<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Palo Alto — City Meetings</title>
    <link>https://transparentcities.org/palo-alto/transcripts</link>
    <description>Summaries and topics from Palo Alto's city council and committee meetings, sourced from the city's official YouTube channel.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <atom:link href="https://transparentcities.org/palo-alto/transcripts/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>City Council Meeting - August 24, 2026</title>
      <link>https://transparentcities.org/palo-alto/transcripts/6mznWPfbEy0</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://transparentcities.org/palo-alto/transcripts/6mznWPfbEy0</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 07:15:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The Palo Alto City Council held a lengthy meeting covering several matters. They approved advancing three applicants to interview for the Historic Resources Board. During a study session, they reviewed the independent police auditor&apos;s semiannual report on use-of-force, weapon-pointing, and misconduct cases, and gave extensive feedback on the scope of a planned audit of automated license plate readers (Flock), with many public speakers urging cancellation and covering of the cameras; council signaled interest in agendaizing a future decision on the Flock contract and exploring alternatives. Council unanimously approved new regulatory agreements for the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park redevelopment with a referral for local housing preferences. Finally, council approved launching the first oversized-vehicle permit parking pilot (Pilot One) while deferring the second parking-prohibition pilot, directing staff to collect data, refine street lists, update residential zoning definitions, pursue additional safe-parking sites, and engage employers and Stanford.</description>
      <category>Historic Resources Board appointments</category>
      <category>General public comment</category>
      <category>Independent police auditor semiannual report</category>
      <category>Automated license plate reader (Flock) audit scope</category>
      <category>Buena Vista Mobile Home Park redevelopment</category>
      <category>City manager announcements</category>
      <category>Oversized vehicle parking pilots</category>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[Speaker 1:
Good evening. Evening everyone. I'm going to call to order the uh August 24th, 2026 meeting of the PaloAlto City Council. Madame Clerk, would you please call the role?

Speaker 2:
Of course. Council member Lowing

Council member Lowing:
here.

Speaker 4:
Council member Rectal

Council member Rectal:
here.

Speaker 6:
Council member Lou

Council member Lou:
here.

Speaker 2:
Mayor Vinker

Mayor Vinker:
here.

Speaker 4:
Council member Bert

Council member Bert:
here.

Speaker 6:
Council member Liths

Council member Liths:
here.

Vice Mayor Stone:
Vice Mayor Stone here for the record. All present.

Speaker 3:
Thank you, Madam Clerk. So, we'll move first to item one, which is a special order of the day, which is to uh review applications and select candidates to interview for vacancy vacancies on the historic resources board. Madam clerk, did you have any introductory comments you'd like to make?

Nicole Bissell:
Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Nicole Bissell, deputy city clerk. I'm joined by Mahani Aun city clerk and tonight we will be presenting the applications for the historic resources board extended recruitment. Included in the extended recruitment for the historic resources board is three full-term vacancies expiring on March 31st, 2029. As for a quick summary of our recruitment timeline, scheduled recruitment opened on January 13th and closed on February 18th with three applications received for the HRB. City Council reviewed applications in March and provided the clerk's office with direction to extend the HRB recruitment. During the time period of extended recruitment, we continued additional outreach and advertising efforts. One application was withdrawn and one new application was received, bringing us to three total applications for the HRB. At today's meeting, we are al ask asking council to review the current HRB applications with interviews and appointments tenatively scheduled on September 9th and 14th, respectively. Go back. This slide just provides a quick general refresher on council's current interview selection process, noting that per the current process, all candidates would be interviewed if there are six or fewer applications. And moving on to our applicants, as mentioned, we currently have three applications received for the HRB. Per the process on the previous slide, all three candidates would typically be invited to interview. However, it is at council discretion to authorize a different process if desired. Council may also provide direction on continuing HRB recruitment efforts if desired. However, as outlined in the staff report, further extending recruitment may not be sustainable and could result in a lack of quorum for the HRB. And I'll turn it back over to you, mayor.

Speaker 5:
All right. Well, thank you to the city clerk's office and thank you to those who have applied for the historic resources board. We appreciate that. Um, colleagues, I'm told that we don't necessarily need a motion uh that there that all of these applicants can proceed forward unless there are any objections. I've looked at them. They they seem solid uh for interview purposes. So, now would be the time to tell me if you have any reservations about whether at least one of them has the academic uh qualification or uh whether there are any that you believe we should not advance to interviews. Seeing no uh concerns, objections, or comments, um madame clerk, I think you have the uh go-ahhead from the green light from council to move forward with scheduling the HRB interviews.

Speaker 6:
Okay. Thank you, mayor. Uh we will move forward with scheduling. That date is tenatively scheduled for September 9th. So, we'll work on that.

Speaker 1:
Great. All right. Thank you. Well, we'll look forward to that on September 9th. Moving on to agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Mr. City Manager, are there any?

Speaker 2:
We uh Thank you, mayor. We just had one small change on your consent calendar, removal of item five, which will come back at a later date.

Speaker 3:
Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, now we're going to move on to in-person public comment for matters not on tonight's agenda. Madame Clerk, how many uh speakers uh do we have at this point? We have one group speaker um or speaking on behalf of a group of eight and then one individual speaker.

Speaker 4:
Okay, let's go ahead with the uh regular time amounts would that be three minutes and then for the group

Speaker 5:
um let's go with eight minutes.

Speaker 6:
Okay, our first speaker is Herb B.

Herb B:
Uh good evening. Uh recently uh the school board had a agenda uh where it discussed uh its opposition to an ICE facility, immigration custom enforcement facility in Gilroy and also had significant budget issues. uh when the Palo Alto Weekly uh posted a news story about it, it was just about the ICE facility and the public comments though were about the budget. Uh and it occurred to me that maybe uh that wasn't the only uh difference going on. And I'm not a member, I wrote a letter to the Weekly uh with full knowledge that they could post it online, but they did not. uh and I tried to uh put it in the Daily Post but the Deli Post has a policy of uh not uh printing things from other newspapers. Essentially, it appeared that the school boy may have been trying to focus people's attention on the ice facility in Gilroy instead of paying attention to the significant budget issues uh at the school board. Uh although the public felt differently based on their comments, uh the the weekly subsequently posted two news stories, one by the original reporter which was only about the budget and one by the San Jose Post uh uh uh paper uh which is only about the ice facility. It seemed to me there was one other item that might be considered. That is if people are spending all their time uh opposing uh a facility of immigration and custom enforcement uh in Gilroy. That doesn't mean there's not going to be such a facility. And I tried to think of where else it might go and it occurred to me one possibility would be the Stanford Stadium. Thank you.

Raymond Gones:
Our next speaker is Raymond G. Oh no. Good afternoon. My name is Raymond Gones and I stand here representing eight community members that live here in Palato. We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity do ordain and establish. Those words were drafted through the lens of profound inequality. When the US Constitution was drafted in in 1787, it was presented as a document for we the people. But it was also built through compromises that protected the power, property, and economic interests of those who already held influence through enslaving Africans. The constitution promises of democracy existed alongside a system that in excluded enslaved people, women, indigen indigenous people, and many poor men from full political participation in equal rights. Enslaved people were counted for representation while being denied the right to vote, control their own lives, or claim their full humanity. The original system con concentrated political power largely in the hands of people who own property and in many cases other human beings. But the fabric of American democracy did not evolve on its own. It changed because ordinary people organized, resisted, voted, marched, worked, and demanded that the nation live up to it stated ideals. Labor tilled the soil, built communities, and sustained the nation. People denied freedom and representation refused to remain invisible. They resisted, organized, and fought for their humanity. Nearly 250 years have passed since the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all people are created equal. And more than 235 years have passed since the Constitution was signed over that time. The citizens of enslaved people, people whose ancestors were forced to build a nation designed to exclude them, have entered and led some of the highest institutions in the United States. The White House was built in part through the labor of enslaved people whose hands helped raise its walls while they lived in servitude, denied freedom, and forced to endur despair. Yet they resisted and generations later their descendants walk through those same halls as citizens, leaders, and ultimately as a first family. When Barack Obama became president, a house built in part by enslaved hands became a house filled with hope. A reminder that even institutions created amid inequality can transform when peoples organize, resist, and demand to be included. History has taught us something important. A government can use the language of equality while it policies still preserve inequality. A system can appear open while remaining accessible mainly to people who already have wealth, property, connections, housing security and influence. The challenge does not exist only in Washington DC. It exists here in Palo Alto as well. We as I represent the people are running for Palatoto council because we see a city that is not being properly cared for. The lens of inequality from which our nation has evolved has found ways to evolve with us. We do not have the same laws or the same forms of exclusion that existed in 1787. But we can still see the consequences of systemic inequality in our neighborhoods in our in our local government. When I walk out my front door, I see people who are once my neighbors now live gun unhoused across the street from places they once called home, waiting for people to arrive for help. As members of my as members of this community and through conversation with workers who travel in and out of the city, we hear the same message again and again. People want to live here, but they cannot afford to. They earn a workingclass wage and many feel that living in Palo is simply impossible. We applaud we applaud Palato for building affordable housing and for recognizing that we must address our systemic homelessness crisises. But we must be honest about what affordable means in Palato. Affordable to whom? Will the bartender attending the bar, the workers serving our food, the caregiver looking after our elders, the person cleaning our yards, the teacher supporting our children, or the workers keeping our city running be able to afford to live here? Or will affordable housing be available only to people who are already economically comfortable in one of the most expensive places in this country? Affordable housing cannot be just a label. It must be a real path to to stability for people who serve this community every day. We want a Palato where affordable housing is a springboard where workers can live near their jobs, raise their families, build savings, participate in civic life, and have a genuine chance to thrive here. We also hear from community members who want to change a chance to join these political circles but feel their voices will not be heard because they will because they are not wealthy, well-connected or ivy educated. I have listened to local coffee shops as residents describe their fear of speaking out against a genocide in Garza. People are afraid to speak because they care about humanity and see the world through the lens of love, compassion, and empathy and not hate, division, and destruction. Local government is where democracy becomes real. It is where decisions are made about who can afford to live here, where the people have housing, whose children can remain in our schools, whose voices are welcomed at city hall, and who is represented at this table. Palatoto has a seven member city council. Council member Julie Lot is currently the council's lone black member, and her decision not to seek re-election leaves one of those seats open. At a time when black residents and working-class families are increasingly being priced out of Palo Alto, the possible loss of black representation would be more than symbolic. It would be it would reflect a deeper pattern of systemic displacement. If our neighborhoods become less diverse while our governing institution also loses the voices of people most affected by displacement, then gentrification is not only changing where people live, it is changing who gets to shape Paloto's future. We cannot say that we hope that we value inclusion while allowing communities to disappear from both our neighborhoods and our city council. Ordinary people need representation. We are not career politicians. We are community organizers. We do not seek political power. We seek people power. I may be the one running for office, but I represent ordinary people who want every person to thrive and to have a real opportunity to live here in Palo Alto. We the people must mean more than the people who can afford to stay. It must mean every worker, every family, every longtime resident, every unhoused neighbor, every immigrant, every young person, every elder, every person who believes Palatoto can become a city where everyone has a voice and a place to call home. Whether or not we join you on this council, our ask is the same. Let us build a Palo that works for all its residents. Thank you. And that concludes public comment on items not on the agenda for in-person public comment.

Speaker 2:
All right. So, thank you to our public commenters. That closed public comment for general public comment.

Speaker 3:
No, it's closed, ma'am. It's too late.

Speaker 4:
Oh, for general for items not on the agenda.

Speaker 5:
Oh. Oh, okay. So, do do you have it, Madam Clerk? No, we closed

Speaker 6:
very first things that's on there and I put it in for the other speakers.

Speaker 1:
So, I did check the basket before we were go before we started and it is

Speaker 2:
I should have tapped you on the shoulder. I think I'm allowed to speak.

Speaker 3:
We close public comment after the first speaker speaks.

Speaker 4:
I'm allowed to speak.

Speaker 5:
Yeah. Not not unless it was in early and apparently it was not. So, we will welcome comments by email. We'll be here every week and we're happy to meet with you. Yeah. All right. So, I'm sorry. Those are just the rules. We have to be fair to everyone. We want to hear from everyone on the two topics. So,

Speaker 6:
okay.

Speaker 1:
No, I'd be happy to, but

Speaker 2:
let me just double check. So, madame clerk, when did you receive the

Speaker 3:
I couldn't be polite.

Speaker 4:
I checked the basket after the first speaker finishes finished speaking and your comment card was not in the basket.

Speaker 5:
Okay. I just got finished saying I could have tapped him on the shoulder and

Speaker 6:
but but if she checked it just wasn't there. So ma'am we thank you for coming and welcome you next time. All right so we need to move on to the next item. We have very busy agenda tonight and we look forward to hearing from you in the future. All right so um we are now moving on to council member questions, comments, announcements. Before I do, I do want to say thank you to all of you who went like this uh after the speech because we do encourage tonight um whatever uh you know you want to do that way, but we don't allow any audible comments in chambers whether it's a clap or a vocalization or or something. So just know that that's how we do because we want everyone's opinions to be expressed and no one to be intimidated. So, the silent thing that we can see is fine, but we won't have audible comments tonight. All right. So, with that, uh, colleagues, are there any council member comments this evening? Council member Bird, I go ahead. Take your time. Thank you. Um, so I I would just like to ask if we can have an update um perhaps at the uh next uh city manager comments at the upcoming meeting on um there were we received u a letter on concerns over um the operation at the home key project. Um and uh maybe we can uh have an update on whether those issues that were asserted are are um significant. And um and that's all I have at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I would just like to thank all of those who pitched in to make the state of the city event a great one last week. um it really reflected our one community theme. So, we appreciate all the residents and guests who attended. Really want to give a shout out to city staff uh who made it an extra effort in a new venue that was unfamiliar to run it for the first time as a formal public meeting and so thank you for that extra effort. The tech team at the school district was phenomenal and so we really appreciated them and the district for hosting. Reverend Koma Smith, the Mwakma Aloney tribal leaders, Miss Araniano and Ms. Dominguez, the vice mayor. Uh, and of course, uh, Lily Zang, our four-time Olympian and, uh, first American to bring home a medal in that sport, and six-time national champion who was nurtured right here in PaloAlto, who adjusted her schedule, flew back and performed uh, free of charge for us. And so, that's somebody who can make us proud. And, uh, and it was fun. So just thank you to everyone for that. Colleagues, if there's nothing more, we'll get right to it with our study session for this evening. All right. So we will move on to our semiannual city council discussion with the independent police auditor uh Mr. Janako.

Speaker 1:
Thank you, Mayor. Let me uh invite our independent police auditor uh to join us here at the table. I'll just uh take a moment to introduce the topic. As the council is well aware and for community's awareness, uh the city council has uh two times a year opportunity to meet with our independent police office auditor, the uh office of independent review. and uh this is to discuss trends in criminal criminal justice and policing policy training and related matters as well as recommendations made by OIR uh over the past uh several months. In addition uh this evening we are anticipating the followup to prior council uh discussion and interest in uh having a scope review for an audit related to automated license plate readers. And so with that, Mr. Janak, turn it over to your your team.

Speaker 2:
Thank you, Mr.

Speaker 3:
I think Mr. Connelly will start off the discussion.

Mr. Connelly:
Good evening, mayor and and council members. Steven Connley of O Group. Uh we're very happy to be with you as as the city manager indicated. Uh we are here tonight with with Mike Janako who has been uh working with the city of PaloAlto for for a number of years now. And we're joined for the first time tonight by another one of our colleagues, Teresa Magula. Uh she has been with us for for seven or eight years now, but this is her first project working with the city of Palo Alto. And we're very happy to have her um with us this evening. And we're certainly happy to be to be back with you and and looking forward to the discussion. As the city manager indicated, we have a couple of different um agenda items for for discussion. And the first one is our our usual standard uh just report out to you regarding our semianual public reports on the various categories of of um particular concern with regard to the department's internal review mechanisms. Uh so if we could have the next slide please. So, uh, our relationship with the city of PaloAlto goes back to 2007. Uh, and we have had some different iterations of that and different adjustments to the scope of work and to our our responsibilities along the way. But the the kind of the meat and potatoes, the core of our contributions to the city are are semianual reports. And what it basically does is is uh it's a an audit of of completed investigations, internal investigations that the department has has compiled. Uh we do it twice a year and basically get um the all of the the completed cases from the audit period and we have the chance to review those and then to provide summaries of the the cases and their outcomes and also have the opportunity to kind of weigh in on our sense of how the department handled these matters uh and make recommendations if we think that there could be some productive adjustments to department policy or protocol with regard are to these different areas. So, uh we have been to to um meet with you folks directly on a number of occasions. Our last appearance was in April of 2025. Our um first the f first part of our council u uh audit scope for for last year. In other words, it covered the first several months of 2025. and that was presented as a as a public report and and it was kind of a receive and file item for the council back in November of 2025 and we're here today to talk about the second half of of 2025 and the cases that uh we worked on in conjunction with that. The report I think was published in in uh June of this year and as always the the public reports give a much more detailed description of the the specific events and our recommendations. Uh and as always the transparency of the process is a big part of the the feature of it. All the reports are available online and we encourage the public to to um read those and and to provide us and and the council and the department with any feedback that that they consider warranted. Next slide, please. So, as I said before that we we usually divide the year up into part A and part B. In other words, the first several months and the second several months. Uh we're going to be focusing tonight on the the second half of our uh of our reporting cycle and the the total number of cases. As you can see in part B there, there were four different completed investigations into allegations of officer misconduct, five uses of force, four weapon pointing incidents. And so those are the the major categories that have been set out by your council as being the the um areas in which you have asked us to provide some additional scrutiny to the department's own processes. Next slide. So just in terms of uh an overview of the second report, again we don't conduct our own investigations. We actually get contacted a number of times a year by members of the public who have a concern about an issue. They've had a a a challenging encounter with the police or a concern has come to their attention. And one of the first things that we make try to make clear to them is that we don't do our own investigations into these matters. Instead, our role is to ensure that the department's process is as complete and thorough and legitimate as it can be. So we provide that outside scrutiny and that window of transparency. And if somebody does reach out to us directly, we are in contact with the department to help facilitate that investigative process and make sure that their complaint is heard and understood and addressed appropriately. In terms of the cases that were in the pool for this year's this um part of the year and in this cycle, two of the the cases were sustained. the department found that that the officers had in fact um violated one or more policies in conjunction with the allegations and then the other complaints within the the individual allegations were considered to be unfounded. As always, one of the things that we're looking at apart from the the particulars of each individual case and and I think there is value in in letting the public know here are the kinds of things that members of the public are bringing to the department's attention and also here are some of the things that the department is doing in terms of initiating its own investigations when it has reason to believe an officer has potentially violated policy. So, we look at at both of those categories. uh our our overall impression is is a favorable one in terms of the objectivity and the thoroughess with which the department handles each of these matters. We have access to all of the case file evidence that the department uses and we also have uh access to the memos that the department puts together in terms of of analyzing and compiling all the different evidence looking at the body wararm camera and reviewing the contents as as relevant in a in a given situation. And it is our sense that the department's process actually does have legitimacy that they do take these investigations, take these complaints and allegations of misconduct seriously and and handle them appropriately. The other piece of it and that's the bottom portion of of the the current slide here and this is I I would say one of the areas where we have seen the most progress in terms of our time with with PaloAlto is that the department has really begun to emphasize uh the holistic review of each one of these incidents and rather than just kind of focusing narrowly on the bottom line result of the specific policy violation or the specific complaint that is that issue. It's true with the use of force cases as well. We have encouraged the department to take each of these incidents as an opportunity to kind of look at it in a 360 degree way and see if even if there are aspects of the encounter that are not directly related to the complaint or directly related to policy, but that are potential room for officers to improve, adjust, try another option. We have for years been been encouraging the department to to treat the process as an opportunity to embrace those things and to look for ways to improve outside of the narrow parameters of the discipline process and we have seen a marketked improvement in that uh area over the last few years uh the department's willingness to do it and I think the fruits of that and we we are we're always careful to highlight it and discuss it when we see it because we really do think it is a positive thing. Next slide, please. There were five use of force incidents that we looked at. And just to provide a refresher for the the public, a few years ago, I think it was 19 uh excuse me, 2021, the department expanded our scope of work to add force cases for the first time. I mean, there are specific categories and the the the way that the scope of work specifically sets it out is that we are to look at each use of force incident that results in medical attention beyond mere clearance in the field. So, we looked at five cases that met that criteria. Three of the cases actually involved relatively minor injuries, but because the person went to the hospital to be looked at in conjunction with the incident that that became it fell under the umbrella of our scope and and we had a chance to look at it and see how the department handled it. Two of the injuries that we looked at in this cycle were more significant. There was a broken arm and that was actually the result of a a relatively standard and minor use of force. It was a resisted control hold that that in sort of an unfortunate accident ended up resulting in a broken arm of the subject. And the other case was a a fairly significant canine bite that resulted in significant injury to the subject and and that person was hospitalized in conjunction with that that arrest. As always, we break down each case and the the department's review of it. The department found each of these uses of force to be in policy. Uh we agreed with that, but as the report says, agreed with some but with some reservations and and so we kind of drill down into the concerns that we had and again those fuel the the recommendations that we have for the department and and we have found the department to be very willing to engage with those and and to be responsive to them. Next slide, please. Uh, one of the categories again that that was an expansion of our scope from the early days and that was a a request from your council had to do with our evaluation of all pointed firearm incidents involving the police. That's anytime that an officer points a gun at a subject in the course of a law enforcement encounter. The department, and this is a relatively new thing, the department is expected to document that. the officers have to take responsibility for it, write about that in their reports, explain the justification for it, and then that um force deployment and it is a type of force deployment is subject to a fairly comprehensive review by the department. This is the fourth or fifth year that we have been doing this. Uh and it was a little bit rocky at the beginning. I think it was a a big change for the department. And it took some getting used to, but they have really become um much more adept at the efficiency of making sure that they're capturing all of these incidents and that the review of them is is meaningful and productive in terms of the the u not only the justification of it and are the officers acting and and using that authority in a way that's consistent with their training, consistent with department expectations, but also looking at the totality of the vent of the event and looking for ways to to again potentially adjust or correct behavior. And sometimes they can be technical things, minor things, things that the subject would have no idea about, but that the department is flagging and and following up with as far as uh engaging with its own personnel. So that is certainly one of the positive things that we want to highlight. One of the things that we have uh that has been a little bit of a struggle uh is is the bodywn camera activation issue that has been for a few years now a a source of concern for us that there are times in which one or more officers do not have their body warn cameras activated in the context of a given event. We've talked to the department a lot about it. I know that it has been a point of emphasis for the department as well. They have some new equipment that they hope will uh help reduce some of the inadvertent uh issues that that officers were having, but it's something that we will continue to monitor going forward. Next slide, please. So in terms of our our recommendations for for this year's report, again, one of the hopefully added value aspects of our role here is not just to provide some transparency and some outside scrutiny into the department's handling of these events, but to take advantage of our familiarity with best practices and our experience to make recommendations about potential adjustments to department practice, policy, um, investigative protocols, etc. And I'll turn it back over to Mike to to talk about some of the recommendations in this most recent report.

Speaker 5:
Thank you, Steve. Um, so, uh, these are the the four probably major recommendations during this report cycle. Um, they're pretty straightforward. Um, interestingly enough, um, and I'm not sure it was this will be attributed just to the adjustments of the K9 protocol, but since, uh, this report, there has not been a deployment of a K9 bite, uh, over the past several months, which, uh, you know, ideally, you don't want a dog out there, uh, and unless absolutely necessary, um, using um, his his or her teeth to uh, to detain a subject because of the injuries that that could ensue. Um and so um we hope as Steve said that the bodywn camera equipment and upgrades uh will lead to more activation. Um and then we also would like to see um more robust in and fair objective intake interviews by supervisors which is how a complaint gets into the system. So those are our four recommendations from this past report. If we go to the next slide please. I'm now going to transition to the second piece that Mr. Shakott had talked about that that we are going to address um and that is a potential uh scope of the ALPR audit uh that you all have talked about. So, uh, in preparation for that, uh, we did develop, um, a list of ideas or topics or potential areas of inquiry that we could use to develop our audit. Uh, we have also uh, increased our resources. So the person on our team who is the most experienced in learning about ALPRs, identifying issues with regard to ALPRs and actually conducting already conducting audits of ALPR systems throughout the state of California is here with us this evening and that is Terresa Maggula. Teresa, if you could just introduce yourself and then talk about some of the audits you've already performed.

Terresa Maggoula:
Thank you Mike and Steve and thank you for having me this evening. council. My name is Terresa Maggoula with OIR Group. Um, as Mike mentioned, our team has been actively engaged with issues related to automated license plate readers for several years, but obviously this has become a heightened topic of awareness um, both because of community trust and concerns um, as well as more information that's available about these systems um, that the public has become aware of. Um one of the factors that we've looked at um is and is the sort of the essential function of governance. Um obviously this council um as well as the police departments themselves um can choose to um internalize and and have strong governance within their own organizations and within their cities. And so we've looked at uh three very three different jurisdictions um in the past few months with relation to audits of ALPR systems and in particular around governance. Two of those are counties um Santa Cruz County and Santa Clara County. Both of those counties are what are defined as endusers. This means that those counties do not operate their own ALPR cameras, but they are users of the systems data. And so what we were looking for in those particular counties was the governance around the use of the data, the access to data and the best practices and policies surrounding that use and access. One of the features that we provided early on to our jurisdictions uh that we work with is some model best practice policies including language that aligns with the state law uh the two state laws that govern use of ALPR and data sharing within the state of California. Of a predominant importance in both of those is the concept of not sharing with federal agencies or agencies outside of the state of California. That of course has uh direct implications on some of the data sharing that was occurring uh with federal partners uh early on in the use of the flock system. And the other piece that we look at as well is whether individuals uh or agencies, excuse me, agencies are preventing data sharing for the purpose of any type of immigration enforcement, any type of gender affirming care, any type of individuals seeking medical care uh outside of the state or within the state borders. So those are the audits that we were conducting of those two end users. The one that is more relevant to the city of Palo Alto is the audit that we recently completed and presented to the city of Pasadena which is in Southern California. The city of Pasadena is a an owner and operator of their camera system. Um they have both cameras from uh Motorola as well as Flock. And so we took a look at the various issues surrounding the data and governance. Um, in particular, what we were looking at in the city of Pasadena was whether their own internal audits were effective and identifying the types of data information uh the sharing that was occurring um within the agency as well as with external partners uh in the state of California and to assess whether they were capturing any uh uses of data that may not align with state law. The other piece that we were assessing for the city of Pasadena was the placement of the cameras themselves. Um, and we were looking there for whether the cameras were placed in uh disproportionate uh with disproportionate rates in communities uh that may have been populated uh with higher persons of color. And so what we were looking at there was were they placed with the intent to overp police or over surveil those particular communities or were they placed there for uh operational law enforcement purposes. Uh and so those were the two main features. The city of Pasadena is also currently revising and revamping its ALPR policy and we are working with them on setting the appropriate guard rails as we did with both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties. I think it's important to note that the purpose of these audits um is really to provide an independent and unbiased perspective on the data that is available. And so what we're looking at is what the system actually does. What are the actual functions of this system? What data is it producing, storing, and retaining? And for how long? We're looking at who can access the data, what kinds of controls exist, and whether those exist internal to an agency or from the vendor, and whether those controls actually work. So, is the agency able to identify any misuse of data or any data sharing that is outside of compliance with state law? and whether and where additional safeguards might be necessary. Whether that looks like uh safeguards with respect to policy and procedures or training or it looks like any safeguards that might be put into place with memorandas of understanding or with contracts directly. And so essentially our our audit scope is developing as we are working with various agencies. And so we're very pleased to have your input and insight into the scope of this particular audit um as we're developing it sort of here in real time.

Mr. Connelly:
Thank you Teresa. Um so this whole issue of automated license plate readers ALPR is the word that I will use as an acronym to try and shorten our presentation a bit. Um is something that has raised uh that has reached the national consciousness. I mean there is discussion about this issue and the competing concerns throughout the country. Uh in particular California because of the uh legislaturator's restrictions on sharing information with uh immigration uh customs enforcement and as well as concerns about sharing information for those who might want to use the information to restrict uh access to um reproductive care. uh the issue has has has become even more significant in this state. Um so you're seeing a lot of concerns, a lot of issues being raised up and down the cities uh in California and many of the cities that we work with as Teresa indicated. Um I think there's a lot of reasons for it. I think that there are some competing values here in which it's uncertain uh whether the potential efficacy in using this technology is outweighed by the concerns about increased surveillance of people uh who are driving around this area. Uh and those are competing in uh concerns that people would have potentially different views or opinions about. How important or how effic efficacious does this technology need to be to override the concerns potentially about uh increased surveillance of individuals who are driving to the grocery store? Um the there the issue has that that's kind of one of the basic issues, but it's become conflated uh and uh as a result of some other concerns that have come out as a result of that as a result of some potential missteps or actual missteps by the vendor. Uh and that is the concern about inappropriate data sharing with uh agencies that state law says you are not supposed to share this information with. uh as well as a as well as uh the concerns about are there enough internal controls. Does the vendor have enough external controls to ensure that the data that is collected will be collected for limited purposes that officers will not have access to information and use them in an appropriate ways uh and a whole other host of concerns. So this is a uh uh an area that is wide ranging and um the scope of work uh will hopefully try to identify this my vision uh but certainly we are here to hear from you all but one of our visions is one to make sure that we tell the story in PaloAlto which means how did we get here? What happened? How did this, you know, contract begin to exist? And how did it end up being a big surprise when um the city learned uh after months of the LPR cameras going that there were some concerns or issues with regard to inappropriate data sharing? How did that happen? And then most importantly, uh uh one of the things we want to talk about is now that it's happened, what level of trust do we have in the vendor? What level of trust could we have in internal controls, vendor controls to ensure that on a forwardgoing basis should the program continue whether or not uh there is enough confidence in those internal controls to ensure that the missteps of the past will not be repeated in the future. Um what we liked about the city's approach here is the fact that ordinarily in Pasadena, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara County, we were given a scope of work um and then we completed the task within the scope of work. But here the scope of work appears to be a living breathing document uh with input from elected officials. And what I what I particularly like and I think my teammates would agree with me about that is we're not going to write a report in an audit about what we think you want, but we will actually have the ability to hear from you what you want in this scope of work. So we're pleased to hear from you unless anyone on my team has any additional comments. I think we'll end at this point, but certainly available to uh talk with you about some of the issues and some of the potential tasks uh that would be, I think, important and helpful for you as you ultimately make your decision about what to do with ALPR programs in your city. So, thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. And we'll end at this point, but certainly available for discussion and questions.

Speaker 2:
All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Connelly, Mr. Janako, and Miss McGillo. particularly helpful to have you here tonight. Um, you know, as you've all heard, we have both our uh typical uh semiannual uh report um uh that the uh independent police auditor gave. Um we are proud here in PaloAlto to be one of only two cities in the county that have an independent police auditor twice a year reporting to council on the behavior of uh our police uh officers uh including as was mentioned um use of force and uh uh pointed uh firearms. So uh thank you for that. Uh but we also uh previously uh requested that this um that there be an audit of uh ALPR systems and uh so tonight uh it was agendaized as a study session because that's typically how we agendaize the IPA uh report and so we can give feedback on the uh scope of the audit and uh related questions. I mention that because this was not agendaized as a decision-making final uh decision tonight on what we do about this issue. That's obviously of great community concern, but we are concerned as well and want to hear from you. And so that's why we uh are grateful you're here and look forward to the conversation. Um so with that um you know this this audit hopefully will answer questions uh that we aren't in a position to decide tonight but obviously things like do we use ALPRs at all and if so do we use flock and etc etc. So um let me first open it to my colleagues to see if there are any clarifying questions that you have for uh our uh independent police auditor team. Um and then if not we will hear from the good folks here in our chambers through public comment. Council member Bert.

Speaker 3:
Thank you. So first I want to say that um I having reviewed your uh scope of work um I found it to be very comprehensive. Uh I was pleased at just how many aspects you intend to uh dive in on. And then uh I I was not aware when we uh asked you to take this on uh that you already have had um similar not identical um uh task for three other government agencies. So that's gives you a lot of foundation there. Um I I I found under the section six the the um vendor governance and platform evolution to be really important because this is an evolving area where we certainly have been concerned with um actions that have happened up until now. And a big question we have is how well um uh has the vendor uh addressed many of the concerns that we in the public have and and how well haven't they? Um but then um under section 8, one of your questions uh that you identified is whether uh this effectiveness and value, whether the um uh program contributes meaningfully to investigative outcomes. And I wanted to ask if that's going to be answered in a quantitative way. I know that you had wanted to uh distinguish between um uh uh uh where it was central versus it was supplemental. Uh but is are you in your discussions with our department will you be getting uh some form of quantitative data?

Speaker 4:
Thank you for that question, Council Member Bert. And it's my understanding that the Palo Alto Police Department is currently quantifying that type of data and we will be receiving that data from the department itself. Yes.

Speaker 5:
Great. And then under best practices and benchmarking, I didn't see anything referencing um alternative providers. I mean, we've had uh the city of Campbell who's taken uh one approach, Stanford University another. Um, is that something that would be in your scope of work or is that within what the department would be looking at

Speaker 6:
with alternative providers? Are you speaking of just different vendors that have the same solution or different types of solutions?

Speaker 1:
Different types of solutions as well as different vendors with might have uh better security that we're looking for. Yeah, I would say that we have the capacity to look at different vendors and the types of programs that other agencies are using. Um, as far as other types of solutions for the same exact sort of use case, I'd be more limited in in providing that kind of information.

Speaker 2:
Okay. Um, so for example, we we have we know locally that um the two I'm aware of are Stanford and and Campbell. Would you be looking at the the approaches that they're taking? Is that

Speaker 3:
We certainly could. Yes.

Speaker 4:
Okay. All right. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Council member Lowing.

Speaker 6:
Yeah. To start, I just had uh one question. The item Too much paper here tonight. Oh yeah. Item three, bullet point two, whether currentus adequately define and limit access and use.

Speaker 1:
And my broad question there is whether this issue has any merit since someone can break the law. Maybe that's the way I would put it. So we have anou, you're supposed to act this way, but then the officer doesn't act that way. They actually break the law. Um, doesn't that mean there's automatically a a a data leakage there that gets in the way of thisou?

Speaker 2:
I mean, maybe I'm not phrasing it exactly.

Speaker 3:
No, I I think I understand what you're looking at.

Speaker 4:
I mean, there's like human factors that go into this that that can release the data as has happened by some officers around the country that not not here. I think with respect to theus what we're looking at is data sharing between different partner agencies and so we're really looking sort of a level up from the individual actor. Okay. When we're talking about the kinds of audits and internal policies that a department might have that's where we're looking at those act sort of the individual human factor the individual actors. And so what we're looking at in these systems as well is does the department internally have the sufficient safeguards and the the uh frequency of audits to be able to capture the individual actors and the access and and sort of the the searches that those individual actors are using.

Speaker 5:
Good. That directly uh addresses my question. Thank you.

Speaker 6:
And council member Long, if I could just be a little more specific, we're going to I think we would look at it two ways. One, as Theresa indicated, uh whether there are sufficient uh safeguards to identify officers or other personnel who inappropriately access the database for the wrong reasons, for personal reasons, but also to prevent that upstream from happening through training, guidance, and the kind of information to future officers about these are going to be our expectations, and you should be assured that if you violate uh the need to know and use it for personal interests that uh we're going to take appropriate action. So there's going to be need to be a training component as well.

Speaker 1:
Council member Leth.

Speaker 2:
Thank you, Mayor. Um Mr. Janako, Mr. Connelly, Miss Maggula, thank you very much for your presentation. I'm wondering if the benchmarking item could be augmented to include reference to how many municipalities in California have terminated flock contracts, covered cameras, and maybe a subset, how many in the Bay Area. Um, it'd be helpful for us to understand what is happening in our peer jurisdictions as we undergo this conversation here.

Speaker 3:
That is an excellent ad and we will certainly add that in. I think the other component would also if if I may be to take a look at the various jurisdictions that might just be end users of the system um that are not operating their cameras but that are still accessing the data. I think that's an important distinction to know whether an agency has access to the data even if they don't operate their own cameras.

Speaker 4:
Council member Rectal.

Speaker 5:
Okay. Thank you. Your scope has both internal access within PAPD using the data and also external the people that we share with the other departments. Are you going to be looking at all vendor access and our data is shared with the vendor and can we investigate how they use it and what kind of safeguards they have that they aren't misus using it.

Speaker 6:
And that's kind of in a black box which makes it hard for us because we have to trust what's going on in that black box. and should we be trusting what's going on in the back that that black box? So, is that something that you'll be doing in your scope?

Speaker 1:
Item six contemplates some of those vendor governance and and sort of the platform evolutions, but certainly it I agree with you. It is a black box. It's one that's difficult to get into. Um, and so it would really highly depend on the type of access that we're able to get uh at that level. So I don't want to overpromise and underdel but certainly it's an intention that we would take a look at some of the ways that uh the vendor is both protecting and potentially using the data that is going into the system.

Speaker 2:
And in your past audits have you looked into the vendor being able to look at their internal use um policies?

Speaker 3:
No, those were not part of the scope of work uh for the prior three audits that we've conducted. That would be a net new component here.

Speaker 4:
Okay. I think it would be useful. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
I agree. Thank you. So just following up on that point, um when we discussed this last time, um uh we talked about uh your bullet point three and or the third bullet point under item four, whether data deletion practices are automatic, verified, and consistently applied. And the question was also um could we check whether they audit that? So not just whether that's part of their practices but in you know are we auditing that the vendor is actually deleting. So have you seen that or is that something that is could be added to this uh scope of work?

Speaker 6:
Just for a point of clarification the particular item here is around uh the the police department's own data itself. And so when we're looking at whether the vendor is um deleting or retaining in a different way in a different system, I wouldn't be able to answer that. But the police department's own instance of its flock database is what we would be looking at here. I don't know if that quite

Speaker 1:
No, I understand your answer. I'm just want to I guess I would be curious if there's anybody out there who not only has the policies on their own servers of data deletion and all that, but there's some kind of auditing that there's actually compliance with those policies. That's a whole another level. and if there were any way to assess what you know what current practices are or could be or what success rate they've had on that because um you know it's one I have I have greater confidence in in in the folks that we see every day than than the vendors on that. Um okay and then my other question is um go back to my other question uh got so into that I may not remember. Just give me a moment here. Um well, let me just ask you generally, have you seen for however long you've been doing these audits um you know improvements in uh practices by vendors with respect to um you know trends improving uh controls usage and compliance and all of that like what have you observed? Yeah, that that has absolutely been the trend over time and and perhaps rightly so because they started on rather shaky grounds. Um but most recently, I believe it was last week um on the 13th um in particular, one vendor released a host of new functionality within the systems platforms. Um I could go through those but it's certainly something that the audit will be looking to ensure that uh both this department as well as the vendor is adhering to those new standards that they've applied um and that they've given to themselves. So we will be looking at those as well. But certainly over the course of the last almost a year um there has been a lot of transition in the particular platform and and the effectiveness of kind of that tool itself. Um, one of the most important things that came to light, of course, was that the feature called national lookup, which was allowing agencies outside of the state of California to view data from the state of California. Um, that was turned off for the state of California. So, thankfully that was captured. Um, unfortunately, it was something that was in violation of uh various contracts as well as state law. Um, but that has been turned off. Another feature that has uh recently come to light was terminating the access by national um what what are sometimes called fusion centers. There's one here in Northern California referred to as Nickrich and one in Southern California referred to as JRIK. These were agents agencies that were essentially looking at kind of the regional partnerships in collaboration with various federal task forces. those agencies had access to the database directly and were able to be users of that data. Those contracts were terminated and the access was turned off. In other words, the any any partner potentially at the federal level that was happened to be sitting in one of these regional centers can no longer access this department data um that's within the state of California. So that's a feature that was turned off recently. Um and then of course individual agencies are determining sort of how they want to adjust their governance and their data sharing. And so some agencies are saying we're only going to share with regional partners because that's what makes sense. We're only going to share with um you know agencies that have a ne a direct nexus to our agency. There are others that have determined we're only going to share with agencies that are committed to doing their own types of internal audits in the same way that we are. And this is sort of going back to theus um that we highlighted earlier that agencies are now taking more control and ownership of where their data goes and the data that they themselves access. So that's something that we're seeing agencies sort of realize we can control this for ourselves to be responsive both to the needs of our public as well as the direction and the concerns that our public is is having related to the surveillance technology.

Speaker 2:
Thank you. And finally, uh, would it be within the scope of something you could do to look at, um, vendors provisions or agreement to remedies for non-compliance because we had a non-compliance and as far as I can tell, there was no recompense for it. And so, the point isn't to get paid for a violation. The point is to deter the violation in the first place. And it's one thing to have high expectation of our own police department, but these entities are businesses.

Speaker 3:
Businesses operate on profits. Money is a deterrent. And if you have the appropriated liquid appropriate liquidated damages or other um things written into a contract, they're more likely to comply and self self enforce. So have is it within your scope to look at provisions like that and come back and tell us what has worked or not?

Vice Mayor Stone:
Yeah. So this is another one of the kinds of controls that's happening sort of in real time. So what we're seeing is agencies, especially large agencies like the LAPD in Southern California are really taking ownership of the contract language itself. And it is something that I think both both the city and counties as well as the vendor are cluing into. It is important that we have the right language and the appropriate language within our contract. And so it's a space that is evolving sort of as we're talking here tonight. Um and it is one that we're certainly willing to to report back. Whether or not it's effective or not, the window might be a little too short for us to be able to assess that. But we can certainly provide that kind of language and modifications um as other agencies have taken it on.

Speaker 5:
Thank you, Vice Mayor Stone.

Speaker 6:
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you for this scope. I think it's an excellent starting point. I agree with the feedback already provided. One question, not quite sure if the scope gets to it, and I would kind of call it examining like pattern of life capabilities. Basically, like can this system either by itself or in combination with other databases tell us where a particular vehicle has traveled over time, how frequently it visits particular locations, or identifying recurring travel patterns or associations between vehicles? And if so, do our policies then distinguish between LPR uh to investigate a particular incident, for example, recovering a stolen vehicle um or using historical data to be able to reconstruct someone's movement over a longer period of of time. I mean, because for me, those are very different uses of technology. One is for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and the other is big brother. And does this so does the scope kind of cover that?

