetic turf. Well, to rec well to recycle that way. Usually you're around a dollar a square foot. So for an 80,000 square foot field, it'd be $80,000. Okay. Yeah. See, I'm out of time. Thank you, Council Member Bert.

Thank you. Um so I first want to touch on the um statement that our our primary purpose of this study was for looking at uh playability and cost. Um this study was actually instigated initially by the finance committee because of concerns um and an increasing awareness uh and scientific evidence of concerns over health and environmental impacts and that we had to weigh those against playability and cost. But environmental and health concerns were not a secondary consideration. They were the basis for instigating the study. So I think this has gotten inverted in terms of the characterization of what is the primary concern. All those factors matter and that's the difficulty we're having in facing that. Um and okay so I I the um I had a question on the El Camino uh replacement. It said 1 and a half 2 million for replacement, but I didn't see the cost of replacing the synthetic turf in that slide. How does the 1 and a half to 2 million compare to the synthetic turf? 1 and a half 2 million was for natural turf.

Yes. Um I believe right now we're estimating um one to one million to 1.4 for for synthetic. Okay. So, the difference we're looking at is um 500 to 600,000, not the 1.2 to 2 million. That's not the difference. I I think you're correct. However, we that's for one specific field and in terms of

that's one we're looking at. So, that's what we got in the report. It gave the dollar amount for the cost of if we switched to natural turf at El Camino is 1 and a half to 2 million, but it didn't give the comparison. Uh it the implication was that's some net increase and that's not the net difference. That's that's just the cost of the natural. Right. Correct. But it doesn't consider any additional fields that may need to be added or considered based on Yeah. Yes.

I just want to make sure that even in that cost comparison, we aren't just having one side of the equation. Okay. Um and then um on Mayfield, you spoke about that we're um using an independent lab to test for POS. Is that occurring on the material before it's installed? Um material's been quarantined from the lots that are being installed and we're currently um going through procurement to get this done. So, so, so it's in the works right now,

but uh the the test results will uh we'll have those before the installation. Um, no installation has been taking place. Okay. And then what happens if that material fails the test test results? Do we have provisions in the contract that uh they bear the cost of removal? No.

Okay. Um, that concerns me. Um, and uh I I want to check on the the number of hours of play on the the actual turf study page 59. The right hand column has the number of hours and there's a wide range uh on our fields. Um, uh, some in plus or minus in that 500 hour range, but others over a,000 hours. Uh, I see six, eight, I think nine fields, uh, that are over a,000 hours that are natural turf. So, uh, when we were for the computation of the comparative cost that showed, um, uh, cost per hour for the grass was $179. That's based on 500 hours per year. Um, but why do we have fields that go well over a,000 hours? And, uh, yeah,

sure, council member. So as far as the field type uh makes a difference. So for instance like a baseball or softball field can generally incur more use hours than like a rectangular field uh multi-purpose field. Yeah. Uh and uh for instance the El Camino uh softball fields 1326. But the fact that they can do that is not what I'm referring to. Sure. I'm referring to comparable whether these include soccer fields and other like uses.

Sure. And so there there's um a reason. So you have two items on it. One is some of the parks the fields are what we call like a super field. So it's basically a big um area of natural grass. So the fields can actually be moved uh depending on wear patterns. So it that is definitely a way that you can um increase carrying capacity. Okay. But um do we understand why we've got up to 13,400 hours on natural grass on fields that I believe are in fact um soccer fields and the like.

Sure. Um so one is those fields can move. they can rotate those fields, right? So if there's if the field is in a certain location and it gets worn out, they can actually move or rotate that field to areas of that big huge grass.

But if they move it, then that's downtime. You still have the same that the issue is the number of hours per year. So if they're moving it, that that reduces the number of hours per year if they take it out of use for a period of time, but that would be included in the computation. Um I think we're we're probably misunderstanding ourselves. So like we'll um like coverly is a big huge grass area and they have a handful of fields striped in there. So we'll just say Cberly field one. So Cberly field one where that field is striped. as that field wears down, they can rotate that field or move that field within that greater grass area. Does that make sense?

Yeah. But that when they move it out into that greater grass area, doesn't that mean that those hours are no longer playing hours per year? They're subtracted and they're not included as the playing hours per year. It's only hours that the playing field is being used that's in playing hours per year. I guess yeah I guess you could look at it that way and not could I'm telling me why it's not the way well I think the issue that may be in play here excuse the pun is how much time would be taken in order to do that what might be called a maintenance activity and does that detract from the hours available for playing

but but that ends up in that number of hours per year that it's played if you are doing that bring it off inactive and have to do additional maint maintenance. Those aren't playing hours. True. Again, I'm making the point that could potentially be done in a day or two as opposed to a season that we're referring to for grass fields to be taken out for recovery. Okay. Um and again, all right,

Anthony, you may want to correct if that's restriping the field and you might move it over 20 ft, right, to get out of a wear area. you might rotate it because you're using you're using like a smaller field for a younger athlete. Um so in that case we get that use of that field then if you're only moving it nominally. Mhm. Okay. All right. I'm over the other item too is that I'm going to add on is is the so as far as the carrying capacity you have to look at playability like just because it's grass or just because it's turf doesn't mean it's safe. uh doesn't mean it meets any necessarily um consistent threshold uh for performance.

Also, I would like to go back to the earlier exchange uh with respect to the testing being done on the field that's currently being installed. I think rather than assuming that should we find uh an issue of PAS through the testing quite frankly I think we will be in a dispute or a claim uh situation and so it's not that we have no recourse. I think that as has been noted previously the uh we'll call it the the absence of standards may lead to some difference in conclusion as to what the implications of the test results will be. So did our contract stipulate POS free

there there's some specific language associated with that characterization and again we would be seeking to enforce that language. Thank you. All right. I have a a few questions. First is just a detailed question. On page uh 78, you talked about a 20-year life cycle on 79 re 179 referring to um El Camino. It's only about 11 years. So, I just wanted to square up those two details. Is it because we didn't use the right materials at El Camino or am I reading that wrong? No. When we

Sorry about that. Uh when we do the um uh cost analysis, we usually do a 20-year period because that that ends up covering usually two synthetic turf re surfaces and then for the natural grass fields, usually 20 years is when you're going to do a major renovation. And so we we generally keep a 20-year time um period to look at the life cycle cost. Well, state it another way. How can we believe 20 if El Camino needed it in in 11? So the um so as far as El Camino goes, like so every 10 years more or less, you're likely going to resurface your field with synthetic turf.

Okay. So, so that that 20-year life cycle will include um two synthetic turf resurfaces and it'll on the natural grass side, it'll include usually like a minor renovation, then a major renovation.

So, all those resurfacings are included in the replacement y time and replacement or the total cost of the 20 years. Okay, great. that explains that and you kind of talked about um what's also in 179, the PAS reduced and PAS free. And I think what this staff report says is that it is verifiable, but I wasn't quite clear of the language there on 179. And I thought you indicated that there was um a way to check that, but there wasn't a standard to check it against, so that was a little confusing. Yeah, I think you're right. It is confusing there. Um, there isn't a standard to check it against, but we can verify it. Verify if it's if there's intentionally added PAS through a third-party lab results. Anything to add, Anthony?

Uh, no. Ju just I guess a um addition to that is uh we can the turf companies just to clarify are usually going to say hey we can meet this threshold for POS and then the city can go do the testing to make sure the uh product meets that um stated threshold. Okay. So that's what you mean by can be as it says in there. Um, and would we change the approach to PAS testing in our next field compared to the one that we're putting in now relative to performance standards?

I think since we're being so innovative, I think there's always lessons learned. Um, I but yes, I think we'll learn more once we get the results back. And I think what we're trying to do our best is having a peer review. Um, so we get basically two people checking the work from the lab and ma verifying that we're having um the lab they're reading the lab results the same way. Okay. Um, moving to the grass pilot because you do have a two-pronged approach in here. Um, have you thought about where that would be? And also, due to variable weather conditions, even a different part of town, would you have two different areas so that it would be tested in two different areas? And thirdly, would you even be looking at instead at two different kinds of turf to test two turfs? So what what are the key variables that you would be testing and where where would that be if you know?

Maybe I can start at least and I think what we've been talking about internally is based on city council's recommendation this evening scalability. So there are some thoughts um in terms of the pilot program looking at Greer Park. Um but there there is an opportunity for other areas such as Cberly mentioned earlier um diff different sides of the community different uh microclimates. Um that being said, Anthony, do you want to

Sure. Yeah, there there's a little I think there was a couple sentences buried in the in the study on this and I believe we suggested uh Greer and Cubly would would be good candidates just because um as mentioned earlier there's some high use fields in that. So like let's go look at our high use fields and let's look at um one current maintenance practices. What can we do to to make those a little bit better? And then two um which should be a little bit more what I would consider minor and major renovation like can we look at different turf cultivars? Can we look at different field systems? Um and so yeah that would be definitely be the um the approach uh for those sites.

So let me just repeat the last part of that. So, you would intentionally try two different kinds of grass turfs? It would definitely it would definitely be something we would entertain for sure. Okay. And then um if this was in the report, I'm sorry, but what do you how do you define success criteria?

Sure. So, that that's a um really important. And so, that goes back to the playability standards. So those those need to be established so that we actually have some data right that we can uh we can analyze against right it has to be it has to be um data driven right so we can uh put in these practices we can do the testing the before um during and after just to make sure that we're getting the results um that we want to see.

Okay. And then over the longer term, um, it seems like if we're going to replace the playable hours of turf, if we were to do that 100% over the long period, don't we have to acquire more land? Yeah, most you're never going to get this turf, you're not going to get the the grass up to the level of turf, you think?

Yeah. So two two things that would be um would be very difficult to meet the demand with your current four synthetic turf fields but also important it would be it would be really difficult to meet the winter demand. So like if you look now like your winter program the vast majority if not all of your program is on for synthetic turf fields and I I think one data point that um you recently also looked up was is there is it 12% 17% um 12% of the city's uh inventory is uh synthetic. Right. He said that earlier. Yeah. Okay.

Right. Yeah. I mean, the the obvious problem with with grass is that when it rains, the game's over. Literally, pun very much intended. I mean, I've spent a lot of years in baseball, and you know, that's just what we did. We just had to call the games and it's just a lot shorter time frame to sort of dry out or squeegee off those those other fields. So obviously I'm bringing up the concept of having to find um extra land somewhere in PaloAlto to expand just for this example say the same amount of players. Um and of course we're going to get more players because we're adding to the size of our our population. So and they're multi-million dollars per year. The only one that's available now, which is Parkland, it's north, I'm sorry, it's east of 101. And that is very suboptimal to be taking families and ball players out there. That could be adult. Um, but that see that seems to me to be a constraint, a natural constraint of our town in terms of being able to go eventually 100% or 80% or whatever the number is. Um, so I just wanted to get that confirmed. Um, that's all for me right now. You have any critical questions or if you do public comment to help help guide us. Okay, let's go to public. Oh, sorry,

Council Reto. One last question. We can't be the only city that's struggling with this. And so, what have other people done? I don't want to repeat their mistakes.

Yeah. Um yeah, the county, so the county released a report um that's been incorporated within the this report. Um they opted to not on their um move forward with um with the ban. Um I also am aware that uh the city of Sunnyale, we've been in talks with them. Um they are also doing a study themselves. Um and I know people are looking to this study um in in in what the decision may may be this evening to direct.

Do you know any cities or universities or that have a high use grass field? Um I do not. So you usually um high use fields end up being replaced with synthetic turf whether it's parks and wreck, collegiate, professional. So um but hopefully this study is paving the way. So to help optimize that number. Okay. Thank you.

A very quick comment on that if I may. So, the reason I started asking about hybrid fields in the spring or whenever this was last year was we got an email from a city in New York State that is using one for that's what they replace their high use fields with. Okay.

All right. I I should also note, council member, that uh soon after the county completed its study uh again of environmental uh issues, they did contact us and has expressed an interest should the city proceed with a pilot on uh the ability to get additional capacity out of ng grass uh fields uh that they would want to participate with us. Now there was no specificity to it but again it expressed an interest again in in looking further at the opportunities there. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Let's go to public comment. Let's see the number of speakers please. We have 16 requests to speak. Oh boy. Okay, we're going to do uh two minutes on that.

Our first speaker is Leanne M. after which we're going to take a break. Um, hi, I'm Lean McAuliff. I'm from Lascalos and I'm interested in this because I know that our town is also watching this decision. Um, somebody mentioned, are there any other cities that have set a president? Well, we are hoping that you will be the ones that do that. Um, I just have a couple of things now with two minutes. I really want you to set your own requirements for PAS and there's no reason why you can't do that. You are the customer and you are representing our children. So why don't you set your own requirements for the PAS levels. I'd also like you really to um enforce whatever levels you choose and including lead. Some players are following the lead protocol of 50 parts per million. It's not clear that others are. So, whatever product you choose, please get laboratory reports from independent testing labs. Um, I also wondered if how many of you have actually been to the El Camino field. I went to the El Camino field in Mar uh in May and on that day it was a 64°ree morning. It was 11:00 in the morning, 64°. It was not warm. The sun was out, but the artificial grass measured 129° on a 64° morning, and the grass was 86, which which was actually higher than I would normally expect to. Um, the smell at that time of day was nauseating. And I know that I know who installed the field and I think they're being considered for the replacement. That field was supposed to have been remediated and you had that field for 10 years. the kids plan in heat and I just think it's disgraceful. I would like to think that we have a better example the next time around. Um, okay, my 23 seconds. Um, I would ask you to please,

if you're going to put artificial turf in again, please genuinely consider a pilot and also please really read some of the community members input. Some of their input is longer and more detailed and more referenced than the report you've received. Um, and that is all I have time for. Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrea W, followed by Pam B. So, you keep hearing that um you've been promised that the artif hearing that you've been promised that the artificial turf will be recycled, but I'm sure you've all heard that the company that promises that stuff already went bankrupt and there's thousands of rolls piled up and these poor farmers that were paid to store it now are stuck with it. Just think of water bottles as little squashy things that you stick in your recycle bin and everyone thinks they're being recycled, but 10% of plastic is recycled if if that. And even if they repurpose the old fields, that repurposed material eventually ends up in landfill. Um there's no such thing as PAS free turf. The even the CEO of the turf council admitted that there's PAS and they need time to take them out, which they really can't. And because the chemicals are all proprietary, even testing for it by any outside agency is extremely difficult because they don't know what they're testing for because no one tells them how the fields are made. Um, if you are worried about the turnaround time, if you want to put El Camino back to grass, um, you can use sod. It's a lot quicker and it will it'll give you a faster turnaround. Um, as far as organic infill everybody keeps talking about, it's not certified organic. that's just not rubber plastic pellets, but it still has its own

issues, chemicals it's made with. And it's not necessarily the infill that's a problem with the plastic. It's the the plastic blades themselves that do break off into microlastics and end up all over the place. Um, so I just would like to ask if the health of all the people that are if our health is not more important than any preconceived notions you have about installing artificial turf. Thank you. And this was made by a bunch of kids. I've got a whole bunch of them and they want grass.

