City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. I'd like to call to order the city council of Palo Alto special meeting for Monday, December 15th as it is 4:30. That's what makes it special. So uh would the uh clerk please call the role? Of course. Council member Rectal here. Council member Liths here. Council member Stone here. Vice Mayor Vinker here. Council member Lou, Mayor Lowing here, Council Member Bert here. For the record, six present.

Okay. Our first item on the agenda this evening is special order this of the day, which is a proclamation expressing appreciation to our current city attorney, Molly Stump, upon completion of her public service as city attorney. So, um, we'll we'll try to be upbeat about this, uh, in spite of the fact that we're all regretting this day. Uh, but I'll save my comments for later. Um, so I have the proclamation here to read. So tonight, we're expressing appreciation to Molly S. Stump upon completion of her public service as city attorney. Whereas Molly Stump has dedicated her professional career to public service, leading a generation of public law attorneys and staff with her intelligence, integrity, and empathy. And whereas Molly first served as a law clerk to the honorable Marilyn Hall Patel of the US District Court in San Francisco after graduating order of the quif from UC Berkeley Law and whereas Molly exhibited her legal skill and leadership ability in the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, eventually ascending to general counsel for the San Francisco International Airport. And whereas Molly has served the city of Palo Alto as its city attorney since her appointment in 2011 as one of our four council appointed officers. And whereas after nearly 15 years of service to Palo Alto, Molly leaves behind a legacy of sound advice, calm judgment, a commitment to public service, and a department of nine attorneys and three professional staff

who now embody these same qualities. And now therefore, be it resolved that I, Ed Lowing, mayor of the city of Palo Alto, on behalf of the entire city council, do hereby recognize Molly. Stump upon completion of her public service as city attorney, approved and presented December 15, 2025. Thank you so so much for all of your years of service. Now, um, would you like to make a comment or two? Okay. Twice. Okay. Twice. Thank you, council members.

So, you've asked a lawyer whether she'd like to make a comment, and of course, the answer is yes. It has been a tremendous honor, a privilege, and an absolute joy to spend the entirety of my legal career in public service. And over the years, there have been quite a few people, wonderful people who have helped and assisted me. And I would like to recognize and thank just a few of them with a couple of minutes this evening. Let's start with the council. This council has created a legal services department for your city that befits the excellence that you seek to achieve in your big bold ideas and in everyday services alike. I think the council's primary contributions can be summarized in two ways. First of all, you have consistently given us the resources that we need to do our best work. And secondly, when we have delivered our work product to you, you have given it attention and great weight. Even when the advice that we've given has been difficult in light of the decisions that you have to make, these two things are not a given in public service and they represent a sound foundation for this office. They say to everyone that you are committed to the rule of law and that our office has earned your confidence in guiding you in that and we thank you. I also want to recognize my ELT colleagues who have been a delight to work with on many complex and interesting projects. This is a group that's talented, energetic with a dose of humor and I have really enjoyed working with the group. I also need to call out our city manager, Ed Shakata, who in three decades of public service is one of the most committed and skillful public servants that I have had the privilege

to work with. Ed is a leader who leads with insight and compassion and a deep sense of ethics directed towards public service. And I, as a professional, even late in my career, have learned quite a bit from watching and working with him. Although, of course, we don't always agree. Don't worry about that. And then finally, I want to talk to you about my team. So when I stood at this podium 15 years ago, I told the council that I wanted to establish in Palo Alto a top-notch municipal legal services team, and I have met that goal. Most of my team is here or online. Some of them are even online even though they're on vacation. Can you stand? and I I think three of us are also on Zoom. These folks are tremendous. They are talented. They're energetic and they bring all of their abilities towards serving their clients and uh advancing the public's work here in PaloAlto. I in my time as a public servant, I have worked on many exciting and interesting projects, but the penultimate uh work of my career has involved bringing these talented lawyers and legal professionals together as a team, supporting them, coaching them, and helping them to thrive as they do the work of the city and advance the goals that council has set. Uh, I will miss them tremendously and I will miss you and I thank you all. And I'm going to be short because we need to take a picture and get going. The public's uh business awaits. So, thank you very much, council. Would any council members like to uh make comments in her honor?

You don't have to call her, your honor, but uh council member Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. But Molly, when I when I think about you, I always think of compassion and competence, integrity, and a good sense of humor. I know those are things that are not adjectives typically used to describe attorneys, but you have been all those things and and more. And I just want to share a story that I'm sure you don't remember, but it always stuck out to me. It was the first time that we met. It was at I was a young HRC commissioner. I think it was my very first year on there. And we were at uh we were at the foothills, well now nature preserve. and it was a commission recognition event and I was still in law school and someone pointed you out as the as the city attorney and so I wanted to go introduce myself and I was so nervous and I remember just approaching you. I think you were in line to to get food and I said, "I'm sorry. Can I introduce myself?" And you were just so kind and you gave me your full attention. And I did not feel like I was just this brand new commissioner that, you know, that didn't really mean anything at the time to to you as the city attorney, but you were you treated me like I was the mayor, like I was a council member. You treated me with the same respect that you have always given me and that I've always seen you give everyone in this community, whether they're residents, staff members, uh the council. Uh, and so I always just really really appreciated that and that has and and so it's been such an honor to be able to then work with you. I'm going to miss so much just the comfort that I always feel having you in the room knowing that no matter what we do, you're never going to let us get into too much trouble. I will miss your I'll miss your advice. I'll miss just your your whole approach to this role. And

when I was talking with our recruiter just a few weeks ago trying to get some feedback into who we are looking for as the next city attorney. I described you and the recruiter cuz everyone knows who you are. The recruiter said, "It sounds like you're describing Molly Stump." And I said, "Yeah, that's it. Can you just get me another Molly Stump?" Uh, so we're never going to be able to replace you, but the one thing that I feel just so much comfort in knowing is that you have developed this team and that this team really embodies the leadership that you have and that is such a legacy that you are going to leave to this for this city is your current team and also me who you've really just helped develop my own um just approach to this to this job and so I will always respect you. I'll miss you both as a colleague and as a friend. So, thank you for your years of service to this city. Congratulations on your retirement.

Council member Bert.

Well, thank you. Um uh Council Member Stone has really captured uh so much about how you have approached uh your tenure doesn't quite do it. your commitment to career commitment 15 years to this city to this to our city government. Um and uh and really uh your your incessant and uh uh unwavering commitment to uh uh fulfilling your role to the highest professional standards to uh developing your staff and to uh mentoring them. And one of the things that I've thought about over the years is that your your notion of of uh mentoring and uh uh teaching your staff comes from a prior career in part as a teacher that I don't know everyone knows that you had uh that career preceding your law career and um and that 15 years of commitment to this community. Um I I'm asking uh we we maybe haven't researched this whether any city attorney has had a longer tenure in certainly in memory and um and that was a reflection of just your commitment to this job. Um and that this is where you decided that you really wanted to uh have as the the uh uh the the principal focus of your uh career and and you have just dedicated yourself uh uh uh all in throughout that entire time. So thank you so much for your service.

Council member Lithu.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, my colleagues have already shared um, such great reflections. I'm just going to add um, as a fellow member of the California Bar, I so enjoy seeing the tremendous measure of pride and satisfaction and dedication you feel in your work for this city with the team that you've built and with the colleagues that you join. Your pride and satisfaction and dedication and joy are palpable and inspiring. as someone who intended their law career to be about public service, but who got derailed by the allure of the corporate world and whose career as a lawyer ended prematurely perhaps. I admire how you do the work and who you are in the work and I've been privileged that my career in public service has been guided by yours. Thank you so much, Molly. Councelor Eto.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, I've only been on council a short while, but I really will miss working with you. I I really liked your guidance. You told us what to do, but you really didn't tell us what to do. It was You gave an explanation. It wasn't just a one-way explanation. It was a two-way conversation saying the pros and cons, and you could do it this way, but this is the risk that you'd be taking. And that two-way discussion really helped me. I really valued that. I think it uh gave me more confidence that we were going down the right road and I appreciate that and I'll miss working with you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Baker.

Well, the proclamation says intelligence, integrity, and empathy, and I couldn't agree more. Um, you know, it's rare. Lawyers aren't really known for having all three of those. And you have that rare combination of skills where you have high IQ and high EQ. And it just is so valuable, especially in public service. Um, and to that list, I would add grace, grit, and purpose. Um, you are unflapable, delivering unwelcome advice in a calm and gracious manner so that we can take it in. Um, and instead of stiffening our backs and that's a real skill and your tremendous legal acumen is beyond question um, which allows you to stand so confidently in your advice that gives us the confidence when listening to that advice. But most important, your north star is always the people we serve. And I have noticed that and tried to emulate that as as I serve on this day. And you've been really good at putting up with me. You know, uh, our city attorney offers to make meet with new council members weekly, try to get them played in and and to answer our questions. And so I very eagerly took Molly up on that. And after a couple years, when some newer council members were elected, she gently suggested that we didn't necessarily need to keep meeting every week, especially because I usually took about twice the time that we were supposed to a lot. Um, so I said, "Well, how about we just play it by ear and you know, we'll just call it off if we don't need

it and uh otherwise perhaps we can keep it on the calendar." So, she graciously said yes. And I think I've countled about I don't know twice in two years. I like So, I really appreciate you being uh very patient uh with that. Um, but to get a sense of Molly's stature in the field and and what high regard she is held by the top professionals who do what she does. I want to share that everywhere I go in this state. When I mentioned I'm from Palo Alto, they say, "Oh, Molly Stump is a city attorney there, isn't she?" And I have had that happen in SoCal. I've had it happen in Sacramento, obviously around this Bay Area. And I'll say, "Yes, oh, she's so great." I'm like, "I know. And it it really is remarkable um the high degree of respect that uh with which you are viewed by your peers. And as to my views um as a lawyer, I've been lucky. I've you know practiced in um I've been general counsel of an international soccer league. I've been a partner in an international law firm and I've been privileged to practice with some of the best lawyers on the planet. And so I can say without reservation that Molly Stump is one of them. So we are so lucky that you have graced this city for 15 years with your talent and your time and your heart. So thank you so much. I am going to miss you terribly next year. Thank you.

Mar, I only want to add a couple of things. First of all, um, like the vice mayor said when I first came to council, he said, "I'll I'll meet with you every week." And I said, "I I think I respect your time too much, but let's play it by ear." Um, but I'd already seen how responsive you were, and that hasn't gone away. And when I became mayor, you said, "Now, do you want once a week?" And I said, "Same deal. I know when I write you, I'm going to get a response back, and you're going to be on it." Which proved to be totally correct. Uh, and it worked just fine. So that's really an important trait. Hope your staff is listening. Um because it means that you respect the person that's asking you for your advice uh for their benefit as as well as yours. And uh it kind of moves the ball along as well. Um, the second thing I want to say, everybody said this, but I think you're sort of the way you process things is is very calm and and very thoughtful and thoughtful to the point of not feeling bad if you say, "I don't have the answer to that, but I'm going to get you that answer." And that's all I needed to hear. Cuz that and the responsiveness together meant we were going to get exactly what we needed to. Uh, and in business sometimes I'd get a flip question. Yo, I think it's this and this. I said, "Well, why don't you think about it this little bit and let me know in the morning, you know?" Uh, so I really really appreciate that style which you have modeled for sure. Uh, and to echo uh, Council Member Stone, we have a high risk in recruiting because we might just say it's got to be Molly and not only are you not coming back, I presume, but uh, uh, you know, there's room for slight variations, but we're taking that risk. Um, very very sad indeed that you're leaving and very respectful of your of your choice. Uh, and hope everything you want to do and things you haven't thought of yet, uh, bring you a lot of joy. Anyone else?

Oh, yeah. Yeah. You want to bring up staff, too? I don't think so.

The one guy, David.

All right. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is uh close session. And I wonder if there's any public comment in advance of going into close session. No, mayor. There's no requests to speak and no hands are raised on Zoom. All right, then. I'd like to see a motion to move into close session. I move we go into close session. And a second, please. Second. Please call the role. Council member Lethod HS. Yes. Vice Mayor Vinker. Yes. Council member Rectal. Yes. Council member Bert. Yes. Mayor Lowing. Yes. Council member Stone. Yes. Yes. Council member Lou. Yes. Motion carries.

This is anticipated to go approximately 1 hour, but it could be more or less. And we will return.

My apologies, mayor. Uh, the one change I wanted to note for the public was the deletion of item 21 uh from the agenda tonight and uh that's the only notable change. Okay. Thank you. Then we will move to uh public comment. This is for items that are not on the agenda. How many speakers do we have? We have 11 requests to speak. Okay. Any groups? No group speakers. All right. We're running about 45 minutes behind already, so I'd like to go to two minutes for each.

All right. As the mayor stated, members of the public will have two minutes to speak on items not on the agenda. So, please be mindful of the timer on the podium as well as on the screen. Our first speaker is Fenty.

So, I've got a couple of slides that I'd like placed before I begin. They're not actually on the There we go. Okay. Um I'm sorry. The news about natural gas stoves and their health impacts just keeps getting worse. This is out of Stanford this week published in the SF Gate. 25% of all exposure to NOx, which is a cancer-causing, asthma-causing chemical is because of our gas stoves. And that's not something people are aware of. And we and I feel part of the responsibility. We as a utility are making that happen. We are causing those cancers. we are causing those asthma. Not good. I'll leave it there. Um Saturday I just want we had the SCAP meeting and I just want to thank staff in particular for being there. This is climate change. This was one 9 to one. They did a really good job of prepping. It's like we are so lucky as a city to have them. So what came out of it is the only way to meet our climate change and healthy air is to electrify. And that means you know where was the gas utility? There was no members from the gas utility present to talk about that because as we electrify the cost per unit of natural gas delivered is only going to go up or go down. Basic economics it's only going to go up and then it's going to go up nonlinearly and really impact people of low income and those that have not electrified. So what do people need? People need certainty. That is when are we going to turn the gas off? And we frame this as it what it is. This is a cost-saving, health measure. We as a city are going, you know, are taking these things into account. Lastly, pop quiz holiday bonus. Would someone please name an aromatic

cyclic hydrocarbon formula C6H6 that was gasoline in Italian and causes cancer? Free tote bag. Your time is up. Benzene. Anyone? Your time is up. Did you say Did she say benzene?

Our next speaker is Prica G.

Good evening, council members. My name is Prica Goyle and I'm a junior at Paulsa Middle College. I remember in 2023, I was training on days so polluted that practices had to be shortened or moved indoors. We were constantly checking air quality alerts and trying to stay safe under extreme heat. And it shows just how climate change affects our well-being. Gas stoves release harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide, benzene, and methane, thereby causing our indoor air quality decline and lung cancer rates to increase at really high rates. Um, for example, this impacts both the environment and our health. Um during CO 19, so many people worked from home and they're at a greater risk of lung cancer now and cardiovascular problems. For children, the effects are greater as a Harvard Health study shows that children are 42% more likely to get asthma from gas stoves in their homes. As one of many children who have grown up with asthma and a gas stove, I believe it's important to reduce the problems for future generations as quickly as possible. I urge the city to make take meaningful steps to accelerate household electrification, especially by supporting accessible pathways for induction stove adoption. Palo Alto can lead by expanding outreach and incentives to help to help residents transition away from gas, partnering with community programs that support low and middle inome households, and demonstrating induction cooking in public facilities and city programs to normalize it for the broader community. These actions will not only reduce emissions but also protect public health in immediate tangible ways. I ask the council to focus on the health, safety, and future of Pala residents and to take the necessary steps to accelerate household electrification for the well-being of our entire community. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Konami T. Dear council members, my name is Konami Taniguchi. I am a junior at Paloto College High School. And although I've never spoken a public comment before, but I just wanted to come here today to advocate for the electrification of household appliances. I appreciate the actions that the council has taken so far to support electrification. So, thank you for your commitment to supporting the safety and health of Palo Alto residents. Thank you. Our next speaker is Naomi R.

Good evening. Um, I know I only got two minutes. I sent the um all you guys a letter. might have got it in the mail uh because I'm not sure what direction to take. But I talked to a young lady here. But um 51 years ago, my brother drowned on a school picnic. He um was in sixth grade at Ventur Elementary School and they named a park in his honor. The I guess the parents got together to put the park together and in 74 he died. in 95. Um, I think they told me the mayor at the time was Joe Simmon Simpian. He came and cut the ribbon with my parents. Right now, my dad is 98. My mom is 88. They've been married 71 years. And I promised them that I would try to make sure the park is preserved and never disappear. And so, that's why I'm here today. So, I don't know what else to I don't I don't know how.

Thank you. And the city manager city manager is going to get your contact information and uh work with you on that. Okay. Right over here. Thank you. Our next speaker is Felicia.

Okay. Hey, dear city council members, my name is Ben. I'm standing here today to strongly oppose the decision to force the AAYA youth soccer club out of the our home at Grey Park Palatoto. So I'm urging the city to consider this decision for two critical reasons. One is a fiscal responsibility. The other is community inclusivity. Okay. ASA meets all the requirements set by the city to utilize the facilities. Um in the past five years we comply all the rules. So there is no simply no reason to force AA out of the Palatoto. Uh furthermore, ASA currently holds a permit for only single uh soccer field. We utilize that field responsibly and fully 100%. In contrast, other clubs which are set to take our space away, they already hold permits for multiple fields across the city, but most of time it's been leave empty and underutilized. So to take the only field away from the club that maximize the field and hand it over to the uh clubs with the space they already have, it's a poor management of the Poto public assets. Second, the decision enforce an inclusive monopoly and damage the community diversity. The soccer community should be inclusive, not ex exclusive. So pushing us out suggests that only the bigger clubs deserve the public resources which is contrary to the spirit of the Palo Alto. A provides a unique de developmental envir experience. We have a history of collaborating with the city and read the young players who go on to play in the soccer club in Palo Alto later on. We are part of this ecosystem. We are simply want to continue providing opportunities to all the kids and enjoy

soccer and to be physically and mentally healthy. So I ask the city council to look at the fact we comply with the rules, we utilize the field and we serve our community well. So please reverse the decision and keep aa at Palatoto. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Aurora L. Um, so my name is Aurora. I've been in the AYSA soccer club for five years playing soccer. And we have this field um in Greer Park and we um we might lose it because this other soccer club is trying to take it and um if you um if they if you guys let them take the field, then I can't play soccer anymore because the other places are way too far. Um, and I hope you guys will help me and my club to get the soccer field back. Um, that's it.

Okay. We don't uh actually demonstrate in uh city chambers, so there isn't any clapping. Go ahead. Next.

Our next speaker is Ben X. Um, good evening city council members. My name is Felicia and I'm a player for ASA. I wanted to come here tonight to share some good news, but also some bad news. The good news is that just a few weeks ago, we won the NorCal State Cup. We work so hard for this. But instead of celebrating, we all feel really sad. We just found out that next year we won't have a home. We heard the city take away our field at Greer Park. I've been playing with AA when I say for the past few years and it's special to me. It took years for our girls team to build this strong bond. We're a family and I don't want to be separated from my teammates just because our field is being taken away. Coach Young has taught us what soccer is. She teaches with so much passion. She cares about soccer and she cares about us as people. Nothing else matters to her. That's why I'm so confused. When we're training, I often look around and I see other fields sitting completely empty. Nobody is using them. So, I was really puzzled when my dad told me that the city says there are no space for them for our team. At school, my teachers always teach us to be inclusive, to be supportive, and to collaborate with others, but it feels like the city is doing the opposite. No offense or anything. Please don't punish us for doing well. Please don't break up our team. And please don't let us feel sit empty while we have nowhere to play. I just want to play soccer with my teammates. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mint Ty. Thank you, council members. Uh first I'd like to uh show my appreciation to all of you. It has been a long day and I' and thank you for keeping sitting here to support our community. And my name is Mtown. We moved to Midtown two years ago near the Greer Park area. Besides the great school in Palato, one reason attracted us to uh take Palato as our home is the great community and the neighborhood support. Uh our 11 uh yearear-old son Mason uh who is a long-term AAYSA player now can bike to school and the back pack his soccer gears and then bike to soccer field for his AASA trainings every week. Uh while me and my husband are still most of the time are still at work. This is a great benefit for us and also a great growth experience for him uh to be able to feel independent and self-sufficient and uh I want to uh Mason started his uh competitive soccer with AISA actually during the co time and being a smaller size Asian boy he got great support from coach Young and the AYA team to uh have a tailored trainings with their uh focusing on uh training skills as well as the team collaborations. He made great friends grow both physically and mentally through his AAISA journeys and we definitely want this to continue and I want to acknowledge with the 37 out of total 66 families from AAYA in Palato and Aysa actually has been a essential

part of the Asian families uh Asian communities providing alternative options for kids interested interested in soccer but might lack the physical strength initially and they can take the growth with the team. Your time is up.

Okay, thank you. Our next speaker is Herb B. Uh the the period for receiving applications for uh the position of city attorney is closed. Uh you will recall that uh you approved the CL committee's recommendation that the job be listed as dependent on qualifications uh and uh hired a recruiter. But uh people can also find out about the job through the city's uh website where you have what jobs are available and city attorneys listed. There's a difference in in the listings uh of the two. Uh at the beginning of the compensation and benefits uh section of the recruiters berserk, it says the city council is committed to being competitive with the market while remaining fiscally responsibility. Salary will be based on qualifications incumbent salary 365266 and then sentence about benefits. That information is at the bottom of the page uh on on the re on the job announcement on the city site and it omits one sentence and the sentence it it omits is that salary be based on qualifications. Also in the uh announcement of the job which is on government jobs it lists the salary currently is a salary from July 1, 2019 and 20. uh and that also on government jobs is shown as the minimum maximum salary uh for the position and in the job description on government jobs. Uh in one of them uh it on government jobs the description it says uh it was uh the region date was in 2011 which means shortly after the current uh

city attorney was hired and uh I guess that's referring to to the words in the description rather than the salary because all of those documents list the salary as 313414.40 40, which is a salary from many years ago. So, I don't think anybody who saw this announcement on the city's website or on government jobs would have gotten down to the rest of it. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ken H.