Speaker 1:
Yes. So it does in in a bit of a an roundabout way. And let me let me address that. What we're looking at is severalfold. One is are the uses for legitimate law enforcement purposes. So we'll be looking line item at the searches that are being done to determine whether those have a direct nexus to a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The other piece is retention. Uh and so retention windows would come into play when we're speaking about this kind of pattern of life. Is that the term pattern of life? Yeah.

Speaker 2:
Yeah. Um that you know we're trying to sort of reconstruct a person's history. If the retention window is limited to 30 days or even the vendor is now suggesting a 7-day limit on the window of retention of data. uh we'd be looking at how that retention policy impacts the ability to look at data sort of historically over time to be able to reconstruct someone's patterns. Um what we're seeing in the audits that we have conducted and in some national studies that have come out is that the predominant use of the system is for one-time cases, investigative purposes with a legitimate law enforcement basis. So there are very few uses that um we have been able to document and record where they're looking at a pattern of someone over time or doing what we might call a broad sweep. And so we'll be looking at that as well. So are the cases and the uses of the data for particular one-time investigative use or are they looking more for a broader sweep or a pattern um over time and we'll be be able to identify that as well in the course of the audit. So hopefully that answers it's sort of three parts to answer one question.

Speaker 3:
Yeah, that that's helpful. And I think a common theme here is it seems like both from the audit but also the limitations of the audit is we can to some degree control our own policies and what our own law enforcement can can access. harder to control downstream bad actors. And maybe that is we're giving that information to an agency that is authorized to use it, but then we can't control who is authorized or who has access to their in to their data when their data is gathered from our data. And we don't have any control over their their firewall, their internal systems. And so I guess even if we had a 7day window there, could that information be kind of seized within that limited window from others to then construct this pattern of life of of individuals um and then retained essentially forever. Is is that something that we can I mean do you know that answer now or is that something that could be understood? It's something that we could take a look at certainly, but it would be within the realm of kind of those retention periods and understanding um what this department is willing to do as well as what thoseus are requesting of other departments and agencies using the data downstream.

Speaker 4:
Okay. Yeah. Because there's all Yeah. There's all these unintended consequences that it's so challenging to be able to um to make a a decision ultimately like Mr. Janako said, balancing those is a a real challenge. Yes. Okay. Thank you,

Speaker 5:
Council Member Lou. Thank you. Uh I appreciate all my colleagues uh detailed questions. They really echo a lot of my concerns. But just for this round of questions, I want to clarify whether you will actually look at the raw logs of searches or whether you'll be more focused on the policies of the city.

Speaker 6:
So my colleagues didn't say this, but I love data. I will be looking at the raw logs. Um I will be doing an assessment of the logs. um Palo Alto is already uh far and beyond some of its uh regional partners as well as state partners and that they provide that data in a redacted manner on their public transparency site. Uh we through the nature of our agreement will be able to look at the raw logs

Speaker 1:
and so we'll look at the raw logs of both internal searches and searches from other cities. That is correct. And will we have any uh ability to judge whether maybe some of that data was used inappropriately for stalking or sort of individual purposes or is that kind of level of detail

Speaker 2:
uh not possible to reconstruct from the kind of analysis that you're planning on doing?

Speaker 3:
So to be completely transparent about it what we do is we will be looking at the raw data. So every search that's conducted both internally and of PaloAlto's data. What we're looking at when we do that is if there is what uh within the the search itself, each search has to have a legitimate a legitimate law enforcement nexus. That means that when an officer, whether it be within Peloto or elsewhere, accesses the data, they have to provide a case number and they have to provide a code for the type of crime that they are investigating. Now, could there be a bad apple somewhere that is making up case numbers and inputting them into the system because he or she is a bad actor? That is a use case that could possibly happen in the world. Um, we wouldn't be able to tell about that. Um, what we can do and what the audits can do is take a look at whether the case numbers are actual legitimate case numbers. That's something that the department will do internally uh through its own audits and we can check and verify that as well.

Speaker 4:
Okay. It seems like you do have some ability to actually sanity check though that you aren't using a case number from years ago or using case number that

Speaker 5:
doesn't need to have a vehicle involved. Do you actually uh so I heard sort of a no answer that you wouldn't necessarily be able to judge the appropriateness of searches but at least you'll be able to detect and spot check some sample in

Speaker 6:
correct

Speaker 1:
okay I think that correct because keep in mind we're talking and I'm not trying to to limit the scope at all but we're talking about millions and millions of of searches and it would almost be um

Speaker 2:
we would have to use some kind of tool that that we don't have at our disposal. as this group um to be able to assess that on that global scale.

Speaker 3:
Yes, certainly. I think just uh spot checking could be uh and sort of random spot checking can be useful in building trust uh among the broader community. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Cara Silver:
All right. Thank you. And so with that, let's go to our public comment. And so Madame Clerk, how many uh speakers do we have as of now? We have a total of 35 requests to speak and three of which are um there are three groups of seven. Okay, great. Uh, well, we're glad you're all here. We look forward to hearing you. What we will do is give uh one minute to each individual speaker and five minutes to each group. And uh the clerk generally announces who's next and who's right after that. So, you can be ready to approach the microphone when it's your turn. All right. So, please go ahead. Our first speaker is Carara S. speaking on behalf of a group of seven. Thank you, Madame Mayor and City Council. My name is Cara Silver. I'm a 20-year PaloAlto resident, a municipal attorney, and a member of safety over surveillance, a coalition of 14 groups opposing mass surveillance in the Bay Area. First, we want to thank PaloAlto for taking this important step of conducting a third-party audit. I remember when a small group of us showed up to the policy and services committee in March 2026 and requested the committee to cancel the flock contract. At that time, most people didn't even know what an ALPR was. Very few community members showed up to the meeting and most people had never even heard of flock. Now, can everyone who opposes ALPRs please stand up? Thank you all. You can sit down. Obviously, um, ALPR concerns are widespread. John Oliver ran an entire HBO episode on mass surveillance very recently, calling out flocks abuses in particular. The New York Times recently ran an article titled, "Flock cameras are dividing US cities." Here's what to know about them. Police officers in at least 12 states, including California, have been accused of misusing flock systems to stalk former partners and the like. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, Nick, of which PaloAlto is a member, allowed federal agencies to conduct 299 searches of San Francisco's flocked data in violation of California's data sharing laws. And this was just a couple of months ago. Closer to home, the San Monteo County Grand Jury just issued an audit calling for stricter ALPR oversight practices. And PaloAlto Weekly broke a news story and how the city's own data was shared with federal law enforcement agencies for over a year without the police department even knowing. Approximately 132 local agencies across the country have canceled flock contracts, including our neighbors Stanford University, Mountain View, City of Santa Cruz, and now most recently, Redwood City. 40 of those cons cancellations were in August of this year. Even the Los Angeles Police Department recently canceled their flock contract, citing privacy concerns. While concerns about flock cameras are increasing, so are concerns about overreaching authoritarian federal government. Recent reporting shows the federal government launched an expansive surveillance program in Minnesota against activists, labor unions, and community groups called Operation Puppet Master in response to statewide ICE protests. Mass surveillance is in mass surveillance in the wrong hands is no longer an abstract concern. With this context in mind, SOS PaloAlto is requesting a more robust audit scope as detailed in the letter sent to the council earlier today. In particular, we would like the audit to include some updates to the data sharing in section three. to include is PAPD approving in advance all search inquiries in compliance with the internal policy that it has. How does PAPD verify whether the reason for inquiry and case number is accurate before permitting search? How does PAPD determine which outside searches should be withheld under the CP and how much time is dedicated to this decision of um redaction? Warrants and subpoenas involving PaloAlto customer data. What are Flock's procedures for addressing them? When is Flock allowed to share data for legal purposes and with whom? How is PaloAlto notified when the sharing happens? Also some enhancements to section 8 effectiveness and value. Um we were surprised not to find a discussion of the number of false positives both internal and external uses. We would like to know the percentage of time an officer is is takes to verify ALPR information with cleats before taking enforcement action. Again, as required by local policy, information, including crime statistics and closure rates that helps the community assess whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purposes. Comparison of cases closed before and after implementation and specific amounts and types of closed cases attributed to FLO.

Speaker 5:
Your time is up.

Tim McKenzie:
Thank you. Our next speaker is Tim M, followed by Brian E. Greetings, council. My name is Tim McKenzie and I'm with the Silicon Valley chapter of Democratic Socialist of America and the Safety Over Surve Surveillance Coalition. I'll start with two asks. Uh immediately cover the cameras while the audit is ongoing. It's a good natural experiment to be able to get some real data and add research into the false positives as part of the scope of the audit. A truly independent audit would consider the totality of evidence, including downsides, rather than trying to find ways to justify mass surveillance. We already got off to a rocky start when the initial plan was derailed by a clear conflict of interest with the first auditor. It does not bode well that Mr. Janako representing the new auditor was reported to say, "We want to make sure that value isn't overridden by lack of trust in the misuse of the data." That sounds an awful lot like conclusions have been drawn before any factf finding begins. We know Roseville Police Department reported a false positive rate greater than 70% and LAPD had a 1 in3 error rate. Studiously avoiding anything that might challenge the perceived value of these invasive cameras is negligent. But focusing on false positives makes it seem like there could be a safe way to use this tool, which is elucery. If your criteria for decision-making is whether something makes the job of the police easier, you are by definition building a police state or at the very least the infrastructure for one. While our democracy is under attack as we descend into fascism, is that really the pol policy decision you want to make? Do you want to pay a private for-profit company so they can harvest our data and train their AI model to sell to the federal government? Will Powo Alto keep giving up resident and visitor data so Peter Theo can get a return on investment in his attempts to destroy our democracy? I ask you to consider how you'd like to be viewed when history looks back on this moment. Will you be part of the decaying institutions that enabled the rise of fascism? Or will you be able to look with pride on making a decision in support of the community? If you are wondering how you would have acted in 1930s Germany, look to what you are doing now. Your decisions here are the answer to that question. The police chief has said automated license plate readers are an invaluable tool, but no tool is more valuable than the public trust. Everything in policing is downstream of that bedrock foundation. Startups move fast and break things and flock and ALPRs in general have broken the public trust. Our data was illegally searched tens of thousands of times by outofstate agencies. What we've seen is that at best we will capture abuses after the fact. We cannot prevent harms from occurring. that was just admitted by the auditors right here. The only safe data is no data. If you cannot protect it, do not collect it. At the very least, drop to 3 minutes of data retention like the state of New Hampshire. The problem isn't just one vendor. It is the technology itself. The very nature of automated license plate readers means that we are all constantly surveiled, constantly under suspicion. How can we be expected to reciprocate trust that is not extended to us? Trust is a two-way street, a mutual relationship. How many times do we have to fill these chambers to tell you that the trust is broken? How often do you do you speak to an empty gallery versus the full gallery that is right here? Please stop digging the hole deeper. Start building bridges to repair trust. Automated license plate readers violate our fourth amendment rights and do not make us safe. A Texas sheriff said the tool is not compatible with a free society when he took down the cameras. Paloalto sister city of Bloomington, Indiana canceled their contract. How can all these red cities and states see the light when supposedly progressive PaloAlto continues down the destructive path of issuing public trust? Make the right decision. Cancel the contract, cover the cameras, and never pursue any other vendors of this dangerous technology. Repair public trust, safety over surveillance. Thank you.

Speaker 1:
Our next speaker is Brian E

Brian E:
, followed Bri by Brian J.

Brian Eaton:
Hello, my name is Brian Eaton. Thank you for holding this study session. Uh, I also wanted to ask is it if it's possible to have Penn go next because they are from Bloomington and they wanted to speak but it's getting late there. Um, so I've worked as an engineer in the tech industry for 25 years. Most of that time in security, privacy and user safety. I'm a member of the safety over surveillance coalition because of that experience. Uh, Flock and the federal government are wildly out of control. These cameras are dangerous to residents. I'm here to request that the city cover the Flock cameras. Uh, Flock and their CEO have a long history of lying to the public and their customers. They claim they've never been hacked, but they've left the cameras wide open to abuse for years. They claim they anonymize data, but they don't really. They claim they maintain audit logs, but they won't tell the city who really accessed the data. Flock lies constantly. It's obvious. In Los Altos, residents found evidence in the Flock transparency portal that their cameras had been searched by the federal government. And then when the city manager confronted Flock, Flock denied everything. Instead of admitting the mistake, Flock told the city that that was just a bug in the transparency portal. So Flock's willing to lie to city managers. In Leland, Colorado, they found that their cameras were being abused by ATF and ICE. And the chief of police confronted Flock. Chief Doran wrote later, and I quote, "In July of 2025, after the previous issue with ATF accessing Lovelin's Flock data, the LPD was assured by Flock that federal agencies no longer had access to our license plates readers, which we took at face value." This statement was also reiterated by the Flock CEO in a live interview with Nine News on July 30th, 2025, where he confirmed Flock had no federal contracts. Guess what? Flock did have federal contracts and they were providing data to ICE. So Flock is willing to lie to police chiefs. In Wisconsin, a Flock representative got up in front of the city council and said that Flock didn't create heat maps to track individual vehicles. The city council trusted Flock and they approved the contract. The very next day, the chief of police got proof that what Flock's reps had said during the council meeting wasn't true. So Flock is willing to lie to city councils. They're willing to lie to cops. Their CEO is willing to go on the evening news and lie directly to the camera. We would be naive to believe anything that Flock tells us during this audit. However, Flock is very honest about one thing. Their contract states clearly that they own the cameras, they own the raw footage, and that they will share it with whoever they want, whenever they want. Flock is run by Trumpup supporting fascists. They do not care about the contracts they've signed. They've built a nationwide surveillance network. And now it is being used to hunt down immigrants, hunt down protesters, and hunt down anyone that opposes the Trump administration. Just last week, news broke that DHS had infiltrated anti-Trump church groups to spy on them. The Trump administration has access to the entire flock network, including the Palo Alto cameras. The audit isn't going to slow them down one bit. I wish the city had more options here, but you don't. You can leave the cameras up and let Trump and his goons use them to destroy democracy. Or you can choose to fight back. You can cover the cameras. Mountain View saw this. They removed the cameras. Santa Clara County saw this choice. They banned city staff from operating the cameras. Stanford saw this choice. They covered the cameras. They had the sheriff deputies come and do it. That was nice. And Palo Alto's sister city, Bloomington, Indiana, they had this choice. They canceled their contract. They got rid of the cameras. So, I am here pleading with you as your neighbor. These cameras are dangerous to me. They are dangerous to my family. They are dangerous to everyone in this room. Please cover the cameras now. Thank you.

Brian Jones:
Our next speaker is Brian J, followed by Winter D. Good evening. My name is Brian Jones. I worked in Palo Alto for many years and I'm a systems engineer uh for about the last 25 years specializing in hardware systems with a strong data component. Uh the technical reality of data systems is that if you do not control the server, you do not control the data. We cannot be assured that the audit logs report all of the access to the data. Backdoor access does not necessarily come out in the logs that were provided by the company. Um, so the logs are only as good as our trust in that provider. No city policy can ensure vendor compliance. Whatever policy rules we make here don't apply to people in other states running their company. Furthermore, data breaches are inevitable as I'm sure you have personally experienced many times probably in the last month when you get those letters in the mail, right? If it does not happen, um if if that data breach, even if it doesn't happen, there's no guarantee that we will even know that it happened. The only way you know from those is is that your data has been breached is that you get those letters if it's in Flock's best interest.

Speaker 4:
What time is that?

Speaker 5:
Sorry.

Speaker 6:
Our next speaker is Winter D followed by Will O.

Winter D:
El Certo made big news last week when 70 days after its contract ended with Flock, it still hadn't removed its cameras or even shut them down. Flock hadn't. Flock knows more about how to manipulate its tech than we ever will. Flock's behavior and its black box um certainly will never engender trust in this community. Any speculation that flock lowers PaloAlto's crime rate is conjecture. Our crime statistics have been cyclical for decades, up and down, up and down in all crime categories, verifying our very low crime rate. Not only did flock endanger, it damaged our city. As a prior at a prior city council meeting, our mayor asked the city attorney if the city can recover damages for Flock's 2-year long breach of contract. I hope this audit is useful for that purpose.

Speaker 1:
Our next speaker is Will O followed by Annie G.

Will Oler:
Good evening. My name is Will Oler. I serve on the Menlo Park housing commission, but tonight I'm here as a private citizen. I'm in Palo Alto tonight because my therapist works here. On my way here tonight, my location was recorded by multiple block cameras across several municipalities. Um, and that information will be available to most police officers in the state for the next 30 days. Um, it's invasive, it's creepy, it's unnecessary, and it didn't used to be this way. It shouldn't be this way. Um, if other municipalities are any indication, the deeper you look, the more problems you will find. And so I encourage you to look deep and then to do the right thing and to remove the cameras uh remove APRs from your policing approach entirely. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
Our next speaker is Annie G followed by KBT.

Annie G:
Good evening everybody. Was a constitution written for flock? I want to ask that question to you because you're responsible for making sure our constitution stays a constitution. And if you vote for flock, you are voting for fascism. Thank you. Our next speaker is KBT followed by Raymond G.

KBT:
want you to know that I haven't been visiting Powo Alto for any reason in the last year other than to get you guys on board this cancellation boat. Just like in Mountain View, we're at the loading dock. It's time to sail away from mass surveillance, cover the cameras, cancel the contract. ALPRs like Flock serve up a massive catch of data for invisible DHS ice searches and to line rich billionaires pockets. City government trying to control the surveillance industry is like Ahab trying to catch his white whale Moby Dick. It will never work. It is untameable and is at great peril to us all. Prevent most crime by taking care of people, not spying on them. We need freedom over fascism, community over capitalism, safety over surveillance. All aboard the cancellation boat. Cover the cameras.

Raymond Goens:
Our next speaker is Raymond G, followed by Renee R. Good evening. My name is Raymond Goens. I am the founder for the liberation and justice working group for Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America. I agree with all the prior speakers and I would like to yield my rest of my time in a moment of silence for the rights that will be violated by our citizens by these cameras. I ask that Palo Alto does not I ask that the council members that does not turn Palatoto into demolition man. For those that are old enough to watch that movie, you know what I'm talking about.

Renee Rasheed:
Our next speaker is Renee R, followed by Young. Hi, my name is Renee Rasheed. I'm here supporting safety over surveillance. I'm here urging city council to cover the flock cameras while the flock audit is conducted and to cancel the flock contract. I commend OIR and council's audit investigations into policies and comp compliance. I think you can improve policies and do research, add infinitum, but if you don't enforce any repercussions for violations, they are of no use. Flock business model does not generate enough profit by camera systems alone. The value is in the data, our data. It is time to take action against mass surveillance systems and I urge you to cancel Flock. Our next speaker is Young, followed by Henry E. Um, Flock claims that it only tracks license plates, not people, but it was reported that Flock was planning to incorporate people's data that is being bought and sold on the dark web. This is hacked data. They only backed off of this plan when the the news was leaked and that created a public uproar. Flock is currently the biggest villain in the ARP ALPR market because they have the most cameras out. But don't believe that other vendors would be better behaved. They all run on the same predatory business model of tracking people's movements and eventually all our activities. Um I urge that uh the council look at ig.org. That's the um website by the Institute of uh justice uh Institute for Justice. They have a database of um known abuses and um errors in um ALR systems. Um it's uh being updated all the time and for your due diligence you should know

Speaker 1:
your time is up.

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is Henry E followed by Hamilton H.

Henry E:
What's covered can be uncovered. The cameras must be not only removed, we must have a contest in the public square to see who can do the best job with a sledgehammer of smashing them to smitherines. We don't need this expensive contract. We know the answer. We don't need this audit. The council has to vote tonight to remove the cameras and hold the contest and give a prize to the person who does the best job in disintegrating the cameras. We need improved public safety. That'll come from neighbors keeping an eye on neighbors. This was the premise of sociologist my colleague Jane Jacobs. Neighbors keeping an eye. Real window the movie showed that. And then from top down, the city of Helsinki in Finland has no pedestrian fatalities in the past year. 1.4 million. We've had several. We must change our way of organizing public safety.

Speaker 4:
Your time is up.

Speaker 5:
Thank you.

Speaker 6:
Our next speaker is Hamilton H followed by Gabrielle P.

Hamilton H:
I've sent you a letter requesting six additions to the audit scope. My biggest concern is that up to 200,000 searches every month of Palo Alto data, 99% of it from other jurisdictions, and most of those searches are not related to the specific crime. For example, CHP does about 40,000 searches. Why does a police officer have a right to see everywhere you've been in the last 30 days when pulling you over for a speeding ticket? Therefore, one of my requests is you review limiting outside agency searches as narrowly as practical to felony sex crimes and to find crimes of regional theft. With the flock architecture, it's on a shared server, which the government can and clearly wants illegal access to. As long as that architecture is in place, the chance of federal access covertly acting is high. That's why I'm also requesting you evaluate Janentech, which Stanford's using, which does not retain the data server, but on their local sheriff servers. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is Gabrielle P, followed by Penn B.

Gabrielle P:
Hi, mayor and city council. Um, just to share a personal an anecdote. Uh I was raised in PaloAlto and um went to college in the Bay Area and I spent my childhood sleeping in the back of the chambers when my mom came to the city council to advocate for our community. Um so I have very strong memories of this location. Um so I don't have any facts or figures to add to all of the fantastic information that the other speakers have presented. Um, I am strongly opposed to ALPRs in our community and instead of voicing an yet another um opinion that you know I already have, I would like to share um how the book 1984 ends as a an example of what mass surveillance can do. Um, at the end of the story, the protagonist has been jailed uh due to his efforts to resist

Speaker 4:
the author.

Speaker 5:
Go ahead and finish your sentence.

Speaker 6:
Thank you.

Speaker 1:
Sentence

Speaker 2:
to to uh resist the authoritarian government and he did not um confess. He did not give up the names of his co-conspirators until they presented him with a cage full of hungry grats, if you remember the story. And the way he escaped his please finish your sentence. The way he escaped his fate was to ask them to do it to her, his most beloved person, and to have them kill her. So, not only did they control his actions, but they controlled his mind and his heart. So, we must stop that. Thank you. Our next speaker is Pen B.

Pen B:
Hello. Hello, I hope you can hear me. Hello from Bloomington. Uh, we are a small city with deeply Midwestern small town vibes. Uh, and our mayor stance on surveillance tech and her disrespect to our concerns has just sundered her reputation amongst friends and voters alike. It's a very sad tale and I do not believe this has to be the story of Palto. Your community has come here tonight telling you to mans that they fear for their rights, their safety, and their representation in these matters. Our council has repeatedly admonished our trust in them. Our mayor has immediately repeatedly admonished our trust in her has disrespected our concerns in our time. And this does not have to be the story for Palto. It is crucial that the council goes above and beyond to show that they are listening, that they respect the concerns of their people, and that they will be going above and beyond to protect the public safety and their interests. It is time to cover the cameras and take them down. Thank you. Our next speaker is Aram F.

Aram F:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin. Now let's take a look at the fourth amendment. Once we start to diminish the obligation to do to create or establish probable cause before we violate the Fourth Amendment, the the right to be free against illegal searches and seizures, the it becomes that much easier to diminish other constitutional rights, particularly when we have a fascist in the White House that doesn't follow the rule of law at any time. We have an obligation to do this. And let me tell you, with no disrespect to OIR, when you look at all the contracts, it's a cottage industry for them to do audits. They're going to come back and say, "We can do this just fine with appropriate guidelines." That's what they're going to tell you. No audit. Don't waste your money. No cameras. Smash them like Henry E said. Let's have a parade in the park smashing those bad boys now.

Madam Clerk:
And that concludes public comment on study session item two.

Speaker 6:
All right. Well, thank you, Madam Clerk, for managing all of that and thanks to all of you for your comments. Uh we certainly do appreciate your your time and and thought sharing. Um I'll bring it back to the deas uh for additional comments, questions, any direction to uh staff and the auditors on the scope.

Speaker 1:
Council member Bert,

Speaker 2:
thank you. Uh first, um when do you anticipate your uh review to be complete and reported to the council?

Speaker 3:
Uh the goal, uh Council Member Bert, is to finish it within 90 days of the assignment, assuming all goes well.

Speaker 4:
Thank you. And we received written comments uh from both a whole bunch of public speakers. Uh several were uh very concrete um and some overlapping a series from SOS. I don't know if you were able to review those. Um others from uh Mr. Hitchings um and uh we don't have the opportunity tonight to go through each of those and really square them with the scope of work. Uh but I am interested in really the need to do that. I'm not I'm not clear in my own mind how those two things uh line up between your detailed scope that you already have and some of these other points including the false positive rates. Is that part of your current scope? Uh certainly it can and will be incorporated. Um, Council Member Bert, we have been advantaged by receiving information directly from advocates. Um, and uh, the initial questions that we uh, put put to you all were informed by that feedback. But we have additional feedback this evening which will also digest and potentially reform our scope. And this issue of being able to um narrow outside agency searches to higher level crimes or conversely um uh prohibit um searches after traffic stops and low-level uh crimes or infractions. Is that something that um one do you already know whether that is uh an option for us to uh adopt? uh council member Bird I believe that is uh an approach that uh other jurisdictions are currently considering. So that goes to a question that is not so much of the audit but of the council. Um are there interim measures that we would like to take before we have received the uh the independent audit and if so which ones? Council member Lou, thank you and uh thank you both to OIR and to the public for the comments. Um I found the written public comment from SOS and also Hamilton Hitchings uh like Council Member Bert um uh particularly relevant and I think worth including most of that scope. I think uh from reading those comments, it seemed like those questions were likely going to be answered anyways, but I think having uh more explicit scope covering those questions is useful for building community trust. Um, a couple of extensions that I would want to look into are uh based on the data we get about actual safety incidents, whether uh what the data would look like if we had shortened the retention window to 1 minute or 1 day. Um, uh to see yeah whether we can get 90% of the safety benefit with one minute retention for example. uh to the extent that we find a measurable safety benefit. Um I similarly would be interested in understanding if we uh did something like a Stanford approach and had our own data uh hosted on premises and therefore had much more limited or more deliberate sharing and maybe lost access to data from other agencies and other agencies lost data lost access to data from us. uh whether that would affect any of the safety outcomes or case studies that the uh department puts forward. Um uh yes um uh because I am very interested in Stanford's approach. Uh I think in the short term I'd be uh open to waiting the 90 days to get some actual data, but I think shortening the retention period uh is and restricting the crime list is a what I imagine baseline action that I would feel like is basically no regret moving forward. um while we figure out the larger picture about Flock versus other LPR providers,

Speaker 5:
Vice Mayor Stone,

Chief Rice Schneider:
thank you. Um agree, including recommendations from SOS, Mr. Hitchings are all great recommendations in this. Um, I would like to review specifically I want to make sure I review specifically addressing immigration in enforcement. And I know it talks about compliance with California law and essentially California law precludes that, but just to make sure that we're really doing a deeper dive um to make sure that searches performed on behalf of federal immigration authorities um to make sure that we're catching potential sorry potential searches that might be done on behalf not just directly because I know that again is more of the the challenge um to make sure that we're assessing whether our safeguards are beyond just mere merely kind of policy based but making sure that the system is actually configured to be able to prohibit that type of access and and sharing because again I think that's just another theme here is there's the policy and then there's the actual technological limitations on what we can um ensure another area I'd like to see strength ED is kind of the the accuracy and the false positives. Again, I don't I don't want to see just technical accuracy rates of the cameras. I really want to understand the consequences of when the system is is wrong. So, how many of these alerts have resulted in in traffic stops or other police encounters? How often was the underlying alert subsequently determined to be incorrect or or stale? And what is the real life consequences of that? I feel like every single day that I turn on the news or see social media or anything else, there are more and more stories of these type of interactions. And you can you can read a report and see data on all these false positives and and stops, but the impact on an individual experiencing that interaction with law enforcement when they've done nothing wrong is in can be incredibly terrifying and and lifealtering in in serious moments. And so want to really understand that. Um I also want to see the audit examine the surveillance implications of of camera placement. I think it kind of goes into that, but I'd really like to be able to see a map of where all these are are located and an analysis of what those cameras allow us to learn about people's movements. as I talked about, but before I I really do think there's a meaningful difference between cameras positioned primarily to identify vehicles entering or leaving to be able to capture kind of the original intent of of all this and and then those really tracking people's movements and being able to kind of reconstruct that. Um especially when we're talking about movement to sensitive locations such as schools, house of warships, medical facilities, reprotective health providers, political demonstrations, etc. I do think we need to strengthen the effectiveness section to to just better understand outcomes and and and again how many how much crime is this actually solving? never know preventing but to be able to really understand that that and yeah, I think those are the kind of the areas that I that I'd like to see this having a a deeper dive. I guess a a question. I don't know if this would then be for city manager or the or the chief of police as far as just the the ease of being able to turn off the cameras. Um is that a simple switch? Is that literally covering the the cameras? Um since you don't since it's not an action item, council cannot formally direct it this evening, but kind of curious what that what that process would look like. Thank you, uh, Vice Mayor. Perhaps this is a good time to ask our chief of police to comment maybe specifically on that question, but, uh, more broadly on, uh, what he's heard at this point.

Speaker 1:
Thank you, Chief Rice Schneider.

Speaker 2:
Thank you. Uh, James Rice, center, police chief. Uh, good evening, madame mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, and council. U, I don't know truthfully the answer to that, uh, as we've never had to do it previously. Um, I think that if we made that decision, I would assume that we would want to do it in a proactive way, in which case we would probably just take them down ourselves through public works, um, rather than wait for the vendor, uh, if for no other reason than if the vendor said it would take us a period of time to do it. If the council made that decision, I would assume you would want that to take effect immediately. So, we could affect that. Uh, they're all installed on existing city infrastructure, so I think we could accomplish that if that were the mission. Um, if I may, to the city manager's point, I did want to point out that uh, as this audit goes forward over the next 90 days, and frankly going back 90 days, uh, the department has been taking efforts to sort of attack lowhanging fruit where we could make improvements that we already had control over. So for example uh theus that we have with the individual agencies with whom we share uh we have actually revised thoseus to be more clear in terms of the expectations we have over our partners. Uh we have incorporated specifically a clause that also has them attesting at the uh executive level that their departments have a robust audit process of their own officer search behavior. So, uh, in addition to complying with California law, that they also have an audit process in place that's comparable to ours. And that was directly in response to some feedback we got from council here. Uh, the other thing that we are going to take advantage of is a feature that the auditor mentioned uh that did not exist until literally 10 days ago, which is the ability to limit the types of crimes for which outside agencies can search our data. So, uh, we have a meeting set this week to go over the full list of crimes that presently exist because, as you may know or may not, when an officer conducts a search, there's a drop- down menu with a finite list of crimes that they from which they must choose one as the basis for the search as well as a specific case number. Uh, up to now, we had no ability to restrict by type of case they were searching for. Now, we're going to take advantage of going in and identifying what I would imagine as low-level crimes and limiting the types of cases that would justify a search of our data. Uh, one last point, while we have been thoughtful in identifying regional partners which with whom we felt we had a nexus and crimes in PaloAlto may have a nexus and so we only partner with Northern California law enforcement, local law enforcement agencies. uh we are going to take a fresh look at that list and see if it's it if it's at all expansive or too expansive for our needs. One last point I wanted to make was on the reference to the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center or Nick Rick. It's a fair observation to say that the city of PaloAlto is a member in the sense that we receive data from Nick Rick, that is intelligence bulletins from from Nick Rick, but we've never had an officer as a task force agent at Nick Rick and we've never had Nick Rick as anou agency. Other local law enforcement agencies in California had had partnerships with Nick Rick, but we did not. Can

Speaker 3:
I ask one followup question? I know I'm over o over over time. Uh glad to hear changes in in policy to require more more serious crimes for the for the search. But is that again more a policy safeguard or is there is there um actual kind of technical controls that would prohibit an officer in another in another agency being able to access if it is not a serious crime. So, as would as would be the case really with any police database, to be quite honest with you, if if you have a dishonest officer who's going to falsify a report number and deliberately indicate a different call, a different type of crime, um, then yes, uh, if someone could in theory do that, um, we would have, as was pointed out, a much easier way to identify those instances internally because we have access to the the detail. Um but uh the the reality of it is with externals uh to a certain extent there is there is a professional you know assumption that they're both complying with policy but also complying with California law that would pro prohibit the behavior. Well then sorry one more followup to to that. Are there any repercussions that you're aware of at a state law level that would prohibit an officer from making a a false request in another agency to be able to access that data? So at the very least it would be grounds for descertification under SB2 that was enacted a couple of years ago that allows for uh California peace officer standards and training which is a state regulatory agency over that provides licensing or certification that's required to be a police officer. Um that would be a basis for descertification which would mean they would no longer be able to be a police officer in the state of California. Okay. Thank you. Can't remember which of you rang in first. Uh, Council Member Lowing, I believe. Okay. Thanks. Um, I'm always interested in getting more data to make a decision uh particularly on a on a data issue, but um I I do have concerns that it sound like you weren't going to really be able to go too far on looking at alternative vendors. Is that correct? Or you are going to be able to we can certainly bring forward some of the alternative vendors that are available.

Speaker 4:
Okay. I didn't understand that before. That's why I wanted to throw that up. Um because my my concern is we, you know, get into this for 90 days, we learn a lot of stuff. But that same CEO is sitting there at that company. Uh and there's all kinds of uh handprints, footprints, fingerprints all over the place that the guy is just not trustworthy. So, I mean, that's fact. There was some of this discussion tonight. I read articles about that. So, um, that's part of the process here is under under what circumstances, if any, could we ever actually trust this guy while he's still there. So, um, that's a big barrier for me. Um, a big barrier. Uh, I just want to also just kind of point out that as you're doing your comparisons, I mean, you you know this stuff better than we do, but I know that all cities are not created equal. Um, Pasadena is not exactly the same as Palo Alto. Um and Pasadena and Palo Alto are way different than Stanford. So the decision for Stanford to drop it for XYZ reasons, it's just not relevant to the way that our department's going to use it. We want a broader, you know, across the bridge access. Uh I read that they just wanted like 60 seconds after somebody left the jurisdiction of Stanford campus, they wanted the the data to go away. So that's just not the use case that we're we're using. We're we're actually catching people that stole cars three days ago uh now stealing one in Walnut Creek and then we get reported on that. So that's the kind of I mean I'm paraphrasing here chief so you can improve that statement but that's just a different kind of use case. So we just have to be careful of which jurisdictions we're comparing to is is sort of my only point on that. Um so the question becomes do we invest in this literally money and 90 days uh and get back to saying that well we might want something else but it's not flock meaning should we in the interim whoever brought that up was it council member Burke should in the interim we be doing something else like jumping on new vendors right away or do we need this uh anyway to know what kind of vendors to go Go.

Speaker 5:
That's all.

Speaker 6:
Council member Li cuts.

Speaker 1:
Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to begin by reiterating that I'm not concerned with Paloto Police Department and I appreciate our independent auditors. I am concerned that Flock, whose leaders are aligned with the policies of the Trump administration, which now has a true 21st century weapon in their authoritarian authoritarianism arsenal, are on the rise, and I feel like the dictators of the 20th century would have given anything for this kind of surveillance technology. According to a KQED piece that ran just last week, here are a few examples of what is happening. Police in Texas hunted a woman who traveled out of state for an abortion. ICE agents asked local police in Illinois to track undocumented families. A police officer in Wisconsin used Flock to stalk his ex-girlfriend and her partner. And right here in Oakland, a 62-year-old woman who was driving to her job at a nursing home was pulled over by police, guns drawn. Flock had connected her plates to a serious crime. She didn't know that her plates had been stolen and replaced with the ones associated with the crime. These scenarios have already happened. And we know that black or brown drivers are disproportionately likely to have an adverse outcome when pulled over by law enforcement. Our very own Riley Cook, reporter for the PaloAlto Weekly, who is in the back of the room, did a records request for these search audits that Flock and the Police Department maintain on our data. The records revealed that police departments from all over the country were searching Palo Alto's flock data without the permission of the city or the Palo Alto Police Department. To quote Miss Cook, they went above and beyond existing California law about not sharing with any outofstate or federal agencies. And what my reporting shows is that Flock was still able to bypass those without telling anybody. They didn't tell the police department. They didn't tell city officials. They just quietly rolled out this nationwide data sharing effort which completely went past Cal local and California regulations. I think city officials, she said, were really confident at first that they had enacted these protections, that they were protecting residents and heeding those surveillance concerns, and yet at the end of the day, the company still did what they wanted to do." End quote. So, for me, this is primarily not an audit question, even though audit is the subject of our study session. For me, it is a trust and governance question. Flock changed the capabilities of a surveillance system that PaloAlto entrusted to it and the city did not know it was happening.Uus are being violated. Misuses of data have happened elsewhere. As they say, if you can't protect it, don't collect it. I do not think it's smart to continue operating that system while we simultaneously investigate whether we can even trust it. The wolf is in the hen house and we're wondering if we need to build a better gate. Therefore, it is my hope that we seven will have the courage to join the growing list of municipalities around the nation and state that are refusing to let this authoritarian intrusion into our streets and into our private lives. A list that, as we've heard, includes Mountain View, Santa Cruz, Elserto, Stanford, Santa Clara County, and our sibling city, Bloomington, Indiana, among so many others. My fear is that a three-month audit is three more months of surveillance with consequences we can guess at but can't fully appreciate the effect of. I would rather direct staff to agendaize the termination of the flock contract and in the interim to council member Bert's point about things that might be done in the interim to take them down or cover the flock cameras as we await the longer term decision. Council member Rectal.

Speaker 2:
Yeah, as you can guess, we don't have a lot of faith in flock. They've had a lot of missteps and we don't know what they're doing behind the closed doors and that that really bothers us. And so comparing vendors, I think, is a high priority for us. But just not the vendors, but also the architecture. If you have uh if you're just switching to another vendor that controls the data, then you're just maybe in the same boat as opposed to if you control the server and you control the data, that seems to be a much more robust, but that also adds wrinkles to it because now you have to have it. And so I think we want want you to work with it and understand is this architecture look good on paper but it's not implementable at the city of Palo Alto. And the second thing is that we share our data with our neighboring cities and that's very valuable because they catch crimes that were committed pal ultimate they help each other right now they all do that through flock through that interface if we go our own route and go with Campbell go with Stanford uh we won't have that same data sharing and can we recreate that or are we just now on an island by ourselves and that's a really fundamental trade-off so I would want you to work with the police department understand what are their uses for their sharing how do we catch criminals for other cities and how do other cities catch criminals for us and how can we manage it and uh build it on the our IT system. So thank you

Speaker 3:
council member Leing thanks. So I'm wondering if we can somehow redirect this audit. It's not an action item for tonight. It's only a study session, but if there's some process that's appropriate to redirect the audit to emphasize uh new vendors uh as the first step and give a report out on that before you press on unless there's necessary stuff you need to do. I'm not going to tell you how to do your job. I'm just saying if we can get an early read on the alternatives.

Speaker 4:
Yeah. And maybe I'll just pick up here because I haven't chimed in because I was going kind of the same direction. Um, from what I'm hearing, it seems to be the sense of the council that we are unlikely to retain flock. We have not made that decision. It's not agendaized for that decision, but that's clearly where it seems to be leaning. Um, so the question is likely to be whether we want to retain any other ALPR and that, you know, aspects of that will factor into whether or not we do that. So I guess I mentioned that because I think the way this audit could be the most useful for us is to focus on an helping us answer that question. Um the reason um and so be before I go on and say more about my thought process, I do want to ask a question. I think it's to the chief. um if we were to agendaize um uh an a an action item on whether or not to cancel the flock contract within the next 90 days and if there were if that happened and if we were then to decide we were comfortable enough with another ALPR reader I don't know whether we will be is there a problem with having a break there that makes it harder to start up again or is that just irrelevant we just would start over in any that if I understand your your question correctly, Merittz, if we were to take down the flock cameras today and have another vendor up a month from now, is there a problem with that? I think the answer is that there wouldn't necessarily be a problem other than if we if we see the technology is a valuable crime fighting tool as well as a deterrent then the very public uh proclamation that the cameras are down effective immediately without with being coupled with uh new cameras are being placed immediately uh then there's a gap in that regard.

Speaker 5:
Okay. But that's something we could discuss uh if it were agendaized. But um yeah, in more detail. So, okay. Thank you. Yeah, I I guess the reason I'm uh still remain curious about other vendors despite grave concerns about the the the cameras generally um is just personal experience. We all can't help bring to these decisions and thoughts uh you know, our own uh lived experience. And on my block there were two homes where children live uh that were broken into. And it was a a ser a group that serily did this in neighborhoods around Palo Alto but in other cities. And in one of those homes the child was there home alone facing intruders. um they were ultimately uh apprehended through use of ALPR and so who knows how many other children were spared that traumatic experience and potentially you know worse than just uh trauma. So but maybe we could do it other ways. Maybe we could be just as safe or maybe we could curtail uh misuse possibilities enough we're comfortable with this. I I don't know. I would like to learn more but um that I think is is is so it's not about the tool so much as um instances like that. Um so I I guess um it would be interesting. We could do almost a a straw poll to see if there are interest in agendaizing but I think the city manager has something to say.

Speaker 6:
Yes, mayor. Thank you. Uh I would be remiss if not pointing out to the council that the scenario that chief uh suggested was that we take down the cameras now and we have a new vendor in a month. I think that latter is unlikely uh and uh to perhaps even an order of magnitude in terms of uh I would expect based on your discussion tonight that the conclusions of OIR's work will be very important for defining the product we seek. Uh and then there is the procurement process that would need to follow. So, you know, we routinely quote 6 months as the time frame with which it takes to complete a public procurement process and uh so we would certainly want to prioritize this. Uh but that should at least be the the starting point for setting expectations on the time it would take to identify a successor provider. Well, perhaps though uh if there's interest in agendaizing this item, we could at that point decide if uh we wanted to have it be effective upon procurement of a a later one or immediately or or whatever. Um but thank you for spelling out that timeline. Um, I would actually just be interested uh for colleagues to say how many would be interested in agendaizing just the the consideration of the the the FL contract itself.

Speaker 1:
So I guess um I'll let

Speaker 2:
you kind of figured out at the end

Speaker 3:
oh uh just agendaizing uh whether or not we would uh agenda the cancellation of the flock contract itself. I think that's where you were going. So I think I heard from you. Yes. Okay, I'm hearing it from that NDS. Then some other contemplations.

Speaker 4:
I'm sorry.

Speaker 5:
No, I'm saying agendaizing in the future.

Speaker 6:
Are you you

Speaker 1:
sorry? At the at the conclusion of the audit?