Our next speaker is Pam B, followed by Angela D. Hi, I'm Pam Bond. I'm from Lascatos. Um, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to attempt a more informed decision relating to artificial turf and turf grass and for your thoughtful questions. I hope that you will keep a breast of the latest science on plastic and artificial turf as well as the new turf grass varieties and advancements. I'd love to see a new pilot of the organic of an organic grass field here. You could set an example for other cities around here. Um, a few notes. I'd like to remind you that plastic itself is a big source of plastic. Plastic grass is itself a big s source of plastic regardless of the infill. Updating grooming will require more work and was that reflected in the maintenance cost comparisons. The new fields are shedding just as much as El Camino. Saratoga High School was installed in 2024 and uh there are other recent examples and it's shedding a lot and it's new. Um PAS uh testing, please see the website test for test the turf um that I believe has been recommended to you already. Um they will have the latest recommendations for the type of tests and how to proceed. Um, regarding turnaround time on converting El Camino to natural grass, it sounds like it was included, uh, it included planning time in that 18 months. Um, a school in Los Moscatos replaced a grass field in less than a year. I believe it was 5 to 6 months. Um, I've heard of faster turnaround time also in other areas of the country. So, I'd like you to consider that. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Angela D, followed by Claire E. Good evening. Thank you. Um I get the strong feeling that the consultants report is somewhat biased in its evaluation of artificial turf and natural grass. Um I for example the report does not even mention the large number of toxic and carcinogenic compounds in addition to puzz found in artificial turf. The report also neglects to mention that artificial turf constantly sheds both large blades of plastic grass and microlastics. If you visit the dog run, which is brand new and frequently swept at Bullware Park on any day of the week, you will see that thousands of 2-in green plastic blades scattered all over this plastic carpet um is brand new. These and the micros microscopic specs that accompany them find their way into ours and our children's mouths, bodies, and brains. The report the report also does not include the considerable cost of recycling the turf. That was not included in the cost um uh analysis. More importantly, uh the study does not include the tremendous cost of environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf. The report does make one very good recommendation. I do encourage the council to implement a pilot project of a well-designed and well-maintained natural grass field. This would allow the city to evaluate the option of highquality natural grass fields that have been shown in other parts of the country to provide up to 2,000 hours of youth per year. To conclude, I know for sure that I'd rather my grandchildren played a few fewer hours of soccer than

that they ingested microplastics for the rest of their lives. Saying no to artificial turf and implementing a gr natural grass pilot project would help to show that Thank you. Our next speaker is Claire E followed by Magdalina C.

Hi, my name is Claire Elliott. I'm a Palto resident and I worked for 20 years as an environmental engineer and 17 as an ecologist with grassroots ecology. So, I really care about clean water, natural ecosystems, healthy ecosystems, and um getting kids outside. I want to focus primarily today on the Lloyd studies um lack of of uh accepting that many features of natural grass fields makes them the more ecologically and sustainable choice. Um the study as many people have mentioned only mentioned um PAS and not all the other chemical concerns. Um there's lots of additives that are toxic carcinogenic and and gender bender compounds. Um the PAS is difficult to analyze. There's thousands of them. We don't know which ones. Some of the PAS suppliers are probably using plastics with trade secret components. So that makes it difficult. And there's very few of them have analytical methods that are are u approved. But I'm also very concerned about the plastic blades that spall off. And um council member Stone mentioned a picture that I shared. Uh here is a sample of the plastic blades that I pulled off the storm drain great at El Camino Field. So there's no evidence of any kind of um uh filter or anything to protect that storm drain from these plastic blades. I saw them down inside the drain. So plastic grass regrows every season and it decomposes adding carbon and nutrients back to the soil. Plastic grass is made from fossil fuels that take millions of years to form and hundreds of years to break down and then they only break down into tiny plastic bits. Please ask staff to work as soon as possible on a pilot project to show that how we can improve the health of the city's natural grass

fields allowing many more hours of healthy play. Thanks for your time. Our next speaker is Magdalina C followed by Cynthia F. Hi, I'm Elena. My gratitude to council members Rectal Albert and to our city manager for gracing me with time yesterday to discuss artificial turf issues. There was big emphasis on public safety yesterday. I ran my Leaping Wizards environmental ed preschool and after school program and was able to combine my passion for children and mother earth. Have you heard of the hygiene theory? Children develop stronger immune systems when exposed to a less sanitized environment. They gain nothing from chemically laden playgrounds and sports fields. Exposing them and the rest of us to the hazards associated with synthetic ground coverings goes against the concept of public safety. Chevron lied to us about fossil fuels. Monsanto and the tobacco industry and so many more uh corporate entities have been on a campaign of disinformation. We know that their bottom line is all about the almighty buck. The artificial turf companies are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Let's listen to science and common sense. Adding more plastic with its deadly components into the environment is not good for anyone or anything. And we must include here the ethical question of upstream and downstream effects. The upstream plastic production workers are at increased risk of so many kinds of cancer. Residents of fencing communities adjacent to plastic production and waste disposal sites experience increased risks of many other adverse health conditions. By downstream recycling sorry of plastic waste is not yet truly viable and only continues to poison our environment. I urge the council to inform Parks Lrech to add working on a

pilot study of a grass field to their 2026 work plan. I've said it before, as a four-time cancer survivor, I am passionate about severely limiting our use of plastic turf in our community to protect both the children, our most valuable resource, and our environment. Let's walk our talk, please. Thank you so very much. Our next speaker is Cynthia F, followed by Lie R. Good evening. Um, I'd like you to please direct staff to do a pilot. I was surprised a pilot is not listed among the recommendations at the top of the staff report, even though it's recommended in both the body of the staff report and the consultants report. So, please make that part of your motion tonight. Without a pilot, I just don't think you have the data you need to make informed decisions about what to do with the city's athletic fields. This is about more than what to do at El Camino. In 2028, you have to decide what to do at Cubly. 5 years after that, it could be time to resurface Mayfield again. And meanwhile, some of your user groups are pressuring you to convert more grass fields to plastic. So, you need real data, local data with our climate and our soils uh that shows the max feasible sustainable carrying capacity on real grass. If you construct it and manage it with the intention of maximizing carrying capacity and the intention of maximizing weather resilience, add drainage, enrich the soil, adhere to the maintenance plan. Until we do a pilot, we just don't have robust data to use in making decisions like the one you're trying to make about El Camino. Uh staff recommends you receive and accept the consultants findings and recommendations. I would like you to reject the findings, noting that they should not guide current or future decision-making. They are analytically unsound. They make artificial turf look more cost-effective than natural grass. But if you correct the errors in the cost and usage hour analysis, that flips. What stood out to me is that the

100% of the city synthetic field renovations are costing almost double what the c uh consultant estimates in the life cycle analysis. Uh it's estimated to be about 6 to 700K. Sarah just said the El Camino will cost double that. about uh up to 1.4 million. The report says Cberly will cost 1.4 million. Mayfield South and North each cost 1.65. These are double the 700K used to calculate the cost per hour. The hours also affect your cost um analysis. I'm running out of time. Finally, the staff report didn't say anything about your sustainability and climate action plan, green storm water infrastructure goals, or zero waste goals. Please talk about that.

Our next speaker is Lanie R. followed by Susan H.

I won't be using the whole two minutes. Wish I could have shared it, but I do want to say that I'm Lie Von Ruden, uh, a PaloAlto resident since 1993. So that's over 30 years. And I have to say artificial grass is my anti-goal. It's unhealthy to the oceans and to our soils. While the staff report states on page seven that staff and the commission recommend implementing a pilot program to enhance the city's national grass fields, this recommendation is not uh under the report's page one recommendation. So, I would like the city council to add the words implement a pilot program to sustainability and sustainably enhance and actively manage the city's natural grass fields. Um, and I do love the idea that why aren't we considering health and environmental concerns as primary? We are talking about our children. Thank you. Our next speaker is Susan H, followed by Herb B. Good evening. I'm Susan Hinton, chair of the Sierra Club Loma Pria Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee. In my hands, I have a 2025 sustainability uh scholar project uh prepared for the city of Vancouver, Canada by uh a sustainability scholar at the University of British Columbia. It's 120 pages. It's very easy to read and I would like to give it to the city as an example of an exemplary study. I urge the city of Palo Alto to add in addition to any other action taken tonight a pilot program for organically compatible management of the city's grass fields. Palo Alto and every city

should forego microplastic shedding, proprietary chemical laden, heat island heat stress inducing, impermeable to barely permeable plastic outdoor surfacing. Additionally, plastic grass cannot be recycled. Here's a strange thing. You know the new the brand new BPI plastics that you get in the grocery store? There's no place in North America that those can be recycled. Those have to go overseas if they are to be recycled. They're going to wind up in landfill. Even if you have um a hybrid field, you're going to be putting uh plastic down in the root zone. It's been shown uh that plastic in soil changes the microorganisms that are down there and it can slow growth for through the roots due to the change of the microorganisms. Um, I can get those references for anyone who's interested. Please add natural grass pilot to the recommendations. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Herb B followed by Rodrigo B. I don't think he should be spending any more money on these studies or implementation uh because over time uh the the percentage of users of community fields and also of you know tennis courts uh that are PaloAlto residents is smaller and smaller. It used to be a time where priority uh scheduling was given to uh teams on fields uh where majority were Palo Alto residents and then many years ago staff came uh to the council and commission and said well the highest use of the fields well there was one team or one league of uh women's soccer that was between 35 and 40% were Palto residents and others were much lower. So the idea uh that you know majority needed to be Palo Alto residents get priority went away recently uh in discussing the tennis courts uh their the percentage palo residents of 25%. So priority was given to people who work here. You know, well maybe Stanford research, you know, Stanford needs uh uh those tennis courts. So maybe uh the Adon residents who seem to be running Castilea, you know, could put in uh you know tennis courts on their backyards or in Hobber Park. So until uh the communities whose residents are benefiting the most from uh these expenses, whether it be uh artificial turf or natural grass, are contributing their fair share of using our fields. And just as they're using

our our tennis courts are paying for it, are paying their fair share, why should PaloAlto citizens be subsidizing them? Thank you. Our next speaker is Rodrigo B followed by Jim M.

Good evening. Uh my name is Rodrigo. I'm a Palo Alto resident. I'm also the executive director for both Palo Alto Soccer Club and Silicon Valley Soccer Academy. Uh we are the largest soccer organization in Palo Alto with over 2,000 kids aged 5 to 18 years old. Um 72% of our members are Palo Alto residents. Uh, turf fields, as you guys might know, a critical part of our daily operations. We use turf fields daily from 4 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. during the weekdays and from 8 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the weekends. The ability to access uh lighter turf fields is the only way we can continue to meet the needs of the Palo community. With more house development uh in Palo Alto and more families moving to town, uh the demand for outdoor playing spaces has only increase. Rather than reduce opportunities, we should work together to expand access to high quality fields and parks. I'd like to ask the city council to approve the parks and w recommendation to return a communal park with synthetic turf. I also like to say uh that I care for the environment just as much as everybody anybody else in this room. Um and uh I also support a pirate program at the city sides such as Kobe and Greer field. But as for this specific topic uh uh the kids social and physical well-being are more way more important to me. Thanks for your time.

Our next speaker is Jim M. Hi there. Uh I'm also a coach in Palo Alto soccer club. Uh I've been there for 15 years and I do see both sides of the argument. But I think one of the biggest things is even as far as tonight where a lot of our grass fields get closed due to the rain that we have to move a lot of kids over into the turf fields and if we don't have the turf fields then a lot of these these kids have to get sent home. They also the other benefits of having the turf fields is uh if we don't have them then we would probably have to not create as many teams within the community. So it would be a lot of kids wouldn't get access to play sports within Palo Alto. That's all.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian H followed by Winter D. Okay.

Hi. Um, I battled this uh issue in southern Oregon some years ago, a few years ago. Um, Dutch Brothers is philanthropic arm known as Loveabounds. They put on 8 acres at our local Josephine County Fairgrounds. Um, 40 tractor trailer loads of tires. Turns out tires contain lead. Weird. It's the only thing that public is allowed to be around lead. And it's and it's a lot of kids. Um they're associated for goalies with a prepoundonderance of non-hodkins lymphoma. Um those guys are in the ground eating it every day. Uh contains M MRSA bacteria festering in that 2 in of coagulated rubber. Um the upkeeping, the bleaching, the bouncability that people that are supposed to do, there's really no enforcement of that. You know, like everybody said, there's no chain of command as well to where it gets sold, etc., etc. Virginia Tech has a field of of boxes that they keyed in steel post. They ripped out the entire field. They watered the boxes out in the parking lot and they put it in. Now, when they get a wet spot around the goalie, they just rip it out. I mean, they pop it out and they put in new ones that are on the side like Disney World does light bulbs underground. Um, they, you know, the tire companies, they're proprietary, like the cigarette companies. It's proprietary chemical concoction. They don't have to release that. There's there's stuff in there you don't even know. And it looks like they even add chemicals from people that would have to store them as toxic storage. They put it in the tires. Nobody knows. It goes off. Tires when they we can't do anything about this, but tires when they hit sunlight. Tires produce something like 6 HHDT. Uh with sunlight it turns into eight. That kills um 95% of migrating salmon, other fish. uh when it once it gets in the riparian area it's a morphological I mean a neurological toxin it's fairly

quick acting we can't do anything about that as well the painful playing aspect the NFL hates it the MSL the the women's soccer league they hate it they they have to do it because of their unions and the people that pay your time is up absolutely one one one last thing that the EPA allows this because you cannot prove soccer from a single you can't prove cancer from the source they will pay like breast implants DDT opioids big tobac later Paul, but they will never Your time is up. Our next speaker is Winter D, followed by Jeff G.

Hi. We have to be very careful with this. Some of you council members, uh, I was there also attended the heat survey event that PaloAlto participated in along with the, um, oceanic and atmospheric administration. Um, showed maps where our city's hot spots are, where our city's hottest spots are, and where our city's cool spots are, parks with grass, trees, etc. Now, we're asking people in PaloAlto to go all electric and for many people that's a real sacrifice. Uh it's going to be difficult because it costs money. It costs them money. But uh here um I hope that we're not uh casually contemplating what basically amounts to uh continuing to put huge s sheets of uh non-permeable or plastic uh over uh large areas. Not only does it uh uh kill zillions of microbes down in the soil, working away keeping things healthy, but it also um does uh a lot a lot of objectionable things to people's health. Um, I sometimes think that the fact that artificial turf is green is a form of denial and it's a um uh there's no reason to have artificial turf green. If you want to make these huge areas, if we're going to continue to do to use this stuff instead of the much cooler grass, then it should be painted white or it should be colored white. Why is it green? It's just an aisle. We're

pretending that this is grass. This is not grass. It doesn't cool. It heats. It heats enormously. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jeff G.

Good evening, council members. Jeff Greenfield. Sorry I can't join you in person this evening. I'm out of town. Uh on my last uh meeting as a member of the parks and rec commission, I supported the the staff recommendation to accept the this the report uh with the proviso as council member uh rectal mentioned uh that the risk mitigation members uh risk measures be included as a priority. Uh this is important and it and and I'm not seeing this properly referenced in the staff recommendation. Uh it's complex issue certainly, but I do recommend that uh we move forward with the El Camino Park is is way past the end of end of life. Please move forward with renovating the field with synthetic turf uh as soon as possible and I would push staff to try to get it be done in less than six six to seven months. Uh there we do not have a perfect synthetic option available today and environmental concerns are legitimate, but this isn't black and white. We should strive to take all steps we can to be as environmentally responsible with a synthetic turf solution as we can, including using in including in organic cork infill uh striving for PA fast product uh paying extra to recycle old carpets uh etc. And in addition, and finally, please I I I support the uh the pilot uh study, but please don't underestimate the difficulty of grass fields of building and maintaining highquality grass fields in Colorado. So, it's going to be very expensive. It's going to require multiple iterations. It's difficult. In all this analysis, we need to make sure we're focusing on apples and apples and recognize when we're talking about apples and oranges. I appreciate the work the consultant team has done. I believe their playability uh the field costs numbers are are reasonable. It gets very confusing but it is on target. Uh we but if you're talking about we got to consider cost trade-offs uh of carrying capacity for fields not not

comparing one field to another. Uh replacing a grass field with your time is up turf needs to be simple. Please please support the recommendation.