Good evening. I just wanted to stop by. Uh, as someone who follows both the city and the county meetings, I wanted to to let you know that our mayor received accommodation from our board of supervisors for his term as as the mayor and uh, thinking about it and I've really thought that uh, you have done a terrific job as mayor um, and you've been subjected to some personal attacks. Um, I'd like to suggest, and this is nothing against our vice mayor, but uh I'd like to to see if you could stay on for another year. We This is not a a a first time because Gary Facino served uh both uh 1991 and '92 and also in 99 and 2000 uh twice consecutively. So, um I'd like you to think about it because I think you've done an outstanding job. Um, and then finally, I want to wish everybody a happy Hanukkah. It's been a tough uh yesterday um for all of us that are Jewish. And u um again, happy holidays.

Our next speaker is Roger S. Uh, my name's Roger Smith and I've lived here in town for 60 years. It's a great place to live and it's many things make it happy. One of them is the great staff we have in running the city and Ed and his people work their tails off. And then to you all that are on the council with your many, many hours away from your family. Um, so I really appreciate that. This last week on Thursday, a wonderful thing happened to me and the city of PaloAlto. We received a $50,000 gift for the friends of the PaloAlto parks. This is the biggest gift we've ever had in the 13 years we've been in business. This gift is unrestricted and uh is just a wonderful gift and came from our neighbors, the Zucker Zuckerberg family. And it's my understanding uh they have had some of their folks talking to a number of people. I think many of you on the council maybe have had discussions. Uh it's a wonderful gift. Please take a look at today's post page six. Dave Price the owner did a great article that I think shows appreciation from the city of PaloAlto. So, uh, I I can't tell you how excited I am. And, uh, thank you, Priscilla and Mark, for this wonderful gift. Thank you so much.

And that concludes public comment on items not on the agenda.

Thank you very much to the public for expressing their views on items. We now go to council member questions, comments, and announcements. Um, not seeing any quick lights. I have a couple, so I'm going to start. Um, I attended, as did Council Member Burke, the Stanford Next Community Outreach meeting on, uh, Saturday, which had a lot of people skipping the representative, which is me, and that's good, and go directly to Stanford and saying, "Here's what I think we should do on housing, etc., etc., etc." Held over at the community center, and I think it was well attended. Uh, it was also well attended by a lot of Stanford staff. There were a lot of people there, uh, listening. So, I was appreciative of their their work there, and we have a lot to say to Stanford. So, I was happy that the community came out and did that. Um, also want to note that um last night a lot of council members were at the uh uh Hanukkah Manora lighting uh which I had the honor of of doing um in the horrific context of uh the Australians celebrating on their first night of Hanukkah the the day before. Um but it went well. There was a lot of celebrating because folks including me said we can't we can't be put down. We have to keep going and uh the celebration is going to continue for for our own freedom as uh for for where whatever religion and certainly in in PaloAlto we're not going to have evidence like we saw in Australia you know God forbid. Uh with that, I want to shift to um tonight giving out a quick report on how the uh OSV ad hoc is uh what they're doing and what they're finding out. It's been a couple months since the motion was made by council. Um we're due back in four months, so I thought the midway point was a good time for all of us on the ad hoc to just do kind of a report out on stuff. It's not an agenda item for council, so we can't do dialogue. Um,

but I'll make some comments and then of course anybody on the ad hoc can can add, which I'm sure they will. We've been meeting weekly uh to try and take prompt action on the items that staff directed us to take a look at. Um, I'm going to address the key ones in the motion that you made. Uh, but I want to talk about a couple things first that we've uh taken a look at um and surfaced or confirmed. Um, first we compiled information or confirmed whatever it was in this case, uh, on ordinances and practices in the surrounding cities. And here's a quick recap. Uh, in Mountain View, there's a ban on SOVs except for a 3mile, uh, parking zone. Um, we've learned that their council is now considering additional restrictions in the area out by the businesses just east of 101 uh, as more uh, SOVs are gathering out there. Menlo Park, as you know, just confirmed that there is a total ban on SOV parking in the city. Uh the mayor said to me that they they they're gone now. So there's not even a residual issue from his perspective. Uh Redwood City, as we already know, but we confirmed, there's a ban on overnight OSV parking uh with specific provisions for permits. Um but we have heard uh that they've had difficulty enforcing those permits. So, in summary, our three closest neighbors um all have uh bans on either all or most OSVs. So, it's no surprise. Um but it confirms why so many are here because they've been previously distributed in a number of other other cities. Um Sunnyale may go in that direction as well. Uh there's a council meeting the first week of February and they will be considering quote monitoriize modernizing parking requirements and and restrictions for OSVs uh in MUN code 1016120. They're also going to consider parking permits for some OSVs and new

regulations for OSVs near schools and parks. So that's just starting in the first week. Um, we've also raised the issue of homelessness and and safe parking for with the county. Both council member Liths and I have chatted with um Margaret Abakoka's new staffer uh Jason Gstasus and he's the uh principal adviser on strategic initiatives. Um very understanding of the problem, sympathetic of the problem. We talked about you know what can the county do? his point of view is it's a regional problem. We should of course, but what could we do? Um, and he agrees it's a regional problem. Of course, the big catch 22 is that the counties in a world are hurt in terms of financing and they're making budget cuts, not adding. So, that's not a short-term um solution. Um, the second issue that I want to point out is that we we we've discovered uh that there's a shortage of sufficient sufficient vehicle storage. Uh, so one of the barriers that we run into is really lack of enough space in the garages of towing companies to accommodate all of the large OSVs that could be towed for repeat violations. And there there's a law that says these lots have to be within 5 miles of where vehicles are towed from. So that obviously restricts the geography. Um, and the location has to be staffed for vehicle pickup. Both of those are reasonable. Um so staff's doing research on additional uh resources in that regard. Just want the public to understand that this is a barrier uh to towing at this point. Not overall, but uh somewhat. So uh then just specifically on your direction on the 1020 motion, items one and two we just passed last week. Those are approved and can be uh enforced at any time. Uh PD is going to put uh things on

the windshield to notify that those are in place. Um item three is the is the scope of the uh street sweeping. Uh that's been defined and implementation has begun. Uh there's a monthsl long detailed schedule prepared for us by public works. Uh the first sweeping was on 126 in the market areas chosen intentionally because those OS so SOVs had already been moved and successfully moved back uh in a very cordial kind of way. So they did that um in the uh because of the midnight run, moonlight run, excuse me. Um they report, police and public works report that the process went very well with cooperation from all OSV dwellers on that Saturday. No SVs were towed. Uh and public works smartly took the opportunity to also prune trees on Embaradero, which was impossible previously because of all the parked vehicles there. Um, by Sunday morning, all the SFOs had returned to park on the clean streets. The second sweep was on 1213. It also went well uh with RVs returning the next day and um no no toes. Um I have uh item five in the motion references the implementation and enforcement that is occurring. Um and results are really not visually significant against the total population of OSV. Uh, and council knows that because we get daily emails saying that the removal action is not moving quickly enough. Um, I got the statistics just of this morning. Uh, just so you're up to speed, since the 1020 motion, uh, there's been 19 vehicles towed. Uh, and this that's accurate and that's the most important stat. There's also a stat that is not just OSVs uh but there's a lot of um what are called nu n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n citations also being done. So there's no

sense in coding the numbers just to say because it's not just OSVs. So um and then item seven um try to recruit new RV parking sites on privately owned and congregation based parking lots. Um there's been significant outreach to both and I'm sure Council of Liths will can give us more detail on that. Um to date we don't have any positive bites yet. Um but there are conversations they're still going on in that regard. Uh item nine was a council budget vote. though that's not in the ad hoc community, but I am concerned that the number being tossed around in public comment and letters and even sometimes the press is that we're investing $4 to $6 million in this. Uh, and I just want the number to be understood that this council's off authorized so far a little bit over $700,000. uh the larger numbers got into the conversation because they were correctly supplied by staff to talk about what rollouts might cost at the point at which any uh initiatives were um then voted on by the council. Um and then lastly in January we're also going to start this in this u ad hoc to start looking at phase two items that you also want us to take a look at other council members. Councilman Liths

you Mr. Mayor, um, appreciate the report out. I'll add that, um, to your one of your last points about the attempts to recruit more safe parking. We um, I had a very sobering conversation with uh, um, a faith leader who said, you know, your faith communities feel we're already doing our part. Uh, we we've already offered four parking spots in our parking lot overnight for vehicles. That was quite a um difficult conversation to have with our neighborhood back when we agreed to this. We're not feeling that we're in a position to take on RVs. And frankly, we think that the it's time for the business community to step up and partner with the city to locate and create uh safe for uh space for safe parking. Um so we continue at that work. Anyone who can who's listening to this meeting and and thinks they can help us, I urge you to reach out uh to the city manager's office or to me at julieforpowto.com. Um we're looking for space that we can lease. We don't want to become the repository for the region's um poor, low-income, unhoused people who live in RVs. But I think we do want to do right by those people who are PaloAltton who find themselves living in vehicles. We know that um as the population ages here, a number of people find themselves uh being unable to afford housing and um so while there's a narrative about bad actors and so forth and we know that there are bad actors in every group, there's a sizable portion of people who are simply uh unable to afford housing who are retired or who are working jobs and paying taxes. And um and so that's why prong number seven in our October 20th motion speaks to the need to recruit spaces for their them to park safely, to be out of everyone's way, and

also to be safe and not harass themselves. So, we're working hard. Um but this problem is a seemingly intractable one that other cities have chosen to throw up their hands um about. And um I do believe that we can be more comprehensive than that in a way um that truly addresses the underlying issue rather than simply moving people from here to there and back again uh on repeat forever.

Any other comments? Council member uh sorry Vice Mayor Vinker came back on. Go ahead, Vice Mayor.

Um, well, I just wanted to give a uh couple of brief report outs. Um, I'm just laughing because my computer just signed out. Uh, anyway, uh, so one is, uh, on the, uh, the ad hoc on the, uh, athletic field selection, uh, turf selection. Um we did meet again last week. Um that's uh Mayor Lowing, Council Member Bert, and me. And we expect to finalize a recommendation for council consideration uh by mid January. So that should be on the docket and coming back to council. um on the uh climate um action uh retreat/workshop we had this weekend. Some um public commenters uh commented on that. And uh I just want to thank the residents that turned out to spend a December Saturday uh working with us from starting at 9:00 am through through 100 pm. Um it was it was a terrific conversation. Um I add uh to the um public commenters, thanks again to staff for putting together a terrific uh uh conversation. We were focusing on economics and incentives around single family home electrification. So there's a lot of different ways we can go. And so we had a really robust conversation complete with a very cool tabletop game or tabletop exercise which I think council member Bert you said was one of the best you'd seen. Um so again kudos on that. Um but it was really a terrific robust conversation we had. Um uh the the deputy executive officer for policy from the air district was there because some of the rules out of out of that out of that entity affect uh what we will

do. And um just want to uh uh thank everyone who did that in the middle of December so that we can get uh closer to our climate goals and uh achieve greater public health here in PaloAlto. That's it for me. Thank you. Okay. More

I Yes. I didn't know you were going to call on me with the OSV report, so I got a little thrown off from what I was going to say. Um thank you for the opportunity to speak then. And yes, I did have a few other comments. Um, uh, the Jed Foundation visited our community last week. As many people know, at council member Stone's invitation, they have, um, uh, decided to come on a journey with our community to help us address our youth mental health crisis. And so they were very uh present last week having conversations with many many different individuals and groups to try to begin to understand the tone and tenor of things here. When I had a chance to meet with them and they were reflecting a bit, they said that the word that kept coming up in every conversation, no matter who they were having it with, was grief. And it is clear and maybe it seems obvious but I think it's hidden in many ways that we are a community collectively experiencing grief that we have a hard time talking about. And I'm confident in Jed's ability as a national leader in this space to help us as a community process that grief as well as come to some concrete next steps about how to support our youth. Um, in addition to the Jed visit, um, I attended KA's candlelight vigil. Cara is our wonderful grief counseling organization in PaloAlto. It's been around for at least 50 years, I think, and they had their annual candlelight vigil at First Presbyterian where you're invited to come and um be part of a a lovely program where there's music and spoke and expressions of of sorrow and grief around uh loved ones who have passed away. And um you know I think not every community has a car. I think you know not every community has an airport or a junior museum and zoo either. Um CARA is another one of those things that is really wonderful and special about

PaloAlto. And it's it's an organization you only stumble upon when you're in crisis as I first was as a 27-year-old when my father had passed away and I was new to this community. And here I am 30 years later, you know, still missing my daddy and still grateful to Cara for how they showed up for me in my grief then um and in the years since. Um so I want to express gratitude to Cara for who they are um and and how they show up for us uh in our moments of grief uh as a community and as individuals. Um, Vice Mayor Vinker and I also attended something put on by the county last week called Belonging in the County, a convening of local city leaders in response to large-scale immigration enforcement activities in Santa Clara County, which was a wonderful workshop attempting to get more of us on the same page about how to respond to the presence of ICE in our communities. And I know it was very practical and our staff is already working with county staff and staff with the city of San Jose, which is quite far along in their efforts to um try to ensure that we have protocols and procedures in place um when we are visited by ICE. And finally, I will say that I know a number of us were at the Palto Museum community sneak peek this weekend. Um I had already had a visit uh as a council member, but I said, "You know what? I I need to go to this." I said to my partner and our kid, we'll just drop in. I just need to, you know, I let's just go for 10, 20 minutes. And they and then we were going to get our Christmas tree. And 45 minutes later, you know, we were all enthralled by um what was happening at the Palto Museum. Uh the exhibit, the the the the design and layout is very um um evocative, provocative. Uh there's a lot going on. The questions they were asking were really fantastic. And I have

to say when I had my initial sneak peek with some colleagues on the deis um as a gender non-binary person I noticed that the bathrooms uh were male and female and I in my sneak peek three months ago I said to the CEO Margarite I said where's the gender non-binary where's the allgender bathroom and she said it's upstairs and I said that's great that you have it but nobody wants to walk into a building and have to go to a different floor to use a bathroom. It's a way to convey, you know, kind of a secondass status when you have to go somewhere else but everyone else is on the main floor. She's like, "Okay, we're going to put a sign up that says the allgender bathroom is upstairs." And I said, "Great. Please make it a real sign. Don't just like handwrite it and tape it onto the wall with blue tape underneath the bathrooms." Like, you need a different bathroom. It's upstairs. So, when I arrived this weekend, she pulled me aside and she said, "Go over to the bathrooms. Take a look at what we did." And dog gone it, they put a sign on there that says all gender restroom upstairs in the exact same font and color, exact same quality of material as the male and female signs. They really did it. And you hear my emotion in my voice. I think I didn't expect that. And it was such a delight to see. And yeah, they're still on the second floor, but now the signage um conveys the dignity and the respect that anybody would want uh when being directed as an, you know, element of your identity to a certain place. So, I just want to commend them for, you know, hearing one member of the community's uh concern and question and responding to it so elegantly. Um, the museum opens in February and it promises to be quite a smart, insightful telling of our history in all its complications. We have so much to be proud of. There's so many ways in which we have grown and become who we are based on the work of so many who are unknown as well as those we celebrate. And I have um greater and

greater confidence every time I'm there that um this is a museum that um will uh beautifully tell the story of who PaloAlto is and and has been. And that's it for me. Thank you, Council Member Bert.

Thank you. Um, so we have coming up on our consent uh calendar is item eight. And I had been considering u uh attempting to pull it and the city manager uh encouraged me to uh be able to just convey some input um uh through this uh period. I'm not sure that going forward this is the process that we want to have and I think when we have our council member our council policies and protocols we should revisit how we might go about this but um setting that aside for the moment um this is the policy on non uh pro nonprofit partnership work plan and um there were a couple of things that I wanted to make sure that uh we had an opportunity to give input to the policy and services committee when they uh review This next one is that I didn't see in the staff report one of the um key elements that was part of the referral from the auditor and I think has been a concern by the council and was a problem in this last roll out and that is not having these grants be overly burdensome in several different ways. uh just the the um depending on the scale of the grant, what our requirements are, whether they're grants uh or their reimbursements. So, those are things that um I want to consider uh asked the PNS to consider. And then um and then we had really had a couple of categories. We had had the um u uh and the the staff report makes mention of uh distinguishing between or figuring out what to do with nonprofits who might have been eligible for his his reprep or

even got funding from his rep uh and whether they're again eligible in this category. But what we had discussed at finance committee and I thought we had discussed also at council is that we've historically had a number of nonprofits that ha have been um really city partners and had different forms of funding or inind contributions on an annual up uh basis and they're embedded in the budget at different places. a number of the the ones that actually the the finance committee and the council had supported um the prior year uh actually fall into that category. They're ongoing annual uh uh they're ongoing relationships that are uh that the the city and the council have valued over time and are treating as enduring. They're not necessarily clearly permanent, but they're enduring. And so the real question is should we consolidate those into a category of these ongoing fundings and they're not necessarily part of this annual funding allocation that has a whole bunch of uncertainty. And how do some of these nonprofits that have years relied on on um the city as a partner uh now go forward with their planning if they have all that uncertainty yeartoear? So, um, uh, I just wanted to provide those, um, pieces of input for policy and services committee. Thanks,

Council Lou.

I'll just briefly note that tomorrow the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Health and Hospital Committee will meet and AL cove and discussions about AL cove are agendaized item. Um, the staff report is tough. It highlights challenges um with growing the program and it ch uh highlights uh a variety of fiscal difficulties with both cost recovery and just overall county funding. Um uh I know uh members of the committee will give public comment. I know we will have opportunities to continue to advocate. This is not going to be a decisive meeting. Um, but I just want to give uh awareness to the community that this is an upcoming meeting and that this is an issue that the council still cares deeply about and a program that we want to succeed. Um, to that effect, uh, the mayor has uh sent a letter discussing partial funding. Um, and it's uh, something that we'll continue to follow up on.

Council Rectal, thank you. I want to echo what council member Bert was saying about the in our enduring partners. I just want to make sure that, you know, I think it makes a lot of sense for us if we have these enduring partners to set it aside and give them that expectation so they can plan for that. If they have to recompete every year and that funding is uncertainty, they won't be able to maximize their use of that money. So and some type of expectation that we communicate ahead of time will improve their planning which means that improve the efficiency of the money that we give them. Thanks.

Okay, that con concludes uh council member comments and the we're now going to go to the study session. This is on the Cubly project and second polling results. Just noting right now for everyone, we're about an hour behind.

Okay. I don't want to retract my statement though. That'd be too It would be too embarrassing to retract my statement.

Ready to launch? Yes. Uh, Mayor, members of the council, we are ready to do a quick uh, presentation on the most recent uh, survey results. That said, I thought perhaps our ad hoc chair may want to make some comments first. Council member Laws.

Thank you, city manager. Um, as chair of the council's ad hoc on Cubberly on which I serve with council members Bert and Rectdal, um, I will just open with gratitude to the entire community for getting us to where we are tonight. your affection for this dear old building Cberly, your persistence and advocacy in community conversations not just this year but in similar conversations over the years and the decades and your vision for what it can be and needs to be has arrived us at this point. So, thank you to every member of the community that's shared an idea, come to a meeting, uh brought others along. Um we appreciate you. I also want to recognize and express gratitude to Director Okaane and her community services department staff, Lauren Lie and her ASD staff, the city's legal department, and countless other city staff who are all working so hard and so fast on the future of Cubberly that it's hard to imagine that you're doing anything else, even though I know you are. Um, just to preview what's coming from the staff report and our consultants, you'll see that we've got a lot of support for this project to a certain level and we've got a lot of work ahead to bring all the parts together to make it happen. Nobody said this would be easy, but I think all of us believe it's going to be worth it. And with that, I'll turn things back over to the staff.

Hi, good evening. Christine Paras, assistant director of administrative services. First, we'll have a presentation from Miranda Everett, a partner at FM3 on the poll results, and then we'll go through uh a few slides on costing and funding sources. So, I'll turn the presentation over to Miranda.