Speaker 2:
No, between now and then if there were time. I mean, our agendas are packed.

Speaker 3:
Yeah. And if we're able to agendaize it between then.

Speaker 4:
Okay. All right. All right. So, Council Member Bird.

Speaker 5:
Yeah. Um, so I am in favor of agendaizing an action item. Uh, I I uh really would caution the mayor on characterizing what the seven of us had indicated. I I did not hear the same consensus that you did. Um and under the action item, I would be interested in um other potential measures we may take while we await uh the audit and a final decision. Those might include uh further restrictions on on the um uh offense uh specific filters and other restrictions. It might include a disabling until we um uh take action on the autumn audit. Um or it might be a a full decision. Um, when we get that action item, I would like to at that time have um at least some preliminary information on alternatives so that we aren't starting that clock 90 days from now, but we would uh potentially start it much sooner. So, I would support an action item uh uh but I I would not support uh a narrow uh pre determination of what that might be. Yeah. No, that's fair. I did overstate it in terms of the labeling of it. Um but I think we have the same in intent in terms of what we would want to discuss. Um okay. Um I think we've given a fair amount of direction. City manager, do you need more?

Speaker 6:
Well, I think the question is really our ability to meet the information expectations that were set there and in particular both with OIR as well as uh the parallel staff work. Uh I think if if you're prepared to speak to that tonight, that would be fine. Otherwise, I think we have some work to do with OAR to identify when we would be able to bring that information back.

Speaker 1:
I'm just looking at OR to see if they're able to speak to that tonight. And if not we can uh yeah tenatively I think there's a way in which we could construct the audit where some of the issues that you want addressed sooner rather than later could be addressed. So if the question is for example, are there other other vendors there and what are the pros and cons of trying to engage with other vendors? That's a fairly discreet question that could be answered in less than 90 days. Um if it was, what other steps might the department consider to restrict access use um before an ultimate decision about whether or not to eliminate ALPRs entirely was made one that also could be done probably in more like 45 days instead of 90 days. So, yes, if uh council's interest is in carving out some discrete questions that you think are priorities um and important uh to evaluate how you respond sooner rather than later, we can do that.

Speaker 2:
Okay. Thank you. I think perhaps we can take this offline after staff contemplates it and in the agenda setting process, but with I believe what we're hearing is an interest in having something before 90 days that would talk about um the continuation you about the status of the flock contract and alternatives for action before 90 days and uh any information that you can pull together by then about alternate vendors. Does that capture that's a lot that's a lot and and we have a very busy agenda but I think that's

Speaker 3:
we have a very busy police department as well. So I think that uh we will take that feedback and see what we can come up with.

Speaker 4:
Okay. I appreciate that. Chief, did you anything you need to comment on that?

Council Member Lithcot:
No, I think I understand. And I I I would just add that uh along with the other work we've been doing in parallel as the audit's been sort of in design uh I have been regularly meeting with my colleagues in the region to discuss what they're doing and I have obviously been tracking what's going on elsewhere in the state. Um I can offer at present that uh with the exception of Stanford who uh and the uh the historical from a few months ago example of Mountain View um in the county there's no one else that's in the process of moving away from flock or actively pursuing another uh another option. Um so we don't have any obvious partners other than perhaps Mountain View. uh if we were interested in collaborating with someone in the county.

Speaker 6:
Okay. All right. Thank you, Council Member Lithcot. HS.

Speaker 1:
Thank you. Just wanted to clarify one additional thing as we were putting together the list of requests for what we'd like to see brought back with regard to this question of a discontinuation. Um as we analyze whether that is attractive to us, it would be helpful to know there's turning it off. As we've heard, there's also covering it. These are things we hear out in the news that other cities have done and it would be helpful to understand what does that cost, how quick is it, you know, do we have the materials to cover them or is that a procurement process and that's going to take months. Um so the details on that which will help us understand how quickly that could be uh affected would be helpful. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Thank you. Uh I see no further lights. So I think we've talked this over uh sufficiently tonight. Uh want to thank uh the uh OIR. Thanks the chief and staff and thanks to the public for uh helping us uh noodle through this one. Okay. So with that we will move on to our consent calendar. So Madame Clerk, do we have any public comment on the consent calendar? And I'll ask you if you would kindly keep your voices down as you so we can move on.

Speaker 3:
I know that's all right. I think she's still she's still sorting. So um

Speaker 4:
yes, it looks like we have uh two requests to speak on consent calendar items. Okay, give it just a minute. All right. Thank you. You have been a lovely and orderly uh audience, but we're going to need you to uh what are you trying to get?

Speaker 5:
Yeah, that's true. I can use the G. Turn up my Are you turning up my volume? How are we doing? Okay. All right. Thank you all for coming tonight. We need to move on. So, I'm just going to ask for a little silence in the chambers. Thank you. We want to hear our our next public commenters. All right, madame clerk. Do we have any public com you have we have two? I think you said

Speaker 6:
yes, we have two requests to speak. Our first speaker is city council s.

Speaker 1:
Thank you. City Council S, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. Moving to our new next speaker, Aram F. Okay. I want to speak on item number I want to speak on item number eight again. I'm not comfortable with Ed Shicata. Um, and I'm not going to call him the drunken sailor tonight like I did last time on this item. That was disrespectful. Um, but listen, why how can we why can't the finance committee audit Chicago? Why does are we raising the limit on contracts that he can approve when we've had all of these consulting fees and he acted like the b the buck doesn't stop with him. Like, I don't know how that happened. Well, you damn well should have. You should have been paying attention to those millions of dollars worth of of consulting fees. Now you all want to charge uh the RV folks $15 a month to re reup each month when Chicago's throwing away tons and tons of money on useless consulting fees. You are the elected people in the city of PaloAlto that are responsible for keeping an eye on our budget. Not Educata. He's not an elected official. Okay. The man has way too much power. He wasn't listening tonight up to the flock folks. He was like saying, "Oh, you know, we're gonna we're gonna have to check. He wants flock." Okay? He wasn't paying attention to you or the the people of PaloAlto. How can you unilaterally give this man the trust to continue to approve millions and millions and millions of dollars and up the cap on that? It's irresponsible. Let your at least let your finance committee let you know those folks audit Educata. We got to reign that man in. I mean, come on. Please think about it at this point. We don't have an endless amount of money. We're more than a half a billion dollars in the hold of PERS. Okay? We don't have a balanced budget. That's a joke. You just put aside the, you know, the the PERS debt. That's all I've got to say tonight. But reign Chicago in, okay? Don't Don't let him just make the decisions for you. You're the elected officials. We elected you to oversee our budget. It's critical, folks. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is Lynn C.

Lynn C:
Lind C, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak.

Madam Clerk:
That concludes public comment on consent calendar items 3 through 4 and 6 through 8 as agenda item five was removed off of the agenda.

Speaker 4:
All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Um colleagues, do you have any no votes or requests to pull or recusals? And if not, may I have a motion to approve?

Speaker 5:
So moved.

Speaker 6:
Second.

Speaker 1:
Right. Thanks very much. I don't see any other lights on. So madam clerk, please call the role.

Speaker 2:
Just confirming that was council member Lou and council member Rectal.

Speaker 3:
Yes. Thank you.

Speaker 4:
Council member Liths.

Council member Liths:
Yes.

Speaker 6:
Council member Rectal.

Council member Rectal:
Yes. Council member Lowing,

Council member Lowing:
yes.

Speaker 3:
Council member Bert,

Council member Bert:
yes.

Speaker 5:
Mayor Vinker,

Mayor Vinker:
yes. Council member Lou,

Council member Lou:
yes.

Speaker 2:
Vice Stone,

Speaker 3:
yes.

Speaker 4:
Motion carries unanimously.

Speaker 5:
All right. Thank you very much. And with that, we will move on to city manager comments.

Speaker 6:
Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Uh, let me ask city clerk for some assistance with a few slides. Thank you. Next slide, please. Just a few items we wanted to highlight for community awareness. Uh first off that our police uh public safety building is uh operational. In particular at this uh date that uh should members of the public need public counter support including obtaining uh police records uh or reports uh that uh they can now visit the public safety building at Forest uh Avenue location. In addition, uh as of uh this week, uh the police patrol division where our uh patrol officers will be rolling out of on a daily basis uh will also be from that building and uh so community members will see additional police activity in the Cal area. So nothing to be alarmed about. Uh this is their new home and I'm sure they will be welcomed. Uh do want to note that on September 2nd uh we will have uh the department's of police and fire honor guards uh raising a ceremonial flag just to mark uh the fully operational uh date of uh the uh building uh and community members are invited. Also note that our dispatch uh center uh transition and cut over uh is ongoing and will occur uh late September. Next slide please. Also want to flag for community awareness. Uh we've spoken a lot here of the city's partnership with the Jed Foundation uh a nationally recognized uh organization on suicide prevention in particular related to the youth and uh that the Jed have uh put out a uh initial findings uh report that is now posted on the city's website at pelala.gov/jed. Uh in addition the uh uh report itself and next steps will be discussed with the city's school liaison committee on September 1st. That is a new date. We had previously been carrying uh a date the week before uh for that meeting. Uh so do want to note for anyone tracking that uh topic that September 1st is the date for the city school leaison committee meeting. Next slide please. Also uh coming up uh really in advance of your next uh uh council meeting is the uh C training that's occurring starting on September 1st. This is our annual plug for community members to get involved with uh uh looking out for neighbors and being involved with our city emergency preparedness activities through community emergency response team training. Uh you are able to sign up uh for this training at our website pelaltto.gov. Uh it's noted here a three-week training and a variety of uh skills and uh uh connections uh to participate in uh really safeguarding and responding in the event of a major emergency. And also note that certain members who have pre previously been trained uh are invited to participate in this as well. Next slide, please. Then also a plug for other ways to get involved with the city. In this case, it's to serve on one of our boards, commissions, and committees that uh we have a recruitment ongoing with application deadline of September 2nd open on our human relations commission, parks and recreation commission, planning and transportation commission, public art commission, and the storm water oversight management committee. Again, uh information on this available at the city's website, palto.gov/bccrecruits. I'm sure our city clerk also would love to uh respond to any questions about this recruitment. Next slide, please. Then also upcoming uh we do have a city council meeting on September 9th, but given that this is just the following day on Thursday, September 10th, there will be a ribbon cutting along with uh tours of the horizontal levy project. Uh the uh uh community is more than welcome to participate in this. This is Thursday, September 10th at 11:00 a.m. location at the end of Embaradero Road, 2470 Embaradero Road, uh including both the ribbon cutting and community uh walk. And next slide, please. Then finally, want to review uh your upcoming agendas. Your next meeting is on September 9th. uh recognizing uh the Labor Day uh holiday on September 7th. Again, this is Wednesday, September 9th. It is an early start because you have scheduled a two-hour performance evaluations close session. Uh then we have uh a number of action items on that agenda. 470 Olive League of California Cities delegate de designation and an anticipated colleagues memo would note that we had previously been showing the study session on consultant management on that date but recognizing that's a heavy agenda we've moved that to October 5th. Uh also note that the following agendas on September 14th, you've got the uh proposed parking structure at 375 Hamilton Avenue, water revenue bonds, uh which will be your light reading for that agenda as it is the official statement for the issuance of uh financing and then a stream corridor uh protection ordinance uh changes. September 28th, a pre-screening for proposed development at 706 Kalper uh Street and then uh the grade separation direction related to alternatives that will advance to the next phase of design work. And then noted here upcoming uh agenda items on October 5th and beyond. I would flag that you have uh the work plans for the architectural review board, historic resources board, planning transportation commission, and utility advisory commission also scheduled in this October window. With that, mayor, back to you.

Speaker 1:
All right. And with that, uh we will

Speaker 2:
Can I add one thing? Uh, one thing that wasn't mentioned was the grade separation outreach meetings tomorrow night and Wednesday night uh at Mitchell Park Community Center 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. both nights.

Speaker 3:
Thank you. Previously covered uh so appreciate the reminder.

Speaker 4:
All right. Well, thank you. And with that, we will uh recess uh into our break and be back in 15 minutes. the meeting back to order. So, we need some order. Okay. All right. So, we're going to move on to action item nine, which relates to the Bueno Vista Mobile Home Park redevelopment. Uh, so I'll turn it to staff. And is that you, Deputy City Manager Cotton Gains?

Chantel Cotton Gains:
Yes. Thank you, madame mayor and members of the city council. Chantel Cotton Gains, deputy city manager. I have a very brief presentation this evening about the item before you, as well as having Mr. uh Albert Yang on the line working on this item with me and members of the housing authority present this evening as well as someone from Santa Clair County Office of Supportive Housing to help with questions. So, very briefly going over this. Uh, nine years ago, the city and the county, oh, next slide. Thanks. Uh, the city and the county um joined with the housing authority to preserve affordable housing at Buenav Vista Mobile Home Park and the parties put together a triparty regulatory agreement which established the baseline of what the expectations are for the redevelopment that was happening there at that time. So on the slide that's in front of you, we summarized just the existing regulatory agreement, which is the one that was entered into in 2017, as well as the two new regulatory agreements that are before you this evening for adoption. So for the three key terms, as this um item has been discussed before, the affordability requirements have remained the same between this proposed regulatory agreement for parcels A and B compared to the existing regulatory agreement. The expiration date, the original amount was that it would expire in 75 years. And because the redevelopment has taken some time, as you recall, in 2024, there was a proposal before this council for a project and that was put on pause. And so, right now, the housing authority is moving forward with the utilities upgrade project. And that is the reason we're bringing the regulatory agreements to you this evening. We wanted to maintain that same 75- year time period from the time the work was done. And so the all parties have agreed that uh the 75 years would be the end of 2020 21101 which is really far away. And lastly, the total number of units. The original regulatory agreement required that we maintain a minimum of 100 residential units or mobile home spaces at the park. We brought an item to council in June of this year to do an official parcel split to approve that map. And so that is what created parcels A and parcel B. and the regulatory agreements that are before you today in total equal that 100 unit minimum. So for parcel B which is where the mobile homes are the minimum is 46 mobile home spaces and the housing authority believes they can probably go a little above that but they're at minimum doing 46. And then for the parcel A which would be the future depart apartment development it is uh maintaining a minimum of 54 residential units and that'll be delayed until implementation until 2033. All of the other terms of the agreements are pretty much the same from the existing triparty agreement and the two new regulatory agreements. Next slide. And so the recommendation to the city council this evening is authorizing the city manager to execute and make non-s substantive changes such as editing the recital or the APN's and legal descriptions to the new and amended regulatory agreements and related documents to facilitate the improvements of the Buav Vista mobile home park at 3980 El Camino. And just of note, if you looked at the attachments with the two new regulatory agreements, you will notice exhibit A with the description of the legal bounds of the two sites that it was similar in both regulatory agreements. And that's because we don't have the final language yet uh for those official legal descriptions of the parcels. And so that's one of the things that you'd be authorizing the city manager to update once we get that official legal language. But most importantly, we're really excited that the three parties work together to bring these recommended agreements to you this evening. And we are ready to answer questions and hopeful that this will be approved so we can continue to move forward with the housing authorities work and utilizing a large state grant that they have for the utilities upgrade work at the park. Thank you.

Speaker 6:
Thank you, Deputy City Manager. Um, actually, I think I'll just go to public comment on this matter. Madame clerk, do we have uh people requesting to speak? We have three requests to speak on action item nine. Okay, our first speaker is Winter D.

Winter D:
Hi. Um, so I read over very carefully both of the uh uh regulatory agreements. Um, I didn't see a lot of problem with them, but there was one thing that wasn't in there. Now, I sent it to council. I don't know if all of you saw my short, blessedly short email. Um the it had been previously by I believe uh Vice Mayor uh Stone uh suggested that there be an internal waiting list for residents at Buenov Vista Mobile Home Park to be able to move into uh for instance a larger unit if it were to be made available rather than going immediately outside of the park looking for a completely new applicant from somewhere else in the county or wherever. And I think it would since this is going to be kind of set in stone once you approve this, it'll be the entire agreement. I want you to really think about that because uh and of course we're talking about if they would be qualified the within uh Buenov Vista, but I want you to seriously consider it. I think that kind of internal preference is really important. I don't know what happened to the larger PaloAlto preference that was also talked about in some length but I leave that to maybe you get more information and thank you so much.

Speaker 1:
Our next speaker is Herb B.

Herb B:
Uh my recollection was that the housing authority said that uh they did not have a viable project because uh of being unable to finance uh the apartment part of the the project. uh since this apparently is extending the the time for them to be able to do that. And I believe a ballot measure u statewide uh that state senator uh Scott Weiner has placed on for affordable housing. Uh he indicated that uh that funding could be used uh to uh change a mobile home park to a multiple family, you know, apartment uh dwelling and I believe also could be used to uh provide funding for uh the housing affordable housing on religious institutions you know where 25% of the uh land can be used for affordable housing. So, I was wondering uh how how this connects or changes uh the previous statements from the housing corporation that they didn't have a viable project because they couldn't have the funding for the the I guess it's parcel B for the apartments. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is Henry E.

Henry E:
This all represents a small effort of palative to allow people of working class to continue to live in Palo Alto. My first concern is in moving people around that nobody loses their trailer, their residence, that their right to stay either in that where they are now or move to a better location where their trailer can be protected. So secondly, the amount of housing to be built apparently will not even start until 2033. Why so long? What's going on? It looks like another attempt to stall to stall. And also the scale of this. We must think on a much larger scale to build housing so that people of all class levels, working, middle, and upper class can live safely in Palo Alto. Everyone should have the right to live near where they work. That's how we solve all this car problem. We won't need cars if people could walk to work. So, it's all interrelated and the housing issue can be solved in the city by bringing together Stanford University that has the land, the business community that has the resources and Palo Alto city that has the zoning and other authorities. So at the same time that we must build housing to scale, we must also disassemble the billionaire's compounds and return them to single family housing units. We need equitable policy at all levels for this city. This project to save Vista is a small but necessary part of it. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
Our next speaker is Aram F.

Aram F:
Okay. So, I lived on Los Robos for I don't know 30 40 years and um you know um Guav Vista is a is a gem. I'm a little confused though because it it it seemed as though a few years back we were about to start the building process to build the apartments and then all of a sudden there was some disputes. Some tenants uh were unhappy about the size of the units they were being offered and so the county backed out. now and maybe somebody on the dis council member can explain to me. It looks like we're having the the the present tenants move out so that we can do the underlying utilities and they're going to move back and then correct me if I'm wrong going to have to move out a second time when they actually get to the building of the units. problem that I raised a few years back when I sent my oldest son over there to apply to be uh in a unit there. Uh they were it very uh adverse it appeared to him to having African-Americans be part of that uh project at Buenav Vista. As you all know, we've pushed out a lot of the the black community gentrification going on in Park Boulevard area. I've asked repeatedly as part of the reparations that PaloAlto owes to the black community to make sure that we preserve housing for underresourced black members of the of our our county. Uh we're down to 2%. Um, you folks have never even been willing to say the word reparations even though it's now in the vernacular in the state. There's some cities in the country that have moved on that. They all been lame, lame, lame on that. I don't understand that. So when we look at the project, I also want to make sure that yes, we keep the Hispanic population, the wonderful populations that's there, but open it up to some other people of color as well. That just seems to me to be an obvious. So, thank you much.

Madam Clerk:
And that concludes public comment on action item nine.

Speaker 6:
All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Um, I just want to just start um by asking staff um uh M. Delen Bach's uh comments about um the families who are there that have grown through natural ways various ways and are uh may need uh an additional spot over time or something. I do remember there was a discussion um at least among some of us of an intent that existing expanding families could have first choice in any sort of new or vacated spots. Um while our goal was not to displace any residents, we we thought about giving them the opportunity to have a more appropriate amount of living space like current uh tenants before new tenants might come in. this may not well I what I'm asking is where if if we were to memorialize that where would be the right place to document that because I'm I don't know if the regulatory agreement is but could we somewhere somehow record that idea if in fact it's a consensus of our council.

Speaker 1:
So I I can take that answer. Um so I mean there there will be other documents that establish tenant selection policies um not necessarily ones that have to be recorded against you know against the world uh you know to give notice to the world. Um so those kind of policies could be embedded in those documents. I would say with that specific policy um we would need to look uh closely at fair housing implications um for for any policy like that before we implemented it.

Speaker 2:
Okay. Yeah, I just ask that we do that at the appropriate time. I think that's um an important part of of us uh maintaining this community uh in our midst. Um and then just uh while I have the mic,

Speaker 3:
madam mayor, we also have uh Flareity from the housing authority who can speak to how they work on some of the um related to that issue as well.

Speaker 4:
That'd be great. Would you be willing? Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Hi, council mayor, vice mayor. It's nice to be here tonight. um Flity Ward with the Still with the Santa Clair County Housing Authority. Um happy to be in front of you all tonight. And to speak to this specific issue, um and this is the same throughout the housing authorities portfolio. It doesn't just apply to Buista. When a family is in need of a larger unit, they are placed on what we call an internal eligibility list. So we have our our natural weight list that we manage, but then there's an internal eligibility list for people that need a larger home. And then when one becomes available, it is we refer to that list. Um, so you know, we're not displacing people from the park who can't uh, you know, be there anymore due to their family size. So that's the general policy throughout the agency.

Speaker 6:
Got it. And so that's that's what you do now as a matter of course. And

Speaker 1:
that's what we do now as a matter of course um throughout our entire portfolio.

Speaker 2:
Okay. Great. Good to know. Um,

Speaker 3:
because families do change.

Speaker 4:
Exactly. Exactly. And uh, so all right. Thank you. And then um could I ask her a followup while she's there?

Speaker 5:
Sure. Is that okay? Um just to follow up. Thank you, Mayor. Uh on Miss Dylan's other prong of her question about Palo Alto eligibility. Um we're of course very interested in low-income residents of our city being able to have priority, but we understand this is something that is being organized by the county and the housing authority. And so we know there are probably limitations on that as there are with our home key. Can you give us a sense of what whether any preference is given to a PaloAlto person, a person with Palo Alto ties when it comes to where they are on the wait list?

Speaker 6:
Yeah. Well, currently there is no, you know, we're not accepting new applicants to Buista only because we're getting ready for this um improvement. Um, if the city council is interested in exploring a local preference, I think that's something that, um, we can take into consideration and look at, you know, all applicable fair housing rules and regulations and funding programs. There's a lot of different things at Touch Point of Vista that we would need to ensure we're not running a foul of and get the necessary approvals. Um, but if that's something the city council would like us to look at with staff, we can.

Speaker 1:
I think I would. Thank you. Good to see you again.

Speaker 2:
Yeah, you too.

Speaker 3:
All right. Thank you. And then uh my other question for staff is whether they had any response uh to Mr. Borak's question.

Speaker 4:
His question specifically on the financing of the project. Okay. I will take part of this and then I will let Miss Ward provide the rest of it. So, the project that came before the council in 2024, uh, which was for the changes at the mobile home park in addition to the apartment building, that project, given all of the multiple aspects of it, the housing authority determined was not feasible to go forward with at that time. They did have a large grant that came from the state for about 25 million as an estimate. And that is the funding that they're using for this utilities upgrade project, which is what we're moving forward with right now. So, some of this work was included in that 2024 project, but they couldn't do the entire project given all the elements, but I'll let Miss Ward add on from there.

Speaker 5:
That was a great summary. Um, the total cost of the improvement project is about $30 million. So, the balance that is not paid through uh the more funds will be paid by the housing authority as well as we received a small grant through um ESU's office to electrify the park. So, we plan on using that in those efforts. and then the housing authority um providing the gap financing to get this project started and finished.

Speaker 6:
Great. Thank you. All right. Um colleagues, any further discussion or a motion?

Speaker 1:
Council member Bart.

Speaker 2:
Yes. Um I wanted to understand um better on in the 9-month interimm period where uh current residents are relocated. Not all are um being relocated within PaloAlto but they're all being accommodated. Um we had had previous discussion about students in PAUSD and um and my understanding is that there there's collaboration with PAUSD. I just want to understand better about the transportation of those students if they're um um residing outside of PaloAlto. What is that that uh transportation program?

Speaker 3:
Absolutely. So, Miss Ward can share the specifics, but I will share on her behalf before she gets up here. The housing authority did a pretty extensive search to find apartment units within PaloAlto. She can share the statistics, but they asked a lot of people and got a response from one. And so with that in mind, they went to as close as possible to PaloAlto, which is why you hear of some in Mountain View. And so Miss Flity can speak to how they plan to keep the Peloto students uh whole. Um let me give some background to to explain. We have been in kind of constant communication with the school district for the past almost year at this point, having regular check-ins with them. So letting them know about the timeline impacted families um so that we can on either side uh make sure we're gathering the appropriate data to prepare for impacts. Um so that has been open communication and has been really great. Um we are utilizing actually the same um transportation service the city of PaloAlto does to hire private transport. Um so similar to the number that folks can call in the city of PaloAlto if they want a a private ride somewhere um that service is also being made available to um Buen a Vista families while they are relocated to assist in getting their children to school. Um our relocation um our folks that are managing that on our behalf are regularly meeting with the residents to figure out what their um impacts might be uh and if they need to take advantage of that transportation option. Um, and then we're also reimbursing families can also get a reimbursement for mileage if they are traveling farther to get their children to school as well. Um, and then we plan on being in touch with the school district on whether there's any um issues with kids getting to school late or any impacts to their attendance as a result of this so we can help coordinate from our end with services and support the families to make sure their children can get to school.

Speaker 4:
So, are you referring to the Palo Alto link program?

Speaker 5:
Yes. Oh, but can staff comment on our windown of that program and how it aligns with this ninemonth period?

Speaker 6:
I will uh check with staff and loop right back. I don't I don't know that it's officially the link itself.

Speaker 1:
Oh, it's Sevilla. Is that the name of the

Speaker 2:
Yeah, same company but not our contract.

Speaker 3:
Yeah, it's a different contract. We're not using the city's contract. We're using a similar Yeah.

Speaker 4:
Okay. Uh, and I I do want to support um uh to the extent we can that PaloAlto local preference for additional spots um should they open up. And the um the staff report said a minimum of um 46 spots I think it was on um parcel B, right?

Speaker 5:
Yep.

Speaker 6:
And what do you anticipate is the likely full capacity? Uh we think it's around 56.

Speaker 1:
Oh, good.

Speaker 2:
Yeah. If we're able to create some efficiencies within the park. Um uh but it remains to be determined once we finish the infrastructure project. We have $5 million through the state of Calhoun to start a launch a voluntary home replacement program. So some of it will depend on who the final kind of spacing will depend on who participates in that program

Speaker 3:
because our our next item is our oversized vehicles which we're looking at a variety of measures to try to help um uh some of those uh families especially when they're they're um local families and uh very low income. Would would those additional 10 spots up to 10 spots um would they be uh need-based on on um uh being unhoused uh or uh income based? How would how would that work?

Speaker 4:
Yeah. Um it will be income based. So the regulatory agreement outlines the uh we call them like affordability buckets of each of the levels. So what happens is we analyze the current rent role against the required affordability set aides and then the spaces that become available are subject to where we need to fill buckets right if we need more certain income levels and then we would we would um you know take people off the weight list. So conceivably within the the local preference, we could include uh people in uh uh in RVs on uh currently on the street uh within a local preference depending on whether they qualify within those income buckets.

Speaker 5:
I would probably need to talk to our attorney about how like specific you can drill down on a local preference. I don't know the answer to that.

Speaker 6:
Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, colleagues. Any other questions or comments or motions?

Speaker 1:
Council member Lou,

Speaker 2:
I'll echo the point about a uh local preference and um uh also echo the broader theme and point of uh potential space for RV residents. Uh and with that, I will move the staff recommendation as well. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
Second.

Speaker 4:
Thank you. Any further discussion?

Speaker 5:
Yeah, I just want to make sure that the um that local preference request is included in the motion.

Speaker 6:
I think that's a referral for staff to work with the housing authority on next steps there. Yeah, we just want to codify it as a referral

Speaker 1:
and we could just add an extra bullet point under the motion with uh just the word uh with a referral for uh local preferences.

Speaker 2:
Secondary referral to staff.

Speaker 3:
Yes. Do

Speaker 4:
you want to speak further to your motion or second?

Speaker 5:
To work with staff to to work with housing authority.

Speaker 6:
Referral to staff.

Speaker 1:
Staff to work with. Okay.

Speaker 2:
Referral to staff to work with housing authority for local preference. Yeah. Yeah, I I know there's more words smmithing we can do, but I think the point is

Speaker 3:
that covers it

Speaker 4:
clear enough. Um, so uh no other comments. Um, uh, glad that we can have utility improvements, electrification, a bunch of facility improvements. I think it's the right step and I think we really look forward to working productively with the housing authority and um uh getting the ball moving as quickly and clearly as possible. All right, great. Well, this has been a long time coming. I'm eager to see the next steps. And so with that, I will ask the clerk to call a role.

Speaker 5:
Council member Rectal.

Council member Rectal:
Yes.

Speaker 1:
Council member Lads.

Council member Lads:
Yes. Vice Mayor Stone,

Vice Mayor Stone:
yes.

Speaker 4:
Mayor Vinker,

Mayor Vinker:
yes.

Speaker 6:
Council member Lou,

Council member Lou:
yes.

Speaker 2:
Council member Lowing,

Council member Lowing:
yes.

Speaker 4:
Council member Bert,

Council member Bert:
yes.

Speaker 6:
Motion carries unanimously.

Deputy City Manager:
All right. Thank you. This item will go to the county tomorrow for approval and then uh within a week, it'll go to the housing authorities board for approval as well.

Speaker 2:
Wonderful. All right. Well, thank you, Deputy City Manager. Thank you, Miss Ward. I also see some other colleagues up there. Um, so anyway, we appreciate this and look forward to seeing the next step happen. All right. And with that, we will move on to our next and last action item of the evening. Item 10, recommendation uh to launch two pilot OSB parking programs, etc. Um we'll give staff a second to shuffle. Okay. Um, all right. Well, this is one where uh we have had an ad hoc committee diligently working with staff and so to kick us off tonight, I'm going to turn to the chair of that ad hoc, Council Member Lowing.

Speaker 3:
Okay. Thank you. Yes. And I just want to begin by giving you giving you an overview of where we've been. Uh that includes the original direction from council. Uh brief view on our outreach and comment on what we learned. Uh then comment on the staff proposal both the content and the timing. Uh and then later after staff gives a presentation uh all three ad hoc committee members uh are going to speak individually from their own sort of personal point of view of uh where we are and what we each think uh we should do. Um so we all know that the large population of OSVs is a issue in cities around the country uh national, state, um and local. Uh that said, our jobs here, so we have to focus on what we can get done here. Uh we we know that the RV population, OSV RV, is made up of people in varied circumstances. We know that by talking with a lot of them. Um, some just simply can't afford to live here. Uh, but they have a job here. Uh, some have med medical or substance abuse problems. Um, some simply want to have free rent. Uh, some have a home elsewhere and, uh, stay here during the work week and sort of go home. Uh, some like the mobile lifestyle and and a lot of other different categories. Uh, it's not just one thing. So, the council asked us to address this issue with a sort of a two-pronged approach. And the first is toward leg what I call legitimate lowincome folks that just need a helping hand uh to get to permanent housing. And the second prong is the waves of OSVs that are really interfering with uh commercial businesses and in some cases residential areas. And this has been going on for a long time. Uh both of these problems are real, they're chronic, and they're high priority. So, as the ad hoc got going, we came up with a list of initiatives starting with how do we find new places for some of these vehicles to to park. At the time, the count was about 200 OSVs. Um sometimes that and that did not count sometimes the commute vehicles cuz some folks have a car to actually literally do their commute to a job. So but the OSV count was uh was about 200. So we did extensive I mean very extensive outreach to commercial uh developers, property owners and businesses in our city and beyond. um especially those that were empty, not least, and had empty parking lots looked like a great opportunity. Um secondly, we talked to faith communities. Uh a number of them had already allowed day use for um homeless in uh vehicles. We appealed to the county of Santa Clara for land uh including uh the very large uh fairgrounds that are only used sporadically throughout the year. Overall, this problem really needs a regional solution led by the county because the county's whole sort of reason for being is a safety net for those in need. And they understand that. They embrace that. but they'd just been slammed with budget cuts caused by uh federal cuts. And we were also very eager to have the 88 bed transitional housing at Homekey open uh so that we could use some of those units there for some of the OSV dwellers um particularly since it's in Palo Alto and we invested in it. And then we found out that when it opened, it was backlogged with units for residents that had previously been housed in hotels because of the late construction. So we ended up getting none of those beds of the 88 beds that are in Palo Alto. So the bottom line is that everything we reached out to try to do and all these initiatives did not work. None of them after all this time. And I mean we worked on it. Um there's one help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope help hope helpful footnote and that is that we now do have a a nibble from the county that they would like to work with us uh to get some safe parking but no details so that's still a stone that's not overturned the estimated count is now about 130 to 140 depending on the day you count uh and that is down from 200 due to the citations and towing um of course now we need to take further action to address the OSV population. Um, but I do want to salute the folks that worked on this in the uh in the city, the police department and public works around the firing line there, but a lot of folks in the city manager's office and and elsewhere and and legal. So, I've come on staff proposal. Uh, it's it's just time to come back to council now uh given what I just reported on and come up with an alternative proposal than than what we have. Um, so this particular proposal uh came from staff to be debated. The objective being direction, turn around, send it back to staff with direction on what council wants them to do. So the council ad hoc committee uh is three people and it's really part of a bigger ad hoc committee which is all the staff which is 10 to 12 folks that meet with us every time we meet including the city attorney, the city manager, um the director of uh of um public works and all of their staff. Uh you'll hear from the city attorney a little bit later tonight. Um, but I also want to point out that this actual proposal was not um created by the council of three people um uh nor was it reviewed by the council three people uh before it went out. So the staff report includes you know a lot of elements that were discussed by the full ad hoc um and also introduces some some new material uh such as the proposed rollout schedules that uh that we hadn't seen. Um, I think there are also some some items in the report that need clarification and I just want to take this moment now to give a couple of examples before we go to public comment. Uh, many folks have written us saying that the staff report in uh, pilot 2 of putting half the vehicles uh, on one side of the street actually makes them permanent. And that's not correct. There's no indication here uh, that those are going to be permanent. uh it was intended as a an option as a stop gap measure to remove half to remove not keep half of the OSVs to relieve half of the problem uh as soon as we can. Uh so there's no current recommendation to make that other half permanent and we can do whatever we want with that but that was the concept and the other side of the concept was to be equity uh uh amongst all the businesses there. There's also some concern on the street as expressed in the many emails that we got um that the streets targeted in the report are not comprehensive enough and we sort of quote left some out. Uh but that list is not fixed and is easily amendable you know one way or the other. So I just want to mention those before public comment. So the desired outcome tonight is simply uh direction to staff on what direction our seven folks want to go. Uh we can vote on proposal that's here. we can vote on new items. We can send stuff back to the ad hoc. Uh so that's the overview and uh we'll chat again back to the mayor.

Speaker 4:
All right. Thank you. And with that, I'm going to turn to staff and uh to the city manager.

Speaker 5:
Sure. Thank you uh mayor and members of council in particular the ad hoc uh committee. Uh as noted, ad hoc committee has spent extraordinary time uh working with staff as well as doing direct outreach uh as was noted with uh uh community members as well as our regional uh partners and those that we hope to become regional partners with. uh in particular just want to note uh that uh in wrestling with this topic the ad hoc committee has has clearly uh uh expressed uh the uh recognition of the difficulty of the issue and uh also wrestling with the lack of a permanent solution or even necessarily straightforward solutions given the complexity of the issue. Uh so as such uh what you'll hear from staff tonight uh is uh very specifically not intended to be a permanent solution um but is reflective of the incremental next steps uh to as uh chair Lowing pointed out restrict uh OSV parking while also providing capacity to meet identified needs. Uh we also expect that we'll be able to speak to uh some of the perhaps misunderstandings uh that we've heard in uh some of the uh comments received including uh experiences of other communities. So with that, let me ask our assistant city manager Melissa Mcdana uh to walk through our uh overview of the item tonight and look forward to your discussion.

Melissa Mcdana:
Thank you. U Melissa Mcdana, assistant to the city manager. Uh as as you've heard already this evening, homelessness and vehicle habitation continue to present complex policy operational and community impacts in Palo Alto. Uh tonight's item presents recommendations to launch two coordinated pilots. We recognize these are not ideal solutions to this complex issue, but have found a way to address and reduce uh the impacts in our city. Next slide. since policy and services direction on a phased approach in August of last year through council creation of the ad hoc and the approval and launch of phase one in October of last year. We've continued to move this work forward. Um this January the ad hoc and staff engaged with the community at an openhouse followed by a council study session in February and an update report in June. Through phase one, we learned that focused cleaning, signage, enforcement, and service connections can improve conditions in specific locations. The proposed pilots developed and refined by the ad hoc apply those lessons through a more structured and measurable approach. Next slide. The city has created new ordinances to prohibit vanlording and to prohibit the parking of detached trailers and inoperable vehicles and public streets. Uh as part of phase one, there also have been increased enforcement efforts, added street sweeping and cleanings to 18 identified impacted streets, and explored approaches such as safe parking expansion and OSV buyback and storage programs. At the same time, the city continues to prioritize expansion of off- streetet safe parking. We know that a stable service connected setting can support participant well-being by reducing the uncertainty of frequent relocation and by improving access to housing navigation, case management, and health and mental health supports. The city has also engaged county officials to support a more unified regional response as Chair Lowing mentioned. And uh the city continues to invite commercial property owners to the table to discuss utilizing vacant lots as potential safe parking sites. Safe parking remains an important long-term strategy, but expansion is constrained by available land funding, site operations, and service needs. The pilots proposed this evening are intended to complement, not replace those efforts by providing near-term targeted options while the city continues pursuing additional off- streetet capacity. And finally, we we also in phase one have met and continue to meet regularly with other cities and jurisdictions to share information, problem solve, and look for ways to work together to address this complex issue. Next slide. The recommendations before you this evening are to launch two 12-month pilot programs and approve related ordinances, resolutions, and budget amendments. Together, these are intended to address a more structured to address ongoing neighborhood business, public health, and safety impacts while providing a more structured and humane response for people living in oversized vehicles. The pilots are a cost-effective way to test targeted parking management and service delivery before considering a broader citywide approach. The total pilot cost is estimated at approximately $823,000800. Staff would return to council in March and September 27 with status reports and recommendations regarding continuation, modification, expansion, or termination. Next slide. The first of the two pilots, the oversized vehicle parking permit pilot would create designated permit areas on the city managed side of Coyote Hill Road and on Embaradero Road near the wastewater treatment plant with capacity for approximately 37 oversized vehicles. Through negotiations with the county, we may be able to switch the Coyote Hill area to the county side. For Embaradero Road, we would deploy restriping to create space for permitted vehicles to park while retaining the bike lane. This pilot is not intended to serve every person living in an oversized vehicle. It is designed for individuals and families who are ready to work towards stable permanent housing and can benefit from a structured service connected setting during that transition. The path to permanent housing is often not linear and can take time. By providing a designated safer place to park, the pilot can help participants focus on working with staff, accessing needed services, and building the foundation for a successful transition to stable housing. Staff will also uh as part of this pilot communicate with adjacent businesses and property owners as well as current oversized vehicle dwellers as the sites are prepared and the program is implemented. An estimated firstear cost of $400,800. This pilot allows the city to test a targeted alternative to more costly off- streetet safe parking expansion which is as I mentioned constrained by availability and cost. Next slide. To be eligible to participate in the permit pilot, uh, oversized vehicle dwellers will need to meet a set of requirements to participate. These requirements establish clear expectations for safe and responsible participation while keeping participants housing focused. Participants will need to have a valid registration, active insurance, agree to sign a good neighbor agreement, agree to engage with outreach workers to receive support in transitioning into permanent housing, have connections to PaloAlto, be income eligible, and be able to pay a $15 per month permit fee. This modest permit fee is intended to support an administraable program while maintaining affordability for eligible households. Next slide.

Speaker 1:
While the permit pilot is directed at supporting those who are wanting to transition into permanent housing, the parking prohibition pilot is designed to help reduce the count of oversized vehicles on heavily impacted streets. This pilot would prohibit oversized vehicle parking on one side of identified streets for 6 months, then alternate to the other side for the next 6 months. All existing regulations, including 72-hour limits, phase one street sweeping restrictions, the van lording ban, and the ban on detached trailers would remain in effect. Passenger vehicles may continue parking on both sides year round. Staff will provide advanced notice and communicate directly with affected businesses, adjacent property owners, neighborhoods, and oversized vehicle dwellers. Feedback from residents and businesses along with calls for service, complaints, warnings, and citations will help us evaluate this pilot. An estimated firstear cost of $423,000. This this pilot provides a lowerc cost opportunity to test operational effectiveness and refine the approach before considering something broader. Next slide. On this slide, you can see all of the streets that will receive red tips as part of the second pilot. In blue are the street segments included in the alternating sides parking prohibition. We know this is not a perfect list. It is a preliminary list intended to address impacted non-residential street segments first identified in phase one and we will be rep uh refining it through confirming locations and uses as well as outreach to neighbors and property owners. Next slide. Um here you see a cost overview for the pilots. This is an updated cost table in the staff report. This table inadvertently omits that top row where it starts with the word site amenities. However, all of the totals in the table were correct in the staff report. We can refer back to this slide if there are questions relating to costs. Next slide. And I'd like to thank you. I know that was a lot of information uh spoken very quickly. And I would now like to seed the floor over to the city attorney for some legal context.

Speaker 2:
Yes. Uh thank you uh mayor, council members. So I'll just I just want to briefly address uh the current legal environment in which this discussion is taking place. So, I I think you're all aware that the Supreme Court's US Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass um did change the landscape in this area and did limit the city's obligation to provide shelter really, you know, almost whenever it displaces an unsheltered resident. Um you know, that said, um there are still legal obligations uh that the city has when it is managing its unsheltered population. Um and and some of those obligations are the you know subject of current litigation in this district uh in the in the ninth circuit. Uh and so that litigation does create some uncertainty as to how uh the city manages the situation. And you know, while I don't and I don't necessarily agree with uh the theories that plaintiffs are advancing in these cases, I think it's my council should keep that uncertainty in in mind. And you know, one real risk is that the city winds up in a situation where it's the court and not necessarily this council or this community that decides how we uh regulate people living in vehicles in public spaces. And so that's I think something that you know you know our advice as staff is is we're mindful of that risk and mindful of avoiding it. Uh you know another thing I think to think about is that the results from the the steps that you took last year I think do show meaningful reduction in in impact of OSVs in the streets. And so I mean one thing to consider is whether you know additional incremental steps will continue to show that impact. Um that's not to foreclose you know any option that council could consider. I think it's just one of the many factors that you need to consider in addressing what I I think we all acknowledge is a really difficult problem.