Our next speaker is Carrie L followed by Sue. Hi, my name is Carrie Leven. I'm a 40year uh Santa Clara County resident and I have some issues with the report. Uh something the staff should con uh the council should be asking the staff. Uh for example, the surface temperatures on page one, page 40 out of the 135 page report showed vague wording about how high temp surface temperatures are. They're not actual measurements. We have actually measured uh surface temperatures at the Fair Oaks Park on a warm 76 degree Fahrenheit day where surface temperatures were up to over 160°. That's 70 degrees hotter than what natural grass is. So do ask your staff what exactly are these surface temperatures. Also consider the life cycle is really user cycle. You don't take into consideration the manufacturing uh or the disposal cost. Uh when it comes down to the types of grasses, what exactly are you comparing of the natural grass that you have in these parks so far? Are these installed decades ago? Were they cool season grasses? If so, you're not comparing to the modern grasses that are typically much more uh efficient in terms of everything, water, usage, maintenance, including stability. Um the what type of PAS test are you doing? Are you doing targeted or total flooring? uh these companies do target it that tend to evade the pasfree uh idea that they think can get away with PA fast free when the total florine method is the one they should be doing second uh filters do not uh filter out micro nor nano plastics um getting down to time um I say no to artificial turf yes to natural grass yes to the pilot project and the only way you're going to save

money if you don't take into consideration the health and safety of your children. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sue, followed by Cedric B. Sue, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. Okay. Uh thank you for taking this matter seriously. It is a serious matter for public health and the environment. I urge you to support the organically managed grass fields pilot project because there are so many benefits. I don't have time to go into it now. Um there um I want to say that there are quite a few cases of successful organically managed grass fields in our area despite the earlier speaker statement that he doesn't know of any. There's the city of Berkeley, Willer Park and Tom Bates Regional Sports Complex. They use a lot of natural grass management techniques. There is uh also Alama Point soccer field complex and they are known for you know their much improved long-term turf health uh you know managed organically and there's also the colony landscape sports fields in the Bay Area. So there you go. So I really don't know what he was talking about. Why is there growing fear of artificial turf around the world? Well, cities and countries have either already banned or in the process of considering bans. The fear is because of the toxic substances and artificial turf not just pas in the infield but also the toxic heavy metals found in the grass blades. You know young people have seen soaring rates of colorctal cancer and evidence indicates that bioaccumulated heavy metals could be one main cause. So please do not let practical considerations override these very serious public health risk. As council

member Bert said, this report inverted the initial priorities which focus on the environmental and health risk. Again, please support the organically managed natural grass pilot project proposal. This would be a huge step forward for Palo Alto. On a personal level, I look forward to the day when I can relax and feel safe when I bring my grandchild to any of my city's playgrounds and fields. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Cedric B, followed by Nicole L. Uh, good evening. Uh, this is Cedric DLB. Sorry I couldn't be there in person. There are environmental concerns only with synthetic fields, not our grass fields which are maintained without pesticides. We want people to play sports and live active lives to maintain and improve health. But then we use synthetic fields which negatively impact the health not just of the field users but of the surrounding ecosystems. The negative health impacts of not getting enough playtime are a lot lower than the lifetime impacts of dealing with cancer or the like. Natural grass fields help absorb carbon. They build soil and create habitat for birds and bees. Synthetic turf has high climate impact. They are not just a biological dead zone, but also a source of toxins and poisons for the environment. In a time of climate crisis, when species are under threat, bees are experiencing die-offs. We need to be proactive in protecting and restoring ecosystems and habitats, promoting native plants and integrative pest management, and banning pesticides. We should not be further degrading and poisoning our land and water. I think it is totally insane that people worry about germs for kids and yet we cover our children's playgrounds with synthetic plastics like was unexpectedly done at the Bullwware Park renovation. Exposing kids to all sorts of toxins that can negatively impact them for the rest of their lives. Please stop poisoning our people and planet. Don't use any more of these hazardous products. And please do return to natural fields and surfaces, including at the El Camino Play Park. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nicole L.

Hello. Good evening and thank you all to city council members. My name is Nicole and I was born and raised in Santa CL County. According to the EPA, the most potent source of water pollution is urban runoff. And artificial turf is a major contributor to this problem, polluting waterways with hundreds of pounds of toxic chemicals and plastic per year per field. In most plastic turfs, not only are the blades itself made of plastic, but so are the materials that are scattered throughout the plastic blades of the turf. These pebbles are actually cut up pellets of rubber tires, which are nonbiodegradable. Activity on this artificial turf leads to this plastic content ending up in various rivers or waterways where they poison wildlife and the people that use the water. In addition, the turf and infill is just plain uncomfortable for athletes and students that use these fields regularly. Artificial turf is also extremely toxic. PAS chemicals that are commonly found in artificial turf can lead to cancer, autoimmune diseases, severe damage to organs, and birth defects. Just look at the case where six baseball players for the Philadelphia Phillies who played on artificial turf all contracted and died from gloma, a rare brain cancer. Plastics contain many other harmful chemicals as well, which may cause chemical bursts to the lungs, lead to lung damage, and affect our body's nervous system. The toxicity of artificial turf and its virus-like ability to spread are what make it such a huge concern. I still remember when I was taking part in my high school color garden PE. After running around for mere minutes, I'd already gotten handfuls of rubber pellets stuck in my shoe, which just goes to show how easily the plastic can spread. This is just one of many reasons why action has already been taken to address the issue. In late 2022, Boston banned artificial turf in parks. Milbury and Santo County also established the interim ordinance, a moratorium banning the installation of artificial turf and synthetic grass. And in 2023, the moratorum evolved into a permanent ordinance and now completely bans the installation of artificial turf. So, um, tonight the city council should

add the words, "Implement a pilot program to sustainably enhance and actively manage the city's natural grass fields to any action it takes." Thank you. Concludes public comment on action item nine. Okay, thank you for that uh public comment. I think we'll take a break now about uh 15 minutes and uh then come on back.

Okay, we are back from our break and resuming the agenda item number nine on use of turf fields. We've completed public comment. Are they staff comments?

Yes, mayor. I think we did want to just take a moment to uh provide a little additional context on the question of the focus of the study and and again the playability and cost issues versus health. Uh just let me be clear of course health is our primary concern and primary priority. Uh you know that said did want to recall that when the scope of the study was previously discussed by the council there was uh a great deal of sensitivity to the overall cost of the study and where it would focus. So as such uh as directed to the staff we focused on the playability and operational issues since that was the particular area of additional information that uh could be brought to the body of knowledge that already existed. again that that uh kickoff of the study or the scoping occurred soon after the county had completed its uh health assessment. Uh and as such while the uh team did include it as a part of the report, it was largely trying to take advantage of that information is already existing and again bring additional information to the council for your uh consideration. So unless there was something else that staff wanted to add, that's it from staff. Okay. Um I I just want to clarify that the recommendation for the pilot uh is in the recommendations. It wasn't a separate bullet point, but it is part of the recommendations on pages under general recommendations uh 179 and 180. So just for clarification. Okay, we're back to the dis4. Uh we can do questions or comments. Uh Council Member Bert,

thank you. And uh thanks to the city manager for that clarification. What it what it really sounds like to me is that whereas the study was focused most of all on cost and playability. our decision that was because um that the environmental and health impacts uh were the already something that we would be considering very strongly. So what that means to me is that we're not basing our decision overwhelmingly on the turf study. That is one point of view that's focused most of all on uh the the playability and the cost and then we have to weigh that against environmental and health factors. Um and I think that you know one of the the things that we we this is an emerging field you know just a few years ago the sensitivity to POS um what was in also volto organics that were being emitted from the from the uh rubberized surface below the grass were an additional uh factor that has largely been solved through other materials in that fill. Um but the grass both microlastics and POS other toxins um and carcinogens that are uh related to those materials that we don't have good data on. Uh but um uh there there are indications that these are valid concerns. Um and also environmentally we we have the carbon footprint of producing the synthetic grass that I think is not in the report. Uh and then all those other factors that are health factors plus heat which is

both a health factor and an environmental factor. Um, and that all leads me to um having probably greater concern than I had a year and a half ago when we pushed to have this re-examined. Um, it doesn't make for an easy decision, but my concerns on the environmental and health factors are actually greater than a year and a half ago. Um then we what are our choices and um we've have this option of a pilot study. Um and for me it kind of boils down to at this point in time do we go forward with the El Camino replacement with a synthetic turf? And I would say that I I I welcome staff to correct this, but I I'm not aware of uh us having means to capture that blade runoff at um at El Camino currently in our storm water system. Uh and if we do, please let me know. Um and um uh so might we consider El Camino for that pilot study? um with an understanding that there's some trade-off in number of playing hours, but if it's the optimized care of using the the best most suitable grasses for their durability and they're closer to all season play, they're not going to be like synthetic. Uh it's not going to have the same number of hours. Uh but we need to find out how many hours of play uh over the course of the year and seasonally we can get from an optimized uh natural turf field. Uh we

don't really know that right now. Um and should El Camino Park be the place that we uh do that evaluation rather than installing another um uh synthetic turf replacement there. I am also uh not convinced uh based on some of the information we've had that the cost comparison is as it should be. We know that this $179 per um um per per square foot cost per hour uh per year per square foot I think it is right. um that's based on 500 hours of use and we have a lot of fields already that are more than double that. It doesn't but we also have ones that are in that ballpark. So it's a question of we uh what what um number of hours per year could we squeeze out of an optimized natural turf field? Um and um I'm very interested in um pursuing that pilot and perhaps pursuing it at El Camino Park.

Vice Mayor Baker.

Yeah, I I want to kind of tee off of that, but um start with um when this came to the finance committee um last year, I was ready to just say no. Um, and I had to be kind of pulled back because of the playing time problem and we needed to do studies and we needed to go through this conversation. Um, but because of the the just all the things that everyone has said about the concerns about plastics, heat island, all the various things um, PAS etc. Uh, was very very concerned about that. But the loss of playing time is also a concern um for children uh and others who use it for recreational facilities. So, as I said before, it's it's it's a choice between, you know, two favorite things. Um so, why am I so obsessed with this this hybrid thing? I I want to talk just a little bit more about it because um I don't think we got a great briefing on it. Um, so it's not like a 50-50 thing. It's not like half plastic. It's like 95% grass and 92% some. So it's mostly grass. And the substrates that it's on um right now a lot of it is is still plastic. That's not great, but it's a very small percent. And there's a push in the industry and there are actually trials that you mentioned in your report where the actual substrates are um biodegradable polymers. So at the end of the life uh of that substrate, the part that's not the grass, it biodegrades. So, you know, if those trials work out, it gets to the point that you have um this um grass field that has the three times the 3x playing hours. It's

expensive. So, we need to talk about um that clearly, but that I think is a council policy decision. If we can have our cake and eat it too,

that's a deal. Um, and we may be willing to pay a premium, maybe we won't, but I think that's a conversation for us to have. And so, so that's why I keep going back to this. Um, so you know, we could think about I I guess what I would say to to TF of uh what council member Bert just said is I would be interested in our city looking into sure these grass pilots, but also the hybrid alongside it because it's a technology that's available now. We know it works, we just know it's expensive. Um, and I think that, um, you know, whether or not we do it for El Camino, but I certainly think the Cubly uh, turf field that's coming online in, you know, 28, it needs, we absolutely, as part of the ESCAP, that's something I was going to mention, our sustainability work plan that we're redoing right now. Um, you know, CSD can work with the the SAP folks. Um but we ought to think about our fields generally as being part of our city's sustainability goals. Um so when I look so when I look at the life cycle cost analysis on page 70 um the cost per hour of use of the natural grass hybrid is 203. It is the highest, but it's not that far from the three other natural grass options which range from 184 to 200. Now, that's per hour. Total ownership over that 20 years is substantially higher. But if you compare that with the recommended synthetic turf, it's about 2 million higher. That's a lot of money, but that's for the 20 years. If we tried it for the first 10, that's a million.

I know that the math doesn't work. That's exactly 100 a year because there's, you know, peasant value and all that good stuff, but you know, roughly speaking, that may be a price we want to pay for the health of our children and to maintain substantially the playing hours. It's about 2/3 of what um a turf synthetic turf field could be if this uh analysis is is is accurate. So it's about 1,500 hours instead of 2250. So um but query whether we take one of our grass fields and make it this uh hybrid and you gain from 500 to you gain a thousand. So if we switch two to hybrids, you net out 250 extra hours of playing hours. So, there are things we can do to get to the point where we start phasing out our um turf uh synthetic turf fields, and I would really like to see that happen. Um, but I'm also cognizant of the physical and mental health uh benefits of having recreational uh things. So, I would just encourage my colleagues to consider that um that option. Customer Stone.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, well, I want to explain why for me I I can't support the the recommendation before us tonight to reinstall synthetic turf turf at El Camino Park. I want to begin with something that both at least the staff report, letters from local advocacy groups like the Sierra Club and concerned residents have made abundantly clear that the science regarding the health and environmental impacts of artificial turf is not settled and what we do know is deeply concerning. I the county's public health department itself noted that research on POS microplastics and other toxins associated with synthetic turf is rapidly evolving. Yet tonight's recommendation essentially tells us to move forward anyway without applying the precautionary principle. And what we do know, what is absolutely undisputed is that synthetic turf introduces multiple categories of contaminants into our environment. Even with so-called POS free or POS reduced products, there's no industry standards and no certification and independent testing continues to be able to find those really high POS levels in newly manufactured turf. But even if those were able to somehow miraculously disappear tomorrow, synthetic turf is still plastic and it breaks down into micro and nanoplastics that migrate into the air, soil, uh, storm water. We saw photographs that were delivered earlier today by a concerned resident that was able to show just in these recent storms how those microlades have kind of migrated into our storm drains. And these particles have been found in human organs including the brain linked to DNA damage, neuroinflammation, uh metabolic disorders and more. And in a study that was just released this

year, scientists have found that microplastics in the brain have increased by about 50% in the in just the last 10 years. And researchers now believe that humans may now have as much as 10 g of microlastics in our brains. That's more than the equivalent of a plastic spoon's worth of microlastics. And I'm not saying a spoonful. I'm saying the same weight as a plastic spoon. So, I mean, imagine, grab this from the back. Imagine something like this floating in our brains and it's only getting worse. So, I think the staff report at least acknowledges the microplastic problem and the uncertainty around POPS. But what it doesn't do is grapple with those uncertainties as public health risks um significant enough to just to justify stopping and re-evaluating our our overall direction. And instead, the report's conclusions are really kind of just driven by use hours and scheduling convenience. But public health cannot be outweighed by marginal improvements in scheduling reliability. And to me, prioritizing play hours over health and environmental risks is not true stewardship and the type of stewardship that the city is known for. So, I I like the idea of the pilot program for natural gas. Um, but I'm concerned that we're locking us into another decade of synthetic turf at El Camino Park through the current recommendation. And that just seems backwards to me. I I think if the pilot is expected to demonstrate whether high performance natural grass can meet our needs, then the logical sequence is to complete the pilot first, then we make an informed decision afterwards. But instead, we're being asked to commit now without data from the pilot that we haven't even begun. So, I I I agree with what has been said tonight. We need reliable fields. We

need equitable access, year- round playability. But I strongly disagree that synthetic turf is the only best path to be able to achieve that. And that precautionary principle tells us to air on the side of protecting public health when credible risks exist. And tonight, those risks are just clearly in front of us. So proceeding with the synthetic turf at this moment without waiting for the results of our natural grass pilot and without resolving those outstanding health questions is just does not strike me as responsible governance. So for the re those reason I can't support the recommend recommended actions uh I think we should really move towards uh the natural grass pilot convert El Camino Park to either a a grass field. I appreciated the vice mayor's kind of questioning about really kind of clarifying what we're really talking about since it's going to take six months to get that anyways. We're really talking about a year, not the full 18 months. But I'm also open to what council member Bert mentioned about maybe having that pilot at El Camino Park. I think that makes a lot of uh that makes a lot of sense. So those are those are my thoughts. Happy to support any motion that supports that um by my colleagues. Um, can I just refer the related question back to staff? How many how could how do you quantify right now the usage? How many kids are using the fields or do you even have that number? I'm I'm just trying to figure out if if we don't go ahead with turf, how many teams are going to be cut right away? Just so we have that knowledge.