Thanks so much, staff, council, the mayor, uh public watching as well. My name is Miranda Everett. a partner at FM3 Research and apologies I'm getting over a cold so I might sound a little froggy. Um but I'm here tonight to present results of the community survey that was recently conducted on uh the Cubberly Center. Um just before I dig into the methodology and the results, just wanted to share some highle findings. Um as was was mentioned by the council member voters generally support upgrades to the center. Um they're dissatisfied with the condition of the current facilities. they understand a need for um additional funding for that space. Um but when we test some pieces of the puzzle in isolation, we see where the the kind of limits of support are. And so we'll dig into that in just a moment here. Um important to note in the next poll that we do, we're going to really put together the puzzle pieces and put ballot measure language in front of people. So, that's going to be the true test of when we present people with the uh mechanism, the amount, and importantly, of course, the things that they get for their hard-earned money, um how people feel about um the proposals we put in front of them. So, the next slide has some details about our methodology here. This was conducted in early November the 6th through the 13th of 2025 using our dual mode approach, which means we contacted folks by landline, cell phone, email, and text message. basically every way we know how uh to hear from them um based on their communication preference. We have 47 interviews represented here. Uh that gives us a margin of error of about 5% for the full sample and about 7% for places where we employed a split sample and we have uh tracking data for many years in the past since we've been partnering with the city for um over 10 years at this point. So the next slide starts to dig into the specific details. Um, so we asked folks one of two

questions. Um, their satisfaction with either the condition of the Coverly Community Center on the lefth hand side or with the services and programs at the Coverly Community Center on the right hand side. And you can see there's a real big difference between the two. Um, fully 46% are dissatisfied with the current condition of Cberly whereas just 32% are satisfied with its current condition. But when it comes to what goes on inside those buildings, uh 61% are satisfied, 17% dissatisfied. So for the most part, this is a community that is really enjoying what's going on inside the building, but sees the need for uh repairs to the condition of the Coverly Community Center. On the next slide, uh we also asked folks about their perceived need for additional funding in the city for updated facilities to provide services including classes, camps, fitness programs, and drop-in casual spaces. So, kind of everything that goes on in Coverly in as few words as possible. And we see here a majority, 55% see at least uh some need for additional funding. 23% see a great need for additional funding. Um in our March and April survey just a few months back uh 58% saw great or some need but just 18% saw great need. So the share who see a great need uh for additional funding has actually risen um by 5 percentage points just outside our margin of error whereas the overall share the great or some need has uh shifted within the margin of error. So it's trending kind of in the in the direction of folks understanding the need for additional funding. At the same time, as you can see on the next slide, fewer than one in seven believe that Cly Community Center needs more space. Um, part of what drives that is that there is a good chunk of folks, 36% who say they don't know. Um, so maybe they haven't visited recently or they just, you know, don't have a sense of of the need um for additional space

specifically. Um, but notable here to see that while they uh do see issues with the condition of the facility, space is less of a problem. Um the next slide is where we dug into uh a little bit more of of the proposal specifically. Um so here we gave people two short paragraphs describing the proposal. um putting them all on the same page in terms of the size and location of the Coverly Campus, a little bit of its history and what goes on there now, as well as the proposal, which is a ballot measure to purchase 7 acres of the site from the school district. Um allowing the school district, of course, to use those proceeds for improvements of their schools and then using additional proceeds from the ballot measure to repair, upgrade, and redevelop the community campus. And then we put in a little bit of the mission statement here. Creating a destination with activities, amenities, and offerings that promote learning, joy, and well-being where all cultures and generations belong. So, putting everyone on the same page there about what the proposal uh is overall and a little bit about the the history of Coverly. You can see on the next slide how people reacted to that. And here you can see about 2/3 support the concept in principle. 66% support overall, 34% strong support, just 10% strongly opposed. So more than a 3 to1 margin of strong support to opposition um and about 11 uh% here say they don't know either way. They may need more information, which we do provide a little bit later on in the survey. So as mentioned before, um you see in principle folks see the need for additional funding. um they see the condition of buildings as as needing attention um and twothirds do support this initial concept that we put in front of them. Now on the next slide we start to dig into some of the nitty-gritty details of a ballot measure. And this was a little

bit of a unique approach, one that we um don't always take because we don't like to put necessarily the the we like to put the whole meal in front of folks in terms of the ballot measure. Um as you can see on the next slide uh we gave people just the vegetables so to speak. Uh we said this is how this is the mechanism that would be used to fund the coverly center. Uh you can see that we have uh half opposing a parcel tax 39% supporting it and then majority is also opposed to a sales tax a bond measure or a utility users tax. But again this is just the vegetables. we didn't tell people about the uh improvements they'll see at Cubberly or importantly the amount of money they would pay uh for those taxes. So given the sort of high level of concern about cost of living and rates of taxes in the community, I'm not too surprised to see that when we asked this question on its own uh responses were uh relatively muted. On the next slide, you can see another piece of the puzzle that we tested and that is willingness to pay. So, these are keyed to the bond amounts. Um, $250 would purchase land and do minor renovations and upgrades. And these are uh annual estimated amounts per household. 53% say they're willing to uh pay that much for for Coverly and and do that scope of a project. And then you can see support goes down as we walk up the scale of uh both cost and scope of project from $500 to purchase land, build a new recreation center, and do some of those upgrades to $1,000 to purchase land, build a new recreation and wellness center, performing arts center, visual arts and technology center, and community service flex space. Uh with 71% saying they're unwilling to pay an amount that high. On the next slide, you can see the parcel tax amounts. So, these are slightly different. Um 250 was still at the at the bottom of the sort of um

number the number range that we tested. 53% willing to support a measure that would um cost that much and do land purchases with minor renovations and upgrades. Um then we walk up the scale to 650, 900, and 1,100 with similar uh different scopes. And you can see those are uh majority unwilling to pay. So again, spec these are these are divorced from a specific mechanism. And in poll three, we're going to make sure we put all those puzzle pieces together. What you get for your money, how much you're going to pay, and what the mechanism is that you pay for. On the next slide, we also looked at a few different potential additional packages to see if those might be uh helpful additions to the overall um meal that we're putting in front of folks. Um potential potential additional projects don't dramatically increase support for the overall package, although there are some um you can see here such as improving a downtown community center with the dedicated space routines or making improvements to the rinkado pool that more folks are more likely to support than not. uh 42% and 40% respectively. Um they're more mixed about the Ventura Community Center and about a new Asian-American history park. Now, in the next section of the survey, we wanted to um you know get some more details about what people's priorities are, what what do they value and see as important as uses for funds for future uh for the future plans for Cubly. Um at the very top of the the slide you can see meeting current safety, earthquake and accessibility standards. That's extremely or very important to 77% of voters and fully 40% of voters called that extremely important at the very top of the scale we provided. You can see sort of a theme on this first slide. There's there's sort of two things or three things that really emerged as top priorities and that includes meeting

those basic standards as well as repairing outdated or deteriorating electrical wiring and plumbing. So again, those kind of basic renovations as well as outdoor space, trees and green space. Um, Palton like their nature and they want to see that as part of this project as well. Moving down the list a bit more on the next slide, you can see some things that fewer than half uh prioritize and they do so with a lot less intensity. This sort of dark blue bar is smaller. Um, but when you add up all the shades of blue, these are things that are in the 70% range and higher. So they're broadly seen as priorities but maybe just with a lot less intensity than uh those basic repairs and green space we saw on the prior slide. And that includes providing safe upgraded space for after school arts education and community involvement, after school and summer programs, safe spaces for children and teens after school and in the summer, an emergency evacuation center, and a vibrant destination for youth, families, and seniors. So again, broad shares saying that's important to them, but with a lot less intensity than we saw for those basic repairs on the first slide. Uh the story continues on the next slide where we see things that were important extremely or very important rather to 42% to 35% of respondents. Um so you're starting to see these uh move down the list a bit more. Um this includes anything that uses the the phrase central hub. Um as well as additional space. um those again I think we saw earlier that there are relatively few PaloAltons who see um kind of at this point a need for additional space for coverly. So when we uh talk about additional space that's not connecting in the same way that some of the things on the first and second slides do. And then the final slide in this series uh shows their relatively low priorities and that includes an outdoor amphitheater um the copperly theater an outdoor swimming pool or space for

cultural celebrations. Um those are things that 20% or fewer are saying are extremely or very important to them. So just much less intensity uh behind those especially when it's stacked up to uh plumbing, wiring, dis disability, earthquake standards, those kinds of things we saw in the first slide. Excuse me. So on the next slide you can see um the next task we had was to provide some more information both positive and negative to see um how much how how sort of durable support is as people hear pro and cons that they might hear in the community. Uh the first row on this slide is the same one I showed you earlier. 66% support for the concept initially 24% opposed. After positive messaging that lifts to 71% in favor and drops and uh the opposition remains relatively low at just 26%. And then after both positives and negatives, we still have support from around 2/3. 64% in favor, 31% opposed. The next slide shows some of the most compelling positive messages. I won't um keep you here all night with all the positives and negatives we tested, but just kind of show some of the ones that really resonated in your community. Um those top two are really the ones that um come closest to our standard of a highly persuasive message. Um that includes talking about just the age of the buildings. They're more than 70 years old. They were well built well before modern internet, don't meet current disabled access and earthquake safety standards. So um kind of highlighting that need um not about size, not about necessarily what goes on within it, but just the basic condition of the buildings um resonated quite broadly. And then the repairs message, same thing or a similar thing here kind of talking about um most of the buildings at the at the facility are beyond their useful life and would be very costly to repair. That's why we

should invest in a new safe, accessible, and modern facility for a community to share in the future. Affordability also highly important to folks. The Cubly Center being a place where people could uh take advantage of free or lowcost programs, exercise, play, gather, enjoy the arts, all of those nice things. Um and then also providing a place for people to gather and shelter in times of emergency. Um and again highlighting the earthquake safety and accessibility standards. So those were sort of the the most uh compelling messages that resonated in the community. Um this takes us to my conclusions on the next slide. So while voters generally support upgrades to the coverly center about 2/3 initial uh support and near 2/3 support at the end uh their willingness to invest is limited to a smaller package one that's focused on basic repairs and upgrades to earthquake safety and accessibility standards. They're dissatisfied with the current condition of existing facilities and they don't necessarily see coverly as in in need of additional space at least given the uh kind of information and context they have right now. No mechanism tested in isolation without amounts has majority support although that's not um unheard of when we sort of test things on their own in that way. And we saw slim majority support uh willingness to pay $250 per year for basic renovations. So, there's some internal consistency here about that renovations piece. Um, some good news is that most are satisfied with the current programs and services that are being offered at Coverly. Um, and the next poll, as mentioned, is really going to vet ballot measure language, very specific mechanism, amount, and uses of funds for voter consideration, looking as close as possible to something that they might consider on their ballot in the future um for sort of a truer test of of viability and level of interest in the investment. So, I know that's a lot

of information in a short time, but I'm happy to uh pass it back to staff.

Thank you very much, Miss Everett. Um, we'll we'll directly cut over to the next set of slides, and I think what's key in her presentation was um opinion after positive messaging, which you know, total support for that increased to 71%. So that's something that we kind of want to discuss and talk and and think about in our financing strategy and how while the tax measure support may be low in these results opportunity for other financing sources is uh helps make this project viable. So in the next slide, um in our last study session with council, we placed significant intention on phasing this project um to include renovation of existing buildings and some new construction. And the first phase prioritizes the land purchase, repairs, a recreation and wellness center, and performing arts complex. and that all totals 392 million. Uh future phases of the master plan total an additional 220 million. And of course these these costs are assume construction ex esc escalators when assume with an assumed start date of April 2030. So our financing strategy includes three funding sources over time. The first being a potential tax measure with either a sales tax or part parcel tax, use of development impact fees um and or grants and partner contributions and philanthropy. So next slide please. So based on the results of the second poll, sales tax and parcel tax options will be explored further in the third poll. And in either scenario, these tax

proceeds will finance the uh funding needed to purchase the land of 65.5 million and minor repairs and renovations. Uh partner contributions in addition to this would chart a path forward of having the recreation and wellness center and performing arts complex financed and constructed sooner and included in phase one of the project. Um for the first um potential tax measure, sales tax would generate approximately 218 million and that would be for a half cent or half a percent sales tax. Um there is a 2% cap on how much we can uh impose a sales tax locally and existing countywide sales tax add-ons total 1 and 3/4 of this cap. So out of that cap, we have a remaining 25 point 25% or quarter cent. Um for the land purchase and repairs and renovations to be viable, we have to at least have a um half cent sales tax. Um right now currently the city doesn't impose any additional sales tax and statutory authorization is needed from the state for that half cent addition. Um to keep that option of the sales tax uh measure viable, we staff are working with our u state lobbyist, towns and public affairs on the next steps for that um stat state statutory authorization. Um, in addition to that, we're also looking at and exploring um what the split is between resident and non-residents and how much they pay in sales tax. So,

we're we're looking at that aspect of it to really uh assess what that impact is to to residents. And then finally, um business community outreach engagement is is critical in this to address how that potential SA sales tax measure may impact uh uh the local economy. Um the second tax measure that will be examined in poll three is a parcel tax based on square footage that will generate approximately um 102 million with about an average of 250 being the annual cost per household. Um and this estimate includes all single family, multif family, residential, and all non-residential square footage. Next slide. The second component of this funding strategy is development impact fees and use of those fees. Uh currently the city has balances in its community center and parks and development impact fees which could fund eligible costs that are for development improvement and expansion to community centers and acquisition of land and improvements for parks. Um impact fees from upcoming development projects can be also be used as funding sources for this project. And then use of these funds to pledge against debt financing needs to be explored by staff and its financial advisor PFM. Uh finally the third is partner contributions and donations. Um the those two revenue sources are needed to fund the recreation and wellness center and performing arts complex. Um and discussions continue to

secure financial support from from those interested parties. So that concludes my my presentation. I'll turn it over to Ed. Thank you, Miss Pas. I think she really covered all we have at this point. uh happy to elaborate if uh council would like to discuss any further. Uh but uh again the uh results of the survey really do u reinforce uh the need for a multi-art uh strategy for uh funding uh improvements at Cberly and we look forward to taking next steps with that. Uh mayor back to you or or the ad hoc uh as appropriate.

Go ahead councils. Thank you uh everybody for for the presentation and I just I want to um invite my ad hoc colleagues to jump in and then the rest of council as well but I thought there are a couple things that perhaps you could clarify right off the bat. uh one is um I'm not sure the slide showed the voter threshold necessary to achieve the parcel tax versus the sales tax and I think it's important to articulate that it might have been in the FM3 but I think Christine when you were doing your wrapup and you were presenting the differences it would just be we had the money on there 102 million versus 218 million

oh voter thresholds for sales tax versus partial the voter threshold old for sales tax is simple majority 50 + one and then for parcel tax 2/3 super majority. So with the sales tax in theory we get for the same for roughly 250 per person right average household average household we get 218 for a sales tax 218 million and only 50% of the voters got to pass it the parcel tax we get about 102 million and it requires 2/3 to pass it correct that's really important for people to hear thank you for noting that

we would uh like to clarify that on the sales tax that 50% threshold is assuming a general tax as opposed to one that is specific. So, this would require uh again the city council um uh adopting a resolution expressing intent uh but again recognizing that this would be a general tax.

Thank you for that. And sticking with this question of the sales tax, um you indicated, Miss Pass, that we are going to have to work with our um lobbyists, consultants, people who help us work with the legislature to raise the cap on what we're allowed to even put on the ballot in terms of increasing a sales tax. Um I was under the impression based on conversations with our consultant that a number of municipalities are doing this right now and that there's optimism that uh this cap can be increased. You guys are looking back at me like I'm not sure sure I heard that. Is that cool? Is that true?

Yes, that is. Uh this this has uh occurred with some regularity among cities throughout the state and we expect that a vehicle will be coming together that we'll be able to join in on. Right. So, I just wanted folks to hear that it doesn't feel like a super challenging bar for us to soar over. The far more challenging thing is uh getting to the right degree of voter support for whatever the project ultimately is with whatever mechanism we try to use. But this more technical question of can we raise our sales tax cap um uh is seemingly uh relatively comparatively easy. That's it for me on technical questions. Thank you.

Okay. Any immediate questions? from council to the consultants before we go to public comment. Council member Lou,

Vice Mayor Verger. Yeah, just just to make sure um I'm tracking on that uh sales tax. So, we have a a quarter cent available left, but we want a half cent. Is that why we have to go through the statutory vehicle? That's correct. Okay. So, if we were to do a quarter set, but that just doesn't get us the raise that we are seeking, right? Okay. All right. Thank you, Council Member Bert.

Yes. Um, just on the um the voter thresholds, you said for the partial tax it's 2/3. That's if it is placed on the ballot by the city and is that different if it is was were to be a citizens initiative? Yeah, that's correct. Yes. If if a citizens group placed their own initiative for a parcel tax on the ballot, uh that would under current law only require a simple majority. Thank you.

Okay, let's go to public comment, please. Our first speaker is Ken H. Yeah, thank you.

Good evening again. Um I think the most important thing is that um we need to do something. We we got to do something and um unfortunately the economy is not great and people don't want to pay for things. And that's basically what the uh well they do want to pay for the school district because the school district is going to put out a parcel tax in June of 2026 for $94 per parcel and their polling numbers are off the charts because it increases home values and we all know the importance of school districts. Um, so I guess you know my take is let's do the baby steps first. Um, let's get the land. If you think the seven acres is that important, let's get the land and let's let's um because if you don't own the land, then you can't do anything with it. And then I would go ahead and and do the repairs. And whether you decide on a sales tax or a parcel tax, it's going to be tough because uh we just passed measure A, so the sales tax went up 5/8%. Um the school district is going to have a parcel tax. So people are not going to be happy. So you got to figure out the best strategies, but let's do something. Thank you.

Our next speaker is an C. Uh, good evening, mayor and city council members. Um, I'm Anne Cribs and I'm the chair of the PaloAlto Recreation Wellness Center, the Friends of We're a 501c3 nonprofit formed about three years ago because we really believe that PaloAlto needs a community gym. Um, wellness isn't a luxury. It's a public good. A place where people can stay active, play, recover, connect, and thrive is essential in a small a strong and healthy community. The friends are really proud to support the public private partnership to build a new recreation wellness center at Killy as part of phase one. and thank you very much for all the work that everybody's done, the staff, the ad hoc, the council and the community to get us to we're even talking about this right now. Um, our partnership we envision will bring together the city's vision with a community involvement and philanthropy. It allows us to build not only a facility but a lasting community asset, one design designed to evolve with the needs of PaloAlto residents across generations. The friends organization is committed to fundraising, advocacy, ensuring the center reflects our shared values of inclusion, access, and excellence. Um, but phase one is really more about a wellness center is about a construction. It's about planting a flag for the future so today's families, tomorrow's seniors, and generations yet to come have a place that supports lifelong health, wellness, connection, and community. Years ago, when I was training for the Olympic Games, I was

fortunate enough to have access that I needed in my hometown. And yes, I was then honored to make the 1960 Olympic team. As a former PaloAlto park and recreation commissioner, I've seen and also a mom of sporty kids, I was have also seen firsthand how essential facilities are to a community and especially in this case indoor gym space that serve people of all ages and abilities. The friends believe that Cubby is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for PaloAlto and we're committed to getting this done and excited to work together to make the future possible. So again, thank you all very much for your support and for your enthusiasm and for your commitment and I wish you all a very happy holiday. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jennifer D. Good evening, council. I want to wish everyone a happy Hanukkah um and acknowledge the horrible anti-semitic attack from this weekend. Um and thank you all for showing up to the first night um Hanukkah lighting last night. Uh I am here to talk about Coverly. Um to thank you all for all of the work that you have done and that so many members of this community have done for so many years to get us here. Um it is years in the making. Um the good news about this polling shows that um at least twothirds of the population sees a need for this work and is supportive of this work in theory. So um we've got some work to do to get them to be excited about spending some money on it. Um but uh I am glad you are considering lots of options. Um please know that there is a large number of community members that are excited to do the work to get it through the finish line. Um once you get there um we are ready to go to work. Um and so please consider um you are working at a fast clip as was acknowledged before. Um and please continue to do that because the sooner you guys get to where you want to go, the sooner we can take the ball and run with it. Um and we need that time to communicate with the with the community and and make sure they understand the importance of this work. Um so thank you for your work. Um, again, there's a whole lot of us that are excited to continue it and to um the time is now. I think you all know that. I think that um you are working with the urgency that recognizes that. Uh the building needs desperate repairs um and really won't function that much longer as is. Um so we are excited to move it ahead um next November. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Penny E. Penny E, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak.

Okay, thank you. The button just showed up. Um, good evening. I'm Penny speaking as an individual. The survey tells us that most of Can you hear me? The survey tells us that most of us agree Coverly urgently needs to be safe, made safe, up to code, functional, and friendly for community service use. The city needs to own it in order to justify advertising the cost of improvement of the property. This is an essential first hurdle toward phased longer term realization of a more ambitious campus vision that likely will be needed as the community grows and that may also draw philanthropic support. The survey sample is small. Only 407 of 37,350 registered PaloAlto voters. However, it tells us that those surveyed are only willing to support a $250 parcel tax. I would, as a voter, support this, but I would also pay more. I wasn't asked. I generally do not support additional sales taxes as sales taxes tend to be regressive, impacting lower income people more because they spend a higher percentage of their incomes. So, I kind of hope we'll stick with a parcel tax. I understand we need a measure that the whole community will support to ensure success for this very important community project and I and I plan to support the bond measure um with my volunteer time as it moves forward. Um and finally have a question. Um do we know for certain that PA USD will have a measure on the same ballot? This seems like something that might be discussed at the city school liaison committee. We have had three planning processes. Our community is growing. Let's please get this important project off the ground at long last. Thank you for considering my comments.

Our next speaker is Society of Hearts. Good evening. This is Udin. Speaking both as a parks and recreation commissioner and a board member of the friends of the Palato recreation and wellness center. I want to voice my strong support for moving forward with a bump measure and completing the CPI land purchase. KPI is already a vital community asset. It serves seniors, families, nonprofits, youth, artists, and wellness programs across generations. What we're hearing clearly from the data and from live experience is not a demand for unchecked expansion, but a need for safe, accessible, and well-maintained facilities that can support today's programs and tomorrow's needs. Passing the B measure and securing the land gives the city certainty. It allows us to plan responsibly, invest strategically, and unlock better long-term development rather than continuing to defer critical repairs or miss opportunities because of fragmented ownership and short-term fixes. As stewards of public spaces, we have a responsibility to think beyond the immediate moment and toward the next 30 to 50 years with clear scope, faces transparency. I believe voters will support a thoughtful investment that protects copi and strengthens Palato's parks and wellness ecosystem. I urge you to take the steps needed to move this forward and give our community the chance to vote on a clear responsible path ahead. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and happy holidays to you all.

That concludes public comment on study session item three. Thank you. Back to the dis for general comments on where we are. Council Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, thanks to the ad hoc for the ongoing work. I I mostly just have a few questions on on kind of the polling. So, I I understand the viability of a sales tax increase is going to be on that third poll. Will you also be pulling on the viability of having both a sales tax and a parcel tax on the same ballot? Um, that's not in the plan at the moment. I I think that would be I think that would be helpful information to to have. And I'm I'm also kind of curious how that might play with the the school districts.