Speaker 3:
All right. Thank you staff. Um, and with that, I'm going to bring it back to the deis. Um, but first to the ad hoc to see if you have any further comments and and the other members of the ad hoc have anything they'd like to say preliminarily and then the rest of us can

Speaker 4:
Well, yes. I think at this point we want to talk about the specific two pilots and give uh three different opinions on that. Not necessarily different, but three people speaking on it. Excuse me. So speaking first to what's called pilot one. Uh that's where we're creating um a structure um a game plan uh regulations and targeting that specifically to incomequalified folks so that we know that these are what I'll call legitimate uh folks that are not just hanging around town but are here for reasons that they can't afford it and so on. So I think the structure of that is good and I think the direction that that is there is is also good. Um because we have a lot of latitude including if they don't follow the rules, they're very quickly gone and that's totally in our control. So they have to be good neighbors. They have to not have stuff in the front, they have to take care of themselves in terms of the uh um um waste, getting rid of waste and all that stuff. And and we're in control of that. So there's a good control and most importantly they have to say yes I want to get into permanent housing. So these are transitional therefore these the original idea is the 37 units. Uh they're not going to be living in those 37 units for 5 years. They're going to be transitioning to housing. So that's the that's the goal. That's the intent and everybody signed up for the same thing. So I think that one is is is on point. By the way, none of these uh new units are in uh South Palo Alto. Uh so that was another concern that we got from some some residents in terms of where OSVS are right now. Um I think the schedule is uh for implementation is is sorry to say way off. We just have to do that a lot faster because we have this problem that's been festering for years and we have made good progress but it's not enough relative to where we need to be. So that has to be trimmed up. Um I think there's some details that have to be looked at. Is it a $15 fee or a $50 fee? You know, that could be chatted about. Um, I think we should be very specific about which kind of income folks that we're looking for. I mean, do we want to try to get to, you know, 80% AMI and under? Do we want to get that specific or not? But whatever it is, it may not have to be in the ordinance, but it should definitely be in the program so everybody knows that what we're what we're signing up for. Um, I think that's on point. And then, you know, this also is not fixed in stone that it's only going to be 37. uh if it works and we're getting good transition and andor we need more spaces um I think that could be easily ruled out. Now speaking about pilot number two once again uh that schedule is um too slow for initial roll out um and I don't think we actually need any more outreach to businesses. Um, if you want outreach, here it is, including the approximately 200 emails we got uh in the last uh week and a half. Um, I always stay up to speed on my on my city email. When I walked in here today, I had 75 more emails. So, we understand that this is touching nerves and we need to take action on that. Um, I think one of the things that it says in the success criteria for the pilot is that um we want to get fewer business complaints. Well, of course, but that's not really the criteria. Uh the criteria is is there a radical reduction in the number of OSVs that are not in uh the permitted parking area? But here's a really critical point. Right now, there aren't any ordinances that we have that can control incoming vehicles to our town or if we, for example, remove these whatever it's going to be 60 or 65 people in the impacted areas, uh there's no way we control spillover of those folks going to another neighborhood. Now, you could say that's okay because at least it's relieving the folks in the uh affected neighborhoods that have been suffering for years. Um, but if we're just moving it to another part of town, we haven't really fundamentally addressed the issue. Just moves moves the problem down the street. So, I think ultimately the only way to address this is to have all OSVs in permitted parking. So, we now have we're creating this permanent parking district one or whatever it's going to be what we just talked about in pilot one and that can that can roll out gradually as needed and as available but we could also do other we should do other uh parking programs to have OSVs otherwise they just can't park here. So, it's OSVs in a parking permit or else there's no parking. That puts a cap at the top and it keeps uh the spillage from happening. Signage for the law I think should be placed like a number of uh resident businesses have written in at the primary entrances to the city which is currently allowed by uh state law followed up by first time warning notices placed on the vehicle if they're in a parked illegally. Um we're not going to spend $4 million on sign signs around the the city. That really makes no sense to me. Um, and I think that's sufficient legal coverage through the entrance signs, the word of mouth, and warning notices on parking violators. I think this will be a well-known law in our city. Now, the issue is, can we find enough parking spots for the displaced folks even in this half side of the street that we're talking about in the impacted areas? And and there it comes down to sequencing and timing. But I think we need to move very fast to eliminate all that um illegal parking in the impacted areas. And the way to do that is to get to a broader concept of permitted parking. There are there are other options and I think other council members on the ad hoc will talk about that. Um one of them that's been discussed before is we could also um reduce the 72-hour rule and go down to 24 hours. um that's not going to be magical and wonderful for the police staff to be able to instantly cover that, but as a deterrent, it could tell people that if you come to town, you're going to be changing your position every day, not just every 3 days. Um so I would hope that that would be a a a deterrent. Um you know, we don't catch every speeder, but we have up speed limits uh as a deterrent. So that's another option. And uh at this point I'll pass it over to my next colleague. Yeah, we realize the city is frustrated. We're frustrated with OSVs. I mean, this is a really hard problem and our legal constraints make it even harder. And so we've been struggling to find uh what action should we be taking. Now phase one I thought was very successful. public works and PAPD really went through and we cleaned up there were streets that hadn't been swept there for 20 years. It was a long time and so uh that cleaned up the streets. It uh it ended up reducing the number the population but now what we're worried about is that we've reduced the number of RVs on our streets. Will someone come in and fill that vacuum? Will RVs from Redwood City if Belmont come down and start parking? and there's nothing that's capping the the population preventing from going back up to 220. That made us very nervous. And that's why we're looking at this second uh pilot where you do one side of the street. And by we we roughly will take half the RV parking spots in the city and get rid of them. And that's trying to keep that upper level from growing. We we don't want the RV population to grow. And I thought we think that's really critical. And we're not increasing parking at all. We're decreasing it. Half the parking spaces go away. And this is, as the council member Law said, this is not permanent. This is meant to be a stop gap just to protect us right now because right now there's a vacuum. We've reduced the RV population and that could change and we don't want we don't want it to change. Uh so uh so then what what's our next steps? what how can you know now that if we do implement this one side of the street we've temporarily protected the community but what's our long-term goal how can we get out of this well one thing we can do is right now um residential areas do not allow RV parking but there's some areas around town that technically aren't residential for example uh if you have a PC zone that's not considered residential so along Fabian there along like JCC, those are homes and they don't get the same protection that we get in other areas. Uh in North Ventura, there's mixed use. They don't get the same protection. Uh East Meadow, same story. There's a lot of areas where there's a lot of RVs and they really are residential and we don't give them the same protection that we give the rest of the community and that's just unfair and we need to address that and make a more uniform policy towards the residential areas. The second thing is in the commercial areas. There's some areas where the people who come have to park three, four blocks away just because there's so many RVs clogging up or customers coming to the to the businesses and they can't park. And so one possibility is that we do in the residential areas, we have residential parking permits. If you go around and get half the signatures, half the people sign the signature, then we institute a residential parking permit. So we could do the same thing in the businesses. half the businesses in an area sign the petition. We could have a business parking permit. And that means that anyone, say a customer comes, they can park two hours in front of your business. But anyone who's doing longerterm parking, they need a permit. And those permits are only issued through businesses in those areas. And so now that parking in that area would be there to serve the businesses, not to serve the RVs. And that would be one way to relatively quickly mitigate those parking impacts that the RVs are having in those neighborhoods. But in the long run, we still have these RVs and if we're just shuffling them around, as council member Lowing said, they're not solving the problem. and safe parking, whether it's down at Moffett we're looking at, or uh if we can expand other areas in the city and have more safe parking, and so we can transition these RVs off the street and into a place where they're not bothering us and we're not bothering them. We're not chasing them around the city, that they can they can uh have a more secure life on the street. That's good for everybody. And that's a challenge because we don't have a lot of spare uh space in the in the city. But that's something that we can strive for. That is as long as we can cap the RVs. We're not trying to recruit more people. We're trying to get rid of the RVs that are on on the street right now. That that's a very good option. And every time you get someone off the street and into sedable parking or safe parking, that takes pressure off those neighborhoods. And it also allows us from a legal constraint is we can have more constrained parking limitations. And so it helps everybody if we can find more safe parking. So I'll move it on. Julie, do you want to council member Ladines?

Speaker 5:
I think we're trying to share some overview thoughts here. We're not uh I have some specific questions for staff. I wonder are we going to we're going to get to our council or our council questions once I'm done then you'll open up to everybody else.

Speaker 6:
Yeah. And if you want to start and ask questions I would say go ahead because I was going to then let us all talk and then hear from Thank you.

Speaker 1:
Um well to add to what my colleagues on the ad hoc had said and it has been uh in my four years I have not ever been on a committee that has had this much work about it. Um, and I've been on a lot of committees that have had a lot of work. So, this has been intense. And as the city manager has said at the outset and has reminded us, this is we're we're attempting to do our part to address one of the most seemingly intractable issues of our time, which is the fact of homelessness and which in Peloto made 73% of our unhoused live in vehicles. So, um, there's no easy fix. Everybody's frustrated. This has been very hard. U we've heard about impacts from my colleagues and I want to say that this committee has also been deeply concerned about the quality of life lived by people who have no better choice than to live in their vehicles. Asterisk, some people have better choices. As council member Lowi said, some people have homes elsewhere. They're choosing to live in a vehicle here for reasons that make sense to them. But we know there is a percentage of the population who have no other shelter than that metal over their head, which is their car or their RV. And we are desperately concerned about the fact that our society has gotten to this point. And we know it's not our fault. We know that leaders across this region and residents and voters across this region and the nation have made choices for some time that have led to these macroeconomic conditions that are causing these impacts for businesses and residents and for the RV dwellers. Um I want to say that um I do have some questions um for staff. Um, so I I am excited that we have gotten to two pilots. Uh, we got a lot of feedback telling us why we should not be excited, that they are not correct. Um, we worked hard at this, but we are ready to hear your feedback and to make it better. Um, I want to be sure people understand because it was not in the in the packet and uh the presentation tonight for understandable reasons was quick that pilot number one, which is the Coyote Hill and the Embaradero pilot program, approximately 37 OSVS, offers folks the opportunity to come into the regulatory environment, come come in from the cold, come in from hiding and running, get a permit, give be given permission to park here or here and pay us a little bit of money and in exchange for that based on what the city's interests are, hygiene, trash, sewage, and what those humans needs are, hygiene, trash, sewage, we're going to have a portaotty, we're going to have a dumpster for the cost of $33,000 a year, which is a pretty good deal. Some may see these as amenities. We see it as a win-win. We need those things. They need those things. So, that's an example of what we're trying to offer both to meet our needs and also to make the permit pilot attractive to people who are currently parked elsewhere. Um, there is also a Margarit stop and a VTA stop near the Coyote Hill. I'm less familiar with the transportation nodes available uh near the Embaradero portion. But my point is in some ways Coyote Hill, out of sight, out of mind. We don't want to push people to the edge of society. People who are working multiple jobs, typically workingass or poor, if they can't get to a bus, if they can't get to a train, if they don't have a vehicle, if they can't get to their job. And so we've been trying to pay attention to that as well. Um my question for staff, the number of spots on Coyote we've said was 20 on our side on the part of Coyote that we own, but you said Miss Mcdana that it may be that we're going to swap with the county and use their portion of Coyote Hill. And if we are that far along in our conversations with them, my question is why are we not looking at both? because that could instantly perhaps double the number that we have there.

Speaker 2:
Yeah. Let me uh take the first uh shot at response and Miss Madonna and others may elaborate. Uh as was described, our original uh concept for this location has been to use the county segment primarily because that area has existing sidewalks and existing parking. And so for uh the uh purpose of uh providing an environment that is conducive to placing the vehicles for longer periods of time and placement of the services that you've described uh is preferable. The location under the city's jurisdiction uh does not have sidewalks and uh current would require a restriping from four lanes to two lanes in order to accommodate the proposed on street parking. uh that's the reason that the initial and proposed uh focus or priority would be on the county segment and we have had uh very recent uh uh communications with the county that have uh indicated a path forward for that. The other uh consideration has been the overall capacity to manage uh the case management and the services uh that would be required for the two sites or the total of 40 that has been uh described. If we were to expand it conceptually to the order of 60 as uh I think you're suggesting council member we would need to look at our ability to manage that uh as well as the associated resources required to do so. Um but again if that's an interest of the council uh then that would be a next step for us.

Speaker 3:
So you're saying 60 would be if we add the county portion plus the city portion plus embaradero that's 60

Speaker 4:
correct. Okay. That was my assumption as to what you were suggesting. if that's incorrect. And

Speaker 5:
yeah, no, so you're saying the county is approximately another 20.

Speaker 6:
I think it's 13 to

Speaker 1:
Okay. Okay. There.

Speaker 2:
It's okay.

Speaker 3:
It's in the ballpark. Thank you for that. Um, as we look for additional spots for permit parking, um, I have had the audacity to suggest that maybe the curb alongside the practice range of the golf course might work because there are no businesses abudding it. there's no customers who walk up and have to walk past and this and that and I have been told that that's a sacred cow in this city and it's a good thing I'm not running for re-election because I just said it. Um and sometimes it takes that kind of freedom to say those things and so I just said it maybe we ought to be considering embarcadero alongside the golf course. Um, I was also surprised by the six-month timeline for implementation, and it may be that we've said so many things at the most recent meeting, and I missed it, but um, I I echo Council Member Lowing's concern about that timeline for implementation, hoping it does not take until March to start this. Um, and with regard to pilot 2 and our concerns about um about that, we are deliberately trying to reduce the density of OSVs on those impacted streets by half by saying you may only be on one side, whereas right now you might be on both sides. We are reducing that density by half. And it's density that's the issue. It's not the lone RSV, the one OSV one, two, three, right? Unless you're objectly prejudiced against these people, you don't mind if there's one or two on your street, it's the it's the density. And so what we're trying to do is reduce the density on these impacted streets. And we will be paying attention to spillover and figuring out what to do about it once we see where that's happening. Um so that's it for me in terms of clarification and questions that I wanted to ask at the front end. Thank you.

Speaker 4:
All right. Well, I think uh I'm going to give the rest of us a chance to ask some questions, make a a few comments like like has gone before here. Um but then I want to get to all of you who are good enough to spend your time with us this evening and and hear public comment and then we'll come back and people can talk for however long it takes. Um, so I I did just want to ask um I did want to just uh follow up myself and first of all um I want to thank uh the ad hoc because I know you've spent a tremendous amount of time. I want to thank staff that spend a tremendous amount of time on this. Um, I agree this is probably the most intractable problem I've seen since I've been on uh council and uh it's something that we need to spend a lot of time and attention because obviously there is a lot of frustration um out there and uh but I I appreciate that the time you've spent and just wanted to let you know that. Um so I was intrigued. I I learned something tonight from council member Rectal. Um because we had understood that RVs were not allowed in residential areas, but there are these areas that are not technically residential because I was wondering why I kept hearing about them in front of residences. So, I do agree that finding a way to make that uniform is something um that we should work on. Um, we've talked the proposal also talks about not having them across from parks, not near corners or driveways. So, if we were to accomplish all of that, we really are talking about those uh primaril or primarily we're talking about those in front of businesses and around there. And my my question, so as as council member Lowing mentioned, there are variety of different reasons that people live in RVs. um if some RV dwellers are Palton who've fallen into homelessness for a variety of reasons and they're what I would consider the otherwise unhoused. In other words, other than the RVs, they would be unhoused. Um other RV dwellers are people who have a primary residence elsewhere and come here to work so that their RV is like a second home. And my question is, do we have a sense of sort of that split? what I would call the otherwise unhoused and those for whom this is a second home.

Speaker 5:
Uh thank you, mayor. I I don't believe we have that level of detail. Um we we just don't. I'm sorry. Because that to me is they're they're two slightly different problems we're trying to solve for. And so I'm wondering how much impact there would be by the respective solutions to those um because the um if you're an employer and you're employing people who drive in here to work and you don't pay them enough to live in a and live near here, then it would be interesting to have a conversation with them about providing parking spots on their property or paying into to a housing fund where there were housing vouchers or just other creative things to address that if we could figure out which RVs they were. So I guess my second question to staff would be if we don't know now, can you imagine a way that we could go and figure out figure that out shy of the permit parking program? I do suspect mayor that as has been described there is really a spectrum and even that maybe oversimplifying the the range of circumstances that we have uh and as such you know I think that the the best way to do what you're requesting would be to do some sort of survey of that and I don't know that we have the ability to do that in a way that's reliable other than you know again anecdotally that I think we we have all seen that there are apparently uh vehicles uh and and people that appear to fall into that category. So I suspect it would be more anecdotal than than being able to quantify it with any reliability.

Speaker 6:
Yeah. No, I appreciate that. It's just if we could discern um I think different legal standards apply to them too because they wouldn't um otherwise be unhoused or unsheltered. Um there it's just a way to uh deal separately with the the problem. So it's something that I would uh suggest we look a little more into. So those were a couple of questions. Um and uh I think I will stop with that those questions. I I just want to observe that if we it's different because we're when we deal with those who are otherwise unhoused, if they're separated from their vehicles, they could end up in parks, downtown areas, and parking garages. That is not a good solution. So, it's just different ramifications of our actions depending on the reasons that they're in the RVs in the first place. Yes.

Speaker 1:
Excuse me, mayor. I just I I do have a little bit of context I can provide for you. Um our out our outreach team has tried to get that level of detail, you know, knocking on uh the doors of RVs and developing relationships with folks, but they've not been able to get get that. So we we have tried. All right. Um

Speaker 2:
he already spoke.

Speaker 3:
Okay. Council member Lou,

Speaker 4:
thank you. just uh a few preliminary questions and I'll try to keep my time brief uh at this stage. Um so initially we were really uh looking at San Francisco and some of what they were doing with their permit uh program. I understand our permit program is quite different, but I'm wondering if you have any color uh or any anecdotes uh or data that we might not be able to easily get on just reading the local news about how the San Francisco permit program uh may be different or may be going.

Speaker 5:
Yeah. Um I I can try to answer that at least at a high level. Um I I mean I guess I will start by um you know not trying to avoid the question but just cautioning that sort of different different uh factors influence how programs are influenced implemented in different jurisdictions. Um the San Francisco program it is um a citywide permit program for OSVs. Um it suspends issuance of new permits. um you know if you cannot prove that you resided in a vehicle in San Francisco after a certain date um you know so that but that you know that suspension is coupled with uh you know significant connections to services uh you know buyback program you know other benefits that are intended to help people who are living on the streets um in vehicles get out of vehicles um you know so um you know I think it's quite an impressive program I One thing to keep in mind is San Francisco has a unique advantage and that that it's both a city and a county. So that makes it um you know there's less coordination with other agencies as far as directing resources to do like do do that. So you know it the city obviously has to work with Santa Clara County and anything that we're doing in the provision of social services.

Speaker 6:
Okay. Thank you. I think a sort of related question in trying to get to the mayor's point about um sort of serving the most need and uh trying to like clarify where the different problem uh or like sources of need are. Um, in the second pilot, did we consider having some elements of the first pilot, such as some uh permit or uh optin to accept housing? Um, that we have in the first pilot, but not the second pilot, because that seems like that could address some of those points that the mayor was making.

Speaker 1:
Not at this point. Uh at this point the second pilot's really simply a parking regulation and to uh add elements of a permit does then also require a level of uh screening and then management of how that screening would work. Uh so again depending on the direction council would like to provide uh we could certainly build that out. um but would want to uh then come back to council in terms of the resources required and and our ability to manage it. I um I would like to go back to uh council member Lith's question related to the management of the permit pilot to also point out that in that uh in that program we are expecting to need to bring on uh nonprofit partners similar to what we've done with our other uh uh homeless outreach and uh safe parking programs. And so we need to uh learn their capacity as well to be able to assist us uh with any of these programs. Okay. I think I uh uh with a little bit of time left have a last question about just uh the level of demand um and the sort of finality of the pilot streets. Uh it seems like the pilot streets have capacity for 116 or 125 uh spaces from the staff report. It seems like there are around 37 maybe 60 uh permit spaces available. Um, so it seems like there's still some extra capacity even if we only have one side and if we have 37 or 60 uh uh permitted spots compared to say a baseline of 130 odd RVs. Uh if we think that is the right baseline. Um, does that suggest that there's room to trim down or uh reduce the parking in front of residences from this list of second pilot streets or do we just have to have some buffer for the parking to work out math-wise? Like how does how do we think about those numbers? Well, first um in terms of just how to think about those numbers, it's really as estimates and and to a large extent ballpark estimates and and so from a staff perspective, we've been working within that ballpark and and I think it would be fair to uh also just acknowledge one of the big variables is uh that on the alternating side prohibitions that there are there's demand for other vehicles to park there as well. And so we would expect that there will be others in addition to OSV uh dwellers that will be using that parking. So again that that introduced just another variable uh for consideration and in how this ultimately will play out.

Speaker 2:
Okay.

Speaker 3:
And you you made a reference to residential areas and I'm not sure I I followed uh how that connected. Oh. Uh just responding to public comments about which uh uh streets in the second pilot maybe should be prioritized or should not be prioritized. Um

Speaker 4:
as being residential or close enough to uh yeah, I I would just uh acknowledge and agree that the current um prohibition for overnight uh OSV parking in residential areas is complex in its definition. So through this work, it has brought to light the value in simplifying that and making it uh uh more easily understood both by the public and to administer. Thank you,

Speaker 5:
Vice Mayor Stone.

Speaker 6:
Thank you, Madame Mayor, and big thanks to the OSV ad hoc for all the work that you've been that you've been doing. I know that's a that's a a big lift on a really challenging issue. Few few questions for for staff. Has have you prepared a a map with the proposed impacted streets in the in the in the pilot? How we how we labeling this in the second? Yeah, in the in the second pilot because I mean we have a we have a list of the streets. I would find it really beneficial to actually be able to see a map of the city of those portions highlighted because my big concern and we've been hearing um a a frustration from the community is that these these streets are being concentrated mostly in South PaloAlto and a general frustration amongst many in in South PaloAlto. I'm a South Palton my myself u that so oftent times the the the burden of so many of these kind of city programs has has shifted over towards South PaloAlto and I I understand some some kind of maybe limitations given for staff given prior council direction regarding trying to um avoid residential streets and I know there is more of that in in North Palto themselves so I can understand some of that But do we have kind of a visual representation of of that? And the staff also, do you agree or disagree about kind of the concentration of where these streets are?

Speaker 1:
Well, at this point, I believe that hasn't been prepared, but it really relatively easily can be prepared at a citywide level. I to be frank, the work has been done at a much more granular level. So, um, it's just really putting that together with a broader uh view. Uh as to the concern, I think once again it does relate to some ways the the application of this residential non or not uh definition in the current code and the limited uh way that that's defined by zoning uh as was pointed out areas that do not have the uh more straightforward residential zoning which I think does tend to uh exist in southern parts of town makes it uh less likely that that has been implemented over time. So that's another uh cleanup that could be done as part of our next steps. Yeah. And I think it would be helpful to be able to have asurances to know that it hasn't just been well it's it's more less challenging maybe in South Palto to find these streets. Um, but we've still done our due diligence to identify kind of in a more equitable approach across the city on where we are where we're identifying these streets.

Speaker 2:
If if I may, Vice Mayor, um, one of the ways that we ended up with these streets was through the policy and services back in August of last year and then the October meeting. And these were the impacted streets that we started to uh do the phase one portion of the phased approach on. So I think we just naturally moved to phase two on the streets we'd already started um making interventions on.

Speaker 3:
Okay. So still I guess not getting the types of insuranceances of kind of where the these are. I I again I understand the limitations here. Um, another qu So, another question because this has come up several times. I know this has been a common theme in prior council discussions is trying to cap these permits at a a particular point in time count or whatever legal way that we are able to to do that under current state law. I mean, what do we need in order to in order to be able to restrict OSV parking to only being permitted based on again kind of some type of of count?

Speaker 4:
Yeah. So, I I mean I do think that so there there is is the San Francisco example which has so far been successful. I I wouldn't say that there's, you know, sort of definitive law on that one way or the other. Uh but but you could definitely point to that example. I I'd say the one thing um that I you know I would point to that in cities that have been you know successful in implementing these programs is they do have um you know support um and resources made available to transition uh people out of OSVs. So it doesn't uh you know you're it looks like you're trying to solve the problem rather than than target people. Okay. I mean, okay. I guess helpful moving moving forward to really kind of better understand. I I mean, I know there's no direct road map to be able to get there because every community is different. But I I guess at this point I would have hoped for some more kind of developed um maybe theory and how we kind of how we achieve that. I I think a pilot is a good place to start. Um I'm sorry I'm going now off of off of questions so I will hold up until later. Thank you may

Speaker 5:
Yeah. And and I would just, you know, point out that that's something that that if if we got direction either from the ad hoc committee or council to move in that direction, we would look at much more more carefully. Um but that's those are just general observations that I have now.

Speaker 6:
Council member Bert. Um, so maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find the staff report. If um, so we have uh, currently 22 spots at Gang, 37 in the pilot, and maybe up to 50. Um, how many uh, approximately how many RV spots would be enabled by the um, the second half of the of the pilot? Um that's the alternating streets, sides of the street.

Speaker 1:
Uh Council Member Bert, uh this the second part of the pilot would actually disallow uh approximately half of the current spaces. So depending on the time of year, I I believe one half of the year it would be there'd be room if no one else was parking and only RVs were parking, there would be room for 116, I believe, is the the low number.

Speaker 2:
Okay. Um that's an important number. So, we've got 116 plus uh somewhere between uh 59 and 70 because I count the king as as accommodating RVs. Um and then um so that that takes us up, you know, to a pretty high number uh higher than what we have in RVs in our community today. And um so I I think that's an important reference point. Um the outreach that we had I I I read that we there was a focus group and um and I think that was Mountain View and Palo Alto um folks in a maybe was a countyled focus group.

Speaker 3:
Uh thank you Council Member Bert. Um I believe you're referring to there there was a regional convening led by uh Supervisor Abbe Koga and that involved uh any any city that wanted to participate. There were also some members of the business community there.

Speaker 4:
No, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to I'm trying to cite where I I read it. Uh but I thought I read that there was a focus group that um looked at uh a group of uh very low income RV dwellers and uh their circumstances. Um it was it wasn't a statistical sampling but a focus group. Uh I'll have to try to figure out where I read that. Well, there was a if I may, I I don't recall this being in the staff report, but I I do recall as part of the county community plan to end homelessness, there was a focus group in North County with RV dwellers. It was held at King Road. Um yeah, maybe

Speaker 5:
that's what I'm referring to. Yeah, it was in a previous report. Um but uh we don't have this long into this process we don't have any other data. Is that right? Because the focus group didn't seem representative. They were very important uh group I think because they were u uh really representative these that we want to focus on helping the most um uh families with children in in our schools and who worked here and and very low income. Um, so I think it was an important focus group, but I'm I'm really uh mystified that we don't have better data after all this time and um we have this outreach that's going on and and somehow it's not resulting in data collection. Um, and has there been a an outreach meeting with the affected business community? not since the uh release of the specifics of the pilot. Uh there was uh outreach more in general on the topic uh really over the course of the last few months.

Speaker 6:
There was outreach in what way?

Council Member Bert:
We held a workshop that uh was a primary community workshop along with uh the ongoing uh individual stakeholder uh discussions that have happened. And then out of the anticipated participation in the uh the permitted pilot and the alternating streets pilot, do we have any sense of what portion of the RV dwellers will participate in either of those because it's can't force them to.

Speaker 2:
Thank you, Council Member Bert. It's been um as I'm sure you appreciate really difficult to speak about an item with members of the public before the item had come before council. So we we have asked our outreach team and our service providers um in a more broad way how how their clients would feel about something like this and whether they would participate. And we used that feedback and brought that feedback back to the ad hoc to help develop what is before you today. And that feedback was what?

Speaker 3:
Uh, thank you, council member. I I don't have all of that in front of me right now, but questions like what what fee amount would people be okay with? What minimum amenities would people be willing to accept a good neighbor agreement? Um,

Speaker 4:
things like that.

Speaker 5:
Okay, so that's different threshold levels. I'm kind of looking for did we get a a strong interest in participating

Speaker 6:
as uh Miss Mcdana pointed out this is with the service providers not with the potential uh permites as would be in the case here. Uh so we at this point really we're looking to the pilot as a way for us to assess that. uh this this represents the best combination of elements that uh uh based on the feedback we received felt that could be viable and really needs to be tested in real life. Okay. Um and the real life test is important. I I I'm nervous about spending so much money without having um a stronger sense of whether we're going to have an uptake. Uh I'm hopeful we will. Um, okay. Uh, I I'll leave it at that. Uh, I have some other questions and certainly many comments. Council member Lowing, your light was back on. Are you Are you good? Okay. Are you good? Well, for now, yes. Okay. Council member Lith,

Speaker 1:
could I just speak to Council Member Bert's question because I did take extensive notes in these meetings and um just searching my notes quickly. What I'm seeing is what made the pilot um more or less attractive was the extent to which there would be some kind of service for sewage uh pumpout that would be much more attractive uh to RV dwellers. And um that said um people did desire to participate in the pilot because the alternative is certainly not better. Um so it you know we we felt we had enough green light to you know that we would have uptake. Um but it is not to say that it's seen as you know a panacea. Okay. All right. So, with that, um, let's turn to public comment. Um, we have gotten, as Council Member Lowing said, a lot of emails. Uh, we appreciate those. It does help us think it through, as will your oral comments tonight. Uh, we have a lot of them, and we will sit here and listen to all of them. Um, one of the things that I would ask is just so that we can hear all the perspectives is that there just aren't any audible responses to them. No clapping, you know, cheering, any of that kind of thing. We'll just uh listen to everybody. Um, and um, with respect to um, well, actually, so, madam clerk, how are we doing on the numbers?

Speaker 2:
We have 49 individual speakers and three group speakers. Okay. All right. I think that necessitates uh for each of the three groups, we will have five minutes each and for each of the individuals that will be one minute each. And um the clerk will put up a list of your names. Many of you have been through this many times and many of you have not. Um and she'll call out your name and then the name of the following speaker so you can be ready to approach the uh lectern. All right. Thank you. Our first speaker is Barry K.

Barry K:
Good evening. I'm Barry Kates. I'm representing a large and growing number of the roughly 400 households that comprise the Ventura Neighborhood Association. It's true that we are not one of the postcard neighborhoods of PaloAlto. Our streets are more likely to be named after Mexican saints Margarita Fernando than English poets Cridge Tennyson. But we are proud of the racially, ethnically, and economically diverse community that we have built and we want to see it grow and flourish. Can I just ask, do any of you live in the Ventura neighborhood? I thought so because if you did, this stupid proposal would never have gotten out the front door.

Speaker 3:
Regarding the OSV issue, I believe that there has been a misunderstanding. For the better part of a decade, Venturans have been pleading with the city council to address the health, sanitation, safety, traffic, and livability issues associated with long-term OSV parking in our neighborhood. To be clear, we were asking you to remedy the situation, not to reinforce it. I'm not sure how this m miscommunication occurred since you have over the years received hundreds, probably thousands of letters, emails, text messages, telephone calls asking for your intervention. Like our friends in the equally underserved and overlooked East Meadow neighborhood, we are shocked, offended, and outraged by the proposed phase three. It's as if you have not heard one word of what we've been saying. Worse, you seem deliberately to have ignored and overruled it. For years, we have been providing you with documentation of the damage to our creeks, our pedestrian pathways, our bicycle routes, our drinking water, our homes, and our businesses, and have listed the specific streets where the blight is most acute. You have responded by taking that list and making those very streets the centerpiece of your proposal. Park Boulevard, the sole pedestrian corridor between Ventura and the California uh Avenue Commercial District. Olive and Ash, where residents have been threatened by OSV landlords and women are unwilling to leave their homes at night. Your solution? Move them to the other side of the street every 6 months. Are you kidding? Are you serious? Are you out of your minds? Joe Simidian, who I liked and respected, like to used to say, "Don't come to us with problems, come to us with solutions." With all due respect, I think Joe had it backwards. It is our responsibility as citizens to petition government for the redress of grievances. It is your responsibility to resolve them. Nevertheless, since you are apparently committed to long-term OSV parking on our residential streets, I would like to offer a constructive counter proposal. Invite them into your own damn neighborhoods.

Speaker 4:
I'm sorry, we can't do that. We can't get up. We can't have applause. We'll have to suspend. So, okay. I need no more applause. Thank you. All right. Move to the next speaker. Our next speaker is Rand T.

Rand T:
Oh man, I've got some data for you.

Speaker 5:
Okay, so I'm primarily here um representing five of 15 um second homers. Um I'm a 1.5 homer myself. Um my RV is my starter home. Um which I purchased because there were extensive layoffs at my company and I didn't know if I was going to want to put a down payment on an apartment. And so, uh, because I've saved so much on money on rent, I've purchased a property in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and I'm about three to five years away from building a house of my own. Um, basically, all right. Well, amendment E is going to backfire spectacularly because basically we're just going to all condense onto one side of the street, bumperto-bumper. The street swinging programs have been very good at eliminating the methheads with their piles of trash and and the people who don't actually work in the area. And that has reduced the East Meadow population to about 45 RVs. Um I counted while I was passing out flyers about this meeting. Um which is about half of the 95 RVs there were last year. And by implementing E, you're going to have a solid wall of RVs all around the circle again. Not just as it was in a year ago, but also in front of the housing, uh, which we don't like to park in front of housing because it's it's weird. But yeah, but we will have to take that space because we can't park on the other side of the street. And we're going to move all of our cars to the side that we can't park on. So, we're going to be constantly crossing the street with our groceries and everything that we're going to bring back and our laundry from the laundry mats causing more traffic. But, okay. So, about two homers or 1.5 homers like myself, I am here to work and I cannot if I did rent an apartment, I'd be living paycheck to paycheck. I'd have no retirement savings or a way to get on the property ladder. But if you were to require my employer who has a lot of parking lot acorage um to give me a spot, I would be parking behind my workplace because I also just want to bike to work and that that's an ideal commute. Don't even make it constant requirement. Just for the working weekdays or any days I'm required to be there, I can park on company property. It makes sense. Um yeah, it's there's no point in forcing everybody to one side of the street because um well density is the issue here and that is exactly what you'll be increasing is density. Now, there there are actual parking spaces on East Meadow Circle, which I haven't seen for a long time. And I'd like to keep it that way, honestly. And I'm sure the people who live on East Meadow Circle don't want a giant wall of RVs in front of their houses where usually there is just cars, except for one RV currently. But um yeah, basically amendment E is going to backfire spectacularly and put us right back where we were before street sweeping, which um I mean not right back because we'll still not have the methheads. So that's nice, but no, it's it's not going to work is the problem. And the increase of of traffic concerns with people crossing the street con constantly will be just an absolute nightmare. Now, there was a recent incident with um one of the concerned business members on East Meadow Circle um who has a personal hobby of writing down all of our license plates and then submitting it to the Palo Alto Police Department so we can move around in a circle and park where we were before. And he was followed by one of our residents to a local park and where he said somebody would eventually punch him in the face if he kept doing that sort of thing, which we as the AR RV community took very seriously and disciplined internally this person and made it very clear to him that that kind of threatening behavior is not welcome as RVers and especially not in the housing community. But he does need time. The the man walking around writing down people's license plates is threatening every single one of us on the circle. Every time he does this, he's wasting Palo Alto resources, sending the cops out to put all these pieces of paper out, and then nothing happens. It's his hobby. He's told me it's his hobby and that he doesn't want the children of there to attend PaloAlto Public Schools. So, what is the consequence for his threats against us?

Speaker 6:
Your time is up. Our next speaker is Jason R.

Jason R:
All right. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. Uh, I'm a Ventura resident. Uh, as is my wife. Uh, so I sent a much more detailed version of what I'm going to say in email yesterday, so you'll have that data. Um, I'm going to focus on four points. So, one is a deeper dive on the evidence that we already have. Uh, the second is the proposed pilots's experimental design. Uh the third is the cost and finally the city system these system that these decisions are going to inhabit. So first the evidence. So there's there's a really interesting study by Bob Marinaro um and if you if you take a look at that data it goes from October 2025 to mid July shows OSV counts going from 220 to 131 which is 40% reduction. I know the staff has another number. it's 191 down to 133 if I recall correctly. Um but then it's flat. So your intervention and now a ste a steady state baseline. Um so basically it looks like phase one's reduction has done what it's going to do. So that's one key piece. But the deeper piece is that what's really changing now is vehicle location, not how many. So uh the speculative spillage is very much in that data. So concretely the redistribution uh in Ventura is seen declining from 20 to 14 overall. So an overall decline but if you aggregate by geography so you take Park Sheridan and Lambert that's going from 13 to two uh whereas Ash portage olive and acacia rose from 6 to 10 peaking at 15. So that's going from 30% of the area total to 71% of the area total. So it's pretty cool uh to see that. So yeah, very clear that there is going to be spillage when when something happens vehicles go elsewhere. So number two is the experimental design and basically there are three key problems I'll focus on. First is uh what is exactly the benchmark. So we talked about the success criterion criterion being the uh lower number of OSVs but are we taking 220 as a benchmark 191 there was also a 181 in there. So what exactly are we starting with and what is success? Do we get to the 102 the 2023 point in time or where exactly are we? Problem two. Oh. Uh, we also that's important because we don't want to book phase one success as a success for the pilot. So, we have to keep those separate. Causal attribution is also really going to be a challenge for you when you're running two experiments at the same time. So, you've got two treatments, staggered starts, no comparison streets. Permit holders are essentially the well- behaved subset. So, it's the RV dwellers who will actually do a permit and go through that process. Um, a six-month flip. So, there's no replication and it's inseparable from season, construction, school, and traffic patterns and so on. And then problem three is that there's no published protocol. So there's no hypothesis, no comparison segments, no thresholds. Success is currently defined as business feedback, although uh I I know that it was stated as uh the number of OSVs. So I I really think that before committing 824,000 plus annual maintenance fees on which are going to likely rise, uh that the experiment experimental design should be really considered deeply. Third is the cost. I think we've already heard that spending buy is relocation not reduction. Uh and essentially I was going to reference Berkeley's buyback rate but I am about to run out of time. So fourth is the system. PaloAlto really needs a systems approach rather than peace meal approval. So projects along projects along El Camino have been approved with parking reductions waiverss and builder remedy density that assumed on street parking. So, I pulled up 3001 El Camino. Uh, and basically it says the proposed parking supply of 103 spaces is lower than both the city requirement of 198 uh spaces and estimated parking of 128. That's the first one I pulled up so I didn't have to look any further. And then we have the bike lanes which further remove parking. On top of that, this proposal is going to impact parking. So, you've got three things to account for. Uh, so I'm going to request

Speaker 1:
Your time is up.

Speaker 2:
Thank you. So just a request addressing those. Thank you so much.

Speaker 3:
Our next speaker is Winter Deep.

Winter D:
Well, this is very hard. It's not surprising that it's hard. It's hard all over the country. Zillions of cities are dealing with something that approximates this. This is as you know systemic income equality in a very pure form and I do not envy you. I want to thank the ad hoc for their time and their work on this. It's a work in progress. I appreciate that. I couldn't help but think and it's so ironic that Buen a Vista was in here tonight. subject of Buen a Vista and how we saved Buen a Vista. It took a a lot of thinking, a lot of time. It took investment. The investment was okay. I want to remind you everyone that a a below market rate unit today costs around $1 million per unit. So when I hear the costs here,

Speaker 5:
your time is

Speaker 6:
I don't know exactly if they're right or wrong, but I do know they're not it's not astronomical. And one last thing, Palo Alto, our a basic value is we take care of each other and the most vulnerable included. Thank you.

Speaker 1:
Our next speaker is Leanne L.

Leanne L:
Leanne. Oh. Oh. Was it Jean L. Moving to our next speaker, Anapu Anopi. Sorry, Anu Pab.

Anupa:
Hello. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. My name is Anupa. I'm living here in Palo Alto for the last 27 years. But it seems like yesterday that council member Rectal and Council Member Lavi were I working together on the housing element working group. Remember that we came up with, you know, lots of meetings, lots of discussions and came up with suitable sites for over 8,000 additional units of housing in PaloAlto. And throughout those meetings, I don't remember talking about RVs in this kind of scale. We talked about a couple of church parking lots with, you know, RV uh parking, but this this seems to have come out very suddenly, this this flood of RVs that we want to bring into Palo Alto. Um so my neighbor and I, you know, we measured the distance from our front door to the street. It's 26 ft. It's about from this microphone to the city emblem. Your time is up. Okay. Our next speaker is Herb B followed by Andrew N. The location of uh oversized vehicle parking depends upon uh the definitions of where it is prohibited. Uh uh you know residentially zoned areas uh public facility zoned areas and the equivalent area on the other side of the street. uh and they may also include your commercial uh zoning that allows residential as well. But what it omits is the large number of plan community zones. So, in in addition to any other direction you give to staff, I believe you should uh have them uh bring back an amendment to the definition of residential to include planned community zones uh where a majority of the development is residential and the equivalent and they would and the equivalent area on the other side of the street.

Drew:
Your time is up. Our next speaker is Andrew N, followed by John M. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Drew and I'm here on behalf of PHC where we provide healthcare and outreach services to people experiencing homelessness in Palo Alto. PHC supports the city manager's proposal because while it isn't perfect, it recognizes that we cannot solve homelessness by pushing people experiencing homelessness into another city. These RV dwellers are not outsiders, they are Peloa residents. They are our patients, our neighbors, and members of this community. And the increasingly hostile rhetoric toward toward them concerns us. From a health dis uh perspective, displacement matters. Constantly forcing people to move disrupts their connections to medical care, behavioral health services, outreach, and case management. RB dwellers did not create the homelessness crisis. They are a result of it. So, thank you for considering an alternative to a full ban. Please go further. Treat these individuals and residents to be served, not not problems to be removed. We can address legitimate neighborhood concerns without abanding dignity and compassion. our community is paying attention not just to the decision you make tonight but to whether every Palo Alto resident is treated as though they actually belong here. Thank you.

Speaker 4:
Our next speaker is John M, followed by Melinda M.