I don't have that information in front of me. Um, we do have we prioritize youth leagues um that serve PaloAlto youth. Um, we'd have to look at how those teams are impacted if we reduce the synthetic turf. Okay. Yeah. Just can I if I can add on that. So, as far as El Camino goes, um, right now you've got about u multiple organizations. Um, from what I recall, looking at the data, it's everything from youth to adult and it equates to about 2,700 hours. So, that would be significantly cut down um, depending on the natural grass field profile you put in.

But the other caveat is is El Camino receives significant use during the winter time. And so, you would have to I don't want to say all but eliminate that use during the winter time, but you'd have to that would be significantly reducing your wintertime use on on that field. even after it became grass if that was the way it went.

Yeah. Because of the weather. Yeah. The reason is is that so the the uh the natural grass during the winter um exhibits very poor recovery. Um it's not optimal growing conditions for the natural grass. um we can do a more of a performance or you can do more of a performance profile with drainage, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's um you're going to have a lot of program out there. You're going to be wearing down a field and you're going to be wearing down grass that does not um want to recover or able to recover because of the conditions.

So there there will be some percentage of teams that have to be cut at least in the winter is what you're saying. Yeah. And from from my P PRC days, um we always used to joke that, you know, coaches really wanted the field eight days a week for practices and games, which was of course what they wanted, but they weren't going to get because we're not going to build that many fields. Um so there is something there to just say you can't even have what you're having right now if we have to scale back. But it seems like we'd have to do that. We'd have to cut teams. And it seems to me that we'd have to start looking at our 10 and a half acres out by the bayands um pretty dug on soon. U because we're going to have some falloff even with this good good hybrid approach. All of which can be done. Um but it's going to take time, money, management. Um and if this were to occur, what's the um what would be the game plan? I know you're thinking of it live right now, but I mean spontaneously, but what would be the game plan for um El Camino in your initial judgment? Put in half a field. Uh wait until we could put it in all this uh grass.

Yeah. Or for convert if you if it was converted to natural grass. Well, that that's so there would have to be some level of planning um as part of that pilot program, if you will, because the question is, are we going to establish a native soil natural grass? Are we going to establish some form of performance sandbased natural grass and or some type of hybrid natural grass? So, we'd have to establish that because the the numbers that we gave you, that was just for a native soil field. So, the price continues to escalate. um the higher performing field that we put in. So I would say if we did just put in a native soil natural grass field, that's not really a pilot because you already have those in in your inventory. So you'd really like, this is me thinking out loud, but you'd really want to put in a a performance um grass field which is going to cost exponentially more. And and what do you last question uh on this sort of sidebar here? If we don't go through the timeline that you have set for replacing that with turf, then what happens? Do we have to go through another timeline and in the meantime it's going to be unusable for anything? I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to pro

Yeah. Um great question. I think we definitely are at risk for closure for safety. So the field would be down um or could potentially be down um while we are in the planning phase. Okay. Other council members? Vice Mayor?

Yeah, just one quick follow-up question on that. Um, I understand we have to do planning and probably irrigation uh under these scenarios, but 18 months still seems like a long time. Um, can you just speak a little bit to what why it would be that why that's the estimate?

Yeah, let me walk I have that up a minute. I had a we had a little bit of a breakdown in the um study and I'm not on that page, but um essentially you're going to go through a um procurement period where you're going to go procure an architect engineer to design your field. and they need to design it and then you're going to go through a period of permitting and then you're going to go through a period of procurement where you're going to hire a builder and then you're going to go through a period of construction and then a period for the growing of the natural grass. So like 18 months is is a pretty good baseline for that. Can be done a little quicker potentially. Um if there's different procurement methods to expedite the process like we could you could potentially shave some months off that could it potentially take longer definitely. Um I mean if you try to go build a natural grass field in the winter it's probably going to take longer than building a natural grass in the summer because of the because of the weather delays and weather conditions. Are you done, Council Member Bert?

Um, yeah, just a couple of thoughts on that. One is whether uh using sod could trim a little bit of time off that. Um, if I think about 18 months from November, uh, we'd be starting in in April, so right after the winter season. So that would um be favorable in that sense from this date forward if it was truly 18 months from now which as you said we that's imprecise um I think one of the important things on on the field use is um uh our formula for what portion of the teams need to be resident and um and I'm not really versed on uh what we use right now on um our soccer fields. Um uh can staff quickly give us any sense of that and how it compares to neighboring communities uh uh both field, you know, do we have more fields just like on pickle ball? We've got we're we're a subregional pickle ball center now uh because we're providing those services. Is something like that going on in the um in the other playing fields?

Yes. So we have a field usage policy that dictates how we distribute the field. So the field users submit their requests for field use and then we go through a long process on how those fields get scheduled and like I said the prioritization is for youth nonprofit organizations um that serve a certain amount of PaloAlto kids and I don't have that percentage off the top of my head and then it the prioritization goes down from there. So on the lowest if if we had a constraint on field hours for El Camino as a result of this switch, we'd look at the lowest priority and perhaps tightening that or not allowing as as much use in that lowest priority, I assume.

Correct. They would likely not get the be the first to not get the fields.

Okay. And then um yeah, lastly on the uh additional fields at ging and we we actually you know we have two our two baseball fields and we really only use one these days. So that might be the more immediate opportunity. Um and as I look back on the gang fields uh when we created that land now uh the decision was made more than a dozen years ago. um we were constrained on field use and that problem we but since then we haven't been saying we've got to take advantage of that those gang fields for a dozen years and I think that's because we had it an increased use of synthetic turf which extended hours rather than building new fields.

That's exactly right. Yeah. Okay. So we that's the decision that kind of happened. I don't know how deliberate that was, but those two things went together.

It was actually very deliberate. We even fussed about the the wording because those 10 and a half acres were retained for future recreational use and it was specifically not fields because we wanted to be more open about what do we need there in the future? Do we want archery ranges? Do we want whatever? But I can tell you as the person who initiated that set aside when we redid we did the flood control with reducing uh uh needing 10 acres from the golf course for um flood control and we really re-examined the the size of the golf course and rather than 180 acres, we took it to 160 to put 10 acres. And the the the the impetus was at that point in time and for really the years before that the need for additional playing fields. I think it was a good decision to put latitude there but the impetus was at that time we thought we needed more playing fields and it didn't come about yet. So

yeah, noting that we also said at the time and I said tonight that's not the optimal place for youth sports, but um yeah, it's not the optimal place for baseball. It's, you know, it's um that's it's really true. Um it's not optimal and but um I don't think we we have the opportunity to um necessarily uh choose optimal. We're looking at trade-offs and and what alternatives we really do have. Yeah. I I'm sorry, but I think it was council member Real first.

Yeah. I I agree with Council Member Bird about that. We've our view on this has really changed and the mayor and I were on Parks and Wreck when we did the first Mayfield replacement and we at that point people were using crumb rubber, the ground tires with heavy metals and lead. It was just not good. And so we paid extra to get virgin rubber to put in for the infill. And we were so proud of ourselves. And now we look back at that the all the blades had had PAS in them. And even the virgin rubber is not really good for the environment if it escapes. So uh I also I I'm more concerned now today than I am that it was even a year ago. But what makes this hard is like we have two competing interests. We all care about health and the environment and sustainability, but we also care about mental health. And I know growing up, participating in sports was really important. And my youth would not have been as good if I wouldn't have had access to uh playing fields. So, we have to balance that off. And that's really difficult here. And so, I um I mean, I think we we have to do is we have to make it so our first job is to make it so they're not opposing each other. And that's really put a fullcourt press into finding out how what can you do with grass fields to make it so we can get higher use and so we don't have to sacrifice. But I think in the short term I think the only choice we have is to put a synthetic field with organic infill. So that's one problem. PAS free or low PAS blades have the RMM to to try to do our best to keep the microplastics from escaping into the environment. It won't be perfect, but at least we can do the best we can and try to view that as that's the last field that we're going to artificial field turf that we're putting in. And we really going to strive that the next ones that we replace are going to be grass. And particularly the El Camino has good

lights and so we can use that in the winter. Cberly does not have good lights or doesn't have lights at all. And so if we convert that to grass field, we don't get as much use over and on Cberly which is currently a synthetic field. If we convert that say that's going to be the target for our grass replacement and since it's grass during the wet season we won't be able to use it as much but it doesn't have lights. And so I think there's some synergy there that that would be a better target. That also would give us two more years to plan. We could look at more carefully. Do we want to do a hybrid system? Do we want to do an organic base? And you know, it takes time to plan this stuff. This is not trivial. And I think having the two extra years so we could really have a much um have a plan lined up so we could do it quickly and efficiently. I think that's the better approach than trying to do the El Camino. I understand that. I mean, artificial turf is not a good thing, but we have the practical application that kids use it to play soccer, and that's a good thing for them, and it's it's it's just not a one-sided coin. So, Council Ru,

thank you. Uh, I absolutely want a pilot program for natural gas grass into

No, no, no, no, no. This is not the first time this has happened. uh tonight and I want to uh eliminate and minimize turf in the medium term uh uh sort of pending uh technology changes or sustainability changes to turf. Uh I agree with council member rectal. A challenge for me is that Cubberly ultimately seems to be a somewhat better fit where it is uh built into a community context with many more grass fields. Um and uh I actually found Sher Liskarten's article on this in the weekly uh somewhat compelling. And so I think the timing is difficult because that stretches out our timelines. We buy ourselves 10 more years of turf. Um but it is a uh El Camino but it is a uh more economical option. Um I also uh want to comment a little bit about uh other sort of alternatives. I think we can easily get ahead of ourselves uh looking at uh the bay lands and uh the 10 plus acres there. I think we could probably just as reasonably look at sand capped fields in other locations which could bring up our native grass uh capacity without necessarily disturbing the natural environment in the bays. So uh that uh at Greer or uh at Cberly if we actually convert the 4 plus uh native grass uh native soil fields there um uh is a compelling option. Uh I don't think I have done the math in my head yet about how the net playable hours and costs add up. But uh my point is that we

don't necessarily need to get too ahead of ahead of ourselves on the exact uh uh parameters of what we do in the bay lands. I think interpreting the precautionary principle is tricky here. I think we do need to consider youth mental health as council member rectal uh discussed. I think we also uh uh need to recognize uh real budget limitations. Um and on the issue of budget limitations, I did have one specific question. I'm curious, what would cost recovery look like using the city's normal principles look like for a uh either uh uh native or or let's say sand capped uh El Camino uh soccer field or for uh any other sort of uh actively uh organically managed native uh or natural grass build.

So for clarification, are you asking about cost recovery on the construction costs versus like operating maintenance costs?

Sorry. Uh we have listed fees where for example for a uh turfield the resident rate is $90 per hour and the non-resident rate is $210 per hour. So if the cost per pay playable hour is approximately $80, we are actually recovering that cost. Uh there's also a nonprofit rate that's somewhat below cost, but you know, net net we aren't actually uh necessarily eating the budget cost of uh a field because per playable hour, at least based on the reservations, we get a lot of recovery. If we were to do a natural grass field and it ended up costing, you know, three plus million dollars over a 20-year life cycle, what would the city's practice be? Uh would we also have to think about setting a rate such that the cost for that field is not so high that we uh actually discourage or don't get uh reservations in that uh uh more actively managed natural grass field. Yeah, we would have to look at that. We do have our cost recovery policy that we generally follow. Um, so there might be opportunities to increase the hourly rental rate. Um, I don't think that was part of your work, was it Anthony? No. So, we haven't done that analysis, but we certainly could look into that.

Okay. Uh I am somewhat worried about the idea that we uh build these new healthier more sustainable fields and then we end up charging 200 plus dollars per hour and they don't actually get used. But I'm also concerned about the idea that we uh spend millions of dollars in capital costs. Uh so, um I ultimately I think I can still think and be fine with a uh turf pilot either at El Camino or at Cubberly with uh uh uh turf in the meanwhile, but I'm curious just to see how the conversation continues. Thank you.

I want to add something about the um community who plays sports. I mean, it's my own experience as a coach and as an administrator and as a dad is that the high percentage of folks, thankfully, girls and boys play youth sports in our town. I mean, it's it's pervasive. So, by delaying this one field, we are going to lose some teams. We might also lose some playing times per week. Back to my eight days a week thing, which is not as not as terrible. Um, but I want to point out that one of the other benefits is that athletes of all kinds can play youth sports. So, there's an equity aspect there. I happen to have one son that's an athlete and the other one who is definitely not an athlete. And they both played youth sports for one a shorter time and one a longer time. Uh, but they both played and they got the beginnings of teamwork and coordination and things like that. So, I think that there's that equity balance and you're throwing in with teams from all different parts of town and I think that mix is really good. Um, also it's a community benefit because you spend a lot of time with the other parents as an adult, not just the other kids. Um, and you know, some folks that I know today I met on the baseball field, you know, so so there's that whole benefit. And I mean there are tens of thousands of people parents that are touched by this. And so if we say this is going to be cut back a bunch for the next couple years, um we're going to have some mail about that as well. So I just wanted to to to point that out. Um and that's fine. That's I'll just leave it there. Who was next? Council member Stone.

Just want to briefly add I appreciate the recognition of the impact on on youth mental health. I think that's a I think that is absolutely a big component uh as well because of course access to youth sports and outdoor exercise is is critical. I do want to though point out as as well there's a growing body of research around the connection between youth mental health and microplastics and especially in in particular with young developing brains more susceptible to the dangers of inflammation of the brain which chronic inflammation which causes links to depression, anxiety, brain brain fog, hormone disruption. Um microplastics can disrupt gut health which also leads to um mood issues, mental clarity and then of course dozens of of of other impacts. So want to point out that I think yes the youth mental health piece an important one for for youth sports. I'm more concerned about the long-term physical and mental um health impacts on on our young people as well as the community abroad. And even though also kind of recognizing the mayor's good points about the impact of of hundreds if not thousands of of residents, I'm I I I still were concerned about that as well. need to find additional options for additional playing fields. The impacts we're making are going to be felt, the health impacts are going to be felt citywide for for people whether they play on these fields or are just members of the community. Again, seeing those seeing those um those small plastic blades going into our our um our storm water system today is just kind of one example of this of the ripple

effects that we're going to see if we continue to invest in synthetic turf um into the future. And this is not a short-term decision. If we decide to do it at El Camino Park, it's there for another 10 years. none of us will be on the council at that time. So, who's to say what a future council will do as well? So, I I want to be cautious and and go the way that the really the the science and the data is pointing us, which is to reject synthetic turf and move towards natural grass.