Uh, if I might, council member, uh, for clarification, and we uh should have mentioned this earlier, a couple of uh points from other agencies. First with the school district, we do understand that the school district will be doing its uh measure in the spring, so not in November time frame. In addition, there is uh an ongoing effort for regional transit measure that could be on that uh November ballot. Again, nothing's for sure at this point, but uh we do expect that there uh may be some additional measures on that November ballot. And we would we would be considering I guess man I guess TBD but a a combination if we wanted to do our own sales tax or parcel tax one or or both.

At this point we've really only discussed doing one or the other. Not not both. Again recognizing uh the limited uh funding uh potential.

Makes sense. So kind of a question for our pollster just kind of on on survey bias. Does there tend to be a bias towards selecting the the least expensive option for people taking a poll? So I mean if a if a poll here proposes a range of $250 to $1,100 in a potential parcel tax, I'm not surprised people selected the the least expensive option. So, I'm just curious if we were to do another another poll where the least expensive option was $500, what what impact that might that might have.

Sure. So, we actually asked people um individually about different amounts. So, they were able to tell us willingness at 250, at 500, at 750, at 1,000. Um so, we were able to we didn't force them to choose one amount or another. Um and that is uh the best practice there. Okay. And I'm just a little confused by the summary of the poll results that was on page 597 and and apologies if I missed this in your in your oral report. It states that twothirds of likely voters support Coverly Community Center updated as a visionary goal. I didn't quite understand what that meant. A v as a visionary goal.

Yeah. So slide six, not sure what the page number is in your packet, but it's the one with the um kind of blue box with two paragraphs on it. That was sort of the vision um statement that we provided to folks. We said here's some of the history. Here's where it's located. Here's you know the ballot measure plan. Um that's the sort of conceptual vision we put in front of folks which did have support from about 2/3. Uh which is distinct from when we asked about individual amounts or individual mechanisms where support was lower. So, I think that was our our way of distinguishing between those more specific questions we asked a little later on and the sort of bigger picture conceptual question.

Okay. Yeah. I I was I was just kind of torn seeing these results. It's great to see that there is so much support in the community for Coverly, but then when it comes to the the price tag, that support seemed to really drop. I mean, it reminded me a bit of like when my wife asked me for my Christmas list this year and I told her I was all enthusiastic and then she looked at the price tag of it all and she said, "You're not getting that." So, I kind of feel like that's that's where we're at right right now. But, I'm I'm interested for this, of course, moving forward and excited to see the results of the third and fourth poll. And I I share the concern of of one of the speakers regarding sales tax being regressive. I don't quite know where I stand on the idea of us trying to get the state to kind of change that and if they change that they they do. Um I think there are ways that we could craft a sales tax to for example not apply to or maybe this is already in the law as far as groceries or other other basic necessities um and which could make it which could make it better. Um, so that's yeah, those are my my questions and and initial thoughts others.

Coun B. Thank you. Um, so just a few additional comments. Um, one of the uh really interesting uh aspects of the poll was um where the community, this on slide number five, showed that fewer than one in seven believe that Coverly Community Center needs more space. And I just want to dive into that a little bit deeper. Um, first that doesn't mean that the present configuration is ideal, that we wouldn't really if if we were to design this as a community center rather than a school, we we would almost certainly design it differently. Uh but on the other hand, I think the community is uh correct because when we when we looked at the current space that we have uh versus how much we're we're leasing or renting for current community oriented uh nonprofits and our own use um we're using a fraction of it. We're going to get back um a sizable amount of space from PAUSD if we are successful in a measure that will purchase the land and that that those buildings are currently generally occupied by for PAUSD functions and they've indicated that they would be giving those up. So that would become additional community space. Although all the existing buildings need renovation and that's one of the real dilemmas from this even with the uh with the parcel tax after the um uh the land purchase. Uh it wouldn't give us enough funding to do the fullblown renovation that we think is needed, but it would allow us to do a lot. And that may be

somewhat disappointing, but it's also we would have a community center that we would be able to have this first phase of Coverly uh of renovating buildings, doing some exciting things. And that goes into the most exciting part today is the prospect of community partners. We heard this evening from uh the the friends of the uh uh Palo Alto uh what do we call it? The recreation

recreation center. And um and then we have the other prospect of a partner in performing arts and potentially other community partners who are interested in um in making uh many millions of dollars in investments that the community as a whole will benefit from. And that seems to be emerging as this hybrid model between the contributions that the voters will make uh and those that these really valued community uh uh organizations are are uh indicating they are very interested in in doing. And so that's the hopeful part. Um the but those partners need us to acquire the land for them to be able to move forward and they actually need us to do that before they can really commence with their full fundraising. They're doing groundwork right now, but until we get the voter support for that land acquisition, they can't go forward with their their full fundraising. uh which is um uh really a great opportunity for this community to benefit from from what they're willing to do. I will note that on slide 11 uh there's a reference to um the potential additional projects that do not dramatically increase um uh support for the measure. Because one of the things that we were wondering as a committee is if the ballot measure included uh some other very modest projects elsewhere in the city, would it appeal to a broader voter uh base and increase support? And the slide says they don't dramatically increase support. But the first two increase it by 12 and 14%.

And I don't know if I'd call that dramatically. I'd call that very significantly on a on a measure where we're looking at um uh uh needing to gain as much support as we can and it's not overwhelming. So, I just want us to bear that in mind as a committee. We haven't gotten to a point of making any recommendations, but I inter that was one area that I would have uh uh titled that slide differently and and um because I do think that appears to be significant. Um, and then I'd like to call your attention to slide 13. Um, which is, uh, it says fewer than half prioritize u a series of different uses, but um, the columns that were added together were extremely and very important. Um, but if you add in somewhat important, then those numbers really go up. uh for instance the uh expanding outdoor spaces or uh after school and arts and community involvement um it goes from 51% support but if you put in somewhat support it goes to 79 77%. So I just don't want us to overlook the importance of that. Um you know just like when we we look at undecideds uh as uh voters who may be persuaded when we get a real campaign uh or they get to see exact more clearly what the community will get in benefits. Uh similarly I think that um uh when we look at somewhat support um that's not no support uh that's just not their highest priority. So, those are just a few additional thoughts I wanted to share.

Council member Ru,

thank you. And I just had a few quick thoughts on the polling as well, echoing several of Council Member Bert's points. Um, just uh starting high level, I don't love our options for sales taxes. Uh I think we can reasonably include them in the coming poll, but uh I don't know how excited I would be at the end of the day. Um, I think for the next round of polling, it definitely makes sense to uh include both options for the teen center and rinkada pool somehow more explicitly into uh the voters's final sort of up- down like what would they vote preferences. I would also like for us to be able to dig in a little bit on what kind of benefits we could actually offer at 200 at a $250 level. Um uh I think during the presentation we noted that at the $250 uh level uh when just sort of pulled on its own the community didn't really have a chance to uh understand the benefits of $250. Uh, but at the same time, I think it's going to be really hard. Well, like I think that polling level is actually somewhat representative because it's going to be really hard for us to articulate the benefits at a $250 polling level. Yes, PA USD gets some money, but that might feel like a paper transaction to a lot of residents. um where you know money just moves between government entities and then okay then we can do some light renovations. Obviously those are things that the community cares about but maybe it's not actually enough of a benefit that we can actually sell. And so the polling at uh

the 53% polling at 250 um is just sort of what it is which is not uh a number I would love to see. So, like I hope we can think about how to sweeten 250 and uh poll options for that. I like council member Bert was uh curious uh about when looking at priorities if there could be an option for something like not important at all or a priority that actually makes someone less likely to vote on something. Uh I just found it interesting that in the first set of bond amount polling there was like a very willing to very unwilling option but in terms of priorities there wasn't an option to say like uh that this is something that people actively uh dislike. Um uh which uh um maybe may be unlikely to uncover anything, but might also be useful if uh uh if the polling gets really close and we need to think about what not to sell uh in the final vision. Uh, and finally, uh, I echo member council member Bert's points about just really trying to get as solid partnerships as we possibly can with groups uh that can bring their own funding. Um we would love a visionary project but I think the reality is that the only way visionary project gets delivered is uh through partnerships with uh private fundraising. Um, so, uh, in light of Frank Garry's passing, I've been thinking a little bit about how monumental visionary projects like the Walt Disney Concert Hall or, uh, the Guggenheim at Bilbao actually get

together and actually sort of transform an entire, uh, city and civic space. And that is, you know, too visionary and too optimistic for me to sort of fully sink sink my teeth into right now. But the point is that those were really driven uh by uh the sort of boosters in the community that could uh seize an opportunity. So we just need to make sure we can keep giving and advertising that opportunity. Thank you. Council member Rectal.

Yeah, I noticed that 12% and 14% that council member Burke pointed out, it does improve. The teen center for example doesn't improve, but we may gain a few votes, but we also dilute the amount that we can apply towards Cberly. So, I'd be inclined not to include that if we're doing a low parcel tax. But I have a question for FM3. Uh, Council Member Burke talked about the somewhat important. Is that negative or positive or is that like no opinion? How how do you interpret somewhat important? Yeah, the reason we put extremely invariant to the right hand side is because those are sort of the the priorities that you want to see at close to or exceeding your threshold. So in a lot of communities, we see things in the 80s 70 60% range uh extremely and very important. You don't have to add the somewhat because that those reactions are pretty lukewarm and not necessarily motivational of a yes vote. It's still positive um but it's not as uh folks are not as passionate about it definitionally. So it means that it's not negative, but it's not enough to flip a vote. Is that the

Yeah, it's it's it's somewhat important. It's it's somewhere it's somewhere between very important to them and and not important at all. So it's it's an very middling spot and one that's less motivational.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So overall, you know, when we started this process, we had a lot of questions. You know, how big Well, first of all, does the community even want to spend money on Cubly? And also um what what kind of scope do they want? How big do you want to go? And we did a lot of planning, a lot of planning where we're looking at big scopes and we gave the community picture those big scopes and they said no thank you just like we're not going to get that. Um but uh the polling is is adding some clarity here that we know that the community really does value Cly and it wants it wants a new developed modernized Cberly. They want to have new wiring. They want to have uh earthquake safety. They want to spend the money and have this be an enduring community center. They don't want a Taj Mahal, right? Uh they don't want to pay for a Taj Mahal, but consistently they they're consistent here and they don't want uh a they don't feel they need a Taj Mahal. So, the community is being consistent. They're telling us what they want. And they want a modest Cberly that is the same size as it is today, cleaned up, and a few features added here and there. And I think that's a good message because that's something we can deliver between our additional tax revenue and the for example the wellness center nonprofits. Nonprofits like that and the tax money can make this work. So I think we are on a good track. It's we're not getting the Taj Mahal, but we're going to get something that is even more used and more loved than the Cubly today. So, that's a good thing.

Uh, just a couple ads without um stepping on everybody's toes that already spoke, but um I think that, you know, I totally agree with Council Member Stone that, you know, basically what they're saying here about a concept in principle is not a vacation in Tahiti. You know, that because that takes money. So you can think about how wonderful it is to lie in that beach. But I think we have to agree with council rectal is that we're listening now and I think we need to shoot lower than we originally thought. But I also think that it's very fair to not just assume but we have some data points that you know these partnerships are going to work. So if we go out and say, you know, we have to raise X and, you know, we need 60% of it from the voters and 40% of it from partners, I think that's the kind of thing that could really could really move this, not 99% from the voters and we'll find a few bucks. So, that's one specific input that I don't think anybody's said, but I think that the percentage uh of of the money raised should get fairly high on the on the partnership side to show that u there's a lot of support in the community from um you know, important important donors as well where they're going to put their money. Um I'm not optimistic that the sales tax is going to pull very well for all the reasons we already discussed. There's already that fatigue. There's more coming. Um, I'm not even sure you should pull with it, but you might as well get it to to make sure. Um, and fundamentally, as a public commenter started off this saying, we we need to buy this. We need to own it because whatever we do now can be the phase one, as the committee has been studying. uh and we can make other changes and uh improvements later, but the focus is get the money we need right now to make sure that this going to happen when we have theou and both sides really want this transaction to happen.

Vice Mayor,

thank you. And uh I agree with the mayor um and I also agree with the theme that's surfacing here from most all my colleagues um that our community values the experiences they have at Coverly. They like the programming. They want more of it, but they want to do it in a place that feels safe and clean and modern and you know doesn't have all the issues that we know are with Coverly. And it is a large site already. So, I think that's why there's probably not this clamoring for being squeezed in. It's more a a sense of quality while you're there, that you want it to be more modern and upgraded. So, I I think we do start there, especially we can't ignore the context of the times uh where people are feeling that uh cost of living is getting more expensive. We just passed a a ballot measure uh to to to increase county taxes. Now, we're it'll be school district. then we come along. Um so I think I'm really looking forward to the results of the polling. Um and I think that'll have to tell us uh you know a lot about how folks are feeling because I too on on the sales tax um you know I I don't love the regressive nature of it either. Um, but as was pointed out by uh, Council Member Liths, the partial tax takes twothirds of the voters and uh, looks like it would uh, it's it's posited to uh, reap less uh, dollars. So, it's it's a tough call. So, it's I think it's still worth doing both of those polls as best we can. Um, and you know, I was interested also in the polling on the I think you called it the vegetables without the rest of the meal, the the uh unattached uh uh what type of uh funding mechanism uh without all the

abs you with the absence of ballot question format and that the parcel tax was at the top with 39%. But I also wonder if that's influenced by the fact that we have 40 plus% renters and they don't feel that they're going to see that tax on their property bill because they don't get one. Now probably get passed along or baked into the rent somehow, but it doesn't feel as immediate or or personal. So, but those are the folks who vote. So, you know, it's it's I can sit here and wonder why, but uh we we have the numbers to help us make decisions. Um, one thing I wanted to um ask about in the polling is that um what's posited is a partial tax uh a square footage parcel tax as opposed to a flat fee. And I assume that's explained to folks so that it's not also a somewhat regressive vehicle. So in the polling, I guess I'm asking uh our uh poll polling folks. Yeah, the way we described it is is a parcel tax that would be added to your property tax bill based on the size of your property.

Okay, so that that should be made clear to them. That's great. Okay. Well, you know, I I echo again what um has been said, which is that hopefully we can get this place, you know, spiffed up, uh get some some, you know, new tenants um wet people's appetite to want to do more. um work with these partners, some of whom have already identified themselves and thank Annne Cribs for being here on behalf of the friends of the uh the wellness center um and and others that have have stepped up to express interest. But, you know, hopefully when this feels more real, we can get more um because it looks like for our aspirations, we're probably going to need more. Um, but uh I appreciate the work that's gone into this this far and look forward to hearing more.

Presidents.

Yeah, I just thought I'd um share my concluding thoughts. Um what a great conversation. What a breathtaking process this has been and will continue to be. Uh really for uh another uh another year, just less than a year, we'll know. Um uh I want to underscore how excited I am that we are attracting wonderful potential partners like the friends of the wellness center and others who plan to do their part to contribute to the vision for what this destination in South Palo Alto can be and what it can offer and what it can feel like to be there. And these partners are also going to do their own fundraising. It's going to be a key component. But as we've heard, they want to see that the community wants this before they decide to kind of ante up. As a city manager mentioned, we can also draw from some development impact fees that are going to come from significant housing projects that are in the pipeline and on the horizon. And then there's the community. The community is going to be asked to do its fair share and only its fair share. Our job is to keep listening and refining and then to make the case for what it will be and earn the community's support. I am incredibly excited and optimistic that we are well on our way to getting there. And I want to underscore again my gratitude to the staff for the tremendous work that has gone into this. And I know that in some ways we're only just getting started. Thank you.

Yeah. Thanks also to staff. Just want to join in that. Council member uh for for getting us this far. Um and we keep on running. Thanks very much. That concludes this item. The next item is uh consent calendar. Is there any public comment on consent?

Yes, mayor. We have one request to speak. Our first speaker is Herb B. Mayor Allowing and Council members, I request that you uh remove item five from the consent calendar and refer the issue of the appointment of an interim city attorney. uh to the council CEO committee uh as provided for in your council procedures. Uh the the council has not uh delegated uh this task uh to either of the individuals who are bringing this before you. Uh I previously talked under uh public comment uh about how uh the city attorney uh recruitment information in on the city's human resources website was wrong with the wrong current salary and omitting the fact that the job was for by qualifications. Uh in in addition to the procedural question of uh doing this the appropriate way by having either the council itself meeting in either in close session or in and deciding on the subject or by delegating it to the CEO committee and having them make a recommendation which they could if they wanted to after they made it is to delegate it to the chair uh to bring it before you. Uh there's also the the uh noticing the Brown Act requirement

since the main thing you'll be doing uh in this employment would be uh changing the pay of one one person. Uh there is nothing uh here to indicate what the individual's current salary is or what the increase in salary would be. And there have been multiple opportunities uh as this item has appeared on your agenda for that to be corrected. And the nor way to be corrected would be uh the city's attorney's office looking at the agenda and seeing that it was missing. So for either of those issues, uh I believe it's appropriate that this not uh be approved at this time and instead to follow normal procedure where there's uh publicly noticed meeting where uh somebody with the authority granted by the council uh come to you uh with a recommendation or you know you could meet in close session yourself as I pointed out was done uh when and a previous city attorney announced the retirement and the council met in close session at the time they're doing evaluations uh and also at that time decided on the process and appointment for an interim city attorney. Thank you.

And that concludes public comment on consent calendar items 4 through 20 and 22 through 24 as agenda item 21 was removed off the agenda. Thanks for that summary. Any other comments from council members about polls or no votes? Uh, seeing none, let's go to a motion to approve. So moved. Second.

Council member Stone. Yes. Council member Bert. Yes. Vice Mayor Vinker. Yes. Council member Lithmes. Yes. Council member Lou. Yes. Council member Rectal. Yes. Mayor Lowing. Yes. Motion carries. Okay. Okay, thank you. That took two and a half pages of our outline, but uh only a few minutes. We're scheduled for a break right now. City manager comments. Yeah, I mean after that. Yes. So, I think we'll take a short one at least. City manager.

Well, this will be a very short city manager comments. Uh next slide, please. Just going straight to looking at your calendar for the upcoming month in January and beyond. Uh just noting again January 5th your reorganization date, January 12th being your first business meeting of uh the new year uh and items noted there along with uh the following Tuesday, January 20th uh in light of the Monday holiday. And then finally your Oops, that's right. my screen wasn't showing or isn't showing the Saturday council retreat. Uh and then followed uh with a number of items listed in the February time frame. still working on finalizing dates board and commission work plans uh weed abatement uh recurring item the escap reliability strategy and two-year work plan along with follow-up reports and discussions on PaloAlto link oversized vehicle report from the ad hoc committee and mid-year budget actions again anticipated in the February time frame with dates uh yet to be set with that mayor uh that completes my report

okay thank you we're going to take about a 10-minute break. So, that's going to get us in here about uh 171 18 after to take up the next item, which is the quasi judicial hearing on 16880 Bryant Three.

and we're moving on the agenda item 1680 Bryant Street and staff has a presentation.

Great. Thank you, mayor. And good evening, city council. Jonathan Le, director for planning development services. Uh Steven Switzer, our senior planner with our office, will give this brief presentation. All right. Well, good evening and let's take a trip to 1680 Bryant Street. Next slide. All right. Just to briefly orient ourselves here, this is a property located at the intersection of Lowel Avenue and Bryant Street in the old Powalto neighborhood uh single family R1 zoning district. If we go on uh to the next slide right here, uh the project overview. Um back earlier this year in July, the city's uh historic preservation consultant, Paige and Turbull had prepared a historic resource evaluation. Uh following that, the applicant uh submitted a request to reclassify the historic uh resource from a category 2, its current designation to a category 3 on the historic inventory based on the findings contained in that uh July 25th report. It went to the historic resources board at their October 9th meeting and following that we are here today at the December 5th city council meeting. So, a little bit about the construction chronology. Uh, this structure was built in 1914. Uh, the architect was John Hudson Thomas, notable, uh, member of the Bay Area Tradition Movement. Uh, some of you may know some other notable members, uh, Julia Morgan, um, being one of them. So I pulled a image from the Sanborn map in 1924 following 10 years after its construction and we can see

the orientation of the structure there on the left hand side of the screen. Uh following and around the 1940s we'll see on the right hand of the screen a uh that one-story addition or connection between the building was demolished as well as a port cochair on that northern portion of the structure. And as we progress throughout time on the next slide, carrying over the 1945 uh same map image as well as a recent image grab of the city's parcel report indicating a new structure that was built at that 275 LOL Avenue address uh that was demolished uh the southern half of the structure in 1997 following the construction of a new two-story residence at that location. And uh just want to note that at that time uh it was coinciding with the city's efforts to update the uh historic inventory with that 1997 to 2001 Dames and Moore uh survey update. But those efforts were reserved for adding new structures to the inventory rather than looking at or evaluating existing structures on the inventory. And going right along a little bit about the historic significance. It was added in 1978 at the inception of the city's historic inventory as a category 2 resource uh noted as a superb example of the prairie architectural style which is a uncommon uh example of residential architecture in California. that historic uh resource evaluation prepared by Paige and Turble which is attachment D in the staff report uh notes the existing eligibility under criterion 2 which is notable architecture criterion five being a notable architect as well as criterion

six if there's existing design elements of a certain architectural style. Next slide. At that October 9th uh historic resources board meeting, the board voted 311 with one member absent and one member dissenting to keep the existing designation. Their rationale at that meeting and discussion was uh that the property would lose what little historic preservation protections currently exist in our municipal ordinance. Uh namely the demolition delay if it were to be downgraded to a category 3 resource as well as noting that the current historic incentives uh are insufficient for uh property owners to either preserve or maintain existing historic structures. Some key considerations for tonight's discussion would be the facts in the record from that historic resource evaluation uh prepared in July 5th of this year as well as the construction chronology as uh taking into account some of those significant alterations with over 2/3 of the structure being removed as well as the definitions for the category 2 and category 3 resources in the municipal code. As for SQUA, uh this is not a project. Maintaining a uh historic inventory list or reclassification of a structures on said list uh does not constitute a foreseeable change in the built environment. And on to staff's recommendation. As detailed in the staff report, uh staff is recommending that council approve the record of land use action attachment B to reclassify the building as a category 2 resource uh to a category 3 resource on the historic inventory. Uh just noting again that this does differ from the historic resources board's uh

recommendation to re retain the existing listing as a category 2. uh staff is aligning with the facts on the record from that historic resource evaluation determination and attachment D. And with that I can entertain any questions and the applicant does have a brief presentation to provide as well. Want to mention that we invited the historic resources to there is also no member of the historic resources board present at this meeting as well. Did you say no? There is no member unless there's one online. So,

okay. Uh let's go ahead and get the applicant presentation so we can get the whole picture.