John M:
Hello Mayor, uh, Vice Mayor, Council, thank you so much for wrestling with this very difficult problem and I want to give due respect to the ad hoc committee and I could not disagree more with their recommendations. I'm sorry to say instead of um creating a solution around helping the homeless or helping disadvantaged persons in RVs. You're going to change the character of different neighborhoods. One of the tenants that you were charged with and that you've you've expressed before is that there has to be a citywide impact and a citywide solution. When I watched Mr. Rectal and Mr. Stone discuss changes to potential changes to compounds in Crescent Park after one billionaire built a school there and so on. There was selective enforcement. I have some sympathy for my friends in Ventura as I do for my neighbors in East Meadow Circle who bears the burden here. Um compassion has no limits. It's a tough problem and we respect this but it should be a business that

Speaker 6:
the city follows. Thank you. Our next speaker is Melinda M, followed by Christian H. Uh,

Christian Hodm:
thank you. Um, I'm concerned as I've heard from some council members about the lack of data. Um, and I learned about the San Francisco, they have a large vehicle database. I just wonder with all of the vehicles that are here now, where did they come from? Did they come from Redwood City, which I've seen, and other in other places? I guess I have a couple of other points. Employers, as we heard one speaker, should provide parking for their employees on their lots instead of this being the responsibility of the city. I don't see Stamford here represented when we know in the past that a lot of the RVs on El Camino were people who were either contract workers, Stamford students or Stamford employees that were parking there. Where is their part in this? And I don't I'm opposed to both of these programs because I don't think they solve your time problem. Our next speaker is Christian H followed by Francis W. Good evening, council members. My name is Christian Hodm. I'm with Pacific American Group. We've owned a commercial property on 844 East Charleston for 30 years. Uh we recently showed that building to a prospective tenant and received the following feedback from their agent. They loved the property but will not be submitting a proposal because of safety and health concerns associated with a near permanent line of RVs boarding bordering the property. Losing perspect uh prospective business along with the employment, economic activity, and tax revenue that business could have brought to the community is a major loss for the city of Palo Alto. We want to continue our long history of bringing good businesses to Palo Alto, but the RVs on the streets surrounding our property are making that increasingly difficult. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is Francis W, followed by Danny W.

Francis W:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to comment on item 10, section E, which if adopted will restrict parking on East Meadow Circle. I'm a hardworking and law-abiding member of the Palo Alto community whose home is East Meadow Circle. I struggle with my mental health and I'm concerned that new parking restrictions could disrupt my life and displace me from my home. Furthermore, I know there are other hardworking community members who live on East Meadow Circle who would also be displaced by new parking restrictions. And I'm also concerned for their well-being. I humbly request that you decline to adopt new parking restrictions on East Meadow Circle. Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Speaker 4:
Our next speaker is Danny W, followed by Alejandro VC.

Danny Whan:
Good evening, council members. My name is Danny Whan. I work for the property manager at 844 East Charleston, whose rear employee parking lot is accessed from Fabian Way between San Antonio and East Charleston. Fabian Way was identified in the city's October 2025 staff report as one of the streets highly affected by oversized vehicles. Yet, it is excluded from the pilot program before you tonight. This isn't a hypothetical concern for us. On June 14th, someone living in an RV near our building trespassed onto our property and tampered with our fire suppression system to access water. We've since lost leasing prospects who cite the conditions on the street as a reason to look elsewhere. I've heard your comments tonight and I can respect the difficulty of solving the problem that the city faces. I too believe that a managed off- streetet parking solution is the best alternative and I encourage you to continue trying to arrange that solution. I am concerned, however, that the pilots would shuffle RVs around the city. I think any street emitted like Fabian Way will likely make be made worse off as displaced RV dwellers from the pilot areas will move to the streets left out of the program to find available space.

Speaker 6:
Your time is up.

Speaker 1:
Thank you for your attention.

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is Alejandro V

Alejandro V:
C, followed by Henry E. Alejandro BC.

Speaker 3:
Moving to Henry E.

Speaker 4:
Just as we failed to get the cameras out tonight, we're going to fail to get the oversized vehicles out. But they must go. They do not comport with the ambiencece of Palo Alto, nor do they provide adequate living spaces for their residents. You're pushing them into socially isolated places. I'm a sociologist. Social ties are important to mental and physical health. So therefore, to find a temporary solution, we're smoothing the places where they can have a community. So Stanford must play a role. As was mentioned by a previous speaker, they've been pushed out by Stanford. So I said we invite the VAVS to with seniors and families to Oak Creek apartments where there's parking spaces available and we invite them to the uh Margarite parking lot where Stanford can provide space and if necessary to the police new police area stations where there's parking spaces that are underutilized. We must solve the problem as a community. We can't

Speaker 5:
Your time is up.

Speaker 6:
Thank you. Our next speaker is Anil H followed by David M.

Anil H:
Anil H. Moving to our

Unil Hosker:
Good evening, mayor and members of the city council. My name is Unil Hosker and I've been a resident of Powalta for 12 years. I'm here tonight because I strongly oppose allowing RVs to be used as long-term residents on our public streets. Over the past years, I personally witnessed the problems that can cause come with long-term RV parking. And I have seen trash and personal belongings accumulate around vehicles, parking spaces occupied for extended periods and situations that raise serious concerns about sanitation, safety, and visibility and the overall quality of our neighborhoods. This is not simple simply a parking issue. It is a question of what standards we want for our city and how our public streets should be used. Our streets are shared public spaces. They were not designed to function as a permanent residential area. And I believe that there is an important question that every council member should be considering. If other cities are unwilling to accept long-term RV parking on their streets, why should Pala residents be accepted?

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is David M. followed by Garrison B.

David M:
I've already given each of you a letter. I've given it to the city attorney. I've given it to the uh city manager. I only have a minute. So, I'll be brief. I don't believe that the Brown Act notice was sufficient for pilot B. I believe that it would be prudent for council not to make any decision on pilot B at this hearing. You need to renotice as I've explained in the letter to inform the affected businesses of council's meeting on this subject. The amount of outreach to the business community rounds to zero. Nobody I've spoken with on the affected streets who are commercial businesses knew anything about this meeting. I was the first person to tell them. And Mr. Buren, Mr. Burrs, right there is who told me about it yesterday. The notice didn't say anything about pilot B. Thank you very much. And uh you're in the notice the cure and correct portion for 30 days. This was a demand letter on the Brown Act. You need you have 30 days to cure and correct and then you can have a decision. You can't make a decision today.

Speaker 3:
Our next speaker is Kirsten B followed by Candy T.

Kirsten B:
Good evening, council members. I know it's getting late. I'm going to try to be gusty in my response. Um I want to thank the ad hoc committee and the staff. You've worked very hard on this horribly difficult issue. Um I can see the passion and all sides here. I make two requests. Uh I'm a homeowner and a property owner in Peloto as well as a business owner. So I sort of have the hat-tick of reasons to be here. My first request is that you take the transit, commercial, and industrial piece out of this second pilot. Reason being is we've been overwhelmed with RVs now for better than 10 years. We feel we've done our part with the RVs being removed by your first phase. It has really allowed the neighborhood to breathe. We ask you let it continue to breathe. Let the program go in other parts of Palo Alto. Second qu request is we really did not get sufficient outreach from

Speaker 5:
your time is up.

Speaker 6:
So please please please come to us. Thank you. Our next speaker is Candy T, followed by Matt B.

Candy T:
Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you tonight. Uh, I am a resident of V of the Ventura neighborhood and my comments tonight are my own. I do they do not represent my employer. We should approach homelessness with compassion but also with evidence and research including work by my UCSF colleague Dr. Margot Kushelle supports one fundamental principle and that is stable housing is the foundation for addressing homelessness, not prolonged residents in vehicles on public streets. Housing first programs demonstrate substantially greater long-term housing stability than OSVs do. Housing alone alone cannot solve every problem, but it allows and provides the foundation for which all other services can be rendered. We need to leverage county, state, and federal funding and partnerships as well as philanthropy to expand programs like HomeKey. Instead of putting money $800,000 towards that, we should be funding the home key program to get people off the streets and out of these OSVs.

Speaker 1:
Your time is up. Our next speaker is Matt B, followed by Scott A.

Matt B:
Good evening, council members. I've spoken here a few times on this matter. I'm also a resident of um South Palo Alto. Um running out of time already, but there's a few points that I would like to make. Um number one is in fact affordable permanent housing is the only solution to the unhoused. The studies again have shown that repeatedly. Um and again this particular uh proposal I oppose it completely because it's primarily focused on the residents and the streets of South Palo Alto. I really feel like we should consider other streets such as Sand Hill Road, Oregon Avenue, the feeder along Oregon Expressway as well as um Palo Alto Avenue, San Francisco Creek side is perfectly open as a onem stretch from Alma all the way to uh Middlefield Road. So I think that would be important to consider all these other areas that could also take on the housing. And plus, in my conversations tonight, I think we could just ask for volunteers who would like to have an RV in front of their house. Please raise your hands.

Speaker 3:
Thank you.

Speaker 4:
Our next speaker is Scott A.

Scott Anderson:
Hello, council. My name is Scott Anderson. I live on Olive Avenue. There's 17 kids that live on Olive Avenue. Two of them are my own. They're PhD or under. Uh they both bike to school. I work in 3D survey. So when I saw it, read in the news, um I thought why Olive? And so on Saturday night, I went to five streets, Shouter, two on Hale, Bryant, Cooleridge, and also Olive Avenue. I measured the width, uh the distance from the front door to the side of the street, and then how many cars were on the street. By every measure, Olive Avenue was the worst uh place. Um today at 3:30 when my son came home, um I counted how many cars were driving down the street. There's 90 per hour that were driving down the street doing doing an average of 50% were going faster than 25 and then 70% were not stopping at the uh stop sign. They're just turning right on a Ash. Ash, by the way, is uh smaller than uh Olive Avenue and the other streets are all 35. Um Ash is 20 uh 29. So I I suggest that uh uh strike Olive um and then engage with residents. When I met the guy on Hail at 10:30 at night after I explained what I was doing, he said, uh, you know, I asked, "Do you want to do you want RVs on your street?" He said, "No. Um, I don't want to." So, I suggest you engage with the the residents here. Thank you.

Speaker 6:
Our next speaker is Eugen L followed by Jared L.

Eugen L:
Uh, also an Olive Avenue resident. Um I I definitely agree with many different opinions in this room and I appreciate all the input um from all parties involved but I I I think all of Avenue was a mistake to be on this list. You guys all of know our North Ventura plight. Um, so hopefully you can at least ad omit the residential is my point is anybody with residential or non-adjacent residential I think should be admitted from any of these lists and offsite RV parks with proper hookups seems most appropriate rather than trying to keep these RVs in the city. Let's if you want to keep them, let's let's find a good spot for them. Thank you.

Jared Lockhart:
Our next speaker is Jared L, followed by David A. Good evening. My name is Jared Lockhart. I grew up in PaloAlto on Olive Avenue. Um, it may not be zoned as residential. It's mixed, but it's a community. It's a neighborhood. We know these people. Some of these people have lived there for decades, like myself. So, please consider mixed use neighborhoods as being residential for this purpose. um more specific to your program, I strongly suggest you consider what your long what is your end point. We're talking about a pilot program that might last at least 12 months. When is it going to end? When is the program going to be finished? What is the end goal? Uh that's an important consideration for all of you so that this does not become PaloAlto's never- ending problem. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
Our next speaker is David A followed by Bill R.

David A:
Uh good evening. Um so on the slide 15 minutes ago, Olive Avenue was part of the 200 block, not 200400 block in the report. Is that correct? Is am I hallucinating or what? Um, so you need to do your homework and out make some outreach before you send out a report with such a halfass idea. Um, if you can't find somewhere to put these RVs other than Ventura, then you're not looking hard enough. There are plenty of places, city owned lots all over put them there. Take them off the residential areas and Ventura. Thank you very much.

Speaker 4:
Our next speaker is Bill R followed by Kareem A.

Bill R:
Uh good evening, Bill Ross. I'm challenging the categorical and statutory exemptions. It's well established that the personal views if quantified and based on sub substantial evidence and experience of adjacent land owners are relevant to establishing a physical impact on the environment. I would actually suggest that a limited environmental review consistent with appendix G addressing public services and public safety and population and housing under a constrained time limit would actually help define those that are actually homeless versus those that are not. So I think that the a structured environmental review on a limited basis should be would be beneficial rather than the exemptions. Now claimed

Speaker 6:
our next speaker is Kareem A followed by Liba P.

Kareem A:
Good evening. Thank you all for your comments and your hard work in this matter. I live in Palo Alto as well as own an office building on commercial street and uh we've been suffering Mr. Burns spoke earlier. He's my business partner. We've been suffering in in the commercial street, industrial street area with RV parking for the last 10 years. I have pictures here. The it is the most horrendous thing that we have experienced. Thank you for cleaning it up recently. Please exclude this community. We have the right to be there. We pay taxes. We we our office space ha has uh devalued. We cannot have guests there. It is embarrassing. This is not the kind of community we want to work in. I beg you to please take that off the list. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is Liba P followed by Vanessa C.

Liba P:
Thank you. So, my name's Leiba Pitman. I believe I'm the longestterm resident on Olive Avenue resident and owner. Um, I definitely have compassion for people living in their vehicles. Housing insecurity is real and people deserve dignity, services, and pathways toward stable housing. I'm asking you to exclude uh my street that I grew up on. Uh a parent and now a grandparent. And I'm also concerned with how you chose Olive. Why Olive? Um why weren't the residents consulted before you chose Olive? I know that um when Huelet Packard was going to build across the street, I was actually working for Huelet Packard at the time and they were very open to considering uh the neighborhood. They spoke to those of us that lived across the street before they uh built their building on the far side in consideration of residents. And when the owner of former Fries was going to build, they talked to me about building a garage in my backyard. So, I'm disappointed that no one contacted the residents on Olive and request that you not approve that. We I'm

Speaker 4:
Your so just Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Our next speaker is Vanessa C followed by Jen B.

Vanessa C:
Vanessa C. Moving to our next speaker, Jen B, followed by Larry G.

Speaker 6:
Good evening. Um, I'd first like to better understand how this outreach program worked. How did they speak out to ownership stakeholders? All of that communication. How was that distributed? We are a long-term owner and we had not had any direct communications for properties located on transport, commercial, or industrial. There was no communication. Um, with that being said, my main concern is security and safety of children. We had a daycare within that area with on commercial street. The tenant ended up moving out when the property was sold due to the safety concerns for these children. You have these high densities. You have large RVs. Children cannot see or running around. There's no control. Um, we have since had difficulties filling the space with another program of a preschool due to that concern. If we continue to have the high density, we will not be able to fulfill the community's need for a school and that needs to change. Thank you. Our next speaker is Larry G, followed by Jonathan B.

Larry G:
City Council mayor, thank you for your time. The issue of the unhoused is a very serious issue and I appreciate everyone's time working on this, but I implore you to vote no on this proposal tonight. If you look across the proposal, it's putting a disproportionate burden on a very few neighborhoods such as Ventura. And you look at the number in the streets and what you're hearing from people tonight and the questions you're getting. Clearly, people weren't consulted and there's huge impact on these small streets in this small neighborhood. And if you look at some of the segments right and the number of people impacted it's enormous. I think Gerstone you asked some of the questions about how was the heat map drawn up? How was this data driven? So I ask you to vote no on this because it really is a question of fiduciary duty. Your duty first and foremost are to the citizens of Palo Alto to provide the living that they um that they have created in this community. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jonathan B

Jonathan B:
, followed by an K.

Speaker 2:
Jonathan Brown, 23-year Ventura resident. The OSV parking permit pilot is a promising step, but the second proposed pilot would do nothing to mitigate negative impacts and would likely undermine the permit program while incurring substantial costs. Council member Rectal already noted the unfairness it shows towards Ventura, as does the large turnout tonight from our residential neighborhood. Parks, homes, preschools are all on streets who designated, and that's just wrong. Please heed Mayor Vinker's plea to re-examine the impact on our residences, parks, and families. Council should reject the second pilot. In line with council member Lowing's suggestion, we should move towards prohibiting all vehicle dwelling except in permitted areas. As Mr. Jensen noted, the court case that his predecessor mistakenly concluded would invalidate our 2013 vehicular habitation ban has been overturned by the US Supreme Court. I'm also an attorney. To answer council member Stone's question, there is nothing in state nor federal law preventing the city from enacting a ban on vehicle dwelling except for those provided under the permit program. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
Our next speaker is an K, followed by Bob M.

Bob Marinero:
Thank you, council members. My name is an and I live in Southgate and own and operate our business in the Ventura neighborhood. and we've been doing this over 20 years now and I care deeply about the community I live in. I'm asking you to pause this program. I understand that there's state laws that are governing how PaloAlto addresses people living in vehicles before we approve the program. We need clear answers on these fundamental questions. What does the state law require? And what is PaloAlto choosing to do? Designating public streets for long RV habitation is a policy choice. Then the community deserves a meaningful voice before that choice is made, not afterwards. You don't approve the experiment and then ask the neighborhood what it thinks. We know from experience that relocating RVs doesn't solve the problem. Moving the problem is not solving the problem. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bob M filed followed by Ryan J. Good evening, mayor, council, city manager. My name is Bob Marinero and I'm a 34 year resident of the Adobe Meadow neighborhood in South Palo Alto. From the barrage of emails that you have reached in recent months, you are well aware of the sentiment of of PaloAlto residents and businesses. Based on the vast majority of the content I have seen in email submissions and other comments heard in the community, the common thread is that the OSV phase 2 plan was illconceived. In due respect, the notion of legitimizing parking on 13 different streets in South Palo Alto is preposterous. Yet, I believe that a certain amount of safe parking can be expanded from the current 22 spaces at Gang Road and that a registration system would be beneficial for numerous reasons such as not attracting additional OSVs. However, OSVs should not and cannot be allowed on any residential streets or business corridors. I have seen a handful of very excellent alternative proposals and I believe that you should consider all part of them.

Speaker 5:
Thank you. Our next speaker is Ryan J.

Ryan J:
Good evening. Uh, thank you for your time, mayor and city council. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of we're a third generation family business. We started our business in PaloAlto back in the 60s. Um, I'm currently running this business and I can tell you that over the last 10 years, we have had the least friendly business climate in PaloAlto. The vacancies have gone through the roof to an all-time high. It's not just related. It's there's numerous reasons, but the RV problem is a major problem. I'm on the south side of California. I share the same concern. I hear a lot of residents speaking up. I'm speaking up on the business community. There's been zero outreach to us whatsoever. Phase 2 pilot has is if you draw it on a map, which I think would be great for all of us to see, we can see how everything is centered down on the southern end of of uh Palo Alto. I've heard the comment out of sight, out of mind. Does that seem applicable? Is that fair to the residents and the businesses of southern cal of southern Palo Alto? Why why don't we have phase two program here right on University?

Speaker 1:
So why are we choosing the south area? It's it's actually seeming like like we all feel that you guys are kicking down the can.

Speaker 2:
We strongly encourage you reconsider.

Speaker 3:
Our next speaker is Shazad D followed by Charlie W.

Shazad D:
Shazad D. Moving to our next speaker, Charlie W. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, Charlie Widance, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. We are deeply concerned about the compounding efforts of long-term OSV parking along Palo Alto's business corridors. We fully recognize that individuals living in these vehicles are members of our local workforce and community members for whom an RV represents essential shelter. At the same time, the current status quo has become unsustainable for local employers. Unmonitored, oversized vehicle parking creates serious operational and safety hazards. These vehicles consistently block sightelines, creating severe blind spots for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. They constrict narrow streets, making routine freight deliveries dangerous, and stripping away essential parking for customers and employees. combined with accumulating waste, unauthorized utility connections, affected businesses are reporting significant losses. PaloAlto small businesses cannot continue to operate under these conditions. We urge council to establish a structured oversized vehicle parking program that eliminates long-term parking for RVs in commercial districts. Thank you.

Speaker 4:
Our next speaker is David M, followed by Eric J.

David M:
Thank you for the time. Terrible time slot. I would I'm speaking on on behalf of a medical device business with a few hundred employees that's on LLC Court. We love Palo Alto. We love to be here, but I don't think that we can stay, especially if we bring back RVs parking on half of our street. We've had a lot of issues with them. The biggest issue is that we cannot access our facility. We can't bring visitors in. There's not enough parking for our our own employees. And the more RVs that we have, especially bringing back a half street full, the harder it will be for us. We've asked our neighbors if they have spare parking, they don't. So, this will be an impediment for us to grow, it'll mean that we'll have to leave Palo Alto, and we don't want to do that. I would also ask council to um really consider how when you say that you're going to enforce the turnover of 72-hour parking, how you'll do that. you've not been able to do that in the past because there was no funding to remove those RVs. I believe that will be the same case in this situation. Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric J followed by Eddie K. Eric J. Moving to our next speaker, Eddie K. Hello, Edie Keading, former PaloAlto resident, current Mountain View resident. Mountain View has learned that safe parking is much superior to street parking for everyone. And if you can't find uh properties that are willing to lease to you uh for safe parking, then I hope you consider buying for safe parking. I think if it's something you had to do a parcel tax for, it would be a very popular uh supported raise to raise money for safe parking. And uh for employers, I hope there there are carrots you could offer too. You could offer if they allow um uh safe parking on their properties that um you could provide pump service and trash service and um I appreciate that you look at uh vehicle residents as members of PaloAlto. Thank you. Our next speaker is Gordon J followed by Star T.

Speaker 5:
Hello. Uh, good evening. Um, I think these are both good ideas worth experimenting with and uh managing or creating space for for uh oversized vehicles uh for the first one and then managing places where oversized vehicles are currently parked. I'm not sure why Olive A ended up on the on the list here. Uh current restrictions on olive prevent uh overnight parking for oversized vehicles on both sides of the street. Uh the residential side uh no oversize overnight and the commercial side no overnight at all. Uh so it is not true that uh that uh regularsized cars are allowed to park there overnight right now. Um uh so so like I said, I think I I support both of these uh proposals, but av seems like a a confusing street to add to this project.

Speaker 6:
Our next speaker is Star T

Star T:
followed by S. Rose.

Speaker 1:
Thank you for uh all your hard work and for including case management in your program. I think that's extremely thoughtful. I want to entirely agree that Olive should never have been on this list. It's a strong community. It has a lot of cutth through traffic as Scott Anderson, oops, Scott A, um, denoted. Um, but most of all, I just want to say there have been so many excellent comments tonight by the community and I just want to encourage you to listen to them. Just fabulous. Our next speaker is S. Rose, followed by Bianca P.

Speaker 2:
Good evening. My name is uh Shawn Rose, and I'm going to talk out of both sides of my mouth briefly. Um I'm a 22 uh year resident of Lambert Avenue. On one hand, the second pilot in front of you tonight creates more stringent rules to be followed. May not read that way, but it does. We're hopeful there. The support we've received from the police uh over the last year has really made a difference and we need that to continue. Uh it's a success story. If you want to check it out, please do. The police are there all the time. If you haven't made your way over there, you got to go and check it out. I hear a lot of Olive Avenue justified. It's a residential street. So, there's a certain amount of questioning about how we're picking the streets. Lambert's a residential street. That's why we're allowed to be there. Um, our neighborhoods spend a lot of time self-reporting and self-governing. Uh, it's a burden on Ventura and a permanent remedy is long overd long overdue. Um, Lambert, as I said, it's residential. It's a residential street. Um,

Speaker 3:
your time is up.

Speaker 4:
We'd appreciate if you came and talked to us.

Speaker 5:
I think all of us just start tomorrow.

Speaker 6:
Your time is up. Our next speaker is

Speaker 1:
Thanks to Melissa and uh, Chief Ree Schneider. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Bianca P.

Bianca P:
Bianca P. Moving to our next speaker, Joe W. Hey. Hello. I'd um just like to say that uh there's probably inevitably going to be inconveniences to people living in homes in PaloAlto and that's not something that we can shy away from. Um, I'd prefer if you burden us people living in homes rather than the homeless folks. Um, I say this as a resident of Ventura, we can deal with it. Um, as can the rest of Palo Alto. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Our next speaker is Becky S. followed by Ron E.

Becky S:
Yeah, thank you for taking this up. I just want to align myself with just uh Olive Avenue should just not be on the list. Uh anyway, I just um I've been dealing with uh Sergeant Eric since July 1st, dealing with a couple of RVs outside my fence and also on Matadero. And there are several ways to look for signs of movement, including comparative comparing valve stem locations, um chalking the tires, and using other methodes methods such as placing a paper clip on the tire. If we find evidence of movement after the 72-hour period, we will not tow the vehicle. So anyway, these vehicles have not moved. They've gone like one block and then they come back and then the the Lexington on Matadero isn't moving at all. And I just I guess code enforcement is understaffed and there's no real will willpower. Like it's hard. I get it. But we have code enforcement. These laws are on the books and I mean I've just been playing this dance.

Speaker 3:
Your time is up

Speaker 4:
and I you know I just got this one five hours ago about how to check to see if the vehicle has

Speaker 5:
Your time is up. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ron E followed by Aram F.

Ron E:
Hello. On the sheet I'm number 47. So take a breath. It's almost over. Um, I'm not looking forward to having a portaotti outside outside of my business on the street. Um, I hope you understand the irony here. Uh, the city is taking my business taxes and then spending taxes to put a portaotti right in front of my front door. I'm not going to thank you for that. Okay. Um, I welcome the city to share the experience. I welcome you to put a portaotti right outside the front door for a while and share the aroma, I guess. Um, if you move the RVs back and forth, um, you're not going to be able to move the portaotty, so it's it's going to sit there. Um, you know, you really ought to think this one through.

Speaker 1:
Our next speaker is Aram F.

Aram F:
Okay. So, Robert Marinaro, um I I'll give you 200 bucks towards you rent for a week and then you come back and tell me how how you like having your window knocked on all and maybe then you wouldn't want a ban of all RVs in this city. Shame on you, man. Okay, so Justice Stanley Moss said the following in Toby versus the city of San Santa Ana. The city cannot solve its homeless problem simply by exiling a large number of its homeless citizens to neighboring loces. If you look as you go south down to Gilroy, the problem gets worse and worse and worse there. This is an intractable problem. You can't simply push these people down to the next town. That's not a neighborly thing. Okay? We're going to need a shuttle bus for the folks out there on Coyote and on Embaradero. I support the plan. It's not the best solution, but we got to live with it for now. Thank you very much, folks.

Speaker 3:
Our next speaker is Penny B, followed by City Council S.

Penny B:
Hello, Altos. Hello. Can I have my Palo Alto City Council should base its OSV policies on OSV use and need facts rather than stereotypes and gut feelings labeled as humanitarianism and moral obligation. Surveys and focus groups are not the best ways to obtain facts regarding the use characteristics of OSV users. observational studies can be designed to help obtain obtain these facts. Both of these OSB pilot programs are built on false premises, illconceived, uninforceable, and destined to further harm PaloAlto residents and business people. I urge you to vote no on both of them. Our next speaker is city council S. They are no longer on Zoom. Moving to our next speaker, Kevin C.

Kevin Troy:
Thank you, Mayor V. Pinker and health. My name is Kevin Troy and I represent the new ownership of 3825 to 3875 Fabian Way. First and foremost, I'd like to acknowledge that this is a difficult situation and no solution will make everyone happy. As a property owner in Palo Alto, we have strong concerns regarding the proposal you have in front of you today. Primarily, I noted within our letter to you is the concern that OSB proposal is the first step towards a permanent solution that places OSB parking in commercial areas. Our group has significant concerns with this as we have had several conversations with tenants that OC parking trends towards safety and health concerns. Just like everyone has a right to a place they could proudly call home, everyone should also have a right to proudly call a place work. I'd like to note that Council Rectal's solution to provide commercial parking permit restricting parking to two hours is an idea that is moving towards a solution. Our ownership respectfully requests that the city council take the opportunity to continue to review this item and look for a solution. However, temporary that solves for all of our commercial tenants concerns.

Speaker 6:
Your time is up.

Speaker 1:
Our next speaker is Zohar G.

Zohar G:
Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah, I can hear myself. So, I have been in Pal 20 years. I live in the Ashland community across from east the east meta circle. I used to be able to walk around this meta circle. I I have not been able to walk around east meta circle for a long long time. But what I really want to tell you is this action and your plan is discriminatory against South Pal. Yes, our houses don't but they've still lost a lot of value just because of the RV situation. We've also lost walkability. We've lost uh clean air because of the RVs running their motors. And yet the rest of Palato especially on the north side is not affected. So this is discriminatory for the Ashon community. I'm sure there's other few communities but those are the ones that are most impacted and I just don't understand how you can just sleep at night doing it. Your time is up. Our next speaker is John M, followed by OKG. Your report identifies sanitation, debris, and improper disposal of human waste as existing problems associated with OSBs. But the report does not tell us how black water and gray water from those OS RVs or OSVs will actually be collected and disposed of. This is an obvious environmental issue. One site adjacent to the city's wastewater treatment plant and the other at Coyote Hill where Sanford has already raised wildfire and habitat concerns. The city proposes to rely on SQL categoral exemptions under sections 13015301 and 15304. However, I believe you need to address the unusual circumstances exception under section 15300.2C two feet and explain why concentrating residential RV, adding sanitation infrastructure, restriping the loads and modifying the sites creates no possibility of significant environmental effect. I ask you to defer approval of this uh until the city has completed publicly disclosed of waste water, storm water, solid waste water.

Speaker 2:
Your time is up and environmental analysis. Thank you. Our next speaker is OKG.

OKG:
Hello. Am I on?

Speaker 4:
Yes.

Speaker 5:
Okay. So I I'm kind of really disappointed after listening and stay up and see this whole thing and I found out about staff which is reporting to city council having all this outreach and yet no data very little data or actual data collected on the number of vehicles duration of stays location complaints citation and impact surrounding on the neighborhood. I lived here for over 24 years. and I have to put up with a lot of inconsistency of how the law has been regulated around here especially with OSB. So it's really unfair to resident especially people living in south of Palo Alto and I urge that listening to all the businesses they're saying that there's no outreach to them. Please, we are losing tax dollars and the C revenue is kicking it these people out.

Speaker 6:
And that concludes public comment on action item 10.

Speaker 1:
All right. Well, thanks to all of our public commenters. Um, it's 11:12. Um, I would like to continue this conversation, but I want to ask my colleagues about their brothers, whether we can just power forward, whether you need a short break to go forward. Um, since we've been meeting since 5:30, I mean, like 5 minutes, or can we just go?

Speaker 2:
If we say go, it doesn't mean 2 a.m., right?

Speaker 3:
Just go for now, but see how we're doing.

Speaker 4:
All right.

Speaker 5:
I mean, I would go with that, but

Speaker 6:
Okay. Just want to make sure everyone's okay. Good. All right. Well, with that, I know I have additional questions and comments, but uh let me uh yield to my colleagues if anybody'd like to pick up the baton at this point. Council member Bart. So, first I want to re-emphasize that um making decisions like this without good data is really problematic and we've had a lot of time to um be able to um get that data. Uh I just don't think it's had the prioritization that it it uh needs. Um, I will say that I hearing from the public, I'm really wondering whether what we can address tonight or should address tonight is the phase one pilot and uh defer action on the phase 2 with maybe certain guidance on uh anything else that we want to u explore related to it. I will say that if we were to go forward with the phase two, um I I don't understand why Olive and Ash and for that matter Park Boulevard as a critical um a safe route to school and bikeway uh would have been included at all. Um, I also uh think that one of the we've got several issues, but safety is one and um RVs um parking right up to within 5 ft of a driveway is not adequate daylighting. That's what's in the proposal there. And I would support uh if we did go forward with uh phase 2 uh additional daylighting uh probably at least 10 ft. Um you know state law on on corners is now either 15 or 20 ft and that's not for RVs. That's anticipating a regular vehicle. I don't know how you could see coming out of a driveway with a a car or I mean excuse me an RV within 5 ft. I also think if we went forward with phase two, uh we should adopt a program like we did uh along El Camino with the uh businesses on the perpendicular streets allowing them to request um short-term parking whether it's 15 minutes or 2 hours or whatever for their uh business for essential needs for customers and the like coming and going. Um, one of the things that uh we really haven't discussed is um on the potential other sites and I don't is the question of whether uh Stanford should be providing any land. What is their proportionate share of this problem? To my knowledge, they have no RVs that are on their uh massive amount of land and a quasi municipality. um because we don't have data, we don't know exactly whose um what their share of responsibility might be. I don't assume it's a majority or anywhere near that, but I think they should be uh part of the solution on on um uh sites for parking. I uh on the phase one, I do support the two sides of Coyote. Um uh but I am very concerned about fire hazard in that area and um we had talked about tilling the land but uh we have this burnbot um technology now. But in any event a an approach that would uh really address the the fire hazard there would be a critical part of even that phase one. And um we we also in addition to not allowing the um uh if we went forward with phase 2, not allowing it on streets that are uh predominantly predominantly residential. Uh but um we we need to uh up update our residential definition so that uh plan uh PC zoning that is um includes residential would be uh categorized as residential. And then we really have a question too on whether we should extend the uh protections to uh immediately adjacent to residential area. should it be within 100 yards of residential that there's uh there are no um uh permitted RVs. So I think if we did a a combination of some of these measures, we would um further um prescribe the limited areas where RVs are um would be on an at least for the time being allowed, but expand this permit area because we have 22 slots at Ging, but we've seen in the last recent months when we got data, we're not getting the turnover at Ging that was anticipated. that was supposed to be transitional fullervice RV lots so that uh we're providing very expensive services along with a county and uh and it was to be able to transition those RV dwellers into permanent housing. It's not working like intended and we have to um re get that resolved and and uh really not have that be permanent RB dwelling uh but transitional. Um, so those are my thoughts uh at this point in time.

Speaker 1:
Council member Lowi.

Speaker 2:
Thank you. Um, I want to make a couple comments substantially directed at a lot of the public comments. Um, the overall direction as I said at the outtake of up uh outset of this meeting uh is from from council was to radically reduce the total number of OSPs in our town. And the other direction was we need to find some places for legitimately folks that legitimately need help. Pilot one does that exactly with a lot of controls. Pilot two doesn't do that as it's proposed and it doesn't do that for a number of reasons. But what we've heard from the public tonight is that the um suggestions that came in that staff report are not acceptable. that you not only don't want it on either side of the street, you don't want it on both sides of the street. You don't want it at all, which at this point in time I think is perfectly understandable. So what that presents to us on the second part of it is, as I said earlier, you know, the you folks have put up with this long enough, we just need to shut it down. Now, that creates that creates we don't want to get into too much detail on this, but that creates an incremental legal risk uh if we don't have other places where some folks could park. So, to me, getting getting on with item number one, pilot number one, in terms of approving that tonight, to me makes very good sense because we have to start on that and we want it to be on a faster schedule than it's on. And once we do that, the sooner we're going the sooner we do that, the sooner we're going to have actual places that people can get in there legitimately with their parking permit and those folks will be moving out of some of the areas that they're now in because we are creating new spaces of 35 to 50 new spaces. That's the important point there. But very quickly, I think we have to shut down the rest of it uh as we ramp up the the earlier part. And the only way to do that, as I've thought about it, is is with this permit program. So, um, I just want the public to understand that we are all together on the fact that we want OSVs to be basically not be gone because we want the ones here that are sort of quote deserving. And with respect to sort of data, I'm always a data guy, but we know that there are at least 35 people of the remaining 130, they're going to probably qualify for these units if they want them. So, I'm very comfortable saying that is the the pilot is just the pilot one is justified going forward. So, I just sort of wanted to cover that point. And if we get those to move there, then that that's a big chunk. If we extend gang, that's a big chunk. And if we get some of the 88 that are in Homekey, that's another chunk. So, we start to chip chip away at this thing with the existing resources. Thanks.

Speaker 3:
All right. Um, I just want to make a couple of uh points. Um, first, yeah, I just I residential should be residential. That's what I had thought wasa the case. That's why I was surprised as well to see uh any residential streets on this, especially the ones in Ventura that we've heard tonight are really problematic. Um I understand now that there's PC zones and PHC and various things, but I think we need to really make it uniform for all residents um uh in PaloAlto. So that's that to me should just be a uniform thing. Um the um the thing I mentioned about businesses before, I want to sort of clarify it and then uh key off of something Council Member Bert said. Um, you know, I'm using the word business, but there's a whole lot of different kinds. And so I it it's not quite right to lump them all to business uh into one term. What I'm thinking of is employees of large businesses like Google and Stanford Healthcare and Shoreline. When their employees are dwelling in front of smaller businesses on commerce and transport and industrial and park, it's almost like some businesses are subsidizing other businesses. And I don't that just doesn't make sense to me. So, you know, there are limits on what the city can ask and require of businesses. Um, but what I mentioned before, it would be great if they would step up and provide a portion of their own parking lot for their own employees. And I think, you know, Stanford could be a part of that, but there are others um that we could ask as well. I just don't know that we can demand it. But what we might be able to do if we could discern which RVs they were, which gets to my point earlier, that there could be some sort of um you know, if you were in that situation, uh if we we discerned that you were there, then your employer would have to pay into some sort of housing fund that could get you a voucher to get you uh off the street. um or they could provide a parking spot themselves, but we could try to work on that. But I think starting with Stanford may make sense. Um then um I'm curious because uh as uh to pick up on what council member Lowing was said saying if we're looking at um transitional like people transitioning in and out of these various categories. Um you mentioned earlier that you know we discovered Home Key was full because of the people who'd been in hotels but do we what I guess this is for staff. At what pace are we hoping we might have some openings? Cuz that's a transitional thing as well. So when and where and how might we expect there could be some openings over the course of the next six to 12 months.

Speaker 4:
Uh thank you Mayor Vinker. Um so the throughput for both Homekeing upon sort of the housing pipeline. And this evening we do have a representative from the Office of Supportive Housing. Um I I'm not certain if this is something she could speak to, but uh we can check.

Speaker 5:
Well, she's very welcome to. She she looks like looks like Yes.

Speaker 6:
Good evening, Mayor and Council Hillary Armstrong. Excuse me. Uh deputy director with the Office of Supportive Housing. Um first just to clarify the folks who were housed at the home key PaloAlto started in a hotel program but were all unhoused PaloAltons. So the hotel program was like the launch of the home key program. I just wanted to be super clear on that. Um in terms of the throughput um we do see an average stay in shelter programs so such as the home paloto program of about 4.8 in eight months. When we look um at our data across the system, we are seeing um you know some need to encourage more movement through the system. And so our quality assurance standards for the continuum of care that apply across our entire countywide system um have 120day suggested length of stay. you know, when folks are working on a housing plan. Um, and it's contingent on the pipeline, they can get extensions to that, but in general looking at, you know, a stay of anywhere from 3 to 6 months where we're really trying to make sure that folks are getting through.

Speaker 1:
Okay. So, we can anticipate that over the course of the next 6, 9, 12 months, some number, we're not sure, of spaces will open up. So that would um hopefully be at least some outlet for people that we're trying to transition out of say the permit program were we to enact it. Is that am I thinking about it right?

Speaker 2:
Uh thank you Mayor Vinker. I I I would caution that it's become my understanding that folks in RVs are more likely to transition directly to uh an apartment rather than or to housing rather than to a transitional space. That that's not typically as attractive to them and and sometimes they they're able to transition more quickly in that fashion.

Speaker 3:
I see. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. Well, with that, I'll turn to Vice Mayor Stone.

Speaker 4:
Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, yeah, given the hour, I will be very concise. I I agree. I think the I think the first pilot is ready to move forward. That's kind of the original my original kind of vision of where this was all heading was really a permit program. love the I love the suggestion that we're going to incorporate services there. It is a very reasonable cost. I I think that is a win-win all around. I know ultimately it comes down to space and identifying additional locations, but it's a pilot program. So, I think let's get that started as quickly as possible. I agree with comments already. I think the second pilot is not ready to to go. I think that needs a lot of work. I think the uh the heat map I described earlier is is going to be really beneficial for me to ensure that we are equitably spreading these um these impacted streets around the community. I think more work can be done there. I I think absolutely the the ad hoc committee needs to be kind of brought into this discussion and be able to do that that deeper dive. Uh I also thought that there was general alignment on the council the last time that we didn't want to see this on residential and residential adjacent streets. So Ventura neighborhoods has greatly s surprised me. Uh I think one one thought I know it's just going to give us a couple of spaces but in the idea of equity and making sure that we are all taking on this burden. police department is is moving out right now. And I know on Brian Street is where we've traditionally parked several uh police vehicles, including our command uh including the command vehicle, which is definitely the size of a large OSV. I think that should be included in that future program. If it's good enough for other businesses to have OSVs in front of their businesses, it should be good enough for us at city hall to have uh to have our share as as well. Also, I think there are opportunities for us to be able to find additional locations um around the comm around the community, but I don't think we're there yet to authorize the um the second pilot program. And yeah, with that, I'll leave it there. Thank you,

Speaker 5:
Council Member Lou.

Speaker 6:
Thank you. Uh firstly, I'll just note that I appreciate the public comment. I live basically on Page Mill, though on the Mayfield side, so I'm a block away uh about from several of these suggested pilot sites. Um my wife and I uh were looking at child care in the Ventura area when uh directly adjacent to uh some of these sites. I get the concerns. I do get it. I think we do need to keep bike lanes clear and find balance uh throughout the city. I certainly don't think we should ban all RVs, though. And I think the uh uh uh first phase of the pilot is including on both sides of Coyote Hill um seems like a clear uh win and a clear benefit to both people who live in RVs and the broader community. Um the only thing I'll note about that first phase is that uh I'm not even sure if we really need to collect a $15 permit fee per month. I think the cost to collect that might be higher than the actual value of that. And uh to the extent that we sort of just want people to buy in and sort of have a stake that it's more of a symbolic cost, we already have uh a number of agreements, insurance requirements, things uh that are real hoops that they would need to jump through. So I don't think we really need a $15 fee um on that pilot for the first part. For the second part, uh I really do appreciate the work from staff and the ad hoc. It is really clearly well intention that by moving RVs that are already on these streets to one side that there might actually be less RV capacity. Uh however, I think if we actually do announce and publicize this program as such that uh the 116 to 125 spaces we've allocated uh for any given site could get quite dense. Um, uh, you know, no one knows in expectation exactly where it could land, but maybe, uh, if we end up with a 100 RVs sort of densely configured on one side of several streets, that that is maybe actually not preferable to the current state of about 130 RVs, but sort of slightly more spread. like uh I find it interesting that in this conversation we heard from some nonprofit community groups and some RV residents and uh certainly a lot of neighbors that actually weren't in favor of this second part of the pilot. And I don't think those groups necessarily agree on any of the other next steps, but at least um uh that sort of strange consensus does make me have second thoughts about this uh second part of the pilot. Uh uh um I'll echo the point that we can probably find spaces in North Pole Alto. Um there are uh areas in Sofa or uh right right by city hall like corners of that um maybe in Cena maybe parts maybe like a small parts in your fire station one where uh we can make that heat map less striking than it is right now which is uh quite concentrated in North Ventura in a couple parts uh and uh couple other parts of South Paul Alto. Um so yeah, uh hopefully that's useful context and I'm happy to support uh whatever motion um and consensus this we seem to be pointed to.