Okay. Vice Mayor.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, um, yeah, I echo your comments about, uh, athletics and, uh, how much my two daughters, who were of differing abilities as well, benefited from them. And I've the hours I've spent at, uh, soccer fields around this, not just this town, but this area, well, this state, and it's crazy. Um but um I just focusing on the question before us, you know, just to to kind of state the obvious, but just to to for clarity, I'm hearing a consensus around we don't want any new locations for turf fields. Um we have one here and the question is do we extend and do do we replace it for you know one additional 10-year period? I'm also hearing a consensus around we're not really interested in replacing it anywhere else. Um I shouldn't say consensus, we've not heard from anyone, but a leaning a stream that way. So, and I hope that's where we go. That this is the last time we'll debate I hope whether or not we put in a turf field. Um the let me just ask a couple very quick factual questions before I make my make my next comment. Could you remind me how old is the El Camino field? I know it's at the end of its useful life, but how many years has it been in use?

Nine. Nine. Okay. And um which which in next basically in another month we we'd hit 10 years.

Yeah. Okay. All right. And that was with the technology available 10 years ago, too. Okay. Um so if we were either at El Camino or certainly by the time we get to Cubberly to look at alternatives um that are have greater wear again I mean the three that are here that are the the three labeled natural gas grass none of us can do it. None of us can do it. Um the three the three natural grasses that are not just the the the native sodon native and uh are all in roughly the same ballpark in terms of cost per hour of use. Um but they're they're different in terms of those hours. And that's where um again the hybrid so so the the the sand cap is 900 the perched water table is 1,000 um hours and the uh hybrid is 50% more. So for basically the same cost you get 50% more hours. So in terms of this concern we have um it's still not quite one for one as it's not it's not let me back up the the natural grass that are that are thousand with the sand cap then the hybrid is 1500 the synthetic turf is 2250 so it still doesn't quite match it but it's a lot closer um so I would hope that whenever we do this whether it's at El Camino or at Cberly that we look at all three. But my question is to staff, how would we step through that? Because we don't have before us information. It's as if we were supposed to do the one thing, we didn't do it. Now I don't know what we do. So how would we step through discerning which of those three we would go forward with? Because I think before we would find a develop, you know, before we put out

the RFP, we got to know what we're putting out the RFP for. So what would that look like? help me with the boundary cases here if you could. So if we're not doing synthetic for under my this this scenario and not doing the same kind of natural grass we have now we're looking at extended life natural ga grass grass at El Camino or at Karudi or somewhere else. Let's assume El Camino. Okay. Okay. Let's assume El Camino. I'm trying to figure out this is as we grapple with whether to do it at El Camino or Cberly. I need to know how we would step through it if we did it at El Camino. And

yeah,

I I'll venture a call it a position here and then staff can can disagree. If it were El Camino, given where it is in its life, we would suggest that we pick a direction. And if that direction were let's say a sandbased turf that we would charge forward on a design based on that premise and come back with the cost and next steps involved with that. Alternatively, if we don't decide what form of natural hybrid uh is taken, we'd need to come back to you with the scope to study and decide which it would be. So that would take additional time.

Yeah. And that's what I was I was afraid you might say, but it makes sense. Um no, but but but so I think our discussion should also focus on can we even make that direction tonight? Because if we can't, we can't. Um, and I and I think it boils down to, you know, from those choices, do we want the um, you know, the the the the thousand hour or the 1500 hour, the the cheaper thousand hour or the more expensive 1500 hour and that's that's kind of where we are on this. And we don't have a lot of information to make that decision on, but we would have to give you that direction, right? and and perhaps to to have that be an informed decision. Let me ask Anthony and and our other staff and and it may come back again to a question to council. What's your priority? If the priority is grass with maximum playability in El Camino, then what would our guidance be as to what product or you know approach would best serve that goal? Yes, that's a question for you, Anthony. And if you're unable to answer that should

I'm sorry I'm I'm reading my try to prepare myself for the question. Could you repeat the question one more time? I'm sorry. If if the priorities then again this is a assumption here. So correct. If not, if our priorities were at El Camino to proceed with a natural grass alternative, how would you best advise we do or a natural grass alternative that maximize play time? Sure. So, I would do a uh full um sand profile with drainage on that. Uh I think you're going to get the most value out of that. The the other

Why do you say that? um just because um I should say you're going to get the best long-term value out of that because when you do so sand cap is one thing you have a really nice growing medium but when you introduce the drainage layer which isn't significantly more what it allows you to do is over the long term you're able to like flush the um salt build buildup things like that that end up um um accumulating in your sand over the amount of years. So, my opinion is just for not a lot more money, put the drainage system in. It's going to be a longer term in investment. Um, is that the perched water table? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Sorry for not clarifying. Um, and then but at the same token though, we'd want to take a look because really to get the most out of a sandbased field, it takes more maintenance. So, we'd want to be very realistic about what that's going to take. Takes more what? Uh, more maintenance. maintenance.

Yeah. So, it takes more maintenance to get the to um really optimize those fields. And so, we would want to be realistic with the city. Uh what is that going to cost year in year out um to to meet that expectation. There's other municipalities who have done um performance sandbased fields, but they usually have full-time sports managers and fairly large budgets um to keep those fields uh maintained and going. I I just want to

just on that note, I know the council's aware of this, but for community awareness that on that issue of funding and u budgets, uh we are expecting to enter into a very constrained budget year. Uh so that will likely have uh result in some difficult choices among where to invest in particular as we're talking about operating budgets which are somewhat distinct from capital budgets but nonetheless uh important for us to acknowledge. Happy to expand on that as needed.

Yeah. And I think that's that's an important point. I I actually think that's something for council to weigh because I I quarrel a little bit with your last point that there's more value because we have to decide if there's more value in getting 50% more hours that's closer to the number of playing hours that our community has now. Um because it's the same dollars per hour in those two options. So if it's the same dollars per hour, we have to decide if we want to buy more hours for our community, but in a tough budget year, it may be harder to do so. So, you know, if we want to go forward at So I I would like to hear my my colleagues comments on going forward with El Camino as opposed to Cberly. I mean, those who would like to do that. um given that we're kind of in this conundrum over giving direction tonight as to which of these options to take and the the the the cheaper one cuts in more than half the resulting hours after we would finish the project. Well, just to raise one process issue and then we're going to go to Council Member Bert. I mean, theoretically, we could table this motion and have an offline discussion of a couple council members and staff if we wanted to flush out more specific options before forcing a vote at X date, which I don't know when that would be, but just as a process issue, that's another way to go for it. Council member Burke. Yeah, I really only want to focus on uh one issue which is whether uh selecting one of these options as uh a natural turf at El Camino Park would mean that our youth in PaloAlto would not have uh the playing field access that they have today. But director Kaine, when you went through that hierarchy without you didn't go through

detail, but you explained you have a hierarchy. The lowest tier that we would be reducing access for is not our PaloAlto youth. Correct. That's the highest tier. Correct. It would be um groups that have that are forprofit and um have the low residency rate. So that concern if that was true, I'd be concerned about it. But it's a non-issue. So, so specify what you mean by that. Just

if if we were to switch to uh natural turf, one of these options at El Camino, it would not mean we have fewer hours available for our youth to play sports. Well, I can weigh in on that that I'm not sure if that's correct because I don't know how many of these for-profit groups are actually reserving fields now that wouldn't get it. This is the priority list. And what's the what's the second lowest priority?

Nonprofit groups with 25% or more PaloAlto residents. And then it's PaloAlto adult nonprofit groups with 35% residency. PaloAlto youth 51% resides residency and then city. that all the way up near the top gets into PaloAlto youth and El Camino is a fraction of our playing fields. So we're looking at reducing playing field time on a fraction of a fraction that would affect probably only the lowest tier and maybe the lowest two tiers. Not in the winter. The winter is a whole different right

ball game. Stay with the puns out of the winter. Um if even right now we have our uh highest priority is teams that are are palo predominantly majority PaloAlto youth right that's the highest priority the highest priority is city programs so city recreation programs um so our own classes and then it goes to PaloAlto youth organizations like Palo Alto

in the winter do we have any jeopardy that that second tier of teams that are predominantly PaloAlto youth um are they uh currently constrained on the field access or is it those other tiers that are constrained in the winter? I would have to get back to you on that. I don't have that information in it's weather driven not so much access. When the weather hits the total hours available in those months is reduced. The question is which of those categories is affected by that constrained capacity? I get that

and and my point is that it's those lower priority categories that are the ones that get most constraint. The our our wreck programs and the PaloAlto youth are the highest priority for all these fields citywide. And so Kristen doesn't have the exact numbers, but I don't think that we're we're looking at in all likelihood an impact on our youth even in those winter months off of this one decision. I mean, one clarification.

Oh, yeah. One clarification. I mean, this might be a little dated because, but from my parks and wreck days, the only one the only organization that was a nonprofit was AYSO. And then below it, the the for-profit are club sports, but they're that they're the only ones in that age group. And so then they're below and the vast majority of those are all PELA residents. The and even uh we do have some some slots for less um palalta residents, but they're the exception, not the rule. Most of the fields are taken up by youth who are Palo Alton. Now, on the adult side there, we do let more non-residents play adults, but that's because they need critical mass and adults don't have as many friends. And so, it's harder for them to get 10 friends together. And so, we allow them to have more non-residents because those non-residents are allowing residents to have access to the fields. And so, they're it's like they're doing a service for us by letting them their bodies and going out there. So, by and large, the fields really are used by pel residents. We don't have a vast majority of non-residents playing. Uh Kristen, you want to clarify anything that I said that might have been wrong?

Um I would just echo um with what council member Rectal said. We're looking at the data and it states that majority of um Elmino fields use are PaloAlto either soccer club um which has a very high residency rate in addition to um some American youth soccer but majority Anthony it's it looks like the majority is Palo Alto. Yeah, we can we can go through the data um in finer detail. Vice Mayor.

Yeah, just a quick point on that. That was very interesting. Council member Rectal, I guess I was wondering about, you know, some of the more elite teams tend to draw, you know, players from it's sort of like this clump of cities and they they they the elite from each city join a team. And if every city around here did what we did and said, you know, if you don't have 51%, then where did those elite teams go? And like I said, we we each had a child that was more elite than the other. The one that was more elite uh tended to play on teams with kids from, you know, Mountain View and and Los Altos and Melo Park and Redwood City and and they all, you know, and it would vary.

Um where do they go? they I guess they could go to our grass fields. But um anyway, I just I think I think we can't forget those, too, because we like to encourage those kids, too.

Well, let me just throw out one other just to I'm just trying to put an odd thought out there. Um we have a life cycle of 10 years. It doesn't mean we have to keep it up for 10 years. So, if we wanted to put it up and take it out five years later, obviously it's a simple matter of money, as they say. But um we're not locked into that. Um so having said that, do we want to try to do an informal ad hoc to talk with staff or do we want to try to force the issue tonight? And you said we if if we don't do this what's on the table in terms of the the turf field, we might end up having to close it.

That that's correct. before we can get something else up. I I don't have the exact timing on if if and when a closure may or may not be able to h or have to happen.

All right. Well, I think it might be worth a conversation. Council B. Um I think you're because you know a lot of this I think for a number of us is boiling down to what would be the real impacts on our priority users. Uh I do think that you're right that um that uh having a quick informal ad hoc to flush this out and bring it back to the council um would be useful. So I think we can just parliamentarily wise we can just uh continue the item table the item continue it to a data uncertaint and also um create an ad hoc to discuss with staff

what's that I would just note that ad hocs seem to be uh almost as constrained as their field capacity uh given how thin you're all stretched but certainly I think we staff would certainly be happy to work with that. So, that would be a motion that I would make. You want a second, Pat? Any discussion on that? Okay. I'm I'm voting for my own motion contingent on the fact that I get at least two council members to say yes. Doesn't have to be tonight, but I need I need two council members. All right. Any um other comments? Let's call the vote then, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. I've uh remained silent to this point because I'm the leazison on to parks and wreck and I've just uh had uh a number of opportunities to think about this report and and so on. I wanted to hear what the rest of you had to say. I just wonder if there is an appetite among the majority of us uh to actually uh approve the El Camino turf as our last turf field. get that done, get that replaced, and then figure out what we're going to put in a coverly. Uh, of the three options, I'd rather see the ad hoc focus on that narrower issue, but move forward with what needs to be done at El Camino Park. I mean, El Camino Field. I just feel like time is so short. It's the 11th hour on that one. Uh, it's running out of its useful life. It is winter. Anything we do to delay that or whatnot is going to impact the teams that are planning to play there in the coming months. Um, so I just wanted to throw that out rather than have an ad hoc deal with all of it.

Well, we already have a motion in a second, so I'm perfectly happy to um entertain a substitute motion. Um, yeah, I'll make a substitute motion, which is basically to do the staff motion that's on the table. It is uh what does the staff motion say about coverly? It really doesn't speak to the next steps. The next step it just talks about um this field and then the pilot the grass pilot. Those are the two items basically.

Okay. So I guess I would say uh move by the staff mo uh recommendation with a grass pilot with an ad hoc to decide where the grass pilot happens and what type of grass ought to be piloted. Well, you wouldn't even need the second part if you don't need it. If you don't want it, but it's up to you. Whatever you think is I mean, staff could work through that and then the commission could work through that where the pilot should be. Okay. All right. There's a motion. Is there a second to that compared to the not compared to, but instead of the other motion? I'd

discussion. You want to see it? You want to see it on the screen? I'll second. You want to comment? Uh, Keith?

Yeah. May I like like I mentioned earlier, I'm torn because I see both sides, but I think that the field at El Camino is so old and so bad conditions. If we want to do a pilot, it's going to be a long time before that pilot is decided on, much less constructed. I would rather just we know that this will work. Let's get it out there. If Mountain View had a high use grass field that we knew and had confidence that we could replicate, that would remove a lot of the risk. But with this pilot, there's a lot of risk associated with it, both the planning risk and the implementation risk. So, I think this is the safer option. I don't like the idea that we're adding more turf, but the upside is that people have place a place to play. So,

it's not more turf. It's the same amount of turf as we have. Yes. We're not reducing our 12%. We're adding new turf. It would be the same 12%. They're both turf. That's right. We're adding turf for another 10 years. And and we're synthetic turf for another 10 years. And we're acknowledging that that's not great, but given the timetable um and the other constraints, we think that that's the most expedient solution right now. And we're going to make the decision. we probably feel better about on the next field. I believe council um dropped item number three on the ad hoc committee with the assumption that the commission would work on that.

Somebody else has a comment. Council member Lou.

Yes. I think it is important to try to move towards a more solid uh motion about this being the last synthetic turf field. Uh you know, barring some revolution in synthetic turf technology that makes it uh ultimately a better option in the future, you know. Uh, so standard disclaimers and I think maybe talking about Coverly is worthwhile to do in this motion because due for the same decision in around 3 years. So if anytime in the next few years we actually have the budget, um, we could even do a natural turf uh, pilot sooner at the Cubly Turf Field. um which for reasons council member Rectal mentioned uh uh are maybe less desirable for the winter uh given lighting and other things. Anyways, so uh

are you are you speaking in favor of the motion? Uh yeah, I think I I think I can go with the motion, but I'm also curious. I'll accept that amendment to add Cberly as the uh target for the pilot for natural turf. Yes. And I I can accept that also.