Good afternoon. Uh good evening, I guess. Thank you for being here this late evening to listen to our request for a recategorization of um of our property of 1680 Bryant Street from category 2 to category 3. Um I'm Steve Allen. I'm with Stanton Architecture. Just like to describe a little bit more about the original building um and then what is the building in its current state and how much has been demolished. Here you go. Um here we have a photograph of the lol street facade um of the front of the building. Um here we see a lot of the original prairie style elements um and the intent from the original architect. We have uh two large masses that are symmetrical around the center. The center shows a clear entry with entry awning in the middle with a connecting portion of the building. Um and on the right hand side as well we can see a a port koscher a goodsized port koscher in the building. Um you know we have strong symmetry. We have these twin masses a clear central entry and uh keeping in mind also this facade as the main facade is uh the main entry um proceeding from Lel Avenue. Um, and as we move on to the next slide, you'll see it has a Hshaped plan, and you can see just how much of the the original building has been demolished. Um, we have a a new property line running um up and down on this page. And the gray buildings are the the remaining structures, and what we see in red are the demolished structures. So, you know, not only is there extensive and permanent um changes to the building, but extensive demolition um of the vast majority of the building. We see the south wing on

the left hand side has been demolished. The main entry and and progression from the street has been demolished and the wings uh the connecting piece between the two masses are also demolished as well as the large port on the right hand side. Um, next slide. You've seen a portion of this slide already. On the left hand side is the 1924 Sandborn fire map. Um, on the right hand side is how it stands today. Um, you can see with the new property lines, there's also an easement at the lower portion of the image. Um, which as we look at it now is is pretty much unrecognizable from what it was before. The remaining lot is about a quarter the size of the original lot. Um the intent of the original H-shaped building being on a larger lot um I think is part of the intent of the building with a large rear yard and a sideyard. Um as well as what the remaining building is just really a rectangular plan. So very different from the original architect's intent. Next, uh here we see a a sidebyside of what the original building was and where it currently stands. Um in the upper image we show the the two twin symmetrical portions of the building in the entry facing L Street. Um Low Street is also what is still considered by the planning department to be the front-facing portion of the building. Um and then on the right hand side you can see the large roof that was the port kosher. In the lower image you see it how it is today. Um much smaller just a rectangular shape. No port kosher and you could see on the right hand side of the image there is an existing garage which is also considered category 2. Next

here we see where the port kosher would have been would have been much larger mass on the property. Um and wanted to describe also the location of the the garage is currently you know uh 16 to 18 ft over the setback lines which we'll see next. Uh which also makes it very difficult because it's category 2. It also cannot be changed. So it it already violates setback lines and makes it very difficult to do anything with that. Next, this is a view of the l street facing facade. Again, this is still considered the front facade of the building by the planning department. And as you see, we have no entry on this facade. It also sets the depth of the setbacks. Um again, south portion of the building has been demolished. The connecting piece has demolished and there's no entry on this facade as well as the demolition of the porco share. This diagram shows the current condition with the much smaller lot. Um the existing building being shown in gray on the right hand actually the setback line is the black dash line. On the right hand side you see lull avenue which is still considered the front. There's a 20- foot front setback, a 20 foot rear setback and then on the Brian Street side there's a 16ft setback and the sideyards an 8ft setback uh which really limits sort of anything we can do with the existing building. We can see on the right hand side that blue hatched box is an area that cannot be built. Um because it's category 2, you're not allowed to sort of block the view of the building um from the front side. So nothing can be done in this area. No, no additions, no ADUs can be done in this area. Uh the only remaining area that could be built upon is this green hatched area to the left. Um but that pretty much covers the entire uh location of any usable

backyard as every other portion is much smaller. Um highlighted in red, we have the existing garage, which here you can easily see how much it violates the setback lines. It's pretty much right on the property line. So, we can't really modify or do anything with this building. It's also category 2, so we cannot touch it. On the south side of the building, we see a red smaller red block there. It's the location of where there has been an inappropriate addition on the building. This is where the building used to have a connection to the other mass and now it's been infilled with glass block and then did have a porch on top of it, which has since been infilled with another bathroom renovation. So again, some inappropriate additions onto this existing building. Next, here's just a few views of the interior of the building. Um, it's in bad need of some updating, but just to show, you know, it's it's has been cut up a lot and loss of the other portion of the building really limits the size of the spaces. Next, this is a view of the second floor. There is an occupiable roof on the second floor. However, uh it's it's sort of unusable as the two different locations of doors go out on the roof. The head height clearance of this roof is about 5'6. So, it really creates a hazard. So, with the category 2 designation, we still can't modify the roof. The hazard has to stay. We can't raise the roof. We can't modify a portion of it. So, that's not a a head hazard as you go out. And again, here's the LOL facing facade. Again, it's still determined to be the front facade of the building. Um, although there's no entry here. Um, and then on, as you can see on the left hand side, you can sort of see the the inappropriate addition that's put on the

back of the building, which we'll see in the next slide. Here, the view from the backyard. We can see the inappropriate glass block which was not original. Um it was put into infill where there used to be a connection to the other other larger building. Um the upper portion there there was previously a porch there that has since been infilled and inappropriate addition of a a bathroom on top of that. Uh the black line indicates the location of the setback as well. So where um the building currently is very close to the rear uh rear fence. Um you know what what we're asking for is is really to be categorized correctly under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Um we're requesting to reclassify from a category from a category 2 to a cate category 3. Category two is defined as a major building and may have some extra modifications, but the original character is retained. Category 3 or four is defined as a contributing building that may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details. Um, we think it's sort of undeniable that this building has had very extensive and permanent changes to the original building. I I find it difficult to believe that the architect would look at this building and say it it matches his original intent. And going back to recap again, just showing the extent of the demolition of the original building. Um, again, it's over 60% of the original foot of print of the building has been demolished. And on the last slide, just again reiterating the difficulties of this site and how it's very restrained by the category 2 and that we really can't do

anything to the building and its current state um watategorization. And with that, I think George Hollstead wanted to say a few words on behalf of the ownership. Thank you, Steve. Hi, I'm George Hollstead. I'm here representing the ownership family. And I just want to make a few quick points that this is owned by a family that lives here, invests here, and feels strongly about keeping the neighborhood in its good composition. This is a well-intentioned attempt to take this home that was purchased in 2014 and um because of some family changes, was never moved into, but uh keep it in the housing stock here. Nobody has lived here really since 2014 and 2019. We made an attempt to rent the home for basically the cost of the property taxes plus, you know, not even enough to cover anything close to the considerable um expense required to make it into a nice place to live and really habitable. And we're unable to do that. Um we reduced the rent again, we're unable to do it and it's been sitting vacant since then. So, you know, we're really trying to make an earnest attempt here to fix this home in a way that we can put it back into the housing stock of the city. And then with regard to um you know, I I understand it's probably um different for us to ask you to vote differently than the historic review board did. And I want to point out that it was a procedural mistake on our part to not be in the room representing ourselves there because I think there is misunderstanding about why it is that we want to do that and that's why we're here tonight and hopefully you can see our side and how we want to make the community better. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Thank you. Is there any public comment? There are no requests to speak and no hands are raised for action item 25.

Okay. Then back to the dis for council member comments. I think council member Lou was first. Yes. I'll just make a couple of initial comments. First of all, as a quasi judicial item, I did uh both uh as a liaison to the HRB hear this the first time, but I also subsequently uh met with the representative George Alstead I believe uh during uh my office hours. Um I don't think there was anything substantive uh on the record that I otherwise heard. Um uh during the office hours, the applicant basically raised a variety of concerns about the livability of the current uh current building and how uh the renovate sort of an unclear set of potential renovations uh would be prohibitively difficult. Um uh I'll just uh add a little bit of color as well to the record so far about the HRB. The HRB really did love this building even in its uh really altered state. Just to see an example of a prairie modern style home at that era all the way out in Palo Alto felt remarkable and uh uh the prominence of the way it's on Bryant in the bike boulevard uh uh that that was all really deeply collectively appreciated. um there was not a record about what the applicant actually wanted beyond the staff recommendation at that time. So it is true that there was not that much else or another side of a

story to go off of at that meeting. Um and uh I mean I do believe the staff recommendation is fair that based on the rules and sort of predictability that we have actually written into our own definitions that we no longer meet the criteria for category 2 property on this site. Um and personally I find that uh to be fundamentally persuasive that we need write down clear rules and so we should respect um clear rules. Okay. Thank you. Also are there any other u disclosures relative to quasi judicial start at that end? No. No.

No. No for me. Vice mayor. No council Bert. No. Okay. Okay, now you council member Bird is on.

Um, so I just wanted to um confirm what's in the staff analysis that said um the HRB voted to retain the property's category 2 designation and its rationale was based on concerns that the property would otherwise lose historic protections, etc. Um but uh did the the HRB did not disagree with the the basis for the recategorization but merely the the concern that they valued the building in its condition. We had one uh member uh the former chair that of the HRB that dissented from the majority opinion of retaining the classification. But as for a collective uh of the members that voted uh the three in favor of retaining, not all were in agreement of the designation. believe that there was discussion as potentially upgrading the property in the um to a category one uh by one member and the other member uh was uh aligning the other two members should I say aligning with what's detailed in the staff report. So it was in a full swing of everyone in agreement

but on the the basis of the the technical requirements of the standard uh what I read in the staff report is that they their their objections to the reclassification were not based really on the technical requirements but rather their how much they value the building. That would be a fair statement.

Okay. Um, well, I I value this uh structure as well. I ride my bike past it almost every day and have always enjoyed it. Had never realized that it was really it's the um the right side of what was formerly a single structure that was um on um the adjacent street. Um, but I as as much as um I personally like the building and I appreciate a lot of the work that HRB does, I'm really concerned that we've received a recommendation not based on their objective determination of whether something complies with the standards or not, but on their own value structure and whether we ought to change the standards. and if they want to make a recommendation to the council that we change standards uh and and make that case then that's that's within their proper role. Um but uh I I regretfully feel like a need to admonish the HRB that we expect them to do as their own objective interpretation of compliance with existing standards and not to um uh impose um values that are outside of that. And our normal um uh established practice when we have such issues with boards and commissions is for the mayor to take a lead role with the chair of the border commission. And I'd like to encourage that to happen and and uh convey those concerns.

Sometimes that's inclusive also of the liaison to the particular board. I'd be fine. Just we we I think we need to give this feedback. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Stone. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to kind of trying to understand kind of how we got to this point because the full structure was classified as a category 2 in 1979. Correct. Correct. So, when the 275 L Avenue portion of the property was demolished in 1997, was there a decision then to remove that portion of the property out of the historic registry?

No. Okay. So, would that have made the demolition then an illegal demolition because it was a category 2? The home constructed at 275 LOL Avenue uh was permitted by the city. So, um and the subsequent say demolishing of the the structure or the 2/3 portion. So, um I don't believe that probably would be a fair statement that it would be an illegal demolition, but because it received the proper permits.

So, we we try to answer this question as well to understand the sort of the history and the record doesn't provide any um information that's useful in this regard. All we can state is it was there, it was designated, it was demolished, it was subdivided. That's the sequence of history that we have. Okay. But the city allowed for the demolition of that category 2 property. Permits were issued for the demolition.

Okay. Well, that's 1997's problem. So, um, yeah. I mean, I I think Okay. I I agree with kind of Council Member Bird of where we're at. I I I like the property. I think it's I think it's historically significant, but within our within our standards and I think I was a little more concerned about some precedent setting had then it not been approved by the by the city back in 1997 to be able to do so. Um maybe we can admonish that planning director. Um but yeah, then I'll I support the applicant's request. Okay, I'm going to jump in a couple quick questions. Um, so with the the move to category three, what are we what is the applicant allowed to do or constrain from doing? I mean, even down to the details of like do they have to match the filigree and so on that's there or what what's the status there?

Sure. So, a category one and category 2 structure is subject to historic uh review uh per our ordinance. Um, likely that's elevated up to the historic resources board for their weigh in. Um, and that looks like say getting either a historic preservation consultant to review architectural plans uh to as you were describing ensure that say significant integrity of the structures maintained whether that's um materials um details design elements. a category three and four structure on our inventory. What's classified as say a contributing structure would be afforded some more flexibility. Uh it is not subject to historic review, but it does get afforded some uh incentives, if you will, in the zoning code for either allowances for um home improvement exceptions, some uh bonus floor area, some of those items that are pretty limited in in the zoning code, but um they are offered as uh incentives.

Okay, let me give you an example. So, in the areas that would I think it was the Green Hatch area that would now be considered buh buildable, if somebody put um an addition on there that in light of earlier conversations was a Frank Giri add-on to this building, uh would that be allowed because it's completely distinct from anything else that's sitting there? Well, uh teeing up a a nice uh example there. Let's see. So if we're talking about just general development um and whether the involvement of say squa um a one-story addition on a structure would be subject to a building permit. So that would be uh a situation more just about design match.

I I think that probably would be an inappropriate addition to the architectural style of the structure but uh the city would not be in a position to really condition the project at uh one story. So it would just be subject to a building permit. What about ARB?

Yeah. So again, it it depends on whether it's a discretionary action or a ministerial action. And the way our code is drafted, um a one-story edition would be ministerial. And so that example that you described could be allowed. We we would permit that um example um at the you know through our building department. Um there are notably uh less protections afforded to category 3 and four structures in our code. And uh correct me if I'm wrong about this, but demolition is is a uh possible future for this uh structure as well with this design for the whole site. Yes, demolition of the entire structure.

Okay. Uh just as a footnote, I thought the reports that you came in that came in were fascinating. I read all the reports from was it Turnville and everyone else and uh and and right on point, but um yeah, given that twothirds of the structure is gone, um I I kind of find it hard not to not to uh I don't find it hard to support the motion or to support the staff report. Let's see others. Uh Council Lith,

Mr. Mayor, I just want to add my u voice to the chorus of support for the motion. Um this seems by definition to be a category 3 home given what has happened to it over the years. And um there doesn't seem to be any justification for cramming it into the category 2. Um, I also as a matter of public policy and kind of serving the community, I just find it very compelling that the applicant, the owner wants to do something with this house and have people live in it. And Lord knows we need housing, not structures pretending to be housing. So, I I intend to support the motion. I'm happy to make it myself unless other people are still

Governor Vice May wanted to make a comment.

Okay. Ju just just really briefly. Um yeah, I mean this this uh looks like it was once a a beautiful amazing example of of the architecture um that was described and uh as is noted you know a lot of it's gone. So, it's it's frustrating to see um you know that it did arrive to our desks in this posture uh where it looks like um you know our own rules were not uh followed as we might expect. And but what I would what I wanted to to say was that I wanted to appreciate and compliment applicants um on your demeanor tonight and patience with this process because we often get people coming here somehow think we're going to be more persuaded when they yell at us and you know it is it is rare that when people understand that you know there are processes and they can go sideways for a variety of reasons and um I just wanted to uh notice and appreciate your demeanor and respect toward us. It it is appreciated. Um but with that, I do support the staff recommendation and I can defer back to you, council member. Okay. Well, so I will I will move the staff recommendation if you'd care to second. I move the staff second.

Okay. Any other comments? If not, let's go to a vote. Madame clerk. Council member Bert. Yes. Council member Stone. Yes. Council member Lou. Yes. Council member Lithcott Hmes. Yes. Council member Rectal. Yes. Mayor Lowing. Yes. Vice Mayor Vinker. Yes. Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you very much. Thanks to both staff and the applicant for uh getting this in order. We now proceed to item number 26 only. Item 26 uh but the last time on the agenda for the uh preferred alternative that is a continued item from uh last week and we'll have a consultant representation. Uh, and as we discussed last week, there's there's no additional of a comment tonight.

Staff is on their way downstairs. Coming downstairs. I thought maybe they were all on uh Zoom tonight.

I'm not going to go back and remember Here come our tired heroes who worked all weekend on this.

All right, Mr. Mayor. Last big item.

You get to gabble again though in January. Start Yes, we are we are back on time on the schedule. So, you can go on for hours if you need to, I guess. That's the You can't hear.

Who's starting? Is it Ripen? Yes. Good evening, honorable me, members of the council. Ripen Batia, senior engineer with Office of Transportation. So tonight, just before you start, we have to have a rec recusal again. Yes. Okay. Yes, my house is still 500 ft away from the intersection. Yes, it hasn't. I measured it this morning. It hasn't moved. It's a better way. So, I

Yeah. So, I will recuse myself from this item. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. You want to start?

Yes. All right. Sorry for the delay. Uh good good evening honorable mayor, members of the council. Lipen Batia, senior engineer with office of transportation. So tonight we are continuing this item from December 10th uh about great separation uh at Churchill Meadow and Charleston. uh at that uh and tonight with me uh supporting us in this presentation is Ria uh our chief transportation official and uh team Cal team uh Chill Gibson to my right and Edgar Torres and also online Whitney DJ and Tomaso and Navidid Dali in the audience as well. Next slide please. So we like to seek uh council direction on the alternatives to advance to the 15% and uh this is a continuation meeting from the December 10th and therefore we were um we are going to be responding to some of the questions that came up during the council meeting and uh regarding the traffic studies uh uh traffic analysis before u next slide. So at this time um Ria will be um uh I'm handing over it over to Ria.

So on the 10th of December um council members requested some more data on the traffic analysis as well as expressing a desire for the data to be completely accurate. So I'd like to tackle the second part of that which is kind of appropriate uh expectations for what uh traffic models can do. Um oh so this is I guess this is the PDF version. Um so standardized traffic analysis is done via a four-step model. Can you go back? Is done via a four-step model which simulates various types of trips uh like homebased work trips. Um and in the model it has four steps. So the first step step is trip generation uh which estimates the number of trips based on forecasts of trip producers like homes and trip attractors like jobs and based on the average rate of trips generated for each transportation analysis zone. The second step calculates the trip distribution to and from each uh zone based on those quantities and then the distance time or impedance between um each of those zones. The third step is mode choice where trips are allocated to motorized modes uh based on the average mode split, relative travel time uh by mode and features like express lanes and uh paid parking. And then the fourth step assigns all of these trips to the street network using um some software like Synchro and SIM traffic. Um and so the results uh are then represented on a scale from A to F um for automobile level of of of service.

Uh one P public commenter last week compared these grades to school grades which we would not recommend that you kind of absorb the data in that way. uh the community may have other goals for their city. So a street that performs well and gets an level of service a um for uh for automobiles may not perform well for user safety which is one of the key goals of this project or economic vitality. So it's traffic is just one element that needs to be considered. Also, the cost of providing enough capacity to achieve a level of service A or B is often not um a good use of public resources or an efficient use of public resources. So, it's not like you're always like A is better than C. Often C is, you know, uh better in other ways. So, the four-step model is a standard process in the US and it's helpful for simulating uh traffic delay. Um if we can go to the next slide. There we go. Um but at best it's a forecast and like a weather forecast. It's not uh a deterministic uh exercise. It's a forecast based on inputs and the input in inputs are all best guessed approximations. So we can only be so accurate with this. Also the assumptions typically reflect some version of business as usual or an expansion of business as usual. So if there are policy choices being considered then that you know is not well reflected in in our typical traffic models. A more critical perspective is that the standard models have known flaws. Uh when the US was building out its highways um the um uh the you know and our our discipline of transportation engineering

and transportation planning emerged. We borrowed wastewater engineers to help us with thinking this through. Wastewater engineers had been very successful in solving a prior public health crisis by building out a network of um of sewers um to you know transport waste away from houses. And so this um mental model of traffic units as water molecules is embedded in our system in our models and you can you can see that in the language of flow capacity um volumes and also the mechanics of the models the gravity flow the network analysis. The model is really helpful but it's incomplete. Uh vehicles are not inanimate um units that naturally flow through through a network. They're tools that are controlled by people and people driving the vehicles make choices. They respond to their environment and their environment is shaped by decision makers, by agencies, by cities. So some researchers have suggested that maybe perhaps a a more appropriate mental model could be uh traffic as a gas that expands to fill the space that it's given rather than a liquid that flows through a network. And this has been borne out over three decades of research on induced travel demand. I was actually involved in some of the research that happened in Berkeley with Robert Seo. So induced travel demand um is the causal relationship between transportation capacity expansion and an increase in traffic volume after controlling for population growth and other factors. Um so the economic um explanation for this phenomena if we can go to the next slide is uh can be kind of thought of in terms of supply and demand curves and you can kind of flick through this a little bit. So goods in the market have an

equilibrium point where supply meets demand. And um so for example here if you if it takes a lot longer um to travel somewhere um or if it if it the travel time is shorter then then you tend to have more flow. That's it's kind of like a cost of a good and then also um as you get more flow however like on a freeway for example uh the travel time goes up. So that's our supply and demand curves and if you can keep on moving through there. So and there's a point at which the market has like an equilibrium point. So in terms of so this kind of is a way of thinking through this when we expand the capacity of a facility that we get some travel time benefits that's effectively lowering the cost for users which increases the consumer demand and then the market kind of finds a new equilibrium based on that kind of demand curve. Um and that's with some short-term short-term changes like changing your travel time and um and changing mode. Over the long term people uh long term people may also invest differently. They may decide to move further away from where they work. And so there's also induced investment here as well. And so you end up with kind of a similar in a similar situation to where you started. and um the roads fill up faster than they would have otherwise as a result of the capacity expansion. So we have very sophisticated models for analyzing traffic um that are useful for sim simulating conditions under assumed and forecasted conditions. But we need appropriate expectations for their accuracy and their utility. An over reliance on our standard models um is associated with a predict and provide kind of approach where we're trying to build our way out of traffic congestion

by widening roads and expanding capacity. Um, so standard models that are based on the mental model of traffic as a water provide decent forecast but don't do a good job of capturing induced demand or forecasting conditions where there's a change in behavior or policy. And it's important to remember um that there are a number of human choices and policy decisions uh that affect the volume of traffic including the density of um land uses, diversity of land uses, the design of like urban design um the transit that allows us to access destinations throughout the region and demand management strategies. And with that extensive caveat, um, project manager Taus will present the requested traffic, uh, analysis results.