Speaker 1:
Council member Rectal.

Speaker 2:
Yeah. Yeah. Uh, council member Lead Hayes was making a point that the reason these streets are on the list at all is because they were the most impacted by RVs. It's not like we chose them. The RVs chose them and we're trying to give them a relief valve and it's not appreciated apparently. So, I'm not going to push it, but uh the purpose was is to reduce the amount of RVs in those neighborhoods. Uh, I do really feel strongly though that we should um limit RV parking near residences even if those residences aren't in a traditional residential zone and also say within 100 yards of a residence. So, we don't want the right on the the poor people that are right on the transition zone get an RV right next to their house. I I think that that would be a reasonable approach. That's all.

Speaker 3:
Council member Liths.

Speaker 4:
Thank you, Mayor. And thank you everybody for being here late. I'm yawning like a lion over here and some of you may be tired as well. Um glad to hear the support for pilot number one. I think um that's exciting. Um and have I took a lot of notes on all the comments that were made. I was really listening and I know my colleagues were as well in terms of your concerns. Um, I wanted to plus one the um notion or plus two or three by this point that we've got to engage business owners. The public speaker who yanked on his employee tag and said, "If you could get my employer to let me park in his lot, then I wouldn't have to park on the street in my RV." There you are. Um, Raleigh or something.

Speaker 5:
Okay. Um, I thought that was really compelling and it's hard for us to make that happen from here. We're going to have to figure out how to make that happen. But that's clearly an important sector here. The notion that we need to spend more time engaging with Stanford about what role they want to play in this, particularly as they're going out for their next general use permit in the community. This is a very ripe time to be talking with the largest land owner um about this seemingly intractable problem. Um, I do, Council Member Rectal already clarified what I was whispering to him, which was, um, we didn't go after Olive and Ash and Park or commercial, industrial, etc. These were the streets that had been identified as the most impacted that needed street sweeping and cleaning and whatnot. So we had that in mind as needing help and we were trying to reduce the amount of density of OSVs on those streets, not burden them any further. Um so I feel like that's a perception problem. It's very valid that you perceived it that way. Um but in terms of where we were coming from, that was certainly not our intent. I certainly share the concern about equity being a you know a lens through which we have to view all things and uh we definitely think that burdens ought to be shared in this city. So very much appreciate the push back there. The last thing that I want to say is I'm slightly concerned about the vigilanteism. I think that some RV dwellers are being followed and their activities are being recorded and somebody went around and put stickers on their vehicles saying this is illegal. You will be towed. And I asked our police chief, "Did you put these stickers on?" And he said, "No." And sometimes that kind of behavior can border on harassment. And uh it may also be vandalism. And so I just want to ask all of us like, let's not let this become an even bigger problem. Let's try to work together toward a solution that is going to work for everybody. And you know there have been comments about we're better than this and this is not who we are and all of this and you know we're many people on opposite sides of this issue and um I think we need more listening and we need to have the frustrations be heard and tempers cooled um because it's it's getting a little it's it's it's been ugly out there for some while as some of you have said and it's getting uglier in some ways and none of us want that. So we're going to work on this pilot. I think it sounds like there's support for pilot one that may be fulmenting over here and you know like let's root for it to be um useful and and yield data um and let's root for it to be successful at moving people to a place that is better for the you know those they're leaving behind and is better for them um as more housing gets built and more parking lots get identified um I I look forward to us being uh proud of solutions we were able to come up with together. I know we're not yet there, but I think that day will come.

Speaker 6:
Council member Bert,

Speaker 1:
I'm ready to make a motion if everybody

Speaker 2:
Yeah, I think I think that's a good idea. Yeah, I was scribbling one, but

Speaker 3:
I would move that uh we adopt uh staff recommendation one, which is the um the permit phase one pilot and that we give additional direction to staff in the following ways. Uh first that we um begin to uh provide uh red curb daylighting uh in the commercial areas that were uh identified for the phase 2 pilot. and uh that we evaluate a a 10- ft uh daylighting. Uh second that we uh staff come back with u uh appropriate um I guess ordinance changes to uh recognize that residential including uh PCs be treated in the same as residential uh uh zoning.

Speaker 4:
Some are also zoned mixed use too. So

Speaker 5:
okay PCs and mixed use. Yep. um that um any future consideration of a phase 2 pilot exclude streets that are um uh have significant residential components or a uh a bike boulevard or excuse me bike lane that would be Park, Olive, Lambert and I think Ash. Um and oh uh lastly that uh staff pursue uh data collection to have a better understanding of the demographics of our current RV population. I'll second that.

Speaker 6:
Okay. Uh I think I've spoken enough.

Speaker 1:
One question for the uh residential parking restrictions. Was that going forward or do you want to change that today?

Speaker 2:
Well, we we can't do it today. I think we have to ask staff to return with with uh revisions to our ordinance.

Speaker 3:
Correct. I I and uh depending on the complexity of those changes, we may want the ad hoc to weigh in on it, but I think it's relatively straightforward.

Speaker 4:
Yeah, I shouldn't say today. But were you did you How did you word that? Where's the wording?

Speaker 5:
Um I don't know. We'll see how M May Maha did. But I thought that I had um requested that staff return with um

Speaker 6:
I thought you said for future planning. Well, let's see what

Speaker 1:
we'll see. I think on the residential was it my intention was that that would be addressed either way.

Speaker 2:
Okay.

Speaker 3:
Question. Would you be interested in adding um a direction to staff to investigate with Stanford and other large employers? Um

Speaker 4:
yes

Speaker 5:
something

Speaker 6:
I'll make a so that would be fine is to um explore with major employers um uh their willingness to accommodate workers who reside in RVs their workers who reside in RVs on their sites. I will make a side note that uh in my 30 plus years of having a business uh two different times I had an employee who uh asked to be able to if they could reside uh on during the week on our parking lot and we were more than willing to because it added to security. We knew who that person was. They were eyes and ears on our property. So, I don't know if we can convince other employers to do that, but um we viewed it as beneficial.

Speaker 1:
Council member Low, I guess.

Speaker 2:
Yes. Um we need to add to I believe we need to add to that shortening of the current schedule of seven months to get to a pilot. Um well, the the first pilot was January 1st, right? So, that's that's basically four months. Is that correct?

Speaker 3:
Uh please please repeat the question, council member. when uh the the timing on the permitted pilot, when was that to take effect?

Speaker 4:
March.

Speaker 5:
March.

Speaker 6:
So, can we if we're not proceeding with a second pilot, can we move the We'd like, I think, to move the first pilot to January 1st.

Speaker 1:
Yeah,

Speaker 2:
I think staff will need to take a look at what we can do to accelerate that. And at the same time, we hear you

Speaker 3:
include in the motion to pursue a target date of January 1st.

Speaker 4:
Yeah, that's the direction.

Speaker 5:
Yeah.

Speaker 6:
And Council Member Bert, we'll need to add up the uh we'll have to change the budget appropriation um as part of this motion to ensure that the budget for the the phase the option one is in there and not for the option two.

Speaker 1:
Okay. Um so then in the language maybe this we could either put that the budget allocation in or uh simply say an accompanying uh uh uh uh uh budget allocations or if staff has better language I'm certainly welcome. Would you accept a friendly amendment related to pursuing future locations? Something like directing staff to continue to work with county, state, and federal partners on identifying additional land for safe parking.

Speaker 2:
Yes. And I your point makes me realize I did not include uh requesting staff to pursue both sides of Coyote. So, two things going to be a long motion, but it's late night, so we might as well make a long motion. Um, so Maha under um uh I guess we'll make another section that is um request staff to explore um or continue to pursue um the uh permitted pilot program on both sides of Coyote Hill Road. And second, uh, Council Member Lithcott Hayes, you have your preferred,

Speaker 3:
uh, direct staff to continue to seek safe parking solutions in collaboration with the county, the state, and federal partners.

Speaker 4:
Sure. We'll throw in the UN

Speaker 5:
and the UN.

Speaker 6:
Yeah.

Speaker 1:
We'd like the United Nations to come here and solve this for us, please.

Speaker 2:
Okay. public and private partners.

Speaker 3:
Maker secondary, are you good? Okay. Uh just if I could for clarification, I think I assume council member Leth is referring to other locations as well in addition to the

Speaker 4:
Yes.

Speaker 5:
Coyote Hill and Embark.

Speaker 6:
I am most definitely. I'm thinking about Moffett Field. I'm thinking about Yellows. The final thing is the golf course. The It's the um portion of Embarcadero, the north edge of Embarcadero, sort of between the waste treatment plant. Uh well on the airport and golf course side um

Speaker 1:
can we ask look at that?

Speaker 2:
I'm hesitant to do that. Um you know that's uh uh I I think that it it could be detrimental to the um to the the revenue of the uh of the city golf course there. So I'm hesitant to do that. But it's easy to roll out if the first part of it works.

Speaker 3:
Yeah. the down by the airport works. It's an easy ad.

Speaker 4:
I just hate for it to be lost as an idea. I know I'm not long for this world.

Speaker 5:
Well, um I would

Speaker 6:
I got the idea right.

Speaker 1:
Got it. But I it it strikes me that I I I would be uh willing to include u Vice Mayor Stone's suggestion that um that the um um west side of Bryant uh be pursued as um uh uh basically I don't know how we do it. I'm sorry. I am going to speak out loud before uh offering the uh amended language. Uh in the downtown we have our our u color zone parking and in order to allow RVs there, we'd have to not have color zone parking there. But I don't know how you'd restrict the parking to just RVs versus other vehicles that would park overnight there. So, uh, I let me just add to the motion for staff to explore any other sites that would be eligible for RV parking in um the greater downtown area. Just explore and that's all it is. Get on the radar. And would you be willing at the end of eight to say um federal and private partners because I want to make sure we're still you know keep our feelers out even though we've been turned down repeatedly.

Speaker 2:
Yeah.

Speaker 3:
Yeah. If we didn't I guess we didn't have that elsewhere and that would be

Speaker 4:
I don't think so.

Speaker 5:
Okay. And that would be fine.

Speaker 6:
Thank you.

Speaker 1:
Oh six.

Speaker 2:
Oh yeah that's the employers. Yeah.

Speaker 3:
Does six cover it in more detail? You know what? That's different because 60 is contemplating employers with going businesses with

Speaker 4:
Okay.

Speaker 5:
And to the clerk, there's a just a clerical thing on eight direct staff to continue to seek instead of see. You need a K on the end of that word.

Speaker 6:
Okay. Council member Lou,

Speaker 1:
uh, quick point about the $15 fee. I am a little bit concerned that a $15 fee per month would actually be a somewhat meaningful disincentive to participation in the first part of the pilot. I'm curious if staff has any perspective of uh how they feel if they feel strongly about that $15 fee and if there's no particularly strong feeling. did hear from staff earlier that they in the outreach that that was uh that formula was viewed as acceptable, but

Speaker 2:
we definitely heard feedback on this from um Sophie Piggman who is uh on staff and working in the outreach context and the feedback she got was that $15 was reasonable. We thought about going higher and we got some push back that higher was a deterrent, but $15 felt reasonable and also valuable for people to have a little bit of skin in the game.

Speaker 3:
Okay. I feel like they could still have skin in the game at zero, but uh don't feel extremely strongly about this point. uh council members. So there there was some back and forth for sure about uh what would be reasonable, what wouldn't. And there were some suggestions of much higher $50, others suggesting we just wave it entirely. And I think the the happy not so happy answer we came to was 15. Um with the understanding that perhaps uh you know, local nonprofits might be able to help folks if they needed need a little boost with that dollar amount. I think that's pretty nominal and it it it actually kind of in a nominal way requires some commitment from those uh dwellers. So,

Speaker 4:
and it'll be tested in the pilot. So, we can change it if it doesn't work.

Speaker 5:
Okay.

Speaker 6:
All right. I don't see any lights.

Speaker 1:
I I wanted to point out that part of the Sorry, almost there. Um the motion uh takes into account the work for the first pilot, but it doesn't bring in the subsequent budget amendments which were uh a combination of items three and four in the staff report.

Speaker 2:
Well, yes, that's what I had asked for staff to provide what wording would be.

Speaker 3:
Yes. So, I just want to make sure um the easiest way at 11452 might be to uh approve those budget amendments and subtract out whatever is related to the second pilot program if you're approving the first. But only if that's accurate.

Speaker 4:
Well,

Speaker 5:
and I think uh wording to that effect would be fine. I think we would also want to recognize that I believe as scoped it's a larger pilot one because we're now talking about both sides of Coyote Hall Road. So for the if allow us that general direction, you'll figure out the math.

Speaker 6:
I think that's that's it. So the general direction would be to the effect of uh and um the appropriate uh proportionate

Speaker 1:
appropriations

Speaker 2:
appropriation. Did the clerk get that? Sorry, it's getting so long. I can't I think madam clerk just let us know when you're

Speaker 3:
You can make it number 10 if you want to.

Speaker 4:
Probably doesn't fit on the page on the screen. We may have a new record on motion length.

Speaker 5:
I think so. Yeah, it won't fit on the screen even if the smaller font.

Speaker 6:
Okay. Keith, your lights's on your microphone but not here. Are you good? Okay. Just checking. All right. Staff, any any anything more? Deputy city manager.

Speaker 1:
No. Okay. All right. Well, Madam Clerk,

Speaker 2:
one word smithing thing. I'm sorry. Uh in number two, if we could just change the word from phase two pilot to pilot two or something because this whole part is phase two.

Speaker 3:
Thank you.

Speaker 4:
Okay. Pilot two.

Speaker 5:
No. Uh so new wording will simply be pilot two. Would that also be in the same case for number four?

Speaker 6:
Yes.

Speaker 1:
Okay.

Speaker 2:
But it's okay.

Speaker 3:
Yeah, she's got it. Okay. Okay. Any any more typos? Going once. Going twice. All right. Madam clerk, would you please call the role? Council member Liths,

Council member Liths:
yes. Mayor Vinker,

Mayor Vinker:
yes.

Speaker 6:
Council member Rectal,

Council member Rectal:
yes.

Speaker 2:
Council member Bert,

Council member Bert:
yes.

Speaker 4:
Council member Lowing,

Council member Lowing:
yes.

Speaker 6:
Vice Mayor Stone,

Vice Mayor Stone:
yes.

Speaker 2:
Council member Lou,

Council member Lou:
yes.

Speaker 4:
Motion carries unanimously.

Speaker 5:
All right. Well, thank you all very much. But you can't leave because we have our new public comment for matters not on the agenda on Zoom. But this does end this agenda item. And thank you to all who got us here. Okay, madame clerk, is there any um public general public comment via Zoom?

Speaker 6:
No hands are raised on Zoom.

Speaker 1:
All right, we did it. All right, thank you all. Stand. Nope. Oh,

Speaker 2:
there is one hand raised in

Speaker 3:
one hand raised. All right, let let's let's do it.

Speaker 4:
All right. Um our one speaker is Aram F. Okay, thank you very much. It's been a long night. Okay, so you know, the bulk of the folks here on council identify as being Democrats except for Julie um and George. Now, uh I see everybody else really uh right-wing Republicans in their their perspective. And one of the things that's that's concerning me is that even though there are folks on council who um claim to be transparent, it's not so. And we're seeing a movement among progressive Democrats that they are are prevailing in these elections across the country and they're beating Zionist candidates even when Apac is loading up tons of money to support these right-wing uh uh Zionist candidates. The the left is coming back and they're coming back in a strong way. But when I try to get information from a person who I know to be a Zionist, I don't have your support in trying to push that individual, okay, to be transparent, a weapons maker to boot, okay, he standing up and I guess not paying any attention, uh, as I might anticipate, but I've repeatedly made the offer to him to Yeah, he's going to walk out of the out of the meeting and and not listen. That that's good. Go ahead. you know, you you you take off if that's the way you want to treat the public. But I'm serious about wanting to know whether he got support from Apac, whether he's a dual citizen of Israel, and whether he's ever apologized for the weapons that the company that he works for makes that kill indisputably Palestinians on a regular basis. He's been there for 25 years plus. So that's that that's not just trying to be uh uh u you know provoking people or being provocative. It's something that the voters are entitled to know and we're going to be pushing more and more for this. Okay. Uh Ed's not a weapons maker. He may be a Zionist and and uh has walked off the dis. Well, good for him, too. You know, don't listen to the people uh that don't comport with your point of view. That's a real democratic perspective. Okay. Okay. A real First Amendment uh breath of fresh air. I'm being uh satirical here. Uh but you know, it's okay for you to speak out, Mr. Redhead, uh Mr. Transparent, and let me know. I'm willing to sit down with you. You know, you're a bigger and younger guy than me. You probably knock my ass out. I'll sit across from the table despite that. But we need to have this conversation because I'm not gonna quit on you, okay? I'm going to continue to expect that you speak on these issues. So, you can you can go home now. Thank you all. It's been a long meeting. Uh and we'll go from there.

Madam Clerk:
That concludes public comment on re remote uh participants on the agenda.

Speaker 6:
Thank you, Madam Clerk. That concludes public comment. After meeting like this, we are ajourned.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Planning &amp; Transportation Commission Meeting - March 11, 2026</title>
      <link>https://transparentcities.org/palo-alto/transcripts/Wx3Ik9NA55s</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://transparentcities.org/palo-alto/transcripts/Wx3Ik9NA55s</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>A special joint meeting of the Architectural Review Board and Planning &amp; Transportation Commission reviewed the final draft of the Cubberly Conceptual Master Plan and its associated CEQA mitigated negative declaration, with staff seeking a recommendation for city council adoption. Staff presented the phased redevelopment vision (recreation/wellness center, performing arts complex with Theaterworks Silicon Valley, education spaces, pools, tennis courts, and outdoor amenities), explained funding uncertainties, the planned purchase of 7 acres from PAUSD, and a potential November 2026 ballot measure. Commissioners and board members asked clarifying questions about phasing flexibility, pool size, building renovations, parking counts on leased land, traffic circulation, and sustainability. Public and member comments raised concerns about bike/pedestrian connections, elevated tennis court noise and screening, cafe placement, drop-off proximity for young children, and traffic through the parking lot.</description>
      <category>Meeting process and introductions</category>
      <category>City official reports</category>
      <category>Upcoming agenda items</category>
      <category>SB 79 implementation timeline</category>
      <category>Cubberly conceptual master plan overview</category>
      <category>Project timeline and milestones</category>
      <category>Phased development and deconstruction</category>
      <category>Funding mechanisms and costs</category>
      <category>PAUSD land purchase and lease</category>
      <category>November 2026 ballot measure</category>
      <category>Building renovations vs new construction</category>
      <category>Recreation and wellness center</category>
      <category>Performing arts complex and Theaterworks partnership</category>
      <category>Swimming pool size and heating</category>
      <category>Parking and vehicular circulation</category>
      <category>Bike and pedestrian access</category>
      <category>CEQA environmental review</category>
      <category>Sustainability and net zero goals</category>
      <category>Early childhood education drop-off</category>
      <category>Elevated tennis courts noise and screening</category>
      <category>Cafeteria and cafe placement</category>
      <category>Outdoor amphitheater and green space</category>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[Speaker 1:
Good evening everyone. I call to order the March reporting in progress.

Speaker 2:
I call to order the March 11th, 2026 special joint meeting of the architectural review board and the planning and transportation commission.

Speaker 3:
Uh a few notes before we begin. Um, we'll use a slightly modified process tonight. Um, for the action item, there will be a single staff presentation and a single public comment period. For questions and discussion, we'll take turns. Uh, ARB first and PTC second. Um, we don't have enough requests to speak lights for every board member and commissioner. So, Chair Chan and I will call on you in order, but uh please raise a hand if you have a question or comment um a followup that we should handle out of order. We expect and hope there will be some discussion between ARB and PTC members.

Speaker 4:
So, Church, if I missed anything or is that covered?

Speaker 5:
No. Yeah, pretty good. I have heard a request that we introduce each other. Uh introduce ourselves. So, uh perhaps before the roll call, we can just run down the list and everyone uh say your name.

Speaker 6:
Hi, I'm Carrie Templeton, a planning and transportation commissioner for about eight years now.

Speaker 1:
Right. Kendra Rosenberg, ARB, um for about four or five years now.

Forest Peterson:
Hello, my name is Forest Peterson. I've been on the uh PTC for one year.

Speaker 3:
Madcock ARB about two three years something like that.

Speaker 4:
Hi Yingi Chen with ARB in fourth year.

Speaker 5:
Alan Aken PTC. This is almost the end of my third year.

Speaker 6:
Brian Aang this is my well I'm finishing up my fifth year on the PTC.

Speaker 1:
I am Martin Jojarth and this is the beginning of my first year uh on the ARB.

Speaker 2:
Bart Hecman PTC 6 years. Me too.

Speaker 3:
ARB six years. David Hirsch.

Speaker 4:
Thank you all. Mr. Cavetera, would you call the roles please?

Chair Aken:
Uh yes. Uh Cherkin, uh first I'll be calling PTC's roll call. Uh, Chair Aken here.

Vice Chair Chen:
Uh, Vice Chair Chen here.

Commissioner Hecman:
Um, Chang, sorry about that. Vice Chair Chang. Uh, Commissioner Hecman here.

Commissioner Peterson:
Uh, Commissioner Peterson here.

Commissioner Tippleton:
Uh, Commissioner Tippleton here.

Chair Chen:
Commissioner G. Commissioner James. We have quorum noting Commissioner James and G are absent. Uh, now I'll do ARB's roll call. Uh, Chair Chen, present.

Vice Chair Adcock:
Uh, Vice Chair Adcock, present.

Board member Hirsch:
Board member Hirsch, present. Board member Joearth present.

Board member Rosenberg:
Board member Rosenberg present. For the record we have ARB quorum. Thank you Mr. Deto.

Speaker 2:
Assistant director Armor. Do we have any agenda changes tonight? No changes.

Speaker 3:
Mr. Deo, do we have any request to comment on items not on tonight's agenda?

Missur:
Um through the chair. I've not received any public comment cards at this moment and I see no raise hands on Zoom.

Speaker 5:
Thank you, Missur. May we have the city official reports?

Speaker 6:
Yes, absolutely. And thank you and uh welcome to you all. Uh thank you for joining us for this special joint meeting of the planning and transportation commission and the architectural review board. Uh next slide, please. I'm going to just do a quick look ahead at the next meeting for each of for the commission and the board. Uh in both cases, we're going to be conducting a study session to discuss the San Antonio Road area plan looking at the different components of the alternatives uh to direct and provide input for council consideration for the planning and transportation commission.

Speaker 1:
On the 25th, we also expect to bring to you a draft ordinance uh in regards to the retail vitality that we are working on. Next slide.

Speaker 2:
And then a look back at this week's council uh agenda items. There was uh planned to be a discussion of the implementation of Senate Bill uh 79, but that was postponed.

Speaker 3:
And we had approval on consent of the dimminimus exception ordinance that the planning and transportation commission considered and recommended. There was also a pre-screening for a zoning code amendment in regards to TDR's transfer of development rights specifically uh applying to 51 and Cena Avenue. That was also complete. If a formal application is submitted, then we will take it through the normal zoning code amendment process. Next week, we do anticipate three different items that have been discussed by both the board and the commission. We will be reviewing they will be reviewing 2100 Gang Road, which was a builder's remedy project uh recommended for approval. uh 4075 El Camino Way, a plan community amendment that had a um a number of different components as terms of the recommendation including um modification and reduction in the scope. Um it would take a while for me to describe all of the recommendation from the board and the commission. So I won't get into that now. Um but for context wanted to share those notes and the bird friendly design ordinance will also be there for consideration uh and potential adoption.

Chair Chen:
And with that that is the end of the director's report but if you have any questions I am available. We do not have a report from the office of transportation this evening though we will have a representative available online to answer questions about the coverly project. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Thank you, Chair Chen. Would you like to pull the board members to see if anyone has a question about the official reports?

Speaker 6:
Sure. If anyone from the ARB have any questions to the staff at this moment? No. Good.

Speaker 1:
BetC.

Speaker 2:
Uh, do we know when SB79 will go to city council? A date has not yet been set. Thanks.

Speaker 3:
Any other questions?

Speaker 4:
Then let us proceed to uh tonight's action item. Uh this is a recommendation to council on the adoption of the coverly conceptual master plan. May we have the staff presentation?

Amanda Demel:
All right. Good evening, Chair Akin, Chair Shen, Vice Chair Chang, Vice Chair Adcock, and fellow commissioners and board members. Uh we are especially excited to be here tonight for the first ever joint PTC and ARB meeting. Thank you so much for having us. My name is Amanda Demel and I'm the assistant director for the community services department. I'm joined tonight by Kristen Okaine, director of community services. We also have Kari Kaufman from Rinken Consultants joining us virtually and she will be available to answer any questions you may have after the presentation regarding the SQA document.

Speaker 6:
We also will be joined by Raphael Riyaz, a senior engineer from the office of transportation who will be available for questions at well as well. We're here tonight to present to you the final draft of the Cubly conceptual master plan and the draft initial study mitigated negative declaration for the Cubberly conceptual master plan and seek your recommendation for the city council to adopt this plan and seek a document in April. Next slide, please.

Speaker 1:
First, starting with our work plan updates, we last visited the PTC on July 9th and the ARB on July 17th, which is denoted with the green stars on the left column of the slide in front of you.

Speaker 2:
Since then, a great deal has occurred which we are excited to share with you this evening. In September, we hosted the third and final community meeting as well as presented to the parks and recreation commission. Then we presented a recap of the third community meeting and second poll outline to city council in October and then released poll two to the community in November. In December, we reviewed poll two results with city council, which very quickly prompted us to draft and release poll number three to the community in early January 2026.

Speaker 3:
Most recently on February 9th, we reviewed the results of the third community poll as well as city council approved a letter of intent to enter into a public private partnership agreement with local theater company Theaterworks Silicon Valley to partner on a twotheater complex development which we will share in more detail in the coming slides. That then brings us here to March 11th where we're looking forward to sharing with you this evening the final draft of the Cubberly conceptual master plan and SQA document. Next slide, please.

Speaker 4:
As we look ahead to our upcoming project milestones, we've outlined the key dates anticipated as of now. On March 16th, we will release our fourth and final poll to the community. Then on March 24th, we will present this conceptual master plan and seek a document to the parks and recreation commission seeking their recommendation for council city council to adopt as well. On April 20th, we are scheduled to present this conceptual master plan and finalize document for city council consideration of adoption.

Speaker 5:
In June, council approval to place a measure on the November ballot. Then in August is the deadline to submit final ballot language for the November 2026 election, which brings us to November 2026, the election and placement of a ballot measure. Next slide, please.

Speaker 6:
Uh, go back one slide. There we go. Uh, we'd now like to present to you the final draft of the Cberly conceptual master plan. Attachment B in your packet links to the conceptual master plan document and the associated appendices.

Speaker 1:
Next slide, please. The Cubly conceptual master plan represents a long-term guiding vision for the Cberly site.

Speaker 2:
Development of the plan was created with input received during the community co-design process with multiple diverse stakeholder groups, building off the previous 2019 coverly concept plan. We'd like to emphasize that this is a conceptual plan and it serves as framework as one possibility for future development of a phased approach to site development that includes a combination of new construction and building renovations. The phased approach is intentional. It allows the site to be developed over time as funding is secured and minimizes program program disruption during construction.

Speaker 3:
Staff are concurrently exploring funding mechanisms um as available funding will ultimately influence the pace and scope of redevelopment.

Speaker 4:
Potential funding mechanisms may include a combination of development fees, grants, philanthropy, a ballot measure, and community partners. Phase one includes a combination of new and renovated buildings, including a new recreation and wellness center, as well as a new performing arts center. It could also include programmable spaces for education, visual arts, flexible use space to serve changing community needs now and well into the future. Next slide, please.

Speaker 5:
Now, looking at the current site, last time we visited each of you, we shared more about the history of the site. So, we're not going to go into great detail on the history and the background of the project. Uh, what we'd like to focus on tonight with our limited time is how the concept plan has evolved since then. Uh what we'll start with is a refresher of the current site uh in context. What is depicted on the current slide is the current is the CLY community center campus um as it exists now. On the right hand side in purple is the city's existing 8 acres that we currently own.

Speaker 6:
On the left hand side in yellow is the seven acres we are currently negotiating to purchase from the school district.

Speaker 1:
Together, it would create the 15 acres we have been master planning with the community and stakeholders. In the gray dashed areas, including the parking lot immediately to the left of the yellow area to be purchased. And along the top of the map are the 20.5 acres we anticipate to continue to lease from PAUSD, which includes two parking lots, athletic fields, and the track and field. Next slide, please.

Speaker 2:
Now moving to what one option of a completed phase one could look like. We will review in the following slides the stages of deconstruction and construction in this concept design. By the end of phase one, it would be a major milestone and could offer complete services for the Cubberly site. Targeted renovations or new construction could also be pursued independently of a full phase 1 implementation, providing new and revitalized indoor and outdoor spaces for the community. If and when phase one is completed, the city could choose to pause after construction or continue subsequent phases pending funding mechanisms available. Again, this is one potential conceptual plan for the site, all pending limit uh funding limitations and partner contributions.

Speaker 3:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 4:
This slide looks at phase one deconstruction and construction sequencing. While some programming will need to be relocated to temporary facilities for periods of time, the goal would be to continue as much existing programming as possible throughout the deconstruction and construction timeline for continuity of programming and to provide as little disruption to services as possible. Currently, PAUSD occupies multiple buildings on site either through their own programs or subleasases, including in the auditorium, A&B wings, and the I building. And if and when they vacate pending our purchase of the additional 7 acres, we would have new square footage available um for us to use during this transition period to move existing programming around the site. The upper right diagram zero is the existing site shown. Um all the current buildings are in brown. The lower right diagram 1.1 shows the first phase of proposed deconstruction in the area within the dashed red lines would be deconstructed first which includes the JK, LPH and U buildings.

Speaker 5:
Next slide please.

Speaker 6:
Diagram 1.2 2 in the upper left shows the first constructed buildings which would include the recreation and wellness center, the facilities and emergency services area, a large flex room, a cafe, kitchen and concession area, a new outdoor pool, and the raised tennis courts over the existing outdoor parking lot. Diagram 1.3 in the bottom left shows the deconstruction scope area of A, B, M, and G wings and a portion of the Cly and portions of C and D wings.

Speaker 1:
The upper right diagram 1.4 shows construction of a new performing arts education and flex space and education and enrichment building next to the recreation and wellness building. And then the construction of a twotheater performing arts complex which would include a new back of house and lobby space, renovations to the Cly and Pavilion. This would be in partnership with the theater works Silicon Valley.

Speaker 2:
Lastly, the lower right diagram 1.5 shows renovation of the auditorium in the remainder of C and D wings as well as STV and F wings.

Speaker 3:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 4:
This slide illustrates what the site could look like at the excuse me at the completion of phase one. Again, this represents one conceptual design. As the project advances into the architectural phase, both the design and phasing may evolve in response to factors such as funding availability, community needs, and partner development timelines.

Speaker 5:
Currently, the city has two public private partnerships committed to supporting development on the site. As briefly mentioned previously, the friends of the recreation and wellness center who had who are advancing plans for the indoor gymnasiums within the recreation and wellness center and most recently Theaterwork Silicon Valley which is exploring development of the two theater performing arts complex. As these partnerships continue to refine their scopes and work, they will help inform and influence the overall development and phasing of the Coverly site. Next slide, please.

Speaker 6:
Now looking at a complete phase one from a programming perspective. This shows phase one on campus by levels one, two, and three. Most buildings are one level, three buildings are two levels, and only one building is three levels. The new total of recreation and wellness space depicted in green is now 68,000 total square feet. Performing arts in pink totals 51,000 square feet. Education enrichment in purple 34,000 square feet.

Speaker 1:
community services space in blue 36,250 square feet and visual arts and technology in red with 27,000 square feet. I'd like to note as well many of these categorizations can be fluid as many services we may offer on campus can fit into multiple categories. So there is flexibility and that is intentional to give us the most adaptability adaptability for future changing community needs.

Speaker 2:
At this stage, the program categories were developed based on input from the community members and stakeholders, and they reflect space for current tenants on the campus while allowing for additional square footage to support new programs and services that can serve the broader community. The exact locations and future service providers would be determined in later phases as the project moves forward.

Speaker 3:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 4:
Zooming in now on the buildings in phase one. We want to highlight some of the features that could be offered. Longer descriptions and full details can be found in the master plan document and appendix. Currently, the recreation and wellness center is depicted as a two-story building that has space for four gymnasiums that could be used for a variety of sports, group exercise classes, and could also function as an emergency shelter as needed. The space could also be used for rentals and community events. The facility and emergency services area could support the entire campus's maintenance and facility needs and could include aspects such as vehicle parking, storage, facility, equipment, and more. The new tennis deck and parking structure would have six elevated tennis courts which exist there now uh with the parking level now underneath the tennis courts.

Speaker 5:
On this slide, I'd also like to highlight that as mentioned um previously, the city has the current partnership with the Friends of the Recreation and Wellness Center, the registered 501c3, whose purpose is to support fundraising in the advancement of the new indoor gymnasium space at the Cly site. The gymnasium component of the recreation and wellness center could not only look different in scope than what's depicted here, but also potentially move forward earlier than the rest of the adjacent buildings if the friends secure funding sooner than the broader project.

Speaker 6:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 1:
Attached to the recreation and wellness center, uh a large flexible space is designed that could operate similar to the current El Palo Alto room at Mitchell Park Community Center. It could host a diverse array of activities such as ballroom dance, performing arts functions, community meetings, weddings, parties, and other events. Uh it would be adjacent to the cafe, kitchen, concessions area that could have a commercial kitchen that could support these large um events that would be hosted in that space. Uh the kitchen could also be used for cooking classes and camps as well as used when the space may be deployed as an emergency shelter.

Speaker 2:
The cafe is an area where community members could purchase light refreshments and graband go food. This is just one option of where the cafe could go. Alternative options could be in building I or elsewhere. Another cafe was planned during phase three, but this was to give an option sooner in development.

Speaker 3:
The concessions area could serve snacks for events in the gym, pool, and athletic fields and could be a walk-up window on the south side of the building. The community pool here is envisioned to be a sixlane 25 meter pool to support meats and recreational community use.

Speaker 4:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 5:
The education and enrichment building concept is a two-story building designed to accommodate a variety of configurations and uses such as classrooms, early childhood education, afterchool programs, lecture halls, adult education classes, administrative offices, and flexible youth space. Like many of the buildings in this plan, it is 70 ft wide, designed for easy configuration and reconfiguration to maximize flexibility and accommodate a wide array of uses in spatial configurations such as double loaded corridors. The three-story performing arts education flex building could be similar in use to the two-story education and enrichment building and has the third floor for flexible use.

Speaker 6:
Building I, the brown building here on the slide, is one of the renovated concrete framed buildings. It could support flexible use and could accommodate future long-term tenants and rentable flex activities. Next slide, please.

Speaker 1:
Here shows the performing arts area where the city and theaterwork Silicon Valley would partner to create a two theater complex that includes renovating the existing Cubly Theater and Pavilion and adding new construction. A letter of intent outlining this partnership was adopted by the city council on February 9th, 2026. While plans are still evolving and not yet finalized, the current vision includes upgrading the existing Cberly Theater to support continued community use. Improvements could include adding new restrooms, expanded lobby and back of house space, and enhanced accessibility and technology. The pavilion is envisioned to be renovated as the new 500 seat home for Theater Works Silicon Valley.

Speaker 2:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 3:
At the end of phase one, the last step would be to complete renovation of the existing buildings which would include new building systems, structural upgrades, finishes, roofing, etc.

Speaker 4:
Community service functions could operate from the renovated auditorium, building C and D in addition to flexible spaces on campus. Renovated buildings STV and F could support visual arts functions. Such uses could include flexible classroom space, studio space, maker space, and a gallery. Of course, building use can shift to meet program and community needs.

Speaker 5:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 6:
Outdoor program spaces are a central component of this project. Community input emphasized the importance of welcoming, inclusive, and flexible intergenerational gathering spaces that connect to the site's natural amenities.

Speaker 1:
We want to quickly highlight a few of these spaces that could be implemented in phase one. First, the photos on the right showcase an urban forest and natural amenities. A major goal of this plan was to create more outdoor space for flexible events and connection to plants and the nature systems. This can promote early childhood education, multi-generational connection, multicultural sharing, and natural learning. Examples include implementing pollinator gardens, native plantings, natural play and picnic areas, outdoor classrooms, or sculpture gardens.

Speaker 2:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 3:
Another highly sought-after amenity is the outdoor amphitheater. It could be used to host a variety of events such as summer concerts, dance performances, and theater productions. The performing arts and visual arts and technology buildings form the two anchors for the cultural plaza. This could be used for arts fairs, dance performances, drumming circles, lunar new year celebrations, and other cultural programming and festivals. You'll also notice the buildings shown in the background of these eyele views. Uh at this stage, they represent general massing only, not architectural design. The conceptual master plan does not establish architectural style which would be determined in a future design phase with community input. Next slide please.

Speaker 4:
Okay, that was a highle overview of what phase one could potentially include depending on when and how funding is secured. Elements of the plan could be implemented in different sequences, scales, and scopes. The conceptual master plan also outlines phase two and three. While we recognize that these later phases are unlikely to be constructed in the near term due to the significant funding required, they are also included to reflect the broader long-term vision for the site.

Speaker 5:
These phases also reflect the reflect and incorporate valuable input from our community members and stakeholders gathered throughout the engagement process. In addition, including the full site buildout within the conceptual master plan allows the city to complete the SQA analysis for the entire project area, assessing the potential environmental impacts of the full buildout. Completing this analysis now provides the city with greater flexibility in the future to advance additional phases when funding funding and opportunities become available as the SQA process is a significant and timeintensive undertaking. Next slide, please.

Speaker 6:
So, with that being said, we'd like to briefly show the proposed sequencing for phases two and three. Phase two, shown on the left hand side, would focus on construction on the new visual arts and technology buildings, which could include maker space and workshop areas for hands-on projects as well as gallery space for city curated and community exhibitions and artist studios. Phase three would complete the community services section and provide a location for a new cafe and lounge gathering space along with new community service and flexible space. Flexible space is especially valuable as it provides the ability to adapt to changing program needs and future community priorities.

Speaker 1:
Like much of the campus, this space is designed to be futureproof, multi-purpose, and nimble. It could support staffled programs, rentals, office space, and potentially accommodate additional tenants. Next slide, please.

Speaker 2:
This slide illustrates what the campus could look like if all three phases were ultimately completed utilizing this conceptual master plan. While this represents a long-term vision for the site, again, staff does not anticipate full buildout in the near-term future as it would require significant additional funding as pre previously stated.

Speaker 3:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 4:
Overall, this plan proposes to increase the amount of indoor space from the current 184,000 square ft to 232,250 ft after phase 1 and ultimately to 284,000 ft after phases 2 and three are completed. Outdoor space increases from 250,000 ft to 390,000 after phase 1 and to 415 thou 15,000 after phase 2 and three. Parking spaces increased from 520 stalls to 640 after phase 1 to 840 after phases 2 and three. A few examples of where square footage increases are notable include recreational space including gyms and programmable spaces for health and wellness, expanded theater and performing arts spaces with improved accessibility, visual art spaces for art programs, classes and exhibits for the community including a maker space and flexible spaces for city programming of classes and camps and rentals uh which currently just don't exist at the campus. Now lastly, the increased outdoor space provides more diverse uses such as events, performances, outdoor programs, and unstructured play and casual gathering spaces.

Speaker 5:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 6:
Uh looking now at the phase one walking and biking plan. This plan prioritizes pedestrian and biking safety while increasing accessibility and convenience across access for vehicles.

Speaker 1:
uh walking and biking paths have minimal intersection with cars and connect to the existing and future planned bike and pedestrian paths. The bike and pedestrian traffic has been designed for two use case scenarios. The first is for passing through the community center without stopping and second is for arriving at the center for an activity.

Speaker 2:
There will also be both short-term and long-term bike parking on site. Next slide, please. And apologies to interrupt. Uh, it looks like the slides have gone down, so we're seeing you now instead of the slides on the screens. It just happened on the last. One moment, please. Thank you. Thanks very much. Sorry to interrupt.

Speaker 3:
No, thank you for letting us know.

Speaker 4:
All righty. And if we could go back to vehicular circulation, I think is where we're at. All right. Can you guys see that slide? Perfect. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Um, okay. So, now looking at phase one, vehicular circulation plan, car circulation and parking were major site considerations and included a great deal of stakeholder input, uh, and was actually revised multiple times throughout the process. Um, as you'll see on the diagram there, our passenger dropoff locations throughout the site as indicated with the dashed yellow lines.

Speaker 6:
Uh surface parking is distributed around the site um around high demand use areas depicted with the blue shading and intentionally creates a loop throughout the site connecting the two perimeter access roads. A new parking lot was added to meet demand uh for parking at the end of phase 1. This is the parking lot located next to the Charleston Shopping Center and will add an additional 153 parking stalls. One aspect to note of significance to help with traffic patterns is first at the traffic s signal at the Montrose Avenue intersection. There is an an existing light and it's recommended to make a second exit lane coming out of the coverly campus. At the north access road, this plan recommends adding a traffic light at this access road as well as expansion with two exit lanes coming out of the Coverly Campus.

Speaker 1:
Due to the additional traffic the future programs may generate, this plan also recommends evaluation of a center turn lane to Middlefield Road to serve both intersections. Uh, updated traffic studies would need to be conducted during the architectural phases of the project.

Speaker 2:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 3:
All right. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the city has prepared and released the draft initial study mitigated negative declaration ISM and D for the Cubly Conceptual Master Plan for 30-day public review and comment period of March 2nd through April 1st. This is a required document that assesses potential environmental impacts of the conceptual master plan and identifies measures to reduce these impacts. It is also required document that would allow for the city council to adopt a long-term plan for the site and enable the city to proceed with near-term improvements. Overall, five environmental resources were identified where impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigated mitigation incorporated. They are air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and transportation.