Yeah. And we don't need to put more in the motion, but just as the finance committee finds money and resources, we could uh it's much more palatable to do coverly a year or two early than it is to try to do El Camino Park 5 years 5 years in, for example. Um, so I think uh stating the Cly synthetic turf field as a natural pilot I think is a good uh good step and I'm glad we can put that in the motion. Yeah, coverly synthetic um because we have a lot of different fields that coverly any other council member speaking to this motion? Yes, council banker.

Yes. Um and so um madame clerk I think uh council member rectal just made a good point. There are a bunch of fields at coverly. some of which are grass and I think we're talking about the um the synthetic set set the coverly synthetic field as a target for the pilot is I think what the point is here. Um I have a question about accepting the findings and recommendations um of the uh study. Why do we need to do that? I'm asking staff. It's actually a good point because I think there's a lot of controversy about them. I

correct the PRC did and staff recommended it. Council council doesn't have to. Okay. I would ask the maker if I mean I I'm just very concerned about the fact that even on the one point I raised there were four different ways of describing the costs of a hybrid and I'm looking at the maker of the motion. Sorry. Okay. Um I would I'm wondering if you would accept a a friendly um amendment to delete paragraph one because I don't know why we need to accept the report. There's I mean just I'm glad it

changing it to receive the findings and recommendations. Don't we want some kind of mechanism to say that there was a report and we saw it? Well, we all heard we all heard it. I'm indifferent on that. I just don't I would prefer not to have the accept just um can staff talk. Do we do is there any reason that we need that? It's it's fine if the city council would prefer not to make that an explicit action. Okay. Okay. Then I'm fine with removing it.

I am too. Uh one other thing you delete that that's deleted. So there was those mitigation measures that the parks and wreck recommended that would prevent runoff and and other environmental impacts. And so I'd like to include that as a sub bullet under number one. Are you good with that? Yes.

And so the the phrasing for that is the risk mitigation measures RMM. include that as part of the design for El Camino.

Yeah, I want to ask the mayor. Um, well, I still think there may be some ways to move more quickly at El Camino. And so I'm if the substitute motion passes, I'm that's why I suggested these amendments, but I'm still looking at I still think that if the ad hoc could move quickly and come back um with some options. Um I would I would like us to uh at least have that conversation. And I I don't know when you say a date uncertain, are you still thinking this year or just I mean just to have some Well, we're on a whole different motion now. I was not thinking that this would need a data uncertain.

I guess the thing is I'm having trouble supporting this motion until we flush out the other one because I actually like the idea of having an ad hoc and seeing if we could get a little more clarity and with staff from some things. Um like a broken record at this hybrid thing, but that actually is an existing technology right now and you know it's expensive so maybe we don't want to do it, but I would love to see. So I I'm not going to currently support the substitute motion because I support the motion although I appreciate the reasoning here. Council Robert.

Yeah. Um so I still support the original motion. Um because the reason that we were going to have a short time frame ad hoc was to provide us with critical additional information that would inform a decision on whether we go forward with uh natural or synthetic turf at El Camino. And if the recommendation ended up being, you know, we need we we would lose significant youth playing time uh in the winter. If we didn't go with synthetic turf at El Camino, then very that the majority of the council might go uh forward with that. But that's that was the advantage of having that ad hoc and return to us. And so I still support the original motion. So we'll make it council

just a question on I know there's a little back and forth but the hour is getting late so if you can refresh my memory we're going the plan would be to do independent testing of whatever synthetic turf is put in prior to the installation. Again, just running with the scenario since we've got a few different you're speaking to the plan. Should we proceed with synthetic El Camino? Yes, the plan would be to get the testing done as quickly as possible in the procurement process. I think the the current um experience is showing that that does take some time. So, we would want to get that moving as quickly as possible so the results are available ideally before any installation starts. And what is that? what is the threshold that the city would be looking for because I know can't there's no no pee offs option

right I think that that's something staff would need to work on to finalize and and set a specification for the provider okay and and maybe that if if this fails can be can be included with um with that ad hoc committee's discussion if we move forward and so my my expectation is let's say the substitute motion passes is and that those independent that independent testing fails, then staff would have to come back to to council and we would likely have to move forward with with an alternative option. Um, let's see. So, does that need to be included in the motion?

I'm a little confused, so I'm not sure I I'm tracking. So, let me try to articulate where I think we are. the currently we're doing testing for the uh installation at Mayfield and so we hope that the results will come back in a positive manner and there are no issues at Mayfield. What we're referring to for El Camino would be to ensure that the procurement at El Camino incorporates requirements for testing and use of the results of the testing so that there is not uh or such that the PAS uh issue is addressed. So my question is if we mentioned we would establish a threshold right

if that threshold cannot be met what if if none of the vendors are willing to uh engage in a contract with us under those terms. I think that's that's an open question perhaps Anthony you give us. It's a good question. Really good question. Um I mean I'll answer it. I think it should then be rejected and come back to the council.

The um if the if the the city can definitely set a maximum PAS threshold and if I look back at um I know there's the juvenile products um bill which limits it to 100 um ppm. Whether the turf companies can can meet that I'm not sure. I mean, I do know there's, as we've said, there's turf companies that claim POS free or POS reduced. So, we would have to confirm or the city would have to confirm that the the turf manufacturers could meet that. And if they could, then they would manufacture it. You test it just to confirm that that it is less than 100 um parts per million, then you'd be off and running. So again is so if but if they cannot is there is there do do we know what that alternative is or does that need to be included in the motion and also I'm not you know a big fan of saying well whatever what whatever the lowest standard that the industry can do I think we need to set that standard of what we are what we're comfortable with um subjecting our community to and stand by that standard. Yeah, I think we'll need to do some work to identify what that standard would be and then a question of how to bring that back if if that's a specific topic that uh council would want to discuss. Quite frankly, not looking forward to that conversation, but nonetheless acknowledge that that might be the next step. But so back to my kind of original question with the substitute motion, where does that discussion take place? because I'm worried if the substitute motion passes that never comes back to us and we never get that answer.

Well, well, for sure we'd need to come back to the council with specifications for the procurement and so at that time we'll have to address that issue. It will come back to the council. Yes. Okay. So, it doesn't need to be included in the motion. Does not need to be included. Okay. I mean, I'm still not supporting the substitute motion, but happy at least to hear that. Okay. So, let's call the question, please. Council Kims,

thank you. Um, putting my other ad hoc hat on, I just want to point out that it may be attractive to the Cubly project if we were able to put into the master plan that it's going to be the site of a pilot natural turf uh option. I don't want that to be overlooked. Which, if I understand your point, it could be here or it can be in um another motion tonight or it can be in the future as long as it gets there. Sort of. And it's before us right now. I just didn't want us to overlook that fact.

Okay, let's call a question. So, this is for the substitute motion that's on the screen, correct? taking the substitute motion. Vote on the substitute motion. Council member Bert, no. Council member Stone, no. Council member Lou, yes. Council member Liths, yes. Council member Rectal, yes. Mayor Lowing, tiebreaker, no. Vice Mayor Vinker, no.

Motion fails 324. So, let's go back back back to the main motion. Um, which which we could which we could take action on this and be back in two weeks and revert to the motion that just got defeated. So, there's no there's no harm here. Um the the addition I think here substantially is that we're just going to take a little bit of time with a couple council members to talk to staff and see um what else we can come up with. All right. With a with a 2025 date on it for coming back.

Everybody understand the motion? Oh, sorry. Council member Stone. Do we need to include kind of my uh my discussion on the last point? I do think at least then since we're going to have the ad hoc that we should include a a threshold that we would be comfortable with for the for those beefs. Well, we could discuss that could be considered to be in the motion here that we discuss that with staff or just putting it out there make if that's sim similarly similarly when we come to the uh grass pilot we could specify uh coverly

trying to make everybody happier till this last minute

council member vice mayor yeah I would just say I think the PAS threshold might take a little longer than we're contemplating for this having worked with toxics and uh scientists and stuff but we can certainly discuss but we could come back with a suggestion mo suggested motion that has that in it for future study okay council member Hayes I don't think we've heard from staff as to what kind of impact this is going to have on the work plan if this motion passes versus the one that failed.

We're not sure what the committee will come back with. So, it really depends on what the ad hoc recommendation is and the feasibility of an ad hoc getting going with staff in this Thanksgiving context with the winter holidays to come. Does it sound practicable to you that an ad hoc can meet and come to the decisions contemplated before the end of this calendar year?

I think it'll be tough to your point. So even if let's say the ad hoc met with staff this week, um I I assume you'd want the motion to go through our typical publishing schedule. So that would put two weeks or 3 weeks beyond that. So I think we're looking at four weeks out which your last meeting in December. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Let's go to a vote. Mayor Lowing. Yes. Council member Rectal. Yes. Council member Lou, yes. Vice Mayor Vinker, yes. Council member Bert,

yes. Council member Leard Hayes, yes. Council member Stone, yes. Motion carries unanimously.

All right. Thank you. Very important uh discussion tonight. So worth investing the time. Now for our next 10-minute item. Director late stepping up. Okay.

So, we're not going to do one repetition. Does she know that? No. Well, so Mayor, as a as a go ahead perhaps point of order, I guess I

ask if the council could see the possibility of a quick vote on number 11 before we went to number 10, or is that unlikely? I think we tried that once before and concluded it wasn't going to happen, but But if if we're going to get them both, does it matter what order we take them in? I'm sorry. If we're going to do them both, well, if if we could get a quick vote on 11, let's I'd suggest you do it and then we get into number 10, which will be a longer conversation.

I Any objections? I'm fine with that. Okay. Now, I think the clerk want had a couple of questions she wanted to ask just to confirm the direction we're going to take there. Sorry, this is an audible. My apologies. Uh, city clerk. It's it's with your interest in in my heart that making this suggestion. Thank you.

Correct. So tonight um for the council calendar item, we are hoping to get clarity on really two main points. Preferences on special meetings on the third Wednesdays which we outlined in the staff report as option one or fourth Mondays which is outlined as option two. Um you will note on the calendar for 2026 there are somewhat an unusual amount of holidays that fall in the first three Mondays of the month. um in 2026. So that is particularly why we're looking for council's guidance on a preference for special meetings that we'll need to schedule. And the second is we're looking for clarity on the annual retreat priority setting meeting to be either on January 24th or January 31st. Typically what we've done in the past is we didn't have a meet a council meeting that following Monday. So both of these dates I believe are um Saturday dates.

Okay. Can we take them in that order? Um I would I want to address the first one um which is that you know we my suggestion we agreed to do the third Wednesday instead of the fourth after discussion around this gives people a break uh and it also gives them a vacation schedule. We have a test case of one month right now. So I don't see that we have a lot of data to make any changes in this. I see you're reaching. I don't see a button.

Yeah. Go ahead, George. Personally, I find Wednesdays somewhat more difficult because it's easier for me to just block out every Monday with work. But then if I need to travel to Seattle or something for work, I can always say Monday is a travel day. Uh but then uh having that Wednesday meeting makes things somewhat more difficult. So I have a soft preference to for keeping things on Monday. Um uh and uh would just want to keep that option open or hear any other perspective.

I agree. I was initially excited about the Wednesday option. The one time we did it, I thought that was terribly draining having the backtoback. Um and I I found kind of preparing for two packets was was really challenging to do as as well. So, and and and I and I I received some feedback from residents, too, that they were very surprised about the Wednesday. There is an expectation for meetings to be held on Mondays, even if we're not supposed to meet on that last Monday. We too often do. So, the cadence is there. Um I think we should I think we should do the the fourth Monday, although we should really just not be meeting on that Monday at all. But for those for those those times that we have to I I think the fourth Monday.

Council Haynes. Thank you. Uh plus one to what's been said. I'll just add that I can't take the fourth uh week off as the liaison to parks in Iraq. They meet on the fourth uh week of the month. So the notion that maybe we can go on a trip or holiday. I I I it didn't work for me. And the the week that we had council followed by finance followed by council was uh a nightmare for me. and just didn't wasn't able to bring my best self. So, I would prefer sticking with Mondays. Vice Mayor,

yeah, just a question. Um, I believe we spoke at one point about that Wednesday meeting not having um certain items, you know, city manager comments, council member comments and things. Would that Yeah. So, then would that still be the case for the fourth Monday? I think so. Yeah. Okay. That'd be great because that I don't think that's been our practice. So with that, if that's the case, then I would I would agree with the fourth Monday. Um because on Wednesday, the third Wednesdays, I'm always up in San Francisco all day. So

unless Council Member Bert wants to chime in, I think there's already four votes. Uh I I'll just say that, you know, it's nice having that fourth Monday off, but I think from the public standpoint, the expectation that it be on the Mondays is um an important one. And um and I do uh concur that having essentially back-to-back council meetings to prep for is rough.

Yeah. the council I mean sorry the public also doesn't know that it's an optional meeting because it the public also doesn't know that it's an optional meeting because we're usually here so okay next item opinions on that um preference on annual retreat priority setting meeting as either January 24th or January 31st council member Bert. Yeah, I would say that if staff believes that they can get it on the 24th, it's better for us to get the the year going sooner rather than later.

Uh, Council Ames, I agree with that, Vice Mayor. Yes. Um, I can go with that, too. Yeah, works for me. Okay, we're in. Thank you. Bye. Okay. I

and then there is one last one not necessarily needing input but we do are asking for a motion for um adoption of the proposed resolution establishing the 2026 council meeting schedule which includes your recess dates. So your winter or your um summer recess as well as your winter recess. And do have assistant city clerk Christine Prior on the line if there's anything I'm missing or that you'd like to add. I I did have a couple comments on that calendar. Uh first first was that both the Jewish and the Muslim and also the lunar holiday um they're all starting at sundown. So we really when we have the list of holidays, we should not be having meetings the evenings before those holidays. And so the e Yeah, we and we do. And so looking at the list right now, um we don't have it in the in the staff report, uh March 19th was a finance meeting and that's the eve before a Muslim holiday and February 17th is Lunar New Year and that is the day of it and there's a meeting scheduled there too. So both those have a conflict with a March 19th is

March 19th. This is a Thursday, March 19th, right? There was some meeting on the the Let me pull up the staff report. We do have it looks like scheduled March. There you go, Christine. Hi, Council Member Rectal. Thank you. Um I'm Christine Prior, the assistant city clerk. And um if I could clarify the list of holidays that we are avoiding council meetings, those are just city council meetings, not um committee meetings.

Okay. But do we want do we want a the city schools lazison committee is meeting on a a Muslim holiday and finance committee is meeting on lunar uh lunar new year on February 17th. I think if the if the council would like us to include um committee meetings as um when scheduling to avoid these holidays, we're happy to include that. Um we just haven't in the past and that's why it's not reflected in the calendar. In the the last year, we only focused on um the Monday city council meetings.

And to clarify, when this was brought to HRC, I believe HRC is just focusing on council meetings specifically. Okay. Yeah, I agree. Okay. What other people think? Should all the committee meetings avoid those holidays or just the council? That's a lot of days. Yeah, it is.

To block out. I mean, we might we might be better off for someone who wants to observe the holiday just to skip the committee meeting and be down to two instead of three. That's another solution. And I think one of our um reasonings was that often um agenda items come to committee first and then go to city council subsequently. So members of the public who might not be able to participate at committee would then still have another opportunity to comment when it comes to council. again, Council B.