Good evening, city council. Editor Torres, on behalf of the integrated project, uh, delivery team. Um, a few items that I'll be presenting in response to your questions um, from last Wednesday. Uh, uh, please be aware that there are some updated numbers that will be reflected in in the slides in tonight's presentation and that can be uh, provided to you um, as well. Also, there's a slide update from the deck uh from this morning. First, um there were questions with regards to the overall network delay and what that means in terms of the total time cars are stopped or at least how much time all users or all cars are stopped uh within the network. And you'll see on the right hand side um the network that was evaluated as part of the traffic analysis. So num item number two or circle number two is the intersection of Meadow and Alma Street with the rail crossing. Intersection number three is Charleston Road. Uh and then finally some of the upstream and downstream intersections from those two points to be able to understand again how those two uh crossings influence um the network at large. The other pieces of information that are within your packet and we will be with regards to response to your questions. last Wednesday is the approach delay. In other words, when you're coming up to the intersection, the anticipated delay for that, how that affects travel time uh for the users, and finally, how much Q, in other words, how many cars are stacked up from the intersection. Uh so that information is also in your packet. Um, one key big picture item that I I want to be able to at least um frame for for this uh for this body is that there is a trade-off. You will see in the numbers that the uh underpasses do have uh a substantive reduction in delay

as a network that comes at a trade-off with the ability to make certain movements. And so there are going to be some users that benefit very well and some users that do not. And that is an intrinsic nature with these types of alternatives. The second uh is that uh the work is not necessarily done but there's uh with regards to each of these alternatives there's still refinement that can occur and so it is a work in progress in terms of the iteration and that's okay. This is the information that we have at hand. it's solid information that that can be used for decision uh given the state of the project that we're at the status of the project. So with that um I wanted to give some brief information with regards to travel times. This is again council member stone your question last Wednesday regarding the out ofdirection travel times. want to give some quick context that the travel times for vehicles was calculated using the a common uh sort of A and B point A and point B travel points essentially an adjacent intersection we're not analyzing everyone's travel path just a common travel path or the intersection and then the average or typical delay experienced at that signalized intersection along that path for cyclists we calculated that time uh considers the distance of the path as well as the the travel speed by that mode. So cyclists are typically cycling somewhere between say 8 miles per hour and 15 miles per hour. And so we take that into consideration in terms of uh the travel time for cyclists. Now if you bear with me, I'm going to uh skip to a few slides. I'm going to go directly uh to uh the comparison for Charleston. So my apologies for um scrolling through those. in this comparison table to back to your question uh council member Stone with regards to out of direction movements

and the comparison of travel time. And so on the screen you'll see AM and PM peak hours. So and then there's three movements that were evaluated. The eastbound to northbound. So you're going eastbound on Charleston Road and making a left onto northbound Alma. The second movement is the northbound Alma to westbound uh Charleston. Okay, so going north along Alma and then making a left onto Charleston. The third is southbound on Alma, making a right turn onto westbound Charleston. So if you visualize yourself along Alma, you're driving south, you're about to make a right turn to cross the tracks or where the tracks would have been w when the separation occurs. All right. So, in these movements for Charleston Road, there are two key things to um to acknowledge. One is that in the eastbound to northbound, so this is the uh going from uh Charleston to northbound Alma, there is an increase in travel times in all three of the alternatives. Now, for different reasons. First, for the hybrid, the reason there's a slight increase in travel time is that when the separation occurs, there is likely a retiming of the signals. You re essentially look for opportunities to reoptimize uh the signal operations. Well, in this case, because the demand is so high on Alma Street, specifically um northbound in the morning and southbound in the afternoon, that leads to essentially a little bit more delay occurring on the cross street because you're looking to serve the higher demand along Alma Street. So that's the at least that modest increase on the hybrid. There is a more substantive increase for the underpasses for both the roundabout and the direct access ramp due to the out of

direction travel at least in the eastbound to northbound. Now I'm going to show the northbound to westbound next. In this case you can see the distinction while hybrid is less time substantively less than the existing. You see the underpass with the roundabout at least for that northbound to westbound movement has an increase in travel time going through the roundabout. So northbound on Alma making a right turn going around the roundabout coming down underneath Charleston till the common point of Milky uh Milky Way in the underpass direct access ramp. You see that that travel time is substitutely reduced to 65 seconds. In this case, it's because that direct access ramp bypasses the out of direction travel, goes directly to an intersection down below with Charleston and then an easy left turn to be able to go to westbound Charleston. So, I wanted to be able to at least uh frame for you how the roundabout at least for those movements uh show an increase in travel time. Now overall um it is a reduction and I'll show what that network benefit is but for those particular out ofdirection movements it's a it's a an increase in travel time for them.

Just a definition is travel time including stop time.

Yes. Okay. Yes it is. So it would be uh simply from going in the case of say northbound to westbound from Ellie or Eli to uh Wilky Way. So those were the common points to be able to at least provide a comparison. The same thing occurs in the full buildout uh comparable um conditions in which uh the underpass uh has increased uh movement delay compared to the hybrid because the hybrid again is able to allow for all movements versus the underpass restricts these uh particular movements as shown on the screen. Any followup, Council Member St. I want to make sure I addressed your question head on here with regards to the added add out of direction movement.

No, you are. I'm I'm trying to digest, but this is helpful. I appreciate we're getting closer to apples to apples. Um, with regards to the um, consolidated travel time impact from council member Lou, your question last Wednesday was the commul cumulative uh, system benefit. So for this, I'm going to go to a different slide. Apologize for going back and forth. In this case, we're going to use delay or cumulative delay as an approximation of the the differences between the alternatives. And so for each the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour, I'm going to use the second and the fourth row. And I think you can see my cursor. Um, so in there you'll see that for Meadow and Charleston and in those all those intersections that I showed in the exhibit on the right hand side in the existing condition in the AM peak hour, there's 115 hours of delay across all those intersections cumulative. So if you add up all of the stop time and delay for each of the cars and add it up into one number it comes out to approximately 115 hours in the hybrid condition that is reduced to 75 hours for the network. In the underpass that is further reduced to 30 hours in the network. So there is a substantive improvement in delay for the network as a whole between hybrid and underpass for cyclists. As we look at the cycle uh cycle time again uh as brought up by uh council member Lou uh these numbers on the screen uh show the travel time in seconds. again similar to in terms of path for cyclist between common points. Now in all almost all cases um it's an increase in travel time for cyclists.

This is for a number of reasons that could be signal retiming. It could be out of direction travel. I'll just show one slide here. uh where in the meadow underpass you can see a cyclist going along Park Boulevard going onto the um bridge or multi-use path via the bridge and then continuing to East Meadow uh to the south. This could be for example a student that's looking to go to a JLS along Meadow Drive. So in this case uh in that um southbound to say eastbound movement uh there is an increase in travel time for for those users um in in in both alternatives. The there are very few cases uh in the case of in this case the hybrid alternative uh that shows a reduction in travel time uh for those cyclists. Now, keep in mind these are I'm going to call these snapshots or slivers with different lenses. And this is in response to your direct questions. And so we we can step back and provide a wider lens as necessary, but wanted to be able to directly respond to the questions that were asked last Wednesday. And that uh does conclude at least response to questions if there are any others. Um, I had another sort of definitional question la last week and now you're showing 25 and 40. Obviously, we're not going to build anything. We're not the hybrid is not going to be up in 25. So, are you using sort of real projections for 2040, not really just a 15-year gap?

So, what we do? Yeah. Yeah. So what the intention is to use the 2025 volume is what essentially the public is experiencing today, right? Uh for that 2025 scenarios that's if you were to automatically snap your fingers and the great separations happen, what could that look like, right?

Um and then the 2040 is a buildout scenario. So that is understanding that there's um uh going to be new housing within the city, new employment, some of the projections that were utilized by the county and the city to be able to then estimate uh per uh Ria's presentation on what kind of demand could be seen. So that is the buildout with uh the community buildout as well. Yeah. So it's it's real real projected data to use your your

Okay, good. That's what I thought. But But if council member Stone wants any other of the layers um to help understand. So I thought I saw on um on the one of the slides you showed regarding the the travel time a no build. Oh, sorry that slide that's up. Yeah. Does that I guess I'm that means if we do if we do nothing in 20 240 correct

and we're better at least for cycling there's opportunities to be able So that's Can you go to the to the vehic to the vehicle one? Yes. For Charleston. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. And the and the number is seconds of travel time. 60. Yeah. Or number of seconds. Yeah. I guess I'm just surprised in certain scenarios it gets it's better to not build

like eastbound to northbound 20 240 the no build option is better than that would only be for those particular movements which is why um we do show the context of the overall network benefit

and then that was helpful. So when you look at the overall network benefit, you can see that the all the alternatives have an improvement in the overall network benefit. And so what you're what we saw what we showed you was the out of direction movements. So it's it's in many ways just picking out only pieces small pieces of data. This aggregates it and summarizes it as a whole for the network. So instead of 12 movements being presented in that slide, it's three the out of direction movements. That was the followup to the question.

Okay. Yeah. No, this is really helpful. I appreciate you putting this together in such a short amount of time. Council member Root. Um, thank you. I first I just want to make sure I'm understanding uh for instance on slide 27 where we're using the term southbound and northbound which direction is being referred to because our overall concept of that is different from the the true north and south. Yes. So in this case it is um southbound is essentially along Alma uh and northbound along Alma and then the cross streets are east west.

Okay. So kind of following the Cal Train line or the El Camino. Yeah. So fine. That that's kind of our natural sense. Um but I'm not where where are these bike trips that you're referring to? What roadway are they going on? Yeah. So, in in those trips, if it's referring to uh southbound for the cyclist, it's the common point is Park Boulevard uh going south on Paco Boulevard from the north side of Charleston and then trying to get to uh the east side of the tracks to uh Right Place and continuing further east. Um in the So then

I'm sorry. Southbound to northbound is going Park. Oh, I southbound and northbound would be southbound on Park and then coming back up northbound on Alma Street. Northbound on Alma. Yeah, that would be slide uh 29. But we don't ride on Alma. That there there is an access point that's if it could be a road cyclist or it could be a pedestrian.

Okay. And the route that we really have on Charleston that is the heavy biking is what we would call um east to west in the morning and west to east in the afternoon. Uh but I'm I'm Can you point to me? Am I missing where that is? The the common one would be the the second one. Um, sorry, the westbound to northbound would be a good approximation for that travel time. Westbound to northbound, but

correct. It would be a through movement. Yes, there would not be a right turn, but we our our bike commute in the morning is uh heavily gun students going westbound across the tracks. And I'm trying to figure out which of these captures that

the the one on the screen right now uh which shows an approximation of coming to a common point at Park Boulevard. Uh so that is a a westbound uh approach. It that the actually that should be showing just straight across. There shouldn't be any switch backgrounds. My apologies. Uh Council Member Bird. Um we'll go ahead and and provide that information as well. Just a direct across So if I take it this one. So in this case if I were to draw it quickly uh this one is actually showing this. It's not showing the switch back ramp. I need to choose a different color. But I don't see a westbound in the morning, just westbound, which is the predominant flow of bike traffic.

So maybe I could suggest something. So I think that the uh northbound portion is would be equivalent in each of the options. So, it is kind of the same thing, but it just has that northbound portion for this. If I were to It's the same subtraction from each of them, but that says southbound to northbound. Um,

yeah. I'm I'm still confused what is meant by southbound to northbound and how that equates um westbound. That's really what we're doing in the morning and eastbound in the afternoon. Those are the primary bike flows. So on the screen I and I apologize there's a the the golly the pointer going to hide the ink the the the this uh particular calculation shows it going straight across going to a common point at Park Boulevard in Charleston. Now, if if we were to just jog this leg over, it would still be a common point on on Charleston uh for those cyclists coming uh coming across. I guess the cyclist would go from this point, join the road, and then be able to go into the bike lane further to the west.

And which one is that on the graph on page? On the graph, that would be the that would be the third one, which would be uh the westbound to northbound. Okay. And in that case, that is an improvement um for cyclists on Charleston Road. So across I mean we can leave off the northbound because that's actually not the main what bikers are for the most part doing. It's westbound that we're focusing on.

And in the so in the PM I can just focus on eastbound. Huh. That's really the flow. Okay. All right. That helps. Um and then the other thing I was trying to understand was on the um table um uh on page 19 and comparing that to what we had previously on this graphic. Um, and if I'm reading it correctly, uh, this looks like it's really some different numbers. Uh, and but maybe I'm misunderstanding it that and not only are the numbers different, but the conclusion is different. Whereas the on this one, the hybrid um or excuse me, the underpass was generally showing significantly um less delay and now we're looking at travel time and is that perhaps the explanation?

Yeah. So that's a great point that because it's different presentation of the data in from different lenses. So the this on on slide 19 is uh strictly focused on the redirected movements. So in other words, if a movement went from being able to make a straight turn, uh it is being redirected. So in the case of the roundabout, the northbound to westbound had to be redirected through there. The same thing with the southbound to westbound had to be redirected. Um, and then the eastbound to to northbound was redirected. So those are the three movements that are here on the page that are redirected. So in this case, because they're being redirected and we were able to calculate with the the analysis for each intersection, we're able we do see at least an increase in travel time for the roundabouts for the underpasses for those particular movements. the what the recommendation is usually to combine slide 19 with slide um I believe it's 11 cor uh 10. So in slide 10 you see reflected there how the underpasses as a whole and as a system for the network perform much better which is now so now you you this is a very wide lens and then those are very focused lens.

Yeah. and and that I I really do appreciate that slide because as you and Ria stated, you know, in a network uh when we increase capacity, we not only we may induce overall or we may induce shifts from adjacent uh locations where in our case you know some of the things that Ria referred to on development patterns all that we don't have plans and in We have limits on our office growth in Stanford Research Park, which is our AM peak commute to that direction and PM peak commute from that direction. Um, but we do have new housing that we're going to have, which is a different traffic pattern from um from uh commuters to work. Um, so I'm less concerned on inducing um, commuter trips, but I am very interested in how things will get rebalanced if we if we had a a a improved flow at Charleston and we're not able to afford a grade separation at Meadow, then some of that Meadow traffic will bleed over to Charleston because people will say, "Dee, I'm less backed up at Charleston. I'm going to go that way. Um, so I I thank you for slide 10. That's the one I'm thinking about the most. Thanks,

Vice Mayor Baker.

Thank you. And I first want to say that I was grinning up here uh director low when you were doing your uh long qualification uh because I felt highly affirmed because as a chemist I have always looked at traffic when I'm driving as molecules and I could never decide whether they should be gaseous or liquid and now I know that the professionals are of mixed minds as well. So thank you for all that. But I will continue to see it that way as I drive through congested traffic. So, okay. Um, and with that, um, actually, I am very glad that I am following Council Member Bert because we're we're going to kind of get to the same place through slightly different um, ways. And so, this is actually fascinating to me. So, thank you for answering Council Member Stones and Council Member Lou's questions. This like last time, the presentations were terrific, uh, accessible to even those of us that are really catching up here. Um but before just now um I had last week's slides and I was really reflecting um on the conversation about why are we doing this and really you know this reduction of traffic and so you know focused in on the two grids the uh primary sorry preliminary intersection traffic results with the uh level of service charts and was looking at uh each of these two intersections to see well well what type of progress are we making with these charts with these different solutions

and um I I don't have a little whiteboard so you may have to bear with some of my little math here on paper as I was trying to educate myself but so I was looking at you I started with the meadow intersection and was looking at the um you know where we are now in 2025 and start let's start with the PM they're just going to focus on the afternoon peak hours just for although I did it with the AM ones too but I'll just I'll stick with the PM ones. So if we start with this 62.6 6 uh seconds uh delay. And then uh for the hybrid, if we go down to 49.8, it's a 12.8 second delta. So um made a little faster, but it's not so great, especially when you look at the uh underpass going from 62.6 to 12.5 and the delta is 50.1 seconds. So that's a four times increase. We're not talking 10% 50% twice as much. It's like a four times increase in time saved. So in what progress we make. So then I took a look at the Charleston intersection and again I'm obviously looking at 2040 data. And I started with the 106.4 second delay in 2025. And for the hybrid we only get that down a little bit only 5 seconds off. for the under underpass. For the roundabout, we get all the way down to 14.6 for a 91.8 second um gain or reduction in weight. And for the ramp, depending on which one of those two, it's either 91.2 or 98.7, but all of those, you know, we're comparing a 5-second gain to somewhere in the '9s.

So it's like a almost like 18 times uh improved an improvement. So that was pretty striking to me. And so then I began to think, well, if we did the hybrid even at at both intersections. So then now I'm adding up my 12.8 improvement for the hybrid at Meadow and the 5-second improvement for the hybrid at Charleston and I say it's 18 seconds more. So, if we did both hybrids, it'd be 18 seconds more. And I know it doesn't work exactly like that because of your network chart you taught us about tonight. Um, but I had what I had. So, that's that's kind of where I'm starting. Orders of magnitude. Um, so then I thought, okay, so I made another chart. And so now I've got all my little deltas. So I've got for the both hybrids 18 seconds, for the underpass at Meadow 50 seconds, and the other underpasses in the 90s. All right. And then I thought, okay, so why? Well, I thought, why are we looking at doing two underpasses if any one underpass can do multiples of what the hi what both hybrids do? So, or at least why are we looking at doing them right at one at once? Like why don't we see what kind of gain we can get with one underpass? and because it looks like it's going to be substantially more than the hybrid and then figure out if we need another just pause perhaps. But that would of course cause us to choose between the two underpasses. So then I looked at acquisitions and you know for the hybrid as we know there's no full acquisitions and uh three partials if we were to do both. Um, but if we did just Meadow,

there'd be two full and six partals, or just Charleston, either three or one full and 25 or 23 partials. So, I can't figure this all out tonight, but it seems to me we should consider I'd like to hear from my colleagues. We should consider whether the conversation ought to be, should we go to one underpass? Um, which is kind of where Council Member Bert was ending up a moment ago. Um, and you know, talk about, you know, because because it wouldn't we wouldn't have to do all the acquisitions at both intersections. So, you know, there'd be less acquisitions than if we did both, and it would be a lot more of a gain than if we did both hybrids. So, assuming I'm not way off, which you may be about to tell me I am, um, I I guess it's something that I would like to see us have a conversation about. So, are there things I've really messed up? I understand your network that well let me say I I bet one thing you're about to tell me is that the numbers will change a bit if you're just doing one intersection right and so they won't be as big perhaps of a gain or they'll change in some way but there's such a delta so anyway I'll stop talking and let you reflect on that in this case I I will go back to director Lowe's's uh slide on the recalibration or the new equilibrium So going to go back to that because this is this is what we would be looking at if if there was only one uh underpass. So what would likely see as as uh director low mentioned is that one location will see a substantial decrease in travel time in a particular movement. Not all movements but in a in a particular movement right or set of movements. And so that will attract and I that I can say with certain that

will attract users. It will you'll see a system reccalibration across and system rebalancing to a new equil equilibrium. But that's assuming the same demand profile. There will be a change in the demand profile and that's where this D3 comes into place. That's where you see a new equilibrium happening. So if only one were to be done, say for the sake of discussion, Charleston underpass, you will see a gravitation of traffic towards Charleston. That's a high likelihood. Now what does that mean for Meadow? We'd have to analyze that further. However, that's that's a likelihood is you'll see a recalibration of traffic.

Yeah, I'm actually counting on that, right? Because we don't want to live with to with the projected delays if we do nothing at either intersection. So, I'm counting on a shift. The question is if even if the numbers aren't as good at at at at both, if they're way better still for the under for the underpass and the the do nothing one than if we did hybrids at both, right? That's worth a conversation there. And it seems like given the sheer order of magnitude that would be likely, but I think you'd probably want to go back and think about that and give us some better data if there was interest in exploring that option. Is that fair? or do you think we have enough here?

I think that would be fair in terms of how to deliver the alternatives. In other words, once you've chosen to be able to advance 15% drawings, in fact, that analysis could occur concurrently with with the drawings. Um, I think if if that information would be if the council felt that it need was needed prior to making the decision on advancing to the 15% drawings, that would mean a change in the schedule. Um, and that would uh mean that we'd come back to the council at in a future meeting before we can proceed with 15% drawings. Well, I guess to decide that it might be helpful if you had an expert opinion on whether it would change, you know, within, you know, 5 10% of these numbers or there would be a reordering, a reshuffleling, which I would be surprised at, but I'm not an expert. Well, I I I I'm I'm not the traffic engineer that would be making a statement like that with um but what I can say is that there there would be a rebalancing for sure. What I can also say is that that rebalancing may not be small because if you look at for the sake of discussion the the delay at Meadow I don't have actually I'm going to go back to you the slide what was it slide 61 one.