Speaker 4:
Impacts for all other environmental resource areas were found to be either less than significant or no impact would occur.

Speaker 5:
The full report can be reviewed on our project website or in person at the Mitchell Park Library, Downtown Library, or the Palo Alto Development Center.

Speaker 6:
Comments can be sent directly to community services director Kristen O'Cane by email, physical mail, or by public comment. Um, here at the commission meetings, uh, you can also submit comments via a comment card on the project website.

Speaker 1:
Next slide, please.

Speaker 2:
All right. Uh, as we near the end of our presentation, um, I'd like to conclude by stepping back and reflecting on the broader vision and significance of the Cubberly conceptual master plan. This plan represents a shared long-term vision developed with the community to reimagine the future of the campus while respecting its history, existing partners, and creating opportunities to welcome new and exciting community partners. As stewards of this important public space, the city has a responsibility to plan for Cberly in a fiscally responsible way, supporting current uses while creating opportunities that benefit the broader community. Given the scale of the project, the plan is intentionally phased and designed to evolve over time as funding allows with flexible and adaptable facilities that can respond to changing community needs. Cberly offers a rare opportunity to create a vibrant inclusive campus for the entire community and continued community partnerships will guide the project as it moves from conception to implementation. Importantly, this plan reflects the vision city council established at the outset of this effort on February 18th, 2025. And the community further refined at the first co-design meeting, which is to create a vibrant, beloved, and adaptable destination that promotes learning, interconnectivity, joy, and well-being where people of all cultures and generations belong. Staff believe this conceptual master plan successfully brings that vision to life.

Speaker 3:
Next slide, please. Here are our anticipated next steps.

Speaker 4:
After tonight, we will present the conceptual master plan and SQA document at the parks and recreation commission uh meeting on March 24th and seek their recommendation for council adoption.

Speaker 5:
Then staff are scheduled to present the conceptual master plan and the completed SQA analysis uh document to the city council on April 20th um and seek council adoption. Next slide, please.

Speaker 6:
So, tonight staff recommends that the PTC and ARB uh respectively consider the draft initial study mitigated negative declaration for the Cubly conceptual master plan and recommend that council adopt the master plan. Next slide, please.

Miss Demo:
Uh that concludes our formal presentation. So, we thank you for your time and your attention. Um, as we close, uh, we would like to just share that it's been an incredible privilege for us to be able to move this plan forward after many years of community conversations and efforts to envision the future of Cubberly. Uh, we'd also like to thank both the planning and transportation commission and the architectural review board um for your thoughtful comments and feedback when we met earlier this year or last year rather um that helped guide the development of this conceptual master plan. So, we appreciate your partnership in helping shape the future of this important campus. Um, and with that, we welcome your feedback and comments and discussion. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Thank you, Miss Demo. Um, Chair Chen, do you or uh anyone on the ARB have uh clarifying questions before public comment?

Speaker 3:
Yeah, I assume everyone from ARB will have some kind of question. So, to keep it simple, we will just start from the left. If if you don't have any questions, you can just pass it. Board member Rosenberg, you want to start?

Speaker 4:
Thank you. Um I'll keep these very brief. Um there was commentary that the phases two and three will likely not be done at this time um simply because of financing. Uh what was sort of the analysis to make that come to that conclusion? And do you guys have rough budget numbers in n in mind for phase one funding setup? I don't need actual numbers or anything. just sort of a better understanding of how we got to that point that phase one is sort of immediate, phase two and three are way down the line.

Speaker 5:
Um yes, so we're still refining our cost estimate. So, how we reached the conclusion that phase one seems most realistic and we're okay with sharing phase one looks like it's we're still refining but between 300 and $400 million and that's what seems realistic for us to be able to achieve in the the near future um with um the mechanisms that we're exploring at this time. Um we're still refining the overall project cost for the full buildout, but it seems substantially larger than that. And so that's why we see it as like not a near-term option. Um, and so when we have a more precise number to share, we'll we'll announce that.

Speaker 6:
Great. And then it does seem, if I can just be so bold, it seems like phases two and three maybe combined would be similar to that amount. It looks like each one of those phases is a pretty notably smaller chunk than phase one.

Speaker 1:
Phase one seems to capture the largest portion. Would that be accurate?

Speaker 2:
Uh, I can't say with any certainty right now. I think what does help a lot with our phase one is that's where we have our public private partnerships um that are committing to uh helping develop the the site financially. Um so that's what's incorporated into our cost analysis. So at this time I don't think we have a number to share for two and three. Um and so I wouldn't even want to guess and throw something out there and be inaccurate.

Speaker 3:
Fair enough. All right. Thanks very much. That's it.

Speaker 4:
I'll go next with some few um kind of a little bit of detail questions. Um I guess starting with uh you know you mentioned like a lot of this is dependent on le uh purchasing 7 acres of site from Paul's unified school district and the negotiation was ongoing. What's if can you share the status of that and I assume that has to be and what is the timeline for that relative to you know city council approval of this master plan which is on you know not fully city property obviously at this time and also the timeline with the ballot measure which I if I remember correctly is for the um funding for the purchase of that uh site correct Hi, good evening. Kristen Okaine, um, community services director. So, I'll try to take those pieces one by one. So, the first um I believe you asked is the status of the purchase.

Speaker 5:
So, the we already have a memorandum of understanding with the school district.

Speaker 6:
We've negotiated a purchase price with them already um which is $65.5 million for the 7 acres and we are in the process of working on a purchase agreement with them that would come to the council later um this spring. Um and we don't have the funding mechanism secured yet for that purchase, but um that's what the council will be um continuing to discuss. Um, and if you could do do you have another question?

Speaker 1:
Um, yeah. How the the timeline of that purchase relative to the ballot measure, which I think you answered if that's going to the city council in the spring ahead of the June city council to put the ballot measure on the on the November ballot. Correct.

Speaker 2:
So, that would be the timeline for the ballot measure. I might um ask our so the timeline for the purchase of the seven acres. Would you be able to address that?

Speaker 3:
Sure. So, uh the city and the school district envisioned in anou in the last few years that if um the city would consider going for a ballot measure to raise additional revenue through some kind of tax. solar sales tax, parcel tax, something like that. And as you may know, the city has been pulling for the uh the possibility of doing that this fall. Um should a uh ballot measure raise the required revenue, um then the city and the district planned to uh close on the purchase in July of 2027.

Speaker 4:
So, uh, it would be put something on the ballot um by the probably by June. The election would be in November pending the outcome of the election. Uh, property sale could close in next July.

Speaker 5:
And for the record, you want to introduce yourself?

Tim Shimizu:
Oh, sure. Uh, my name is Tim Shimizu and I'm an assistant city attorney.

Speaker 1:
Thank you. So, can I ask another question as well while it's my turn? Um, so about the boundary again like about the lease versus the purchase. I I forget which slide number, but you have the boundary of what will continue to remain leased versus what's getting purchased. And some of the phase one um work right up on the upper left corner of the plan like straddles that boundary. So, some of the phase one design and construction work is on a tiny bit of property that is not going to be purchased. Is that intentional?

Speaker 2:
Um, could you bring up the slideshow, please? Slide six. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
You know, I had a similar question. So I wanted wonder if it wouldn't be a little different to uh ask uh what is the arrangement with the board of ed you know the uh relative to the lease uh to PaloAlto in particular to make sure that it's long enough to allow us to uh utilize all that space.

Speaker 4:
Well sure first I'd like to address um board adco's question. So, um, are you referring to an area? I'm not sure which area you're referring to.

Speaker 5:
Yes. So, at the upper left gray area, which is the parking lot that will continue to be a leased property. Um, there's a tiny little triangle that comes down into the yellow.

Speaker 6:
And so, if you go to the I think it's on the next slide. Yeah, right there. Thank you. Kendra is always great with the U markups. Um, so if you go to the next slide, uh, I believe that's where the phase one um, plan shows. So, yep, right in that area. If I can find my that, uh, new work uh, with that walkway um, from the tennis deck parking garage is still in the little triangle of the lease property. Is that intentional to be that way?

Speaker 1:
Um, I don't know if it's intentional. We are still finalizing the purchase boundary. So, um we would it would either be addressed during that or it would be addressed when we're actually doing architectural designs.

Speaker 2:
Okay. Um so I'll go on to my next question about phase one uh which is um I guess I'm trying to understand the extent of phase one that is um determined um like for instance building U which is let me make my marker a little thicker. Building U existing which is about here is planned to be demolished which is kind of a finger building between the other buildings. Is that a set thing in this phase one? And is there a reason for that?

Speaker 3:
Sure. The reason for that would be to accommodate that um parking area to the right. um like a walkway to the parking area or cuz I think building U is in this green sliver have to pull up the existing.

Speaker 4:
Yeah, I believe it makes space for what we're calling the shop or we'll just the shopping center parking lot. Sorry if I had my terminology wrong. Let me look at the right side. But yeah, U and H will be removed to make um a new parking lot for nearest to the recreation and wellness center.

Speaker 5:
So I think the U building actually comes further to the Yeah.

Speaker 6:
Yeah. So that would be um maybe slide have a slide with um the buildings to be Yeah. So right here that Yeah. The U building seems to come a little bit closer to the roadway there.

Speaker 1:
So that would be removed to accommodate that parking area.

Speaker 2:
But I think this little bit stays, right? So the part that's by middlefield stays. A little piece in between remain gets removed and then the other side.

Speaker 3:
Yeah, that's VB building. Uh-huh.

Speaker 4:
So that is intentional and a set part of this phase one to remove that piece.

Speaker 5:
Excuse me. Could you repeat that?

Speaker 6:
Um, is that a determined thing as part of phase one that it is you, right? Yeah. You is removed that V stays.

Speaker 1:
Yeah. At this time V would get renovated. Um, U would be removed to make room for the parking lot. V is part of the renovated buildings.

Speaker 2:
Okay.

Speaker 3:
I'd also like to say that again this is conceptual, so nothing is necessarily decided and firm in this. Um, so if there was a reason that we would need to adjust that, we could certainly do that later. Um, but that's intended to address um, access and parking.

Speaker 4:
And if you want to go to the next slide, it shows a better kind of sequencing.

Speaker 5:
Yeah. So that kind of shows you there um, after it happens, B will remain and be renovated.

Speaker 6:
Yeah. in the full removal of you.

Speaker 1:
So, actually that's a good slide for my next question. Thank you. Um, so, uh, and as Kendra mentioned as well, it sounds like phases two and three is way down the line. Is that why I I don't know what the budget is, but obviously you're renovating pretty much all of the existing buildings in as part of phase one.

Speaker 2:
That's a good significant amount of money that will be spent in renovating, right? And that's um I guess before this presentation, I was wondering like why are you guys renovating buildings that are going to be demolished, but it sounds like the phase 2 and three is it's not a good way to say it, but close to never and therefore renovating the existing buildings that are to be demolished in the future.

Speaker 3:
Yeah. The the reason being since we at this time don't feel we'd have enough money to do the whole project at one time and the buildings are reaching end of life, the renovation is is meant to be a bridge um so that they could continue to be used until that opportunity to do phases two or three um could occur because they're pretty dilapidated. Um you know, if we happen to have the opportunity where we get the funding mechanisms to do all three phases, that would be wonderful. Um but we're trying to balance, you know, the realities of um the money. Again, we're refining the cost. Um but that's that's the purpose is so we could focus on phase one completion and then make the rest of the buildings still usable and safe and do uh upgrades with uh the money that we could think we could do the I think it was upgrades, the new doors, new windows, electrical um with the remaining uh balance that we have.

Speaker 4:
um to just be yeah like I said a bridge until phases two or three could happen.

Speaker 5:
So last question um on that is uh I do know those buildings are in pretty poor shape. So does that renovation include like you know seismic upgrades to bring them up to code. how like the amount of money that would be spent in trying to do the renovation is that you know 50% of cost of building new has that even or could potent you know be even more has that also being considered yeah I think that's a great question I do believe that was analyzed and we're going to actually dig back into that too I think we're looking to do some more analysis um to and that's part of our refining of the cost with the renovations um before we would actually start doing any of them. And so we're going to be working um on that and that's part of overall when we said refining the cost. So not only new construction, but what it would take to renovate um and do and I have a a few more I think pieces of information on the renovations would be finishes, building systems, structural upgrades um which could include yeah HVAC, seismic seismic bracing, utilities, um roofing, envelope, windows and doors. So, um getting things up to safety standards um for all the participants that use those buildings. So, thank you.

Speaker 6:
All right. Thank you. So, I have a I have question about the timeline for the construction and deconstruction. So after say after the council um adopted the plan and also the purchase is completed is there like a timeline for the future for phase one deconstruction con uh construction at this moment.

Speaker 1:
Yes. So I believe if we tentatively mapped it out if we did land acquisition in 2027 with a successful ballot measure and possibly other funding mechanisms. I at this time we did some rough math of estimating timelines and I think it was uh no sooner than 2030 um was the last time we did some mapping uh with public works to get the appropriate like permitting um hiring of contractors uh and that type of work. Of course, we'd need to probably go back and refine that timeline. Um, but that was the estimated start time.

Speaker 2:
Thank you. And for the uh building sections, so uh is it so at the end of the phase one will there be like two major sections? One is let me see one is for the performing art oops doesn't work here.

Speaker 3:
One is for the performing arts sector and the other is for the rest of the of them. Are are those buildings all connected or they are separated? They're detached from each other at the end of phase one. Uhhuh.

Speaker 4:
Uh they are not all connected. So at the moment um let's see a good slide that sort of depicts it for the new construction part.

Speaker 5:
Mhm. Maybe slide 21, please. Oh, sorry.

Speaker 6:
That's not the end of phase one. The end of phase one would be slide 10, please.

Speaker 1:
That maybe shows a better aerial. Uh so the wreck and wellness building uh is kind of one entity with those attached um adjacencies with like the large flex in the emergency services. So that's one building. Um and then the education enrichment uh is its own building and then the performing arts complex is connected with the back of house lobby. So there uh it's kind of hard to see in this one.

Speaker 2:
We have another design in the master plan document where it gives you a above aerial where you can see the separations a little bit more clear that I didn't put in the presentation. Um but no, they're not all connected. Uh not in this not in this concept. Um of course we could add separations if we needed to.

Speaker 3:
Okay. Thank you. And another question is about can we go to slide number uh 24 I believe the vehicular circulation.

Speaker 4:
So uh is it the purpose to have uh to have the the vehicular circulation all around the site to also serve as the the emergency access like fire lane.

Speaker 5:
Yes, that's correct. So I think the overall purpose was um to not try to mix vehicular and pedestrian and bike as much as possible. So vehic vehicular traffic is around the outside and that also will serve as service roads. Uh I believe there's a section in the master plan that has a specific map for service vehicles. There may be times for landscaping that they'll come into campus. There's a few roads that are designed to be extra wide where they might need to come in for landscaping or service some of the buildings. Uh otherwise, vehicular traffic is meant to stay on the exterior of the campus. Um as well as the service roads will still exist for emergency vehicles um along the playfields um which will also be for pedestrian um and bike traffic as well, which was something that came up at a lot of our community meetings. that will still exist but there will not be through access for cars. I know that was a major concern from community members.

Speaker 6:
So that has not changed either.

Speaker 1:
Understand? And and there is a slide about like the increase number of indoor space and the parking stall increase. So if we can go to that slide. Does that number the the number of the parking stalls generally meet the building code requirement because we for the increased programming like the performing arts center the theater and also the classes all those indoor increased indoor space are they generally about yeah we did a parking analysis with fear and pierce um and yes this is up to standards Okay, thank you board member George.

Speaker 2:
Thank you for that presentation. This was a really nice presentation. Thank you. I have two questions. One is uh that ser that the road that goes around the perimeter is it one way or two way? Two-way.

Speaker 3:
Thank you. And my other question is um the disagreement with the theater uh works. Um can you can you tell us more about um like how many performances uh you know will be you know hosted in this pavilion? you said it's a 500 seat pavilion and like I I know sometimes theater works like when they perform in B or or you know Mountain View they have one or two performances a day you know for several weeks in a row like is the idea to move all these regional kind of performances from the other cities into Palo Alto and then there would be almost like a performance every single day. Um, so what cuz that that's going to impact uh traffic and parking etc. I just would like to understand a little bit more how that's going to look like.

Speaker 4:
Yeah, that's a great question. So they haven't given us um unless I'm mistaken, but I feel pretty confident that we haven't gotten to that level of detail on like a production schedule. Uh what I can tell you now since I manage their agreement at Lucy Stern Community Theater um is it is yeah not uncommon that they might have multiple performances in a day but there will be weeks and weeks of rehearsals. So we won't get into the situation where they will have something every day you know 365 days a year. Uh it will be something I'm sure that in our agreement when we do uh actually work on their contractual agreement that it'll be in cooperation with the campus and the rest of the activities because we do know if they're hosting performances with 500 seats. So the influx that it'll have to campus is a really great consideration. So they haven't submitted any terms yet to the city. I'm looking at Kristen because she sits in some of those negotiation meetings. Um but that will be something that we'll make sure to consider um their performance schedule. So, thank you.

Speaker 5:
And that was reflected in the parking analysis that we did um with Fair and Pierce as well to the earlier question.

Speaker 6:
Um actually one uh one more question.

Speaker 1:
The the kitchen area in the new um kind of there in the back. Is it do you have do you have in mind um like a publicly a uh open cafeteria similar to what we have in Mitchell Park or will that be just a kitchen space for the events?

Speaker 2:
Um I think it can be multi-use. So our cooking classes and camps are very popular. So we think it could be used for that and then as we mentioned it could be deployed if we have a shelter setup. So then it can be used for food services and then it could be rented out um if folks want to rent it out for events and then use in combination with um the event. So I think it can be all of the above um but but not uh a public restaurant similar to Mitchell Park, not the well the ca maybe a cafe portion of it. Um the full service kitchen we imagine would be more of like the support and rental but we do yeah the cafe was something that was heavily requested. So there would be a portion that could be a cafe only in addition to the commercial kitchen. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
Um, so I'd like to go back to the question that I was kind of concerned about is this whole lease issue with the board of with the school. Uh, how how does that how's that going to be arranged so that whatever is built will be legitimate for its lifetime?

Speaker 4:
Yeah. So I think that the intention is not to build any structures like buildings on the leased area. So if you see that in the uh plan, thank you for pointing that out because that is something that we definitely want to make sure we're not doing unintentionally or signaling that. Um I think the current plan in general is to make sure that the lease covers um parking lots and some of the athletic fields. And so part of the reason the city, for example, is not intending to purchase that part, the parking lots or some of the athletic fields goes back to um the original deal um that the district and the city made uh in the last year or two where the city the school district agreed to sell 7 acres and the city and the school district worked on that footprint. And so that's the what you see today. So unfortunately the seven acres doesn't include enough acreage to include all of the parking lots in the fields. So to prioritize to be able to actually build um what you see in the master plan or some iteration of that um that was the area particular area that could maximize um the city's flexibility for building and the um to but to um maximize overall use of the space. So to make sure that there's parking and to make sure that the city and the school district still have access to these fields, the um the deal is is that prior to uh the city purchasing this property, the city and the school district envision renegotiating the existing lease to make sure that there's that continuity going forward so that operations are not interrupted because of say a break in the lease um or uh unresolved terms.

Speaker 5:
So the hope is that you'll marry the agreement with the school board to the time that the purchase is completed somehow.

Speaker 6:
Yes. So um it's envisioned that before the purchase is closed, the city and the district would come to an agreement on the lease going forward.

Speaker 1:
Yes.

Speaker 2:
Yes. At least the agreement will be Yeah. Because like as you pointed out, it's it's that's very important.

Speaker 3:
Yep.

Speaker 4:
Yes. So, Theater Works is planning on on continuing Lucy Stern with a relationship with Lucy Stern.

Speaker 5:
Uh, my understanding is if they were to move over here to Coverly, they would no longer be at Lucy Stern. So, they're there now. Uh, but if they were to move over there, they wouldn't have both still. Okay.

Speaker 6:
Um, so there's a on the diagram there there seems to be a a difference between some of the drawing schemes and some some of the construction of the new new buildings. That is to say the diagonal used to come all the way out to Middlefield Road in the scheme that was originally is it continuing to come? Is that diagonal circulation still there or at the end?

Speaker 1:
At the end of phase three, it is. Uh the diagram you might be referencing is uh maybe just the end of phase one. It doesn't quite make it there. Um at the end of phase one, but at the end of phase three, it does still uh stretch all the way across campus. Okay.

Speaker 2:
I wonder if uh you know if if you could describe what what that is going to serve that diagonal coming out to to uh have you did you keep that in your discussion at this point?

Speaker 3:
Is it flexible also the prominade? Yeah.

Speaker 4:
Uh being completed or stopping at phase one? stopping at phase one possibly. Uh yeah, it's definitely been discussed.

Speaker 5:
I think there's been comments on um it staying or going and feeling maybe also incomplete at the end of phase one, you know, when its intention was to stretch all the way across campus. So I think we've heard comments um that people like it still at the end of phase one or again feels incomplete at the end of phase one. So um it provides the circulation for the pedestrians and the bikers. So that was some of the positives still um as well as some of the uh play and nature elements that folks had requested in the meetings are still within those spaces even though it doesn't stretch all the way across campus. So there was still some benefit from it even when it wasn't making the full connection. Um so that's why it's still in there now. Um and so yeah, it was left in there at this time as a a sequencing um to hopefully get to in the further phases.

Speaker 6:
It's a interesting idea, but the uh use of it seems a little bit strange. Uh so if it were extended to be some kind of a drop off area for people who don't want to enter the site but want to simply drop off I'm just putting that out for some consideration that was mentioned and I think there was a lot of feedback about people not wanting cars to enter the site at all even for a drop off and I so I believe that's why we did not consider that ultimately.

Speaker 1:
Okay. Uh um so early education I don't uh do you you what uh are you moving these it's scattered throughout the site? Have you planned all of the early education sites to to be able to be moved prior to the demolition of those areas?

Speaker 2:
Uh currently we have um a few of our early education uh are located next to the T2 which is where the community services offices are located. Um so at the at the moment in phase one there is one building identified that they could be um put in one location and we specifically designed some safe drop zones for parents to be able to easily do pickup and drop off. Um again a lot of the uses for the buildings can be flexible. if we found there was a different building that worked. Um but at this time that's where we would put um some of the early as we've mentioned in the presentation early childhood was um noted in the education enrichment building there in between uh the performing arts and the wreck and wellness. Um so that's what was identified at this time but it could change but that's also how the drop off zones were identified as well.

Speaker 3:
I I didn't notice that you've included anything for fauxpal in and so could you describe some of that?

Speaker 4:
Sure. Yeah, we didn't call out the tenants specifically. Um but they've been incorporated into these plans. So I think they're one that can fit into multiple categories as we discussed. So they can be flexible use, they can be education. So um they've definitely been a part of the plans and been participating in the meetings. So they have not been forgotten and are incorporated in these plans.

Speaker 5:
Um the I've noticed in having visited the site quite often that much of the parking areas are vacant during some of the day, you know, and only used later in the day. So for example, the parking that the extensive parking that is at the playfields is pretty empty during most of the day, much of the day that the two areas that are closer to the middle field are the ones that are more filled.

Speaker 6:
Has that been discussed with the transportation people and they have indicated that there are times when all of those would be used and you know is it significant amount of time? Yes, I'll try to give a short answer.

Speaker 1:
There's a detailed transportation analysis uh separate than SQUA in the master plan that uh outlines peak times.

Speaker 2:
And so, especially near the fields, you're going to see after school hours and weekends is uh a lot of the heavy use near the fields cuz that's when kids are out of school um naturally. Uh and then on campus, it really will vary um because we do have like a multi-generational campus using Cubberly. So, we have adults, um older folks, child care. Um, so it'll fluctuate around campus more, but um, we did do the buildings by use type. So we'll you'll see the the peak times throughout the day vary, but I would say the short answer to the fields is going to be after school on weekends.

Speaker 3:
Um, so fire access. Yes. Has has it been considered and the fire department gotten into the discussion about that?

Speaker 4:
Yes.

Speaker 5:
Um, I think that that's it for me.

Speaker 6:
Any further questions from the ARB BTC then? Uh, clarifying questions.

Speaker 1:
Commissioner Templeton.

Speaker 2:
Thank you so much, Chair. Um, first of all, just I want to start off by saying thank you for this great presentation.

Speaker 3:
and it certainly shows that a lot of um attention and care has been put in here since the last time we saw it. I know you've been working diligently to to incorporate feedback. So, thank you. And I'd also like to say thank you to the ARB because it's been a joy to hear a completely different perspective, right?

Speaker 4:
It's very exciting and um just appreciate you and all the work you guys are doing. Um we're just doing clarifying questions. So, uh, I I hear the the the call for keeping it in scope. I do have a few clarifying questions. Um, and so I will just go through them. You feel free to be as brief as you like to be in terms of answering these. Um, first of all, you mentioned the pool is going to be 25 m.

Speaker 5:
Um, can you tell me why that was the choice instead of the standard most desirable 50 m by 25 yards? I believe that was just what we the feedback we got from our community meetings. Um I think is the this the short answer was just the request we got from stakeholders.

Speaker 6:
Can you be more specific? I mean was there somebody who does competition swimming that was included in that because I'm concerned that that would not be the choice of competition swimmers. Um I'll tell you this from my uh experience uh working with the competition swim teams in PaloAlto. we have to leave Palo Alto to find a pool that meets those requirements. So for any competitions that involve meters, we have to go over to Stanford or Foothill.

Speaker 1:
Um so we just don't have that um inside the city. It would be really nice if we're going to build a whole new facility to make sure that we're um meeting the both competition standards.

Speaker 2:
So if it's 50 m one way and 25 yards the other way, you could do both kinds of competitions there. Um so that's just a clarifying question. I'll move on. Um, when you uh I really appreciated the question about what does it mean to renovate? Um, I appreciate you going through the list. One thing you did not mention was floor flooring upgrades. Um, and I just want to clarify would flooring upgrades be part of it. The context for that question is for dance studios. We have many performing arts um, dance taekwondo and other kinds of things that currently rent at Cberly.

Speaker 3:
And there have been a lot of improvements in the last 50 years since those floors were put in in terms of safety that will improve the longevity of our dancers and our other um athletes that train there. So is there a chance that um renovations would include improving the flooring to modern standards?

Speaker 4:
Uh I feel confident it probably does.

Speaker 5:
That's not a comprehensive list. And so that's something we can really the question we're trying to refine here is what are we recommending to council and how fluid is that once it once it goes to council and council approves it. So you're saying that potentially the um finishings uh for the renovations whatever that might be can be determined after council moves forward. Is that right?

Speaker 6:
Yes. And then the spaces that have specialty flooring, we continue to work with them even if they get displaced to make sure they still have the things that they need to do their programs. So, we know some of them have like sprung floors and things like that.

Speaker 1:
You'd be amazed at the the amazing children we have um training in these studios and the things they've gone on to do. Um we need to just protect their longevity for um being able to continue to compete because we're seeing a lot of younger people get injuries, you know.

Speaker 2:
So, we just that's something I want to um and that goes to the other point when you were talking about I don't know if you can bring up a slide or if it's worth it, but um to your um mission, you had like a list of things you want to accomplish. Um, and uh, you've mentioned it out loud, but I don't think I remembered seeing um, comments in the the list of goals around safety um, and uh, um, sustainability and generally the word modernizing isn't included. Uh, and I was just wondering is that a are those goals that are just not included in the list or is that the kind of thing you'd want feedback on? and we can discuss it later like we don't have to get into it now but is that the kind of are you interested in feedback on this or is that just something you set with the community meetings?

Speaker 3:
Uh yeah that is definitely one of our goals. Um it just yeah didn't make it onto this slide. So um but that is something that we've been communicating in our um meetings as well as in our polling.

Speaker 4:
That's what I think and and it certainly came across in your presentation. And the reason I want to make sure um as I'm thinking ahead to the ballot measure um is to make sure that you're conveying some of that in writing because um this is a pretty big uphill battle. So that's my last question then about the ballot measure. Um we have had a few questions around this.

Speaker 5:
I apologize if you don't know just say it. But if you do know, can we get some clarity about whether the ballot measure um covers purchase only, purchase plus phase 1, purchase plus phase 1 through three, or is it something that's being approved for perpetuity, and then those other phases will come along when the money builds up enough for them?

Speaker 6:
Yeah, we don't know yet. We have poll four going out into the field, which will help inform that decision um because we don't know how much we'll be able to get yet from the ballot measure.

Speaker 1:
So poll four will be our final poll um that will inform the placement of the ballot measure. But we don't we don't know what kind of thing we're going to be asking for in terms of if it's perpetual um funding or if it has a finite date involved.

Speaker 2:
So no, so those details are still up in the air. The council hasn't approved either way. Um, so I think the poll, um, I think council will discuss this those very some of those very details at their next full council meeting on in and toward end of April.

Speaker 3:
Thank you. Um so just to put this in context and why I'm asking is um we have to understand what you're expecting us to forward to council because we have no scoping at all whatsoever on you have phases but we don't know if this phase is going to be ti there's an implication in the presentation this phase through phase one purchase through phase one at least will be what we're recommending to forward to council because that's what they're going to ask for at least funding for. Is that what you're asking us to We We need to know what is the scope of what we're forwarding to council.

Speaker 4:
I I I'm just going to jump in with a a reminder that the funding is actually coming from multiple sources. And so, um I think the the goal that's being discussed is to find funding to be able to do phase one. So completely abstract funding from whether what we're recommending. So what we're doing in parallel here is consideration of a ballot measure to provide funding, negotiating um opportunities for funding through other sources and developing a master plan so that we've got a longer term vision for what Cberly will be because having that master plan will assist in things like requesting future grants um to fund it moving forward. But the goal is to be able to do phase one through those combinations of funding.

Speaker 5:
So really to rephrase, you want us to abstract the funding. You guys will figure that out, but we want to at least have a vision through phase one that we forward to council.

Speaker 6:
We would like this uh to be a vision through phase three, but recognizing that the immediate improvements would be phase one with an asterisk that two and three may be imaginary.

Speaker 1:
Correct. Okay. and that the funding is something that council will be deciding on. Okay, I All right, we have a scope.

Commissioner Templeton:
I will leave it at that. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
Thank you, Commissioner Templeton. Um, quick interruption. Vice Chair Chang, did you can I just follow up along that line since we're on that topic? So, as to what we're recommending to council, when we recommend a master plan, is it just sort of the blocks on the paper or does it include the phasing?

Speaker 4:
Like does the master like what exactly are we recommending when we recommend a master plan? Are we saying that and we agree that it should be done in this order and this is the delineation at each phase as documented in the presentation?

Speaker 5:
What we're requesting is that you make a recommendation to council on the master plan document which there is phasing included in there but I'll give the example the phase one which includes a recreation wellness center. if we have our partner friends of the recreation wellness center who can immediately or close to immediately build perhaps a portion of that immediately we would want to take advantage of that. So, um, the phasing will have to be fluid as our funding is secured throughout the project, as we get more partner organizations who might be interested in um, contributing funding as impact fees um, you know, come in and help. So, we're really asking for recommendation on the master plan, but also the SQA analysis. and we did the full sequel analysis of the whole master plan so that we're ready to move forward with the project. We could do near-term improvements, but if we're able to get as, you know, through a certain phase, we already have the sequent documentation done.

Speaker 6:
Okay. So, that makes sense that the phases themselves both in terms of timing and the boundaries of the phases may be sort of fluid. Is that what you're saying? Okay, great. Then then related to that then what is not as fluid in a master plan with respect to a bond measure or taxes or so like what of what is in the master plan document is not fluid because I want to understand that we you know if we're if we're signing off or recommend recommending something specifically what is sort of immovable after after we recommend it?

Speaker 1:
um the maximum size that it is. So, we wouldn't, you know, we're basing our analysis on a certain number of square footage, an increase in square footage, expected increase in visitors to the site at different times of day. So, we wouldn't um our limit would be to not exceed what we've included.

Speaker 2:
Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner Dr. Peterson. Any clarifying questions?

Speaker 3:
Yes. Thank you, chair. So, being the sustainability engineer, I have some sustainability questions. Um, one of the the first questions is, is the is the project intended to be um net zero or anything like that? If you're familiar with the term, I am unsure if it reaches full net zero.

Speaker 4:
I'm pulling up our appendices where we do have um a section on the building systems and all of the factors that they use to mitigate uh impact. Um I'm not sure if you reviewed that part of it. Um the the different strategies that they're going to use. Um but I I don't remember reviewing that we ever get to net zero.

Speaker 5:
Um, so the city has adopted various policies and procedures just to, you know, mitigate impact, but I I feel confident saying I don't remember us getting to net zero.

Speaker 6:
Okay. And is that something that we would want to recommend to council?

Speaker 1:
Is that within our purview or is that something that they would handle separately?

Speaker 2:
I'll jump in and and say that that kind of detail is likely something that would be part of the review of when we actually have the building designs. Um and so I think you know sharing that once you've got we're to the comment period um as a you know a thought to be considered in the future is great. It of course would need to be one of the things that's balanced with costs and other priorities.

Speaker 3:
Right. So then the the next question of course is is the project carbon neutral or is that even a is that an intention to try to have a carbon neutral master plan?

Speaker 4:
I'll start but feel free to add. I I think in general as aligned with our sustainability plan, we do strive to do the best we can within certain limitations. In a case like this where we are reusing existing buildings, that has benefits um and drawbacks in terms of being able to reach some of those high standards.

Speaker 5:
Thank you. And then the next question is um the last time this came around I had asked about um the walkability to the local transit. There's a Cal Train station. I didn't see anything about uh walking access to the site in the master plan.

Speaker 6:
I'm going to jump in again but feel free to add. Um, I think that actually connects more with uh in terms of connections to the Cal Train station with the work that you'll be discussing um at your next meeting with the San Antonio Road area plan. We are having close conversations with the staff uh who work on both of these efforts, seeing as how this is going to be a a huge asset to those future residents and the uh mobility improvements that are part of that plane plan will be a huge asset to those who are coming at least from from that side of town into the Coverly community. you anticipated. My next question was, "How are you coordinating with the the master plan for the San Antonio uh corridor?" Um, I'm guessing that's the answer to that question.

Speaker 1:
We we've got staff it cross uh discussions between the two.

Speaker 2:
And then Commissioner uh Templeton brought up the swimming pool. I don't know if you knew Foothill College, I don't know how many meetings they spent just on the swimming pool alone. And I think when I last paid attention, they were at over $30 million for a swimming pool. Um, is the swimming pool, is there any specification in there if the pool will be um gas heated, electric heated, heated by heat pumps? There's just a huge And then the heat pumps generate immense amounts of noise apparently.

Speaker 3:
Uh I don't believe we got to that level of detail in this plan. I know the city does have um uh plans right now to electrify uh cuz that's something we're talking about at our other pool. So I would imagine a similar conversation would happen. Um I don't know if you have either of you have any more to add, but I think that is the strategy of the city currently.

Speaker 4:
Okay.

Speaker 5:
I haven't heard about the noise though, so thanks for at one point it became out they weren't going to able the pool would never heat up with the with the energy efficient heating system like in the lifetime of anybody in the room. there were there were just weird scenarios with energy efficient pools that they spent endless amount of time working on. So I just wanted to as soon as we're looking at a actual competition pool which is in high demand, there were some really big questions that came in with that and some of the local I'll leave it there. Um the last question I have is uh going back to the questions with the uh the traffic plan.

Speaker 6:
I didn't see anything with the simulation showing that say you have two um theater events with say 500 participants that there's the egress from say the freeway or wherever people are coming from most likely to be able to get into that site and back out without creating an absolute gridlock.

Speaker 1:
Yeah, I don't think we have any modeling in the master plan. We did discuss it when we were doing the transportation analysis and that sometimes for large events like that or well one first just strategic scheduling that we don't have some sort of massive soccer tournament in a theater something happening at the same time. Uh but we also might need to look at off-site parking options too and either doing shuttling or busing is something that we talked about um for nearby locations um and maybe some other mitigation techniques for large events.

Speaker 2:
That's uh you know something we'll note for future um to have some strategic planning around.

Commissioner Peterson:
Okay. I'll leave any questions on parking um to one of the other commissioners because that's that ends up being an entirely detailed question by itself is off-site parking shuttling and credits and things like that for reduced parking use. Thank you. That's all I have.

Speaker 4:
Thank you, Commissioner Peterson. I'll strongly recommend for anyone who hasn't had a look at the appendices for the master plan to do so. Um they are very much worthwhile and uh as I'll talk about later the transportation analysis for the uh initial study is also good.

Speaker 5:
Chang you have any further clarifying questions?

Speaker 6:
Um, so related to the pool, because I agree with sort of the gist of what Commissioner Templeton was bringing up, is the pool size something that is set for the master plan or that's flexible. Okay, great.

Speaker 1:
Um then I guess my question about funding is and also sort of the phasing that's related to it is what if we don't raise enough money to complete all of phase one? Um are the different pieces of it then meant to be sort of modular and functional?

Speaker 2:
you know, like if with the 1.1 de um demolition and the 1.2 construction. So maybe we only have enough for that or only enough for the 1.3 and 1.4.

Speaker 3:
Yes, we could do that.

Speaker 4:
Okay. Um also just I wanted to clarify my understanding to make sure that the we are essentially relying on leased land from PAUSD for the parking counts that we have.

Speaker 5:
Correct. Some of them. Yes.

Speaker 6:
Okay. And have we verified with PAUSD that like what happens if PA USD ch changes its plans in the future? And like I I I heard loud and clear that we're not going to build any structures on that. But then what does that do to us?

Speaker 1:
So, um, we have considered that we've been working closely with the school district on just ensuring, you know, as we're continuing this project. So, if we were at a point where they decided they wanted that parking area for to build a school or something, I don't know. Um, we would have to look for alternate parking. I mean, we'd have to shift our our gears a little bit and kind of reassess our parking situation.

Speaker 2:
Yeah. Okay. Um then also can you pull up your slide that shows sort of the different phases and the um the number of spaces for each phase because I'm trying to figure out where the additional spaces come from because when I look at the I think it's just me not understanding the plans um because when I look at phase two I didn't see any construction of additional parking and same thing for phase three. So if you could just explain that a little bit, that would be helpful.

Speaker 3:
Underground. Okay. Yeah, that's what I thought. So that's underground.

Speaker 4:
That's also why it's so so expensive to do phase two and phase three because it's not just the above ground structures. Correct. It's a lot of it contributes to the cost. Yeah. The overwhelming feedback when we kind of sourced around the above ground parking structure was pretty overwhelmingly no one liked that idea. So Okay. Um, and then, um, with respect to the outdoor amphitheater, can you just help me orient to the size of what that would be relative to say the bowl at Mitchell Park and the um, like children's theater hot dog some like how big is that little tri? It's a triangle also, right? That that is maybe we should pull that up because when it was labeled as the outdoor amphitheater, it was one of the 3D pictures rather than the above ground. So, I think the parking pictures with circulation actually show a pretty good bird's eye view of what that would be.

Speaker 5:
Yes. If we could go to slide seven, I think that gives a good aerial view. Um, so on this slide here, the amphitheater would be tucked in. So, kind of in the middle of your screen is the the brown square, which is the eye building. So the amphitheater is kind of where there's like two green bushes um that are a little bit darker green.

Speaker 6:
So it's it can be configured around either side of the eyebuilding. And so that's why we kind of intentionally have that curved walkway right now so folks can lay down their chairs and blankets and we could have quite a bit of uh green space um and then power can be drawn from the eyebuilding um and we can set up a stage in that area. Um, one of our initial plans had it maybe bowling like uh the bowl at Mitchell Park, but then we wanted it to be something that when there wasn't an event going on um it could be flat and used for a variety of other purposes. So that's why it eventually became flat space. So then it could become really multi-purpose and and then size-wise, how does it like I'm just trying to So the area um or the green area that would be the amphitheater and then all the way up to the sort of upper left where there's that circle. Um all of the green area enclosed in the buildings is about 2 acres. But how does that again like this is what I I had a hard time with the last time you guys were here. I don't know what that's like really large right compared to the say the circle the little depressed amphitheater at Mitchell Park. So this is you know for me and anybody else who has trouble figuring out the relative size of things. Could you give me a sense of that? Maybe I need to look at an aerial view of Google. Yeah, I don't Yeah, I don't have Oh, go ahead. Care or Commissioner Templeton.

Speaker 1:
Assuming that that pool is 25 meters, it looks like it's a little bit smaller than a football field. Okay.

Speaker 2:
This grass, just if you look, you can stack three. Okay. Thank you. That's super helpful. That's it for me now.

Speaker 3:
Thank you, Vice Chair Commissioner.

Speaker 4:
I I have a couple questions, but I'm really anxious to hear from the public, so I'm just going to hold them until after that.

Speaker 5:
I will also hold my substantive comments until after public comment. I have only one clarification request which is for the document. Uh when you illustrate uh phase one complete the sub projects are all identified by number but at that point in the document the numbers have not been explained. So, it might be a good idea to put a reference to pages 56 and 57 as a footnote so that people know where those things are explained.

Speaker 6:
All right, then. Um, Mr. Toeta, how many requests to speak do we have?

Speaker 1:
Um, through the chair, I've received one request to speak at the moment, but I would like to invite if there's anyone on Zoom that would like to speak to this item to raise your hand.

Speaker 2:
Um, with that being said, I would like to invite uh Penny E to the mic.

Penny Olsen:
Good evening. Um, my name is Penny Olsen and um, some of you have seen me up here before for Payback or Safe Roots to School or Green Meadow Community Association or Sarah Kagg. Um, tonight I'm just speaking as an individual. um but informed by all of those experiences. Um so I'm delighted to see continued project pro progress on coverly um which will be um increasingly important to our community as a community hub as the city plans for somewhere between 3,800 and 7,400 new units in the Sarap area. This is going to be an important place um for South Peloto and all of Peloto.

Speaker 4:
Um I have just one comment and request.

Speaker 5:
I really appreciated all your comments this evening and I've been checking things off. So um the bike ped facilities on the north and south boundaries of the property are unclear and I just want to ask staff to please clarify what we can expect to see um in these areas. They've basically said that we'll be able to continue to use the fire lanes and that they'll be protected from all motor vehicles except emergency vehicles up to the end of the fire lane.