Yeah. Um I think for uh if we're going to have an expeditious review of this tonight, we can't wait into that and really resolve it. Um and I do think that there uh if we just accomplish the the council meetings tonight, we do have generally some latitude in the um in the committee meeting scheduling. So we could still potentially accommodate those dates but do that on an ad hoc basis.

If I may also add in I didn't share my presentation that we were planning but we do dates around the dates of significance which is listed in attachment B. We did do point out it's an iterative process. We are committed to our wellness and inclusion and this is a part of the equity and action plan. So, I believe staff, the city manager's office is um in consultation with the council and committees as well as collaboration with the clerk's office looking into how we can further look into these dates of significance. Council member Stone.

Yeah, first want to acknowledge clerk's office for all your work on here. We got so many appreciative emails around the the calendaring. So, you're doing a great job and thanks to the HRC, too. I agree with Council Member Rectal as far as his concerns. I think it's not just a matter of meetings that we can make, but also a matter of members of the public being able to participate and if there's a evening of religious worship, they might not be able to do so. But I think for what kind of where we're at right now, I agree with Council Member Bert as far as moving forward on an ad hoc basis with the expectation that those committees should not be meeting on those days and and hopefully next year then the clerk's office because I know this would be a lot of work can incorporate that into the committee meetings as well. Sorry, coming year. Yeah. Not 2027. saying for the clerk's office to get the to yeah to do the committees for that year and we do an ad hoc basis in 2026 for committees. Okay. Can we get the uh motion that the city clerk would like? Is it up? I could I'm so sorry to interrupt, but if I could point something out just um because I know the hour is late and I just want to make sure that the council's fully aware. If we go with the priority setting on the 24th and then the fourth Mondays for the special meetings, that means we will have um the priority setting on Saturday, January

24th, and then a council meeting on Monday, January 26th. Want to raise that in case that causes any concerns. I I thought the city manager said that we don't usually have a meeting on the Monday following the Saturday. Right. I think we would propose that there not be a meeting on the 26th as a result. So, so in that case, you would only have two meetings in January because Monday the Monday the 19th is Martin Luther King Jr. Day and one of those meetings is reorganization which is not actually a substantive work meeting, one substantive meeting.

So, I think we should look at adding uh maybe two a Tuesday meeting after MLK. We could pick up we could pick an op option one as we've done before on Martin Luther King Day. We just move it out a day or two so it could be the 20th or the 21st and then we'd still fit it in that week. Yeah. Right. So either the 20th or the 21st because we're out on the on the 19th. Yep.

Agreed. I think it's all still better than uh moving the retreat to the 31st if we can avoid it. Yep. And still leave the 26th open. Yes. Because I don't think we want to forego the February 2nd because February is always a short month anyway. I was just want to call me to do what?

Okay. No, she doesn't. I can see it right here. No, you're trying to fake me out again on this thing. Council member, go ahead.

I would like to uh Well, we don't even have So, I'd like to move uh the motion on the screen and add that we direct the city clerk's office to uh ensure that uh the holidays are honored, whether it's council or a committee. I do think that if you're celebrating Yam Kapour, if you're observing Yam Kapour, I should say, whether you're on council or uh you're a member of the public, you don't want the city to be meeting on anything important on your day of atonement.

Need a second. I'll second. Further discussion, Council Member Bert. Um, as I stated before, I I I favor doing uh trying to schedule those dates, but um I think insure is is a bit strong at this point in time. And and if it was changed to um pursue or explore, I' I'd be willing to accept that. I'll accept that. Okay. avoid. Try to attempt to avoid.

Okay, your light's not on. So that's why that's why I didn't see. So go ahead, Council Member L. No. Now it is. I have a new button. The previous button was broken. So, I can see that they installed a You having problems with new technology? New one that I uh figuring out. So,

on September and October, I'll note that we only have two regularly scheduled city council meetings. Um, and those are both busy months that uh uh if we only actually have two regularly scheduled meetings, we would be pretty much guaranteed to meet on that fourth uh um fourth Monday, I believe. So, I mean, I think we should count on having three meetings on each of those months. And I'm fine if the if one of those or if that's on the fourth Monday, but uh

otherwise we could do a similar move as January and get something on uh the Tuesday or Wednesday after holiday. Generally, that should be the practice. If we can't do the Monday, just do Tuesday or Wednesday and then we keep it there and then we don't have to deal with that fourth Monday. Yes. So, you can just do that. I don't know if we need to update bullet number one or if uh bullet number one could just be broadly phrased to say uh for meetings that fall on a holiday, we go with uh one or two of the next subsequent business days.

You say, "All right, let's vote. Could I just ask madam clerk to uh make a further edit to number four which is direct staff to explore also avoiding and then get rid of council and so it's just council committee meetings. Yeah. In other words, we're already doing it for council that we're just trying to add committees.

Call the role, please. Council member Lou, yes. Council member Burton, yes. Mayor Lowing, yes. Council member Stone, yes. Council member Lithcod Hayes, yes. Vice Mayor Vinker, yes. Council member Rectal, yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. out of gas.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. We're actually going to skip the presentation that we had planned. You have access to it. If you have questions, we can pull it up. Uh Claire Rayold, our um planning manager, is going to give you a quick 30 second synopsis of what we're asking you to do tonight. Do we have to do that in the calendar? M volley. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. See if there's any

for this is public comment for item nine. I mean, sorry. My goodness. Item 11. One moment. No requests to speak and no hands are raised on Zoom. Good evening, council members. Uh Claire Rayold, manager of current planning. Um we are here tonight to um um under work being prepared under a Metropolitan Transportation Commission grant um which is includes a scope to prepare a request for proposal for a um affordable housing project uh at the 340 portage site um on the land being dedicated to the city. Um and uh to inform that proposal, we prepared some massing diagrams and uh uh perform analysis for your review. And we are simply asking for some feedback to inform preparation of the draft RFP um which will need to be completed by the end of the year by our consultant. Um and so to inform that RFP, we're asking you to provide feedback um in particular related to uh any key development standards um kind of parameters of the key development standards that might inform that RFP. um and providing direction to staff to prepare and release a request for proposal for a future partnership um to build an affordable housing project or otherwise defer release of the RFP to a future date. And uh we have two consultants that are here tonight. Um the under our grant uh Van Meter Williams Pollock Karen Murray is available as an architect if you have questions. Um and then uh Rick Jacobus

from street level advisors is also available and he performed the perform analysis uh and will complete preparation of the request for proposal or draft request for proposal for the city. And with that I'll turn it back to you. So just a couple procedure questions. Um, do you intend to take all three proposals or do you want discussion about whether that's the right approach?

No. So, so the goal tonight, so we we've presented three scenarios just to give you some examples um of of scenarios that you might be able to explore and how those differ. Um, and so we're we're looking for your feedback on whether you have a preference on heights or maximums, minimums for units and u parking spaces etc. kind of the highle things that would really inform the RFP.

Okay. And then the other thing is the last thing you said which is sort of out of packet page 191 um whether we should proceed with the RFP or defer issuance until the city has a clear vision for redevelopment. So the latter is only basically the park as I read it. That's the only missing item.

Yes, exactly. Um, I guess the question would be, you know, we we're going to finish preparing a draft RFP because it's part of the uh grant work. Um, however, we have no obligation to release the RFP immediately. So, it would be council's decision on whether this is the right timing for the release of the RFP. if you have an interest in um in gaining more knowledge of maybe what's happening with the park component or any other feedback you might have. That's just what I was checking. It's basically just the mesh with the parking the park component. Yeah. And and funding available availability too.

Well, we'll never know that till we get get it out there. So, okay. Um is there public comment on this? Yes, we have one request to speak. Our first speaker is Cedric B.

Hello. Uh, good evening, council again. Uh, Cedric DLB. Um, I'm noting that uh scenario three with 75 foot height is consistent with the NVR4 zoning uh with 100% affordable housing projects. Um, I would encourage that highest height and density to be what the city pursues given that the site is surrounded by higher density zones. There are no single family homes adjacent to the site. It's within walking distance to cow train and buses and has easy automobile access to El Camino Rial uh with a traffic light at Portage. So, this seems to be an ideal site for higher densities which was in fact the original vision for the Envycap process to try to increase more housing in that area. Uh the adopted NVCAP plan showed a long rectangle of the affordable housing parallel to portage, but in the three scenarios in the staff report, the housing is stretched more towards the creek. Please make sure that you leave more distance from the creek, not just 50 ft from the center line. Remember that in approving the NVCAP, council recommended renaturalizing Matadero Creek through the site to the maximum extent possible and that the most ambitious renaturalization option studied in the feasibility study would widen the creek right away from the current 60 ft to 100 ft. And most of that widening was on the west side, basically the park side and the affordable housing side of the creek given the existing buildings on the east side. So, I'm concerned that if you bring the building to within 50 ft of the creek center line, uh you will prevent these wider creek naturalization options. You have plenty of space to work with. So, there is no need to expand the building in that particular direction since all the rest of the area will be parkland anyways. And keep in mind that a wider naturalized creek uh can support um uh vegetation in the

creek bed and uh walking uh down in the creek. So, it's all part of the part of the park experience. Um, kind of like uh we have the creek and bold park. Um, I'd like I'd love for the city to encourage the affordable housing to have green roofs or other bofilic features which improve occupant physical and emotional wellness and quality of life and which also would support habitat more than just an empty roof with some uh boring uh equipment on there. So, uh, I support the notion I also support the notion of community uses on the ground floor. And, uh, in terms of daylighting, I think it'd be great to see like a, uh, a stepped a terrace kind of option. You know, they could be a wider building on the ground floor and, uh, narrower um, as it goes up with the uh, slope side kind of facing the park uh, direction so that you have less shadow on the park usage. Great. Thank you.

That concludes public comment for action item 10. Thank you. We'll come back to the dis for comments. Council member Stone. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, thanks staff for bringing this forward. I'm excited for this. Just a a couple of questions. So, I know under the development agreement, we don't get the 5 million from Sabra until occupancy of the town homes. Do we have an anticipated date of when that happens? We're currently anticipating spring of 2026 uh for is is what the future buyer is hoping for. Great. They're making great on occupancy or is it transfer?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That that's for issuance of the building permit. And so I I'm sorry. That was really impressive. So I would say approximately one year from that time frame. So 2027. Okay. So do are we seeing any chance that that money can help go towards this project based on the timeline? Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

That's helpful to know. Um, and then saw that most of So I know that the the shadow study that was done that was that was showing scenario three seems like most of where those shadows from the project would impact would be lot three across from Portage. Remind me those are office spaces. That's that's an office development. Uh, yes. I believe lot three was the office development. Let me just check. Um the where the um that's I think you're referencing. Hold on. Pack it.

Sorry. Yeah, lot three is the remaining portion of the canery. It's all office. There is a small retail space at the corner there. Um Okay, but not further residential. So, not for residential lot one is the residential,

right? Okay, good. That makes me feel a little better about the the shadow impacts. And then just you know the the option of possibly kind of deferring this until um kind of further guess development or kind of planning for that for the full 3.25 acre site. If we do that which I'm hesitant to do because I think we need to prioritize this affordable housing. What's the likely timeline for plan for the planning development and that kind of that full site if we were to do that? That's not on any planning effort at the moment. So years.

Okay. Then I think in an ideal world that would be great but since it's going to delay the affordable housing so significantly unless we have other places for those dollars to be able to go to that can that that we can get more and then I' I'd rather us move forward then just kind of briefly I think I I think for this location scenario three makes the most sense. I don't think scenario two is bad either. I I think scenario one doesn't give us enough um for what we'd want to see there, especially kind of like just the opportunity for some good density and growth in that um in that part of the in that part of the city. Looking at my other notes. Yeah. Was there sorry other questions that you were kind of that's what you were sort of looking for? just kind of very broad feedback like that.

Yes, I think it would be really helpful if council could also weigh in on some of the key development standards in particular. Um, for example, if there's a minimum parking that um you feel would be appropriate cover that so I'm taking your feedback as you're comfortable with the development standards that are presented in table one. Yeah. Right. For scenario three. Yeah. Generally. Okay. Thanks, Council Ruth HS.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, how exciting. Um, I want to be sure everyone is aware that I think we are expecting a state affordable housing bond to come down the pike for $10 billion. And I'm told that projects with entitlements uh in hand will be the first in line for that new state level money. So, it would be wonderful wherever we are. uh with our affordable housing efforts. If we can get in line for that money, that would be good. Um generally, I'm aligned with the um development standards that are in the table. I prefer the larger unit count, but mostly I prefer the one we can afford uh along with uh our other affordable housing priorities elsewhere in the city. Um I would support any of the three of these, I guess, is what I'm saying, depending on all the other variables. I appreciate the public comment about creek naturalization which has been contemplated for this site and uh his concerns about ensuring the setback of the affordable housing is sufficient accordingly. Um you asked about target populations. I tend not to be in favor of articulating types of people or professions and careers and jobs that people do in order to be eligible for housing. I tend to prefer creating a lot of affordable housing and let the humans sort themselves into whatever location and type of housing best suits them. However, if I was to state a preference, it would be for people who work in the city or um to take a related um approach. There's research that shows that when you put seniors together with youth, um so say low-income seniors with transitional youth coming out of perhaps foster care or other um highly stressed environments. Uh there's great research that shows that mental health improves for both populations when they have the opportunity to interact. Um so that's an

example of what we might be able to contemplate here or elsewhere. Um I'm not in any way trying to push that. I just throw it out as a suggestion, a different way to think about um if we're trying to curate opportunities for particular populations. Um I do want to ask you what do we mean by affordable housing and might it include a shelter for people who are unhoused? Might it include a safe parking lot? So, I I think the council has um this is going to be the city's land and the city's RFP. So, you get to decide how you want to use this and for what purpose. Um including uh other aspects of this uh site. We're getting three and a half acres when the terms are all settled. Uh and you took a consent calendar action item on that today. So, um, how that site is used is really up to the council's discretion.

So, I would just offer that I know Move Mountain View has contemplated the possibility of building a tiny home community somewhere um in the affordable housing context uh perhaps an RV dweller/tiny home community and it would be great um to do some outreach to them to see if you know they are at a stage where they could uh put some kind of proposal together. The final thing I'll say is um I think we've seen warning signs from 231 grant which isn't renting as quickly as we'd hope due to the parameters um put in place by those who are managing enrollment. Uh we want to I know this is way cart before the horse but just want to be make sure next time around that whomever we're working with um is really clear on how to make people aware and move them through the pipeline of from application to uh becoming lease holders. Thank you,

Council Member Burton.