Oh, sorry.

I'll stop. I know I'm over time, but I had to cut it, do I?

All right. So, what you can see is at least for for Meadow the that delay at least in the the PMP is about 62 seconds. if because the delay in um Alma Street would be substantially lower say for the sake of discussion that 14 seconds that you pointed out or the 15.2 two seconds there. There will be a shift towards that and it's not necessarily going to be small. I can't say exactly how much yet. Um I would want to confer with the traffic engineers. I I think with regards to uh and I I with regards to the direction seek which is whether to proceed with the 15% drawings with either alternative um I don't think it's going to substantively change the numbers but I can say that I can't guarantee how much or or state how much it is. Now I do think that it is worth um further analysis as it relates to implementation. So as to whether it's one crossing or two crossings uh that can be done as part of the subsequent work as the 15% drawings are completed.

Sure. One very last question and that is about the assumptions that went into the charts we got last time. The that one you have up there was that ass what was so here we're looking at Charleston. What was the assumption about what was happening at Meadow that the comparable improvement was occurring? So if it's a hybrid at Charleston, a hybrid at Meadow was being explored. if it was an underpass at Charleston, underpass at MEA was being explored.

And that's why if it were a 2x improvement, I might not be asking this question, but when you get up to 18x, it feels like even if we got rid anyway, I think you all get my point. But thank you so much. Appreciate it. Yeah, I was going to ask you an easy question and then a hard question. I think maybe they're both hard for me but uh uh but the first one is that philosophically I just wanted to sort of press you on with intersections that are that close I thought you were driving towards doing the same thing whatever it was at both Charleston and Meadow. So philosophically or is that where you are or not? Not necessarily.

Oh well I I I don't have an opinion as to whether it should be one or the other. I I can state that technically from a technical perspective we did explore the possibility of one being an underpass and the other being a hybrid. We wanted to see if that was possible physically and from a constructibility perspective. We can say that yes that is something that can be explored as an option for implementation. One being underpass and the other one being hybrid. Um now in terms of construction um when the two being underpasses is more challenging at times because one crossing has to be open. So effectively one underpass would have to be built opened and then the other underpass would then be built and then opened. That's to be able to make sure that there was a community connection uh in this area or this part of this community with the hybrids. There's a some complexity there as well. One would have to be open at all times. Um, and then there it's a shoefly complexity because the shoefly would have to span both locations even though one is closed and one is open. So that's that's the the trade-off there. Um so from a technical perspective you can build one Charleston oh sorry one uh as a underpass one as a a hybrid. The most complex to do is sequence in other words apart would be a hybrid at one and then the hybrid at the other because that's moving the track vertically twice. That is the the more challenging one. is it in it it's uh not only more challenging it it becomes more expensive um if they're both hybrid but say

implemented for the sake of discussion 15 years apart due to funding uh so I at least wanted to be able to provide that context those facts no I I was going to say if we if we what you just said if we did the underpass first and then did the hybrid that could be an advantage to us because of funding and doing it consecutively.

Yes. So that could be an advantage. Okay. Now I'm going to go to the hard question which actually was asked last week which is uh what do you think about going forward with both of these options to 15%. You were going to give that some consideration relative to schedule particularly bracketing costs for a minute because we feel I think we feel pretty committed to try to stay on this schedule and you're going to see what you can squeeze out. So in this case, the schedule we would anticipate there being some delay. Um we were hoping for midy year uh to be able to come back with 15 drawings with one alternative at each location. If we need to do another uh pair of alternatives um and it's not just the alternatives themselves, as I just mentioned, there's the combination of one being underpass and the other being hybrid. So when we when we're looking to get market pricing uh for these um we're not looking at just two alternatives per location. We're talking from a corridor perspective or a segment perspective um more many more variations. So that's that's the challenging part. I'll just just lay it out there um from the facts. And and would the delay you I know you don't know is it like a 90-day delay or a year delay or

um I would say it's likely to closer to 3 to 6 months. Not not I don't want to be precise only because we we're work planning as and the staff where does that put us on our grants? Uh so our federal FRA grant requires us to be completed by um October of 2027. We need to ask for the extension which we could likely get it but we have to go through amendment and extensions. It's the next grant that we have the timeline for that is constrained.

Well, it's just obviously which is why we brought up last week. we just get so much more information if we can push both both of these options just a little bit farther. So, and you know a related question there is that I had anyway but is do we think that by spending a little bit more time on the on both of them that we could also engineer some reductions in any of the partial takings? I mean you you might come up with that in either case, right? because we we rank that so high just in the criteria in the real committee. The the trade-off with regards to partial takings um can't sorry correction prop potential property acquisition my apologies. Um that will depend on two things. One is whether the um the geometry of the lanes themselves are further adjusted. That's not something we would typically do at 15%. Um and whether additional um use of Cal Train right away would be permitted. Now, please, one of the things that I'm I'm mindful of in terms of the implementation of a project of this sort is that we the purpose of the 15% drawings are to be able to establish a stable project description and project footprint for the environmental process. It is not intended to be the final decision on design or the final decision on components of the design. It's intended to typically to be conservative, thoughtful, reasonable, and the reasonably expected uh improvements. It is and mind you, it's not going to be the final set. I for these types of projects, there are many

changes between now and uh uh um drawings for construction. And so this is about being able to establish a footprint for the environmental process.

Okay? And if we did that then you could go back and study another alternative. I mean assuming there was money for it. Uh it depends on the alternative. In some cases the alternative may be a small variation or a a variation on an already considered alternative. So for example between the roundabout and the direct access ramp that would be considered an option or variation from an environmental perspective. Um however um hybrid and say or if you looked at a completely different alternative uh that would be a different a different proposition. Okay. Council member Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I just want to second what the what the vice mayor was was advocating for. or I mean I've been trying to do my own kind of real time math on the information presented and trying to better understand the delta between hybrid and the and underpass at the at the two crossings. You know, I mean overall I find the overall network delay on slide 10 very helpful, but that is that's treating the Meadow and Charleston kind of crossings as as the same and doesn't allow at least not showing us what happens if we do break it up with the hybrid at one, the underpass at the at the other. So then the only other data I really have is slide 17 and 19 as far as vehicle travel times, but that's only showing us two different movements and there's other movements. What is the the reason for these movements as opposed to being able to see others? cuz it looks like Meadow based on this information, the hybrid is definitely the better way to to go. And then for Charleston, the underpass with the direct access ramp is the better way to go. But then I also understand if we were to pick and choose and do a hybrided underpass, that's going to change the the traffic studies as as well. So, this is where I'm kind of stuck and where I I I like where the vice mayor was going about can we can we craft this in a way that just makes the most sense by really kind of

keeping our eye on the on the ultimate prize, which is the traffic reduction. But I'm I'm still struggling to be able to kind of make a decision.

Yeah. So in this case that that would be other slides that could provide additional context. Um so that would be you know in terms of you know the the approach delays or the um average cues.

Oh I apologize. Let me share my screen really quick. And again, these are snapshots. They're um in from a practical perspective, a grade separation is such a substantive change in the transportation network that it's going to lead even, you know, to the recalibration of these cues and these travel times. And there will be some winners in terms of movements and some losers, so to speak, right? Some people will see a substantive improvement and some will see, you know, a potentially increase in in travel time. Um, as a whole, you saw how all three of them did provide a network benefit. For the hybrid, it was half the amount of delay. For the underpass, it was further further reduced to approximately a quarter of the delay, if not less. And so if we're looking at for example uh as seen on the screen just how meadow's cues are performing um for certain movements you can see that there is an improvement across the board um in the cues if you look at and the same thing with regards to um you know the approach delays there are some that increase because of the recalibration of of signal timing. with the removal of the the rail crossing. I think what um the the question then is whether this information is is necessary to be able to um proceed with 15% drawings. In which case that would mean additional traffic analyses in delay in in the 15% drawings for a potential alternative or both alternatives are advanced to 15%

drawings concurrently while a traffic analysis is performed to maintain schedule. that would there would be a cost adjustment or budget adjustment uh necessary for that between preliminary engineering and these 15% drawings.

I think that's making the most sense to to me at this at this point. Um, I would like to see and I would I would like Yeah, I would like to see what's the sort of what's the the tradeoff by if we were to select under underpass and and that that hybrid model. Um, I I think there's definitely direction that I'd be comfortable with, but I don't see I really don't see much of a benefit to the to the roundabout on saving time. I mean, I think being able to now have this better understanding what it does to the entire system is how you're how you're phrasing it was really helpful. I mean, that made it much easier for me to to prefer the direct access ramp rather than the the roundabout, especially with the mitigation in in full acquisitions is a is a is a big plus. Um and it seems like but again it's kind of challenging to digest all of this this evening as far as then meadow. So what am I looking at here that the number is oh is seconds.

Yeah that's correct. That is the amount of delay by approach at the intersection. So the Oh, okay. But so this is not So this is the intersection itself. Correct. But now but not the fuller network. Correct. That's why mine it's specific to the Alma Street and Meadow Drive intersection. Yes. Okay. Which for me, I just don't find this as helpful as the vehicle travel time for the for the network.

Um Okay. Yeah, those are my thoughts. than on Church Hill, which we haven't even I mean, I'm definitely in favor of advancing 15% the the partial underpass there. This is my making sure I didn't miss anything. I think that's good for for now. Council member Bert.

Yeah. Um so this has really helped uh informed our next part of our discussion which is what what what's before us tonight. And it's it's not determining necessarily or probably which alternative we'd go forward with. It's which ones we want to advance to 15% and what additional information will we get by advancing it to 15% that we don't have now. Um and so for me, um first we have a question at Churchill if we're going to uh likely mothball Churchill. uh because we're far from having the funding to do Charleston Meadow and Churchill and it's really I can tell you there's in envisioning where that might come from is difficult to come up with at this point in time. Um then why would we go forward? And for me a lot of it is to see if we if we're going to mothball it. Do we mothball something with still some moderate but greatly reduced property impacts? Um uh or do we uh try to have that design refined even more and further reduce those impacts on paper before we mothball it so all those residents don't have uh as much hanging over their heads. And that that's the main reason I'd go forward on Charleston and Meadow. It's really a different well it's a set of of reasons we might one is we really don't at this point in time know the costs. the the initial costs projections were uh at a different

time very different costs and uh we've talked about with a hybrid would we have a hybrid that's all earn which was the basis for the original cost procjection or uh a podium hybrid or some combination earth and podium and that affects the cost it increases the cost of hybrid but it may be if we were to choose the hybrid it would uh more favorable in some ways. Um as we've talked about tonight, uh if our objective our objectives were historically three-fold, how do we deal with future congestion? How do we increase track safety? And how do we deal with the environmental impacts which are now primarily noise, horn noise, which we're going to have quiet zones on. So that one's pretty. The third one's solved. It's no longer really a factor for us. So then it leaves the other two. We have the atgrade safety improvements which will have some significant increased safety but not as much as uh a full grade separation and we don't know exactly how much. Um and then we have the property impacts which uh as Edgar noted uh we have some possibilities to reduce the property impacts uh particularly of the underpass uh with negotiation with cow train and other design uh possibilities and one thing uh one other design improvement that we may see is whether the bike flow can be improved at all. Uh but it was interesting that when we look at travel time on biking um the the notion that going directly with a signal

at Alma is not necessarily faster than an indirect route with no signal. Um we also have concerns over safety on that bike movements. So those are things that still would be flushed out more with um with the 15% And so a question for us is do we want to move forward with all these at 15% or are there certain ones we want to peel off and say um uh we really think we've gone far enough like we did at at uh the bike and ped underpass at Seal. Um although we haven't actually acted on that. We tentatively had discussions in that direction. Um, and um, so that's I I just want to make sure that we're thinking about that. Not trying to leap beyond what we're doing tonight and figure out what that decision would be at 15%, but which ones really need 15% for us to make our best decisions because it has a a time and a cost consequence. And as Edgar pointed out, if we uh are only looking at one location, and that's some other complications, too. Um, and I do want to note on that cost standpoint, um, with the way that the costs have escalated so much on all these up and down the peninsula, um, the funding that we have from measure B is around $400 million. And maybe Ripen, you might be able to inform us a little bit on the state and federal funding that covers this grant that we've said it by proceeding this we we make ourselves more likely to get

followon funding uh from those entities. Do we have any sense of the dollar that we might be able to uh obtain through those grants on on metal and Charleston that would inform us whether we are really looking at metal and Charleston or metal or Charleston? So, council member, we don't have any um prediction on how future grants will come on. However, we note that we are we are informed that if a federal projects grants are awarded in earlier processes that there is a greater chance of receiving those grants in future for construction. So we do have federal grant for our 35% in preliminary engineering environmental that gives us a little bit more confidence that they will be that our projects will be ranked higher when construction is grants are sought for.

That's what I understood. I was hoping you had even more than that that uh but we so we don't know to what degree uh we would be able to obtain additional state and federal funding. We we stand a a better chance than if we didn't qualified for this stage of grant but we just don't know what the ramifications of that are. Council Lou Council member Lou.

Thank you. Uh maybe just a couple questions about money first to start. Um so for a current set of grants to uh consider uh different options at 15%. What would it look like if we did not move forward with Churchill say today and uh we decided to mothball it uh uh uh just using that term. Um would we be leaving grant funding on the table or would there be some sort of positive association whereby sort of removing that we can do Meadow and Charleston 15% a little bit more than 15% a little bit faster than we would otherwise if we had kept Churchill on the table. Uh council member uh we already have a commitment to perform 35% preliminary engineering and environmental analysis for all three crossings in with federal agreement. By not doing it, we are not meeting those expectations and we they will with be withholding the funding and we will not be considered a good candidate for future projects.

Okay, that makes it easy for me to understand how to move forward on Churchill. Um, I just want to double check how much movement we can actually get on cost for Charleston Meadow at this 15% phase. And just in terms of relative understanding, like is there any scenario where the underpass will not be hundreds of millions of dollars more expensive than the hybrid? I can't say that with certainty. that it all depends on how the the projects are sequenced. And the purpose of the 15% drawings along with having a stable project footprint and project description is to be able to provide that um contractor base or market priced market pricing for those alternatives. Okay. I've heard uh some from the public that uh with advances in construction technology, pre-fabricated uh tunnel structures, basically that the underpass option could even be less expensive than the hybrid option. Is that plausible just given looking what you know the price discrepancies we have in our early estimates? It can be a possibility. I can't state with confidence that it will be or that it's a high likelihood. Uh one thing to note that even with pre-cast elements which is going to be explored for any alternative being advanced um because the more uh modular and sequential the work can be and the easier it is for the contractor to be able to build it. Uh so in this case it would be um the drawings would need to be developed in order to be able to provide that for the estimator. Okay. So, uh, overall takeaway is that there's nothing definitive we could say even about the relative costs of these projects, which of course would be a huge issue for me

just wanting to get the uh uh get these done. um for traffic improvements and for real safety improvements. Like there's no statement we can say right now about whether one will be hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper most likely and therefore whether it will be more constructible in the end. Council member, we do have previous estimates, but that can reflect some kind of, you know, information on previous, you know, calculations on the cost, but moving forward, we don't have any better understanding of how that would or are better, you know, constructibility reviews and and the cost keeps going up for all scenarios in different. So,

well, I'm trying to feel that out. Like the uh hybrid is hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper in our current estimates, but it sounds like we don't necessarily believe that that would hold um or that we don't have any particularly strong opinion about the uh cost at the end of the day for either scenario. But maybe I'm overreading uh of course your reasonable desire not to make promises.

Yeah, in this case there were assumptions made previously and the estimates were made um prior to the electrification of the railroad. So that is a layer of complexity that was not explicitly um in in in the estimates or there are now new guidelines and new requirements based on the reality of an active electrified railroad. So I my in this case we we would we would request to have the 15 15% drawings in order to be able to provide that um more uh certainty in terms of the the cost if or at least based on that information. Okay. Um, I have a couple other questions, but just based on that information, it seems most prudent to me to go for 15% on both hybrid and underpass options because um, if one option does end up being decisively uh, more constructible and clearly more affordable, um, that will just be exponentially more likely to finally happen. Um, but uh, I'm about at my time. Maybe if I have time for another round, I'll squeeze in some more questions about induced demand and how to think about traffic outside periods.

Council member Liths.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, it's funny. It's my end of my third year on council and I don't know that I have participated in a conversation that feels so weighty um and impacting the next 50 to 100 years of our community's existence. Um, so I just want to commend those of you who are experts in this field and um, Ria, it was amazing to hear you give us the uh, caveats on what traffic analyses can do but can't do and the whole gas and liquid um, analogy. Uh, we really learned a lot. I certainly did. Um um I um I want to say that with all the data that's been given, I think we now have greater complexity uh to grapple with, but also greater clarity provided by the numbers and the charts. I really appreciated the vice mayor's uh going the extra mile with her own um drawings and trying to figure it out and um coming to the important question, wait a minute, if we achieve all of these traffic improvements with underpass, we could actually just do one underpass and get way more benefit than two hybrids. And I found that, you know, to be sort of an aha moment. Um and yet I want to bring us uh to an important reminder which is although this is not the main reason we're doing grade separation means restriction in a city that experiences suicide at the tracks is a very important consideration and I think there are many among us who long for a day when it isn't possible for humans to intersect the trains um anywhere in our city and except at the train stations and Um, so I just want to remind us that that's out there still and I worry a little that if we were to reduce to one option at Charleston at only tackle either Charleston or Meadow um that we

would not have gone far enough to um toward that other goal um appreciating that Churchill is also potentially being mouthalled. Um so with Underpass becoming um in my view increasingly attractive from where I was I was a hybrid person and now I'm really appreciating the benefits of underpass and certainly the public comment we've been getting in emails has been like 20 to1 30 to1 50 to1 I've lost track of the count but in favor of underpass at least that's by my crude account I find so I'm I'm trying to listen to the community but also the community is really desperate for information on eminent domain. And we did we did bring that up a little bit last week on the fact that perhaps we haven't been as forthcoming with information to help the public become more educated on what eminent domain is, when it starts to kick in, how offers get made, the whole tax basis carryover thing. Um, and one of the public commenters last week, Nadia Nik, mentioned that she had been in dialogue with the city a year and a half ago, May of 2024, about the importance of sharing this information. She attached some slides from VTA where VTA does a lot of FAQs on here's what it is and here's how it works. And um, she was in dialogue with city staff about that then and she's shared those emails with us. So, it seems like there was a plan in in May of 2024. sorry to kind of start to put information out that uh we haven't yet done or um perhaps we have done it and some of us aren't aware but I I'm asking this now because as we hone in on the potential of underpass uh it as one of the the options um I' I'd like us to know how we're

going to narrate to the public about eminent domain um to educate people and hopefully ease concerns um get provide people with more information so that they can make a more informed decision for their own lives um as soon as they might want to. Um so I don't know if that's for city attorney. Thank you.

I can start and staff may jump in. So we did we did uh in fact um forward and provide some information to the public from general authoritative sources um and that was presented in the form of a staff report um slide decks that were presented to council and so it didn't separately get elevated and permanently on our website and that's a step that we can take to provide that information. Um returning to the theme of level setting however um this type of generally available information um is what the city can provide at this early stage and it won't answer everyone's question primarily the questions about is my property going to be affected what will the plans ultimately be um and it will provide general information only and we we won't be able to actually begin a customized process um with property owners at this point. So in terms of easing people's minds, I think it remains a difficult subject um nonetheless um despite providing some general information, but we will do that. Staff have anything else to add?

Um I know that one member of the public has offered to sell their house to the city. Um and um I think people want clarity on when is that a conversation that can be had. Thank you. So um we were able to uh clarify that because this is a federally involved process even at this point we will need to follow federal procedures and there are detailed procedures. An early acquisition, even one using solely local funds, is only available if it meets some very narrow exceptions and is approved by the federal government. And the um federal uh government's concern is to protect the NEPA process um which is the the federal counterpart to SQUA and not begin to do parts of something before that environmental review process is complete, which it is not at this stage. So we can ask the question of whether those narrow any of those narrow exceptions might apply. Um but there will be some consultation with the federal government and ultimately this is not a fully it is not a local decision which we were sort of surmising last time. Well maybe it would be since it would be local funds but it is not. So, the notion that we could acquire a house with city funds and not fold it into the spreadsheet of costs associated with grade separation. You're saying that's not allowed as an option.

That does not solve the issue. If the property remains a part of the project in any way, it's our understanding that um federal funding could be jeopardized by an early action. This is not approved by the federal government under their procedures. Okay. Thank you. That's it for me. Vice Mayor Vinker.

Yeah, thank you. Um I first want to just quickly uh Council Member Lats, I I actually had thought about the um the um means restriction that grade separation provides. Um, and what I was hoping, um, and it's sort of outside the scope of tonight's conversation more deeply, but was with what would have been a much larger amount of money spent at that intersection, we could do other types of means restrictions at that crossing. Um, I know there's a lot of new uh, intrusion technology, intrusion detection technology, and others, but I'm wondering if there's even more physical barriers or things or tunnels or we could still do like a bike pad or I don't know. I I think there might be things that we could do there other than this full uh grade SE, but I do think that's a worthwhile discussion um and and something to keep in mind as we move forward. Um so I yeah, I I had also uh been um sort of leaning toward the hybrid when I first came back to this um so previously, but that's also because I thought it could be more of a podium. Um, I don't love this burm thing. Um, and so I'm leaning away from hybrid now, but if we were to go forward with that, I would really want to see that analyzed. And I don't know if you can analyze both with the I mean, if if if hybrid were chosen, can you look at both burm and podium or would we have to even pick between those at this point? To clarify, are you referring to the po to essentially an an elevated guideway that's on a for lack of a better description bridge structure from Charleston to Meadow?