Speaker 6:
But what's not clear in the plans is what happens after that. right now. Um there people use kids um connect into Cubberly from the north and south ends using those fire lanes and people also go to Charleston shopping center. This is an afterchool commute route. Kids go over there and they get snacks and stuff like that and we kind of prefer they do it that way rather than going through the parking lots, right? Um, so that is an important connection for student safety after school. Um, so we need to know that I'm looking at this new roundabout there and what I see is a a wonderful focus on motor vehicles, but I don't really see a good strong protected connection for kids and for anybody on bicycles and on foot. So, I would love to hear from staff um what they plan to offer in phase one, not later on, but phase one because this is an existing important bicycle pedestrian connection, both ends of the playing fields. So, it needs to go from Nelson Drive all the way to Middlefield. Um and with there's an opening to the Charleston Shopping Center there for those of you who might not be familiar. And then on the other side of campus, it connects to Greenell, but also it takes people all the way to the Montrose Middlefield intersection, which is a wonderful route to Aloney Elementary School for kids who live in our neighborhood and probably some kids, you know, who might be um going into Coverly, the other way, right, from Sarah uh in in the future and from the neighborhoods over there.

Speaker 1:
So, I guess that's my primary question is what can we expect to see in phase one for bikes and peds? And I appreciated um I think it was uh Commissioner Aken who uh made the remark about the the central bike facility not connecting all the way through. Who was that? Oh, I'm sorry. Uh Commissioner Hirs said that. Anyway, thank you for that comment and I'd love to hear a little more about what's going to happen in phase one with that.

Speaker 2:
Thank you very much, Miss Alson. Do we have any other commenters? Uh the chair, we have not received any other requests to speak at this time. And I do want to apologize. Um it looks like our clock, our technology is not working today.

Speaker 3:
No matter. I wanted to make sure everyone had plenty of time to be heard anyway. So, uh not an issue.

Speaker 4:
All right. Uh if that concludes uh public comment, then I would like it like to bring it back to uh the ARB for the first round of discussion. Chair Chen, excuse me. Um pardon me, Commissioner Templeton.

Speaker 5:
Um did did we haven't heard from Commissioner Hecman yet, so I just wanted to remind you of that.

Speaker 6:
U Thank you, uh Commissioner. This No, this is working fine. So, as as you suggested, chair, let's proceed.

Georgia:
All right. Um, I don't want to be uh too hard-nosed about this. We can revise order when it makes sense. So, please don't please feel free to bring up uh interruptions if needed.

Speaker 2:
I just misunderstood. I thought he said he wanted to wait until after public comment for his remarks, and I thought you agreed to it. Thank you, Georgia.

Speaker 3:
Sure. So, board member Georgess, you want to say something? Yeah. Um just um question to the to the board before we start this next session. Should we um set a a rule to limit everybody's time to a certain amount of minutes? We have tried this with the ARB once and I think that went really well and now there are so many people maybe that's a good idea would be a good idea maybe with exception for the two board members who have not had a chance to speak yet.

Speaker 4:
Um I will take the risk of speaking for the PTC. We typically do not place limits on commissioner comment time. Um if things do get out of hand then we can request um that comments be suspended and then come back around on the next round. But typically we haven't haven't found it necessary to place limits.

Speaker 5:
Yeah. Thank thank you for thinking about it to using our time efficiently. But I think for the first round, we can just open it up and see if we need it for the second round. So for the first round comments, so we will just start from the right. If board member Hirs, if you're ready to comment.

Speaker 6:
Um, not really, but I'll give it a try.

Speaker 1:
Um, Miss Ellson, yes. uh the original uh master planners had in mind that there would be some definite cross through to the shopping center and uh I just bring it up because uh I think the design team has done a very very good job here and uh it's quite quite an improvement from where we were when we were doing these study groups in the uh beginning of this project. um with a community that is you know you know I really don't I don't have anything major to say about the project at this point I I guess my biggest concern is that proximity somehow is an issue for me one is that the the junior the the younger school age children ought to be considered relative to the drop off very carefully because I know that you know the they're scattered in the site right now.

Speaker 2:
So I'm I'm concerned because I I really don't recall exactly are they on the perimeter of of the or the preschool is that pretty much the perimeter of the site. Uh, one of the main child care is right off Middlefield um now and so a lot of the parents will either park parallel on Middlefield. There's uh street parking um or pull into the lots and walk the kids in.

Speaker 3:
Okay. So, you know, that's that's a kind of an issue. It's an issue now because all of the parking is on the opposite side and they have a long way to go down that passage. And uh so my thought is that that uh really that's a priority for closeness to the parking and a possible drop off for them on the site as well. I I would say that's something to be considered is which what what aspects of the project here ought uh ought to have proximity. Uh and I think that that would be the prime one to consider. the older kids in the dance studios etc. they can certainly um walk the they're capable of dancing.

Speaker 4:
I think they're capable of walking any distance within the site. Um I want to advise you about um basketball uh tennis andor pickle ball. Pickle ball by the way is very noisy. I I'm a member of the pickle board.

Speaker 5:
And so I'm concerned about about that.

Speaker 6:
You know, if you have pickle ball, also the tennis courts are as presently laid out in an east west direction rather than a north south and that's not an appropriate direction for tennis tennis play. I'm sure you get into that eventually. You know, it's diagrammatic at this at this stage. Um I I almost wonder if you're you have the capacity for uh the parking on the raised level. I mean under the raised level whether or not it's necessary to do that and also whether you would consider the kind of end of the baseball fields as a place where you could re relocate.

Speaker 1:
I know you're trying to pack all of the all of the athletic in one area, but to push it put it in a structure like that in the first place, it's going to be a relatively expensive structure, additional structure to have the raised uh tennis, pickle ball, whatever it is.

Speaker 2:
And uh the end of the playground, present playground, is a kind of a waste. Uh, and I wonder if it would be possible to consider that. So, I'm just putting it out there.

Speaker 3:
Um, I I think that the scheme is a is a terrific scheme, you know. Uh, I think it it really has a an arrangement into the center of the space that's really quite quite nice.

Speaker 4:
I wonder if the the um smaller building that's kind of the square building within the site which is planned for I don't know what exactly there but it's part of the Could you describe that what what that is then again?

Speaker 5:
Um do you know what I Yeah. Is it the eye building in the middle of campus? the the brown one, the existing building, the sort of the square building.

Speaker 6:
Yep. So, the eyebuilding um and we can pull up a slide if we need to. So, currently it's uh uh used by PAUSD. So, it'd be something that they would vacate when um hopefully we purchase the property. Um and so we would use it as one of our education or flex buildings that could be uh tenants um or used by rentals or programs. Um so, it would be one that we would plan to renovate.

Speaker 1:
Mhm. So it just seems to me that that the outer space is kind of stretched around the perimeter of that and the point of the that structure sort of faces out toward one of the corners faces out towards the open space and I I wonder if it wouldn't be possible just to consider that part of the open space because it would relative to what some other people were saying here is the the perimeter of the of the passage and the shape of it is kind of focused on that corner. And if it wasn't there, you'd have a much better open space with a possible stage, etc. There would be that would that would make the the space a better space in the middle.

Speaker 2:
Understood. I think I'll offer just one context uh back was to save costs. We tried to uh renovate the buildings we could and that one was found to be something that was substantial that could be renovated uh structurally uh and that's why it was considered to be saved.

Speaker 3:
Okay. Um again an idea to consider to improve the open space might might be uh you know that the community was very concerned about having a lot of green space and that would really make it a more major space within the middle. So like it I'd like that to be considered you know along the way. Um these are sort of my specific thoughts about it. I think that again faux if it's if it is moved and and relocated as you're planning then uh the circulation around that area would be improved as well. If you ever have tried to make it through the passageway that goes around the building there, the pavilion building, it's a torture scene, you know. So, you'll hope your traffic engineers look closely at the way you make that connection around to the parking lot. Uh that's that's it for the moment. You know, it's really going to be a nice scheme. And of course, I think the way in which you integrate all of the buildings as as a kind of a design effort is going we look forward to seeing what you come up with from that.

Speaker 4:
to Thank you, board member Hirs. Board member Joe, thank you. Um, I have a few uh few comments. Um, first of all, um, in no particular order, um, I think it would be nice to make a cafeteria, uh, more, uh, central.

Speaker 5:
I think right now it's kind of stuck uh you know stuck behind you know several other buildings. So you know if we are thinking about you know kids going to the shopping center for snacks or kids are you know finishing their dance class or you know people coming from the theater from an afternoon performance etc. I think a cafeteria more in a central location would be more um more accessible and findable.

Speaker 6:
So I I I know these plants are um kind of visionary, but I think that would be my my feedback is uh you know, if you're trying to build a community like from a planning or architectural standpoint, I think it would be good to bring these kinds of common spaces where people tend to gravitate more to a more central location.

Speaker 1:
Then um I noticed that uh the to drive uh you the that circle circular route goes through the parking lot. So I'm not 100% sure that's uh you know perfect solution. I I know it you know it kind of looks good on the plan and it helps you organize the space. Um but you know I just imagine uh you know hundreds of cars uh potentially thousands of cars you know every day if if there's a big if there's a a performance like driving through that parking lot. Um um I think that's just just doesn't feel this just doesn't feel right. you know, there will also be a lot of um, you know, human traffic in that parking lot, you know, people getting to their cars, etc. Um, I think I'm I'm I just put it out there uh that I think that's not an ideal solution.

Speaker 2:
Also, um, the tennis court is on top of this uh, parking structure. So I just have in my mind the tennis courts in in um Sato um you know with their tall fencing you know around it's it's it's kind of an eyesore I mean it is an eyesore and I'm you know worried about the residents on Nelson you know drive the you know part of the community center is close to middlefield has huge uh trees But that backside, you know, doesn't.

Speaker 3:
So, and that fencing will be exposed and the noise, you know, will be will carry even further because of the height.

Speaker 4:
Um, so I think um, you know, considering an under, you know, ground garage in that area would would would help would also increase uh, the cost. Um, like I'm not sure whether there's a reasonable way of putting landscape screening because it's going to be so extremely tall from day one.

Speaker 5:
Like for an oak tree to grow tall enough to screen it would take 10, 20, 30 years. Um I um I hear you in a fourth comment is about the parking like I hear about the parking study.

Speaker 6:
Like those on the ARB know that um I'm not always trusting these parking studies. Like I'm uh just really concerned about you know 500 seat you know event.

Speaker 1:
Um, in addition to everything else that's going on in the in the center, uh, tennis, there's a swimming pool, you know, there there's, you know, Saturday afternoon, you know, there might be not even a swim meet, but just regular um, you know, training session. It's just uh, you know, it just needs a lot of parking.

Speaker 2:
Um and in phase one you know you you are adding some amount of parking to the existing but it's it's uh it's quite small.

Speaker 3:
So you know if the amount of parking we have is is adequate today you know once you have a swimming pool and 500 you know seats you know uh theater it's not going to be enough.

Speaker 4:
Um a fifth comment is about the swimming pool. Yes, I I think there should be attention to the to the sizing and and uh you know the heating you know of that. I'm I'm also uh you know member in in in Rinkona pool have been for many years and um um I understand there's a is a a need for a swimming pool but um uh you know with with uh you know working with with the community the swimming community I think it would need to be really thought through what the correct sizing what are the requirements for you know dressing rooms and things like that. Um because I also think that the space that is allocated to some of these uh ancillary tanks you know next to the swimming pool at least on the you know on this plan that I see is not very large.

Speaker 5:
Um so I'm just thinking now of the new pool in in Mountain View. there's a huge building next to that that pool and it's it's it's almost 100% utilized. So like I don't see that here. So are we building a pool that nobody will be able to use because the dressing rooms are inequality or there are no meeting rooms or storage rooms for pasta or you know things like that.

Speaker 6:
Uh, number six, um, I'm not sure whether this is within the purview of the ARB, but I think remodeling existing, you know, buildings that are planned for later deconstruction.

Speaker 1:
um you know could be a good idea if it's a cosmetic thing like you just repaint or something but you enumerated so many very significant improvements such as structural HA uh earthquake retrofitting roofing envelope windows I mean almost feels like you're building a new building um I'm not sure whether that's the right decision from a taxpayer standpoint But um that's just a comment. And then um like number eight I think you know related to the general concern that many people you know uh here have is about the what are we what are we recommending to be approved.

Speaker 2:
Um, I think the long-term lease for that parking space is really critical because, um, you know, that that that lease is kind of like a demo class word hanging over this, uh, this project. So I'm not sure you anybody can recommend this project if a year from now, two years from some amount of years from now, even 5 years or 10 years from now, we lose that parking uh parking space. So I think part of the recommendation should be some kind of a requirement for a long-term lease. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
All right. Thank you so much. Uh I will just keep down the road and um I I think this overall the master plan is quite successful and I like the diagonal concept and I think overall the the the circulation got lots of improvements compared to what we saw last time. And there are a couple of uh comments I'd like to make. One is to echo what PTC vice chair just mentioned uh about the priority like if we don't have enough funding for phase even for phase one then maybe we we should have a priority list on which one is to go first and which one goes last and also um I think uh since phase two and phase three would be really down the road like it's it will not be completed in the near future. So I think uh architecturally um we should have the new construction part and the renovation part have some dialogue conversation between these two parts so that it may it could it could be more architecturally and programming more uh cohesive instead of like two separate projects.

Speaker 4:
And um also for the circulation I think u we already talked about the vehicular uh for the for the end users and also touch base a little bit on the bicycle and and the pedestrian circulation. But I think there are also a quite bit uh a lot we need to do with the service and daily maintenance like and also like the the back house services because we have the kitchen here. We have all those pool facilities and also the gym. So those how to maintain it and where is the service road and also um to uh the concern that board member George just mentioned about like the to have the fire access across the parking garage.

Speaker 5:
Maybe I'm not sure whether we can utilize the alleyway between the tenants court the garage and the gym. It seems like there is the the alleyway there.

Speaker 6:
Maybe we could make it wider and make it as the higher access or or also service corridor there. And um for the Yeah.

Speaker 1:
Uh I also have some concern on the construction cost of the renovation but I think you have already analyzes each of the existing building and run the numbers and feel it makes sense to do all those adjustment and keep it as this instead of tear down and build the new ones. So, I think overall it's it's quite nice and I just hope that the new and the old ones can have some dialogues between it. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
Yeah, thank you for um a very thoughtful master plan, but I'm really disheartened about the later phases because I see that it's a complete master plan with all phases, but it looks like a plan waiting for the future if you just look at phase one, right? Your diagonal um prominade kind of chops off randomly, right? at the end of phase one at the end of existing buildings. Um so I also have questions about you know the priority and pro like what part of this program that's just looking at phase one for instance what part of um that like it seems like there are sub phases within phase one right and it's both and there's several factors to it priority funding need per you know community needs.

Speaker 3:
So I almost like I'm trying to picture a matrix of let's just say um the um education and enrichment portion um which I understand it's part of existing program that would get relocated but what is the funding source that makes that possible?

Speaker 4:
because it it seems like things that are communitywise higher priority may have less funding source kind depending on where it's coming from. Like with theater works uh partnership, I'm hopeful that the theater portions of this will get done more likely than some of the higher community priority but less likely to be get funded kind of pieces. So I worry about the the kit of parts of this master plan being done in any kind of sequence that pairs up with you know the even your phasing in the master plan e even within phase one. Um so I am more confused than I was you know yesterday or day before reading the master plan knowing that the full it's really not a full master plan. It's a full dream and phase one is likely in the near term. But if that's I also worry about even is phase one going to happen, right? And so it goes back to your question earlier about what are we approve what are we recommending for approval. So I would like some clarity on um more clarity on like what part of this master plan are we you know in written words approving? Is it the square footage of phase one construction and renovation?

Speaker 5:
There's about 50,000 square ft of just renovation in phase one. Right. In today's dollars, it's somewhere uh based on my experience, if with seismic upgrades, it's almost like $800 a square foot or more. So that's I don't know like what is it $50 million that is going into renovation, right, in in phase one as part of funding. Don't quote me on number. I'm not a cost estimator. Um but so I worry about you know those are critical things that needs to happen as far as um you know all of like uh what you're putting in the existing buildings and so like in a jigsaw puzzle which part of these are likely to get funded in phase 1 A 1 B 1 C and how does all of that fall into place and I worry that because phase two and three seems quite unlikely.

Speaker 6:
Is this a master plan that we're approving with um really the completion of phase one kind of leaves loose ends and more in the granular portion in phase one where you're um sorry I'm looking at um the existing buildings that are um like between A and A and B stay and C and get partially cut off. Right. So, um, yeah. Could you Sorry, I'm just looking at my screen, but it would be good for everybody to look at. It's page nine of the master plan.

Speaker 1:
Yep. So on the um deconstruction image on the lower left um the red dotted line shows A and B but and then next to that where the dotted line uh zigzags C and I think D as well gets partially cut off. So that's partial demolition of a building which can also come with you know mandatory seismic upgrades all kinds of things that can come with it.

Speaker 2:
So I just worry that these demolitions might be more trouble than it's worth or sorry partial demolitions and renovations are are going to come with a lot of baggage that has not quite been thought through it feels like in this master plan. So again back to my comment of like I want to understand as a group what are we recommending for approval and I want to have real clarity on this is the part of master plan as we understand it that we're recommending for approval.

Speaker 3:
That makes sense through the chairs. if I may jump in and just try and provide um a little bit of context that hopefully helps um for those future discussions and then once we get to a recommendation and invite my colleagues to add as well. Um I think this is one of the difficulties when we are looking at a conceptual master plan or an area plan where we don't have the precise design of the buildings or a guarantee of funding because having this master plan helps us get more funding, right? It's a chicken and egg kind of thing. And so my recommendation would be to thinking be thinking of it as this is our vision for what this community center can be and having that vision is a really important part of making it actually come to fruition eventually.

Speaker 4:
As staff, we have tried to have some realistic expectations based on the history of this project. We want to help the city move forward with really highly needed improvements in a way that is realistic based on kind of what we're hearing about potential funding in a way that could get some things in the near term as we work towards the final vision. And so I think the final vision is really important and that should be really what you are recommending. You're saying this is what we want Cubard coverly to look like with a recognition that the exact layout you know the size of the pool. There are things like that that can be adjusted as we get into those details. But the total size, the main components of the layout, the general kind of s site circulation, those are the kinds of things that if they changed, we'd have to relook at the squa review. And so those are the the components that were future designs would align with.

Speaker 5:
And then the idea of this phasing allows us to do some of the improvements, move some components forward as we work for the funding of the other components. and acknowledging that and sharing the input that you have shared already tonight about the concerns and the things that you think are important to make sure that those buildings are seismically safe, that the flooring is appropriate for the uses, that we have appropriate access for um children coming to the schools that are on site. Though I will note that we actually have a wonderful 50% um mode share for for bikes and pedestrians to our schools um in PaloAlto and so a lot of those kids are going to be coming uh without adding more cars to the road. So I hope that that framing helps you understand yeah we we aren't getting into the details. We can't say exactly which components, but hearing from you the things that are the biggest concerns and the biggest priorities helps us continue to refine this and then develop those plans as we know what funding is available.

Speaker 6:
Board member Ros, good evening. Um, first of all, I want to thank all my fellow board members. uh bring up the tail end here. It's always a little double-edged sword here. Um I'd like to reiterate that I agree with primarily pretty much everything that my fellow board members have said. Um I'm going to try and keep my comments sort of focused on items that either haven't been covered or items that I think need minor amendments. um in in my mind um first of all also to the to the city staff uh this is a big undertaking and it's definitely one of those projects that we as architects we love to get lost in the details and it's tough at a project like this when we are you know the chicken and the egg you've got to get the funding to know the scope but you have to know the scope to get the funding so it's a little bit of that and keeping that in mind I just want to say hats off to you guys you have done a very thorough presentation appreciate the public outreach this is I mean coverly gem in this city and it can be so much more than what it is right now. So, I'm really looking forward to having this developed into something that's much more useful um much more community oriented and really just re-imbracing Cubly in a way that maybe it once was back in the 70s and ' 80s when I was a kid, but it has sort of not been in more recent years. So, I'm really looking forward to seeing this moving forward.

Speaker 1:
So, with that big picture in mind, um I'm going to focus my comments there. Um I feel like also in one of the earlier iterations we did have more pedestrian analysis um when you guys actually came towards ARB we had really clear graphics of pedestrian pathing and bike pathing and things like that that I do feel were somewhat missed and so we had some public comment on that and I do want to reiterate how critically important that is especially for the kids. Um I didn't feel necessary to comment on it because I remember that we had talked about it previously and it was of high importance in previous conversations. So, just to really bump that back up to the top of the list. Um, I like the idea of the com competition size swimming pool. I think the fact that people in Palo Alto have to leave Palo Alto to go find something is ridiculous. Um, on the same token, it'd be nice if there was a small pool for kids to splash around in. So, you know, there's all these wishes that people want and those have to be balanced with what we can afford with what's actually the priority of what's needed. Um, and I think that unfortunately that is one of those quote unquote details, right? While it is a major element of this site and while it is a major part of the planning, it is unfortunately a detail that will have to get sort of developed as we find out what the budget is, as we find out, you know, taking this one step at a time.

Speaker 2:
But understanding that having that be a goal would be great, right? Marking that as something that would be good to have and would be good to strive towards and not just letting it go by the wayside.

Speaker 3:
um just because oh we can't afford it let's cut it from the list right that's actually something that's of a priority um I also want to touch on the this is sort of a trickier one with the the concept that um board member Joe had mentioned with the traffic mitigation parking mitigation having multiple events slated at the same time this tends to be an operations issue um and it's something that I just don't know how to factor that into our recommendations to council other than to say that you know having some planning and making There's not a Theater Works performance of Hamilton and a soccer game that's going to be, you know, the end- all beall of whatever that regional tournament is and a swimming competition at the same time.

Speaker 4:
That would be problematic. So, understanding that the operations of this facility will need to be well managed for the duration of it. But in um big picture, I think it's great. I think you guys are really taking steps in the right direction. Um yes, there are concerns. Yes, there are steps that need to be sort of finessed as we get down the road, but it is a difficult thing to take this one step at a time.

Speaker 5:
Um, and that's what we have to do with a project this big. So, thank you very much. And to my fellow board members, thank you for your comments and the commissioners, thank you as well.

Speaker 6:
Anything else from the ARB before we begin uh the detail comment round from PTC? I think it's an appropriate time to take a break.

Speaker 1:
So, uh, it is currently 8:17 by my watch. Shall we return at 8:30?

Speaker 2:
No, I Welcome back everyone. We're ready to resume. Uh we will begin with uh PTC comments and questions. And I would like to begin with Commissioner Hecman.

Speaker 3:
Thank thank you chair. I am up uh so let me start with a my questions which are uh really uh brief just helping me understand the u the leasing arrangements. So I read in the staff report that most of the 27 acres that uh the city doesn't own are being leased from the school district. Um I heard reference uh in the staff report that um school district is using building I right now and I'm wondering what other what other parts of Cberly aren't we either owning or leasing currently.

Speaker 4:
So the 27 acres that we refer to is owned by the school district right and we lease some of that space. We used to lease all of it and the lease has been reduced. Um it was reduced during CO. So the school district um occupies the I building and the A and B um long buildings wings I guess um and the C building.

Speaker 5:
I'm trying to find the image here. Um and then they also have the auditorium which is they lease that to a tenant of their own. Um and then there's some other smaller buildings or rooms attached to buildings that they also have part of their lease.

Speaker 6:
Okay. All right. And then the vision here that city would uh buy the seven to add to their eight lease some part of the remaining um acreage including some parking as the tenant there. We we can, you know, we can improve access ways and and put on new asphalt if we want, right? And make sure that that um what we're leasing, we can improve that even though we're not going to we don't want to build structures on land we're leasing to a degree. So, some of the plan evaluated like restriping maybe the parking lots, but yeah, you're right. we won't be able to construct or do construction, but we did say like, oh, you know, it might be nice to to um restripe the parking lots once we take over the lease. Um but yeah, re putting down new asphalt, we'd probably have to discuss that. I I don't know if they'd be opposed to it, but we could like put down new lines. Um but no construction.

Speaker 1:
Okay. All right. Um so those were my questions. So, I want to really start by thanking all of the members of the PaloAlto community who, you know, have have provided input to staff through numerous community meetings um uh over a period of years now. uh and to staff for sort of taking that input and along with the consultants taking the direction from the council, input from the board and PTC here tonight and from the PRC and melding all of that into what I think is a a a wonderful visionary document. Um I'm I u I'm excited by the prospect of this conceptual uh master plan. Um, as I was uh studying it in anticipation of this, I I got a little stuck on um a qu um the question that uh Vice Chair Chang ended up asking when I was looking at uh the the breadth of phase one and the nebulousness of the funding sources today and wonder and and when I think of phases, I'm I think of them I think the way most people do that u a phase is something you discreetly start and end and then you go to something else another phase and start and end it and I was concerned about there's a lot going on in phase one and what if all the money that would be needed for that isn't there and so I started to look through I I said well there's probably an answer to that somewhere in the master plan and so I started to um look through the master plan to look for that and I think I found it. Uh, are you able to pull up page 52 of the master plan?

Speaker 2:
Um, if if you can't let let me just read we're going to work we're going to work on bringing it up, but yeah. Okay.

Speaker 3:
Um uh I I think it's good for people to see it um because um it's it's useful in at least in my thinking of how to look at this master plan tonight in trying to form a recommendation. I'm just going to go ahead and read it that can be pulled up.

Speaker 4:
It says um and so this is this is at the end of the description of phase one, the phasing overview. Um, it says, "This phasing plan is conceptual and flexible, showing just one example of the building sequence. Over the coming years, this phasing plan may be revised to better suit future needs, constraints, and funding opportunities." And I think that that is one of the most important sentence uh two sentences in a conceptual master plan because one of the things we have to do in a master plan, a conceptual master plan is set expectations. And what we don't want to happen is is an aspirational document turn into a source of frustration for the public when things don't happen the way they're shown here or in the time that is hinted at or in the order that's described here. And so I think to set expectations, this language, which is I'm going to call it buried on page 52, it needs to be more prominent. I think it should go in the preface, there's kind of some language that's a little similar in the second paragraph of the preface, but I think we need to do better. And then at the beginning of section four, the conceptual master plan, where we lay out these phases, and there's a summary on that page, uh I think that's on page 48 is the diagram.

Speaker 5:
I think maybe it's 49. I think you got to put it there, too. Um, again, I I want people to understand when they look at this that that this isn't the end product. This is the beginning of figuring out the end product. Um, and and really when I look at this master plan, to me, it's it's kind of akin to a design build 15% plan. It's it's kind of the bones. And we know as the plan progresses, it's going to change. It's going to be studied in more detail. And and I think a lot of the the angst that that I've heard tonight from uh fellow commissioners and board members is is there's no it there's a lack of clarity.

Speaker 6:
But for me, I think that's okay if we understand and articulate correctly what this document is. Um, and so that's again why I think that language is important. And I thought there were some really interesting points made about the the notion of of developing priorities.

Speaker 1:
Um, uh, and I'm not opposed to that, but I we we can't do it tonight. I think that's a very detailed um, uh, discussion that would really take a a session or two more to wrestle with. And I feel like we're on a pretty tight timeline to get a ballot measure in November. And so, and I don't personally think that it's worth sort of stopping that train for a year to set the priorities. I'm actually thinking that that depending upon how the funding sources gel through the ballot measure and and other partnerships there if we don't hit $365 million in funding, there's going to be a discussion of priorities of phase one. That's just going to naturally happen.

Speaker 2:
Um and so and I'm comfortable with that.

Speaker 3:
Um so when I look at this um master plan I you know I try to understand it as a guideline for for you know a future vision rather than laying down the law.

Speaker 4:
This is what will be. Um and I I just think that needs to be um made a little more clear in the document. Um I did want to spend just a minute on the concept of philanthropy. I mentioned this last time that the uh that this was before the PTC and and there were a couple of references to it in the the staff report. Um but I didn't get the sense from the staff report that that there would be any kind of sort of aggressive pursuit of this. My feeling is that there are we have PaloAlto residents who have extraordinary wealth and some of those residents have demonstrated extraordinary generosity nationally, internationally even and and those are people who who get to enjoy all of the benefits of living in PaloAlto, raising their families here.

Speaker 5:
Um at least when you know we're not pestering them about their preference of compound living. Um, and those are people who who might be interested in an opportunity to contribute in a real way to to the gathering place for PaloAlto.

Speaker 6:
And so I want to again encourage um um an actual process to figure out how that might how that might be pursued rather than just saying wouldn't it be nice if you know how can we approach those people and see if they might um want a building with their name on it or their mother or father's name on it, whatever.

Speaker 1:
Um because that could um solve some phase one funding issues or if we don't have phase one, it could accelerate phases two and three. So I'd ask that you look at that. Um, and so with those comments, I'm I'm really comfortable with this master plan, with maybe that emphasis that I talked about being worked on between here and ideally PRC, but at least council. Um, and I'm otherwise supportive of the staff recommendation. Thanks.

Speaker 2:
Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chair Chain go first. I will be going last as usual.

Speaker 3:
All right. Um, uh, my hats off to staff for taking pretty complex project, a very complex project with so many different points of view and boiling it down into this and thinking through. So, I mean, every time we've asked a question, pretty much you guys have had a response. So, it's pretty amazing. Um, thank you so much to the ARB for your comments. It's been really fun to listen to you and also agree with most of what you brought up. I think maybe all of what you brought up. Um, so my comments, um, when it gets to the time, I really do think a larger pool would make more sense. Um, just because with all the growth that we are going to have in South Palto as well as just the whole area, I think there will be a need to not have to go to Rinkanada to to to swim. Um, I let's see. The second thing I wanted to talk about is I'm pretty concerned about the parking because when I looked at the parking analysis, if if I found it in the appendex correctly, basically it said, you know, the our square footage is going to increase by x% and the parking is going to increase by more than an x% so it should be fine. But we've heard over and over tonight people talking about how hopefully this will be a much more usable space which I then interpret as a much more heavily used space. And so I'm not sure that that level of analysis is the right level of analysis. And in addition, um, because we're neighboring, and I think I brought this up last time when you guys came to the PTC, um, the our neighbor is the playing field and whatever PIUSD may eventually have there. And even though the playing fields aren't part of the community center, let's say that use continues in perpetuity, um, when we add a heavily a more heavily used theater there, that might actually overlap with the times that the playing fields are also used. And what if lighting is added to the playing fields? And because we've heard so much about turf versus grass and how much we need the playing field and the population's growing and so I just think that um it's risky to be relying on a lease to for a substantial amount of our parking and I know that you don't have the answers to this but that's just something I would want to flag and I'm not sure like correct me if I'm wrong has there been additional parking study other than that analysis by hexacon that was sort of percentage based based we did uh two parking studies. So, one through the master plan and then part of the SQA analysis, there was an additional parking study done through that. But the parking study done through SQA is more of the environmental impact, not necessarily as close of a look at the numbers that will be actual uses. Correct. Because the the new space is going to be used differently than the current space. And so then, you know, there's got to be best practices out there for what it is.

Speaker 4:
But I also think that the timing of some of those might actually be uh present some challenges. Um but it'll be a good problem to have. It means that people are using coverly in a in a new different way. Um my third comment oh and I do think sort of that interaction with whatever PA USD has.

Speaker 5:
So, this is that's the challenge with the master plan and this is a vision, but I think PAUSD I'm not quite sure what their vision is for this site and I'm not sure that they know yet and that could dramatically um change like how traffic flows of people between the two sites, you know, like I I think I talked about how the JCC and um the the JCC and the uh retirement community like they flow together. You know, this we could have some sort of a similar relationship with PA USD that could be really beneficial, but then it'll change everything. Um all right. And then with respect to that diagonal prominade, I think it's strange as is and also maybe even strange in the ultimate vision because I thought we had had like maybe a drop off point there in the past, I can't remember, but right now the diagonal path feels like a path to nowhere sort of. Um, I understand the back end.

Speaker 6:
connecting that neighborhood, but then it's ending in the middle of the block and so and it's really only meant for pedestrian and bike circulation, but then they've got to get to the to the edges in the intersection. So, that whole thing just seems a little bit strange to me, but I know there's been a lot of community input into it. And if you want to respond to this at all to uh I mean, you're not wrong, right?

Speaker 1:
We've heard that feedback. I think also part of, you know, I I gave a brief answer earlier, but part of it was to help with the future cost to when we eventually moved to phases two and three, so we wouldn't have to redevelop again. Um, you know, we would complete this in phase one and then hopefully quickly add on to it instead of, you know, having a whole different configuration in phase one. Um, and then, yeah, the priority of green space, you know, we've heard that loud and clear since day one. And so this ending at phase one, you know, brings that to the forefront as Kristen mentioned. It gives that 2 acres of green space. It, you know, halfway completes uh the ped and um bike paths. And so I think it was a way of just, you know, getting as close as we can in the first phase and then completing the second and third um as soon as we could. Okay. Last time you guys were here, I had asked for sort of use cases for that particular shape of green space because it is a lot of green space and I'm sure you guys got more thought more about it and also um got community feedback on it. So would you be willing to share what like what types of activities?

Speaker 2:
Yeah. So um we only shared a couple of the outdoor programming ideas. There's more in the master plan. So, uh, in addition to, you know, the outdoor amphitheater that we we showcased, um, there could be the outdoor classrooms.

Speaker 3:
Uh, programs could come outside, outdoor education for children's classrooms. Uh, there could be some of the sculpture gardens, the play areas. Also, just like outdoor space for spontaneous activity or people just coming and having picnics and play. Um, so one of the ongoing themes from the community was just we want space just to come and be too. So, uh, some of it won't just have things that we put in program. It'll just be open space. Um, so those are just a few of the ideas, whether it's pollinator gardens, um, community gardens, things like that. Otherwise, it might just be green space or that urban forest that we talked about earlier, too.

Speaker 4:
Okay. Well, that'll come when it gets fully architected out. and you know um but I it still strikes me as a little bit like of a strange space for anything other than sort of well the amphitheater makes a lot of sense to me that that's very clear. It's the long prominade where other than it just being green space um I have a hard time seeing it being used programming without a lot of thought being put into how to create kind of spaces within a space. Anyhow, um let me keep going. Um I hardily, uh second Commissioner Hecman's comment about um figuring out a structured way to approach funding via philanthropy or you know joint public private joint ventures. Um and then also uh just wanted to highlight that I am in agreement with the um what Miss Elson, the public commenter, brought up about sort of the importance of maintaining an existing path and my the concern about having vehicular circulation there. Um so that's it and I too am supportive of the plan. It's great work. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner Peterson. Thank you, chair. So, I just want to reiterate, I've heard several times about a um bike path walkability that the the overall plan isn't there.

Speaker 6:
Uh that was kind of what I was getting to earlier. And I think waiting for the San Antonio corridor, it's it's going to be too late to be making these big decisions like the path to nowhere, which I know we we talked about it last time, too. uh it looks beautiful architecturally uh until you just realize um it it just doesn't go anywhere. And I think it's that big view of when you're taking um you know the twob block radius around the site and then drawing the the lines of where is everybody coming into the site and leaving the site. Not you know imagine there's no vehicles just walking and biking is where you get that bigger um vision. and we had pieces of that last time, but we don't see it this time. So, I think that's what you're hearing on that. But I also appreciate uh Commissioner uh Hchman uh pointing out that this is about getting a bond. So, you know, to keep that mindset of what what are we even, you know, what's our immediate objective?

Speaker 1:
So with that, the next topic I did look in here on the um net zero and um turns out the reason why I couldn't find it is because it's it's called zero net in here. Um so you have some terminology drift in here. It looks like there's about four or five different authors, maybe three generations. Um it we have the 2030 plan is what I found for Pow Alto and that's really clear is the 2030 plan. It has some drift too on different websites, but I think if there's some comment in here, I think when this goes forward, anybody that sees that keyword, it's the 2030 plan, uh, net zero, carbon neutral.

Speaker 2:
There was one paragraph in the appendix that was really nice. It talked about the interreation between net zero and carbon neutral. Uh, carbon neutral a lot of times ends up being uh timber construction. And this would be beautiful if this was all timber construction somehow. um you know, lowcarbon uh concrete. I there's just all kinds of really cool approaches, all of it getting more expensive uh but also lowering the life cycle costs of the facility uh because it's got lower heating costs and things like that because it's been you know built with a better energy efficiency. Um but of course those are the things get value engineered back out of the project too.

Speaker 3:
But the the point I want to make is when you boil plate that into the original plan that the plan is that this is a this is a in a this is a sustainable site. Even labeling it sustainability I think helps keep that message so that everybody that that sees the site knows this is sustainable PaloAlto. It's a demonstration of the 2030 plan. uh now it gives me a new vision and maybe that even gets more philanthropy because now you're investing in the future and and it's a demonstration site for the whole community of what kind of construction we want in Palo Alto. So I'll leave with that. Thank you. Good work. Also now that I you know I'm putting it all together you know it's this is all uh what 350 million uh phase one will be uh we're estimating between 300 and 400 million.

Speaker 4:
Yes. Including the land acquisition.

Speaker 5:
Yeah. So, of course, this is a big project. Thank you.

Speaker 6:
And can I ask a follow-up question? So, on page 20 of the master plan, we did have kind of a surrounding context that shows like the existing um you know, bike paths and bus stops. And so, in addition to that, is that what you think would be helpful to kind of scope out more? Does that get to your first comment and question?

Speaker 1:
Page 20 and like closest uh Cal Train and bus routes. I think it would be great for us to understand what you think would be more helpful um to to map out. That would be great.

Speaker 2:
I see 20 here. It's got the the grocery store next door. Next one.

Speaker 3:
Oh, I think flow paths is the key word. If there was an arrow just showing the flow through because it doesn't even show the diagonal as a flow path on here. I think that would be a starting point is is the first flow path that goes through the site would show the diagonal teeing right into um is that uh middle field and then just kind of like where do you go from there? I think stuff like that.

Speaker 4:
Thank you.

Commissioner Commissioner Templeton:
Is that enough to work with? Yes. Thank you.

Speaker 6:
Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Templeton.

Speaker 1:
Thank you, Chair. Um, thank you all for another great round of comments. I've really enjoyed this. I've taken a lot of notes. I'm going to go through them and we can only hope I can read my own handwriting at this point. Um, I will start with the parking lots. Um, if I were to rephrase what I I have heard here tonight is the existing parking lots are a very poor quality.

Speaker 2:
Those of us who have to drive it multiple times a week to drop off and pick up our kids at Cberly hold our breath every time. Are we going to hit another pothole? What are we going What's going to happen this time? It is it uneven? Are we going to fall down when we're walking with our kid trying to hold their hand and make sure they don't fall down? Are we going to fall down? it's just really poor quality. So even if we are um leasing them, there is a desperate need for more than paint.

Speaker 3:
So one of the things I would suggest as um and we can include this in our our motions. I'm told we're going to have two separate motions, but I'll walk through things I'd like to see in the motions and then we can figure it out.

Speaker 4:
But um I'd really like us to be really specific about what our lease of those lots means and it should include safety improvements and that might be some repaving. It's been needed for many decades. So I don't think that we'll be satisfied as a city to build all this beautiful new stuff and then um fall and break our hands on the way into the pool or the tennis match. Right. So, um that would that would be something to specify. There were other ideas of things to specify. So, I would just generally say um part of our recommendation um will likely be to specify the the conditions of using using the parking lots that we're leasing from PAUSD as a bucket that you can bring back next time in more detail. Um, I really appreciated I think it was um board member Hersh's comment about the tennis and pickle ball noise. I think it's funny because I've always um always thought tennis makes a lot of noise, but I I'm told tennis people uh notice more the noise of pickle ball. Uh nevertheless, if it's elevated, noise will carry further. Um, so the idea, um, there's one thing that's really exciting about the idea of having you have sunlight on your on your outdoor tennis ball courts that are coll-located with parking, but there's also the challenge of dealing with the noise because it will carry further.

Speaker 5:
That is um, I hate to say probably a serious consideration.

Speaker 6:
Um the court orientation comment. I don't know who made that comment, but uh wow, that's actually really an interesting problem. Um we have a lot of street orientation uh mishaps in PaloAlto. We have a lot of them that follow the ark of the sun. So there's times the year where you just looking straight into the sun when you're driving down some of our main arteries. Um I hope we don't build that into our our courts. So that's just a note. Um the eyebuilding. Oh my goodness. Um I agree with board member Hirsch that uh it would be I I have always thought that you meant to put a gazebo of that size and shape in that location. It never occurred to me that you would keep that horrendous building. Um, I would encourage you to think more broadly about how to make that space really usable since it will be fe a feature of focus for this outdoor amphitheater space. It really can be something much better and have you can have a bigger better vision there. Um um I uh about the location of the concessions. I think is that perhaps what was meant about the cafeteria space or the kitchen? Um I really liked having it near the pool um and the sports center. I thought that was very centrally located. Um so I can imagine having parties uh at the pool and being able to use the kitchen. Um, I'm currently in the pool community that I'm a part of. Uh, we have that uh ability and it's really nice and I know a couple of others in in the city are similarly constructed. I think it'd be really nice to be able to do that whether you're at the pool or whether you're doing a tennis party or you know something else at the um recreation center. It'd be really nice. So, I I just wanted to pro provide a counterargument about that location.

Speaker 1:
Um, I'm concerned about the parking in a completely different way than all my other fellow commissioners are concerned about parking, but we love parking and so you're going to get uh that kind of feedback from all of us.

Speaker 2:
Um, I would say I think when it came before us last time, we discussed not having a ton of underground parking because the I think elevation of this site is like 10 ft above sea level. Um, and so we had discussed not having a lot of underground parking because of where the water table is. So, I was surprised to hear that we've just abandoned all of the above ground parking because it would be an eyesore and we're just going to put all that underground. Um, I'm concerned because that will increase the risk of flooding of the parking garages um and in a location that we're going to be having a lot of young people uh could could potentially be less safe. Now, there are ways to mitigate that. Of course, we all know that you can pump out water from an underground parking facility. Um, but just know that um, occasionally when you start combining parking with machinery, things fail. We know that about our um, you know, machineoriented parking garages and all those kinds of things.

Speaker 3:
It's just a thing. It happens. Um, so that is my two cents worth uh worth what you paid for it about the underground parking.

Speaker 4:
Um, just quickly I'd like to clarify it's partially underground um not fully. Um, and so we did some initial study with the water table. So, I just wanted to clarify that the due diligence has been done on that. And then we also have some um drilling being done further to make sure that it would be all safe. So, just wanted to clarify that still study.

Speaker 