Thank you. Um, so first I want to concur with uh what Cedric had brought up earlier on um how we draw the parcel lines and uh I was concerned actually earlier that we're approving item six and I uh um understand that the city manager had clarified that that was not locking us into those parcel lines because um I think it's very important that the park uh be a significant buffer along all of that creek area and that we would reconfigure the affordable housing. Um so that would be still overlooking the park in the creek but just set back from there. So I think that's important. Um I did want to ask on the height uh the NVCAP process had set um uh uh heights as within the guidance of that uh program. What were those heights? Let me check. I think that that's included on You know, I just realized, let me double check. Okay, let me while you're doing that, I'll I'll ask another question, too, because I I do think that as we're developing a whole neighborhood here,

um, one of the things we really haven't as a community, as a council, as boards and commissions is really uh have a a a tutorial on what are the principles in urban design and how do you create a sense of place? And part of that is that you don't have one building that sticks out um uh inongruously with the balance. And um so I I think that'll be important. Um on the tiny home issue, uh one of the problems with tiny homes is they are singlestory and you'll get far less affordable housing out of the very limited acreage that we would own and be able to offer for affordable housing and the limited acreage sites that we have anywhere in our community. So if in communities where they have a lot of land, it is great for our community. I don't think it works very well. Um and then um uh an important thing on the parking for me is to evaluate two elements to really driving transit use and reducing parking demand. Uh the first is shared cars like zip cars. They don't replace single parking spaces. every one of those spots might replace five or 10 or more cars that are needed to be parked, driving down the cost of building affordable housing and um allowing us to have more units rather than more parking spaces because uh if if you have a transit pass and you're near a transit station, uh you may use transit and biking for 80 90% or more of your trips. But that doesn't mean you're willing to give up your car that you need for once every

two weeks. Whereas a a shared car rental uh addresses that for a whole slew of people, but I only need that car once every two weeks or four weeks. I don't need it every day. So I don't know what the numbers are and I'm sure those agent those companies have estimates on how many parking spaces they actually eliminate. I think this is a very important aspect of us trying to drive down parking demand. The second thing is on transit passes at MTC. We had an extensive discussion last week on um really looking at um our our programs on transit oriented communities, priority development areas. What was transitoriented development, now we're calling it transit oriented communities. Over the last 15 years, we have had at one in one sense great success in terms of having twothirds of all the new housing growth being uh in transit oriented communities. Unfortunately, even before CO at the same time there had population growth, worker growth and a concentration of housing near transit, we had a decline in transit use in the region. And I'm pretty convinced that um just building it and they will come is not a good enough answer. It's build it near transit is important, but getting transit passes and/or good access to transit is at least equally important. And so I one of the principles that I'd like to see here is that uh this would be a first location for the city where residents would necessarily be provided with transit passes. Um at BTA I put through over the last couple years and we now at least have on our affordable housing projects we have two years of

transit passes but we're looking at programs to continue it. So I think those two principles are really important for us to go from just saying oh yeah we don't need the parking which is nonsense to how do we create the circumstances to reduce the need for parking and increase the use of transit and it has to be really well designed. So uh anything on the height? Yes 65 ft.

That's it. what is okay. So 65 ft was the max we were looking for NVCAP and that's uh scenario two and and I think that's that's a lot of units and that's a lot it's 109 units if we have you know 30% of them or 28% be threebedroom and another 28% two-bedroom which is a rarity in our um affordable housing. So uh I think uh scenario B is what I would support. Council member Beloo,

thank you. Uh just a couple comments and then I'll get to some questions. Uh I fully agree with the public commenter about uh the size, going for a larger size, about the layout of the site, about considering community uses. Um though I realize uh any sort of community use or non purely residential use can be tricky with LITC. Um I just wanted to understand between these different scenarios obviously the uh funding gap gets uh larger though the city contribution is planned to be around the same. Is there any intelligible principle we can use to think about the risk associated with each of these different scenarios? Like if we are too ambitious, is there a x% chance that uh we are stuck in LA purgatory and we never get enough uh grants or tax credits to actually um uh build it or or or like is there any consideration of risk that we should think about for these different sizes?

I don't know if Rick Jacobus are you available. I don't know if you'd be able to answer that question.

Sure, I'm here. I happy to answer that. Hi, I'm Rick Jacobus with Street Level Advisors. Um, and we did the perform analysis on affordable housing and I think your question uh aligns perfectly with the reality and unfortunately there's not a clear cut off point. the the the larger the gap, the longer it will take a developer that you select to find and and align up all of the resources that they need. And um you we recommended that you include at least $5 million in funding. And we did that based on looking at what other projects have gotten funding from the state because the state funding is really the key resource. And at at a number lower than that, you start to feel like the project's going to be uncompetitive, at least the way it worked in the past. In the future, you know, with the new housing bond, there'll be new rules and new priorities. So, it's hard to know exactly where those cut offs will be, but um the larger projects, the denser projects could stand a a larger local contribution. Um but the but it the the gap is uh is a timing factor and a risk factor. And you know you lit limbo is exactly the right word. It's it's it's not just the litec. It's the tax credits plus the state funding from maybe more than one source and they all have to come together and so you could end up getting one source but not the others that you need and that could lead to delays.

Yes. The good news is it's a good site and and it's going to be competitive. So, um you know, with the sufficient commitment from the city, we think it's likely that you'll be able to fund a project at this site.

Okay, great. Yeah. And I'm sure we can talk more about the details uh once we get the RFP. Uh I just wanted to also ask what kind of targeting can we actually offer? I don't know what kind of I mean I realize we don't fully know all of the funding sources and potential constraints but uh just thinking about council member Liths's comments are there can we offer targeting for example to prefer uh say Palto city staff or PA USD staff or things like that. Would you like me to answer that or you want to answer that? Claire,

uh, I think staff is huddling a little bit. Yeah, let's go to staff first.

So, this is an area of some uncertainty. Mhm. Um and I think that would be something that you'd want to tackle at the point where you were looking at really finalizing a project and a regulatory agreement in terms of how how the laws developed at that point. Yeah. And and I'll just say from the staff perspective, we weren't so much looking at it at that level. We were interested in that, you know, do we want senior housing? Um or, you know, do we want to focus on um it could be veterans or uh you know, developmental, you know, um you know, challenges that we need to, you know, provide more housing for. That's the um sort of angle that we were Yeah. looking at.

Yeah. Uh I think essential workers are a very compelling group for me and that you know is broadly encompassing but uh people who work in Paulo Alto um uh and would benefit from uh a much deeper affordability level than we uh have in many of our uh inclusionary units. Um uh and that's also better for traffic purposes of course because they wouldn't be commuting to a separate job out of the city. Um uh and maybe just one question or uh I'll just squeeze in one last question just for my curiosity. Uh so the construction type is one layer one story of concrete podium with the parking and then layers of wood above that. Um, it's sort of a little bit surprising to me that the hard costs per foot excluding the housing just get higher and higher as you build more stories of wood. My impression was that the sort of per square foot costs actually decline as you add more wood on top of your sort of existing typology. like uh I don't know if that's something the consultant could address or just help us think about the costs and um

sure whether that's really a yeah like why that unfortunate trade-off exists for this project. Right. The uh for the fivetory building that would be one level of concrete with four stories of wood on top. Then six stories has one story of concrete, five stories of wood on top. to get to seven stories, you have two levels of concrete. So that that second level of concrete is more expensive than the than the old wood level, if that makes sense. Okay. Okay. So that helps me reason a little bit about like the about the cost and feasibility of scenario two versus three. Thank you.

Okay. I'm going to jump in before everybody forgets what Council Member Bird just said because I want to plus one to that. Uh I actually agree with everything he says and I want to do what a plus one to him. Um, and that is that one of the things I think we still don't keep in mind is that folks need cars at various times, which he he he addressed in a couple ways, but some of these folks are not going to be on the bus route or the train route. If there's a teacher that has to go to where um Council Stone works and the other person is a gardener that works around town, they probably want two cars, you know, not zero. So, we can't assume that even the things that Council Member Bert suggested are going to solve this problem. Uh it's just it's just the reality. Um my non-below rate market rate um daughter and husband lived in a right on the train tracks in Redwood City. Not on the train tracks, but you know an apartment building right there. And um neither one of them could use that ever because they had no way to get to their jobs. So I just think we have to take that seriously. And I I'm not a believer yet that people are going to find some other way or they're going to walk or they're going to change their jobs to get to close to their house. So my one concern with these scenarios is the parking ratio which you ask us to comment on. And when I see for example on the uh 75 ft building that's going to have 79 units that have no parking and the other uh half roughly have one car. Uh that just gives me high concern even even to the marketability of it. Um, so I think there's I think there's some way that you should try to look at that parking ratio. For example, it's mentioned that three-bedroom units raise

the cost of the whole project, and this has got a pretty high three-bedroom ratio of close to 30%. So maybe there's a way that you could trim that down a little bit. Um, and you note that I was expecting to see that lifts were going to take the uh take the rest of the problem away, but then the analysis said, "But we don't really like lifts." So, um, I would like to see somehow that you sort of do some tweaking with that on the height. In terms of current buildings, is there anything that's more than like three or four stories? I'm sorry. Current buildings in the development plan from Sabra?

No, not not in the development plan for Sabr. Um there is the uh closer to El Camino, the 3001 El Camino project is um is a taller building, five stories.

Yeah, but that might be the tallest one there. And there are unlike what the public commenter said, there are single family homes in there as well. Um, so it's a pretty low situation unless we're planning on getting some taller buildings from other projects. The whole point that Council Bert mentioned that we often call context even applies here. And so having a park with a um sevenstory building right at the edge of it is, you know, at least at least questionable. I'm not saying I'm opposed to it. Doesn't our El Camino focus area include now this side of the street? Haven't we are we entertaining that?

We have extended the uh housing focus area to include just on that El Camino the El Camino side. Yeah, it extends. So yeah, I I I do think it is an area in transition as well. And so um could get more height there. Yeah.

Um so that's that's what I'm saying is we want to put it in the context of what it's going to be, not just what it is right now. Um, but I wasn't recalling anything in Sabra that went nearly this high because their town home emphasis. Um, I also I also think like others that you know raising 120 million might be a little easier than 150 million. Uh, so I'm kind of zeroing in on the the 65 ft building in option three and um concerned about the higher building and I know you give up some units but as we always say that has to be livable for for everybody around that area. I think that the five million commitment right now, I don't know if anybody's hearing me. I think I think the five million commitment uh that is being proposed in the proform I think is about right for right now. Um and we can look at that, you know, more later. Um I also think we could look at u didn't list any 80% AMI, so that's another reason to get this thing to pay out a little bit better if we added a few 80% units and dropped some threebedrooms. So just fiddle with that a little bit. Um

usually that has to do with the the funding sources which are geared toward lower income. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And and actually so does the number of threebedrooms. So we could bring that down to 25% threes and 25% twos, but that's the minimum for um the typical funding sources. Okay. Uh and the and the creek, I remember when that was last discussed a few years ago already. Uh the concern there was that there's a lot of dollar signs connected with that. So that's way in the future. So we obviously need to plan for that in terms of setbacks and all, but uh you know, nobody should buy a fishing pole yet.

Okay, that's my input. Uh Council Member Rectal. Uh, I mean, one of my concerns is that we're building these affordable housing on parking lots and here we only have a limited amount of space. We're going to run out and I think we really want to make this most most we can out of this. And so I my first inclination is to go as high as we can just because uh make the most use of the parcel. Uh when I look at the uh the height, the height scares me a little, but um you know around SP79 is going to be most of that area and so that's going to be higher along the El Camino Focus area. That's going to be higher. So I don't think this is going to be out of character for the neighborhood. But what scares me even more is the funding gap. You know, the $50 million, that's a lot of money to come up with. Uh, is it feasible that we'll get 50 million of external funding or are we going to have to get our pocketbook out and and chip in more? Is that a

It's It's our opinion that it's feasible. Your opinion it is feasible? Yes. Okay. Doesn't mean it's guaranteed in any way, but it it is consistent with what we see in other projects in similar communities.

Okay. I mean, and as the mayor mentioned, we do have very light parking, but again, this is low income. And especially if you have a TDN program, and I agree with Council Member Burke, Zip Car is a very good option. One of my co-workers would take the bus every day to work, but he still had a car cuz he surfed and he would drive to the coast and that's the only reason he had a car. So, I think uh having a zip car would be allow those people who want to get out for the weekend trip still to use it. They don't have to pay for insurance. They don't have to pay for parking. I think for them, uh they would have a big incentive not to have a car. So, with a zip car and a TDM, an aggressive TDM program, maybe we can make that parking work. Uh if we can make the funding gap, then I would uh prefer scenario three. If we really can't think we can build it with scenario 3, then I'd fall back to scenario two. Thank you,

Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Um well, thanks for bringing this forward. I mean, it is exciting to contemplate it and uh being able to be a little creative with this space. It's a nice nice thing. Um yeah, I mean all of the options have their attributes. I'm uh less interested in you like my colleagues generally in option one uh because of the lower height and less units but also because of the orientation of the courtyard. I much prefer the ones that kind of look out toward the park and um uh so I think that two and three are better in that respect. also um it's a relatively large it's not much different but but it's it's it's a large shadow for for the the height and units that you get. So it's just a little tiny bit more of a shadow uh with the one that's uh six stories tall in option two. Um so I prefer two and three. Um, three, I had the same concerns as uh, Council Member Rectal about the $50 million funding gap, but if we think that's you been done in other cities and and you know feel decently about that, um, then that's less cause for concern. Um I uh yes honoring the creek set back with the hope even though it's not near that we can we don't have to get out our fishing poles yet but that we can can naturalize or at least preserve the option uh to do that I think is an important thing. Um the um with respect to uh cars and parking. Um yeah, I do like the option of I do like the idea of trying to help people not own a car, whether it's with zip cars or something else. I I I like that idea as well. It's interesting. My daughter uh

in her 20s um uh just doesn't seem to have any interest in owning a car. Um, you know, she she lives in a suburbanish area, uh, outside a major metro area, but she will find her way. She'll she'll Uber if she needs a car, unless it's a long distance, in which case she takes a train or a bus. Um, and, uh, we'd even said we give her a car for graduation, and she's like, "Hold that thought." Which is shocking. So, um, you know, I think it's a generational thing. There's sort of a little different of attitudes, but we need to accommodate all. And to that point, um I'm not ready to commit to it at this point, but I I'm quite intrigued by the idea of senior housing. Um, I I prefer the idea of um, you know, near Avanitus, but I know that now getting caught up in all the downtown uh, planning and with the SP79 stuff, I I don't know uh, how readily available, for example, the lot behind Avanitus is, but I do I am concerned about our silver tsunami. I'm am concerned about affordable senior housing. And so I that's something I'd like to see us continue the conversation about. I don't know if this is exactly the right spot, but you know that that that's something I would like to to see further explored.

Okay. Do you have what you need? I guess I'm just curious in terms of drafting the RFP if there is uh interest from the majority of council members to see senior housing or if the draft RFP that we prepare um you know should be moving more along the lines of what uh of of a typical affordable housing project. Aren't we considering senior housing downtown? What does that mean? For for lot T or

no uh the one next to Aanas lot C. Wasn't that pencled in as senior housing? I've heard that discussed but I didn't know it was had reached even pencled in state but I don't direct. Yeah, I don't think so. That's correct. We're not okay. I think we've been urged in that direction by community members but it hasn't come to us. Definitely that. Yeah. I am not in favor of putting uh I threw that out as an example, seniors plus youth. I am certainly not in favor personally of seniors only. So I would prefer that that not be in there as a standalone thing. I think it's too early to be directing it towards specific populations.

Yeah, I think what we'll do with um with that question and with the uh scenario is plan for a range of options. We're hearing, you know, clearly between scenarios two and three, um there are some things that we'll need to work out with respect to the uh the creek uh setback. The further we move that that could have an implication on uh the design and orientation of a of a future building. Um but I think we have enough information uh to form an RFP and then of course it'll come back for uh the city council to review. Uh, and if your thoughts have evolved since then, we could always make changes then.

Good. I'm glad to get moving on on another affordable housing project. It's great. Okay, that does it for this issue and I think uh that does it for the evening. Thanks to staff and to uh council. We stand a journ.