Yeah. So, basically a lower viooduct. Yeah. Yeah. That that that is a separate alternative. Um we can look at what that design option would be.

I'm smiling because that was not my impression when this left council last time at all. In fact, we specifically talked about it, but I Okay, so that's frustration. Then I totally lean away from hybrid if it's just the burm because that was part of what attracted me last time to to support it advancing to this point. Um so but with the um the underpass um yes uh thank you council member Liths. You described my point better than I did that um you know that if it were good enough, could we get away with one and have cost savings at and just do one of Meadow or Charleston? I don't know which probably Charleston, but that discussion. Now, I understand from what you said a few moments ago that we have to look at all three intersections apparently somehow under this grant. Is that correct? Is that what I heard? Yes, we'll have to complete preliminary engineering and environmental for all three crossings

because what I would really really really like to help us get the I think the information we need to go further like a so what I would really like out of this next round would be even if we look at uh all three intersections is to somehow know what would the cost what would the traffic modeling be what would the implications be if we just did one of those south two intersections because y'all have made, you know, such a good case for some of these. I mean, even under the overall network delay, there's still a 3x and 5x difference between the hybrid and the uh underpass. So, if we can get, you know, as much bang for our buck potentially, you'd have to do that analysis by just doing one of those two intersections with respect to traffic improvement. saves a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of construction, some people's homes, and I don't know how we can responsibly not look at that. So, I'm struggling with how to fit that into this federal grant framework. Um because I mean, if I could say it and make it so we'd look at um the hybrid, well, like we could look at the hybrid and the underpass at one intersection. Uh although I would strike the roundabout, but that's just me. Um so, I I don't know. Is there any way that you can look even may maybe look at the hybrid at one intersection, the underpass at another, but somehow then also give us if you just did that one thing, what would the traffic impact be as opposed to the traffic from both? I think I think you know what I'm trying to ask. So council member just wanted to state that that would be some additional cost and uh timings for that additional analysis that would be required and so that additional cost needs to be

analyzed and also uh scoped and added to the agreement and we have limited costs um you know funding availability for this project at this time. So just want to note that and we'll like to see if there is any way we can do within our existing contracts but there is a likelihood of some additional need for funding. Um but we do have funding to proceed forward with two alternatives at this time to the 15% if that helps in the costs of the two alternatives say hybrid and underpass. The only thing we would like to narrow some of those alternatives um like so that at least there are not multiple iterations like direct access ramp and or roundabout. So we we need to at least narrow down to some of those alternatives.

Yeah. So I I mean I would be happy to strike the roundabout. that just has always struck me as strange and I think it had I mean I'm glad to see an alternative to that but there are others that may have put more thought into that particular uh aspect than I can I just clarify what you said I think what you said is we could do like a hybrid at Charleston and an underpass at uh Meadow and that would be 15% for each of those but then we would learn about that and if we wanted to end up doing the hybrid in two places when we get to 80% engineering then we could still do that. So

I think that's what I heard. I'm just asking a clarification point.

We can look at these independently and we can look at to see how they would match up. In other words, in terms of the puzzle pieces, we could also look at the implementation strategy um if one is an underpass and the other one is hybrid and the se potential sequencing of that. So we we can look at that as part of the 15%. And the reason why we would recommend to do so if both options or both alternatives are advanced at at either or both locations is that it will have a material impact on the cost estimating process so that we are very clear for the estimator the likely sequencing of the work uh so that they're able to understand then how to price it.

Yeah, I was I I think I get that part. What I was getting clarification on was could we say okay we're going to put hybrid at one intersection and we're going to put um underpass at another and we do that study and then we say from what we've learned we decided to put under pass in both places. Yes. Right. So we're sort of doing a test market of each alternative. I know it's going to be a little bit different based on the intersection because of a lot of things, a lot of variables.

So, I mean, I don't want to speak for you, but I wouldn't want to throw one away when we're done and say, "Well, we don't know if it's going to work at the other place, but at least we would get some advance there." Back to you. Back back to the vice mayor. Sorry. Well, well, maybe just for um purposes of moving this along and and and trying uh to see see where where where we stand, um I would suggest and I don't know if it's premature to make a motion at this point, but um that we look at the um ramp underpass at Charleston because that gives us the most benefit I think. um and the hybrid at Meadow. And we may choose when we get this back to mothball the hybrid because we've, you know, and if there's some way to get an impact study of if we only did, you know, one crossing, only did the underpass crossing at because I think if we just do one hybrid, it's not enough. Um that that's what I would like to see. Um, and maybe before I give up the mic, I'll just say uh on the Alma Tunnel, can can I switch to that for just a quick minute or do you want me to stay with this?

Okay, that's fine. But if it's if it's in the motion, you should include uh Charleston.

Yeah. So, uh Churchill. Yeah. Um, so, uh, I we spoke briefly after, um, council last time because I had the question about the, uh, east side of the Alma Street ramp. Um, that and exiting on the east side, I was concerned about bicyclists that were coming onto Seal. I didn't want them necessarily crossing there. Do you think I mean I obviously that would be part of what you would come back with I well actually probably not. Yeah. So that would that would be in the next phase but are there things like could you do a protected bike lane down that first block of seal or could you just give us a little more color on how we could address the safety issue of bicyclist coming out of that ramp? So my understanding is that what you're asking for is what you're suggesting is a preference for the Alma Street ramp but addressing the connection to seal to make sure that it's somehow protected or safe for bicyclists coming out of the ramp and then go out the seal and the and vice versa.

Yes. Yeah. Exactly. Correct. And that will be included in our 15% uh designs and we feel pretty confident that we could do that. But I guess what I'm wondering about is like when we look at the uh drawings now of the ramp, the the seal ramp, part of the concern is it takes away parking on both sides because of the breadth. Well, the Alma thing might take away parking on one side if we send a protected bike lane down because we've got bikes going two ways, for example. I I don't know how else one would do that. But so I just don't know if my colleagues want to if there's more you can say about that that my colleagues should consider at this point.

Yeah. the the trade-off of having surface improvements is in some cases easier than doing full utility relocations and construction in between the homes. So there's ways to be able to explore how to provide those safe connections whether it's a protected lane or other safety features that can be explored. So at least in principle the concept itself can be advanced and then as part of the direction from the council is to explore how to make the connection safer uh or provide safe connections between that ramp and the surrounding community.

Okay. And we can wait for that to come back. I just wanted to point out that whereas it may not have utilities or other implications, it could have parking implications, right? And so um but it seems like that's something we need to wait on. Is that right? That's okay. Um, so yeah, why don't I I go ahead and make a motion just so that we can discuss it. Um, that we advance the underpass uh at Charleston, the roundabout version, and the hybrid at Meadow and the Alma tunnel at Churchill. Is that Did you cover what you need?

The roundabout. Oh, so I'm sorry. Thank you. The ramper I did say that and I did not mean it. The opposite. Thank you. Thank you. Um underassill. I don't know. It's the partial underpass at Churchill which we've already decided on. So we just wanted to advance that. Yeah. Yeah. The bike ped part of it. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Not as opposed to the whole grade SE thing. Yes. No, we we have to we have to have the grade step thing because because we have to authorize 15% engineering stage of that too. Okay. Yes. Okay. So that that addition to it then. Yes.

Um there's one other question I had but now I've forgotten it. Um okay. Well, we'll go with that. I'll second the motion. Oh, and and and I don't know how much we have to put this into the motion, but getting the uh information about if we just did Charleston. Okay. Counation.

Well, um I will want to see the real wording of the motion. Um but while we're waiting that I just wanted to offer um one important point that when we were looking at cost comparisons I think Edgar referenced that what one significant change from when we had the initial cost comparisons was Calra coming forward with their new technical and design standards which greatly impacted the construction methods and uh construction uction impacts but haven't yet been folded into the costs. Um so that's something that we'll get out at. Um and while we further wait I on the the issue of um how we inform the public on property acquisitions and we all have to keep reminding ourselves it's property acquisitions which are usually not through eminent domain and eminent domain is a last resort but we we just have to keep reminding ourselves that it's that we actually have a state law that we haven't talked about which is SB uh 698. Uh Molly, I don't know if you're familiar with that. Um and what it what it does is uh actually require at some point in time, and I'm not quite clear on it, uh notifications and spells out what notifications have to be provided to affected properties. And we may not be at that point. And that law does not um stipulate uh uh the public agency providing all the information on tax advantages. Um the league of cities and the county assoc county association and three other

um bodies put together a pamphlet that is actually a good guidance on specifically eminent domain. That's not the totality of what we were looking at. Okay. So, um maybe we can all just take a moment and digest this.

I think that under the first bullet, the first two are kind of put together together. I think you want the Alma Street ramp is with the Churchill and then the um underpass at Charleston or you could just say the direct access ramp may maybe that's what you're trying to do there. Okay. So instead of the Alma Street ramp you call it is it the direct access ramp? Is that the right phrasing? Thank you. Yeah. So u madam clerk in that advance yeah Alma Street should be direct access and it's it's not a preference is it? One moment. Um, staff just sent me a better language. Is this Does this look better?

You might want to put each of the crossings in a separate bullet point for clarity. I think she's I I just suggest on the Churchill that we break up what we're directing on vehicular in one sentence, what we're directing on the bike ped in another so just gets clear. Um, I'm not sure what the second bullet is saying.

Oh, I see. If we Not one crossing underpass. Um, yeah, underpass shouldn't be there. I was just waiting till she got the other two. I assume there's going to be two more bullets in there. Oh, I see. But yes, you're right. Council member for the second item can we say implementation study rather than the impact study? Sure. I don't Yes. I don't think I was just waiting to deal with that. If we can clarify that would be Charleston underpass. Well, aren't we waiting? Aren't we going to have to

We did only one crossing which is Charleston underpass crossing. Yeah. The second bullet point should be Charleston and then say underpass and the third bullet should say a meadow hybrid and whatever else has to get wrapped around that. Yeah, I was just assuming all she'd been sent all the language but sounds like not okay. Yeah, we need a bullet for Churchill or perhaps two. We need a bullet for Meadow. We need a bullet for Charleston and then we can discern whether we need a separate bullet for the impact of doing only one intersection. Correct. That's what I'm trying to get to.

So, for Churchill Avenue, do do we have a preference for with or without landscaping? Maybe we can go one by one. Oh, I don't. But the rail committee might have more thoughts on that. Uh, he wants to know with or without landscaping for Churchill Avenue and Churchill. He was in second. I would take input on that. So, do you have a friendly amendment on that? I I just want to make sure I understand the question. So, with or without landscaping strip on Churchill Avenue, which preferences do you prefer with, do you prefer without?

What we actually wanted is to explore minimizing the impact. Um, we were leaning toward uh without the landscaping strip. Correct. Yeah. Okay. I'm I'm good with that. Thank you staff.

Yeah. And council member while madame clerk is looking at the typing those um is it okay if we just state preferred alternative at this time because locally preferred alternatives become a federally mandated term? Uh so if at 15% we want to use that term that would be preferred by this isn't necessarily my language here. So just tell me what So you're suggesting that instead of select the locally preferred alternative it should say preferred alternative.

It's fine with me. So madam clerk if you we can remove the locally word from the first line and the parenthesis lpa can be removed please all right so it's a churchel partial underpath just like safety safety between. So on Church

on the item number one, Churchill Avenue, I think partial underpass at Churchill with Churchill Avenue without landscaping strip with Alma Street ramp at Yeah. So it should So Madame Clerk, I think it should say partial underpass at Churchill without landscaping strip. After that, without No, no, no. Oh, sorry. Well, you voted with I thought you said without. So, you're right. Um, so that pertains to the partial underpass as opposed to the uh bike.

Mhm. With Elma Street ramp for bicycle and pedestrian crossing at C Avenue.

Yeah. after ramp if we can include with Elmish. Um I I would just make it two sentences. Um second uh bike and ped underpass would include uh the east side ramp along Elma Street. Does that seem clear? So the Okay. So the bicycle and pedestrian cross

that now captures that better

using almost street ramp and incorporating additional bicycle safety components or something like that. That that's what I think you're trying to get at before. So bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seal Avenue using Alma Street ramp uh with attention to bicycle safety on east side. How's that? So, sorry. May I have to There you go. With with attention to bicycle safety on the east side. If you have better language, that's fine, but I think that gets okay. And so for Meadow, um the hybrid alternative, I think that's fine. Charleston underpass alternative with direct access ramp and direct staff to conduct and implement if

I would recommend adding with if we only did Charles uh underpass at Charleston Road crossing, right? Yeah, I think that's right because we wouldn't do just the hybrid. Um direct staffing to conduct an implementation if we only did one underpass. Oops. only did the I think I would take round take yeah the underpass at Charleston there and if I might ask um under the hybrid I think I only caught part of it but Edgar are you saying that the a podium uh version of hybrid is not feasible? Did you say that?

No, it it is feasible. It it just would be considered a separate alternative between uh Charleston and Meadow and it is more expensive than the retained film. Understood. It's it's more expensive. Um the question is so that would have to be studied as a separate alternative from the earth and burm from an environmental perspective. It would be considered a separate alternative. This is not what our material said last week. Well, not that I'm not sure. Um, it's he's not saying that we can't do it. Yeah. He's saying that it it's different. Yeah.

And now I think now my follow-up question is so do we have a choice of which we want to evaluate under the hybrid earth and only or a podium based is and I see they're huddling too. So I'll give them a sec.

Yeah. I think the the question is do we need to choose because I think the default that's been assumed is is burm earth and burm but I think we may want to if we can only do one we should specify. So in this case, it could be um a longer bridge because if if Charleston Road is considered an underpass, then at that point the the tracks would not begin rising for the Meadow Hybrid until at least a few hundred feet south of Charleston Road. And so then it would start building up. So yes, it could have a podium, but it would be shorter than from Meadow to Charleston, right? Um uh however it would be longer than a typical bridge crossing uh at a railroad.

So can we call it podium style hybrid alternative? I think that would be that would be a a w a wider bridge or a widest bridge possible. It would be that the podium would be more than just at the intersection. It would be wherever it started to rise. Yeah, we can explore a longer a podium as part of that hybrid alternative. I would like to put that in my motion if it's okay with a seconder. And uh I know I have I've been not been asking you about any of this. I apologize. It's been a little crazy. Is there anything that you're concerned with that has happened so far? No, I accept that. Thank you. Thank you for your being gracious. Um

I'm Can I say something?

Yeah. I'm just going back to my notes from rail committee April of 2024. Earth and burm and podium are construction methods and the height vioideuct and hybrid are designs. Earth and burm can be full height or low for either hybrid or vioideuct and podium can be hybrid or vioaduct. Podium for hybrid would give you the benefits of open visibility shorten distance of vioaduct and make it cheaper by not going as high. You don't have to spread it out as far and some permeab permeability. So this has been a part of our I I have tons of notes. I just found these. We have been carrying this idea through for a long time. And uh even at a rail committee meeting in November, I think I mentioned we were told we were going to get the option of hybrid with columns. Why aren't we seeing that? Um so I'm just trying to underscore that this is uh to the extent this might feel like why are you guys bringing this up now? I think we felt like we had been bringing it up and maybe we've just had a disconnect.

Well, it's in so it's in the motion. Yeah, we can study that. Yeah. Thank and thank you. That's consistent with my recollection. So, if we have that there, I think the language looks good to me. Mr. or Council Member Stone, we have one other council member wanting to make comments. I know, but he's the second and we've been changing language

and then people can appreciate. I just want to make sure that the that the language is is clear on I think the the intent that we're kind of studying both. It keeps the options available when we get to the 15% that we could and I I don't know if if that's clear enough in the motion just reading it. Can you please clarify if it is the selected alternative or is it explore podium style hybrid alternative because if it is the selected alternative then that's the only you know review we will be doing for pod podium style which is wider bridge or all the columns all the way down. whatever gets us the podium style hybrid alternative 15% drawing. If we have to select it as the only one, then I'll I would go with that in my motion. If we can get both, um I I don't have any objection, although I don't think you're seeing a lot of support for the Burm. If I have to pick one, I would pick the podium. That sounds good. Thank you.

Okay, Council Lu,

I would be a little bit worried about ruling out the Burm. I think of course we want to think very long term about what the future of Po Alto looks like both in terms of uh traffic but also safety uh and we have to when we look longterm look at what is actually achievable and what is feasible and I think if we look at earth and berms as the standard approach for hybrids which is one of the more standard approaches for great separations overall along the cow train corridor I think we would uh be potentially doing a disservice to uh basically explicitly rule it out at this point. Um I think there could be an option in this motion. I I guess this is what staff was going at to just say hybrid alternative for me but then have another bullet point asking for some more analysis or comparisons between an earth and berm and a podium style uh alternative. Um, so, uh, my main or maybe only concern with this motion is that we're sort of throwing up a jump ball and assuming we can pick it up again in terms of, uh, maybe when we do this analysis, we'll have some clear signal that the underpass is actually the best and most viable and most affordable and likely to happen uh, at both locations. or it could be for the or vice versa for the hybrid. Um, and we've gotten some clues or I think we've pro we've poked at this question like uh if we study one for the other loc one location can we directly transfer findings to the others? But I think I want to ask that question just very explicitly. So what would we be losing?

Um or what kind of options would be what would not be transferable um if we wanted to move forward with this motion in terms of transferring any learnings from a hybrid approach on Meadow to Charleston or underpass learnings from Charleston to Meadow. Um, for example, I think I heard that we are by doing this motion not going to study the constructibility concerns of doing a hybrid in both locations, which would mean that that would not be something that in practice we could easily transfer to Charleston if we did do the hybrid on Meadow. And so there are these one-way pitfalls that I just want to make sure we acknowledge are built into this motion.

So as of for this motion we are you're directing us to advance the the most these alternatives into this 15% design and to the 35 preliminary engineering and environmental phases. So we will if you were to come back and deselect and ask us to move forward with a different option at 15%. That would be the additional work then that needs to be done for each crossing right.

Yes. And I understand we could always go back and do more work and maybe push back some timelines or uh uh we'll do those things if necessary. Um So what I'm hearing is that what we learn about hybrid costs and engineering on Meadow will not necessarily transfer to Charleston because that would involve doing hybrid on both which would be much more complicated in terms of actual constructibility and therefore cost infusibility that that would be accurate. There would be some portable lessons between the alternatives. However, if you are exploring one then the other. In other words, a a time difference. In other words, not being constructed at the same time

then look at but substantially different time frames in terms of say 10 or 15 years apart then yes it the two hybrids would be substantially more complicated. Okay. And then when we do we lose anything by looking at the underpass for Charleston but not Meadow like is the are utilities wildly more complicated on one or the other where if we don't study one we're just if we only study one we're having a wildly incomplete picture of the other or is there anything like that that we need to think about for how we study the underpass?

Yes. Yes. So utilities are more complicated at at Charleston versus Meadow. And so that would be the one one crossing that would have more complexity as it relates to utilities. So studying it there would show you the greatest constraints.

Got it. With an under crossing. So the meadow trial meadow uh underpass would just be less expensive and less technically complicated and you know obviously no guarantees but you know we would expect things to move in that direction. Um I mean I think this is ultimately uh likely a pretty reasonable and good outcome uh you know hybrid and underpass but um we're uh you know I'm not aware of any sort of substantive discussion or even you know traffic analysis about like what this combination looks like together. Um, but uh, you know, if it doesn't work out at 15%, we can always do another 15%. And that's what it is. Um,

I'm guessing I'm not going to get any support for this, but I'm just curious whether the maker secondary would be open to exploring both a burm and vi podium style hybrid uh at this phase. So I think just before you took the mic, we were asking that question and I think the staff can remind us of the answer to that. I think it was that we needed to choose. Is that correct? I mean in terms of advancing an option because they're different for me drive. We can the we can explore the option two options. You can explore both. Yeah, sure. That's fine.

Art and boom and podium style. Yes, that's that's fine with me. But I want to ask the seconder. Yep, I'm fine with that.

Okay, we're fine with that. I but I do think that part of the struggle here is that we don't want to not know anything and the whole point of this exercise was to narrow down and we're going to not know some things and if we find out we gotten ourselves into a heapload of trouble we'll just have to back up and redo it a bit and that's no one wants to so we're trying to make the smartest decisions we can but we can't know and I do want to remind ourselves that um one of the benefits of the Charleston ramp amp is that while you know while we had many of us had leaned toward hybrid in part because uh there weren't any um full acquisitions. There were three partials but no full. Um but the um and that was if we did it at both there would be the three. But the um the if we did the underpass at Meadow there would be two full takings. Uh at uh I that's the wrong word acquisitions. Uh at Charleston with the roundabout there would Charleston ramp there's one. Now I we still cannot minimize that because for the person whose property is that's that's you know hugely significant and troubling but it's less than any of the others. So I think that um that's another aspect that goes into this and we just can't know of everything. We can't afford to know everything. We don't have the time to know everything. And I think this is the best of the options and the cards that we've been dealt. I think a lot of us would like to have a real um you know highly obvious best you know clear solution and uh that's just not the case. There's pros and cons to them all. I think this is the best we can do and I think we should move forward.

Would the clerk please call the role? Mayor Lowing. Yes. Coun Oh, council member Lou. Yes. Vice Mayor Vinker. Yes. Council member Bert. Yes. Council member Lithcod Hayes. Yes. Council member Stone. Yes. Motion carries. 601. Council member Rectal recused. Excellent job team. Up here, down there, out in the audience. Made some progress. Okay, that leaves us with one thing to say. We are adjourned. And thank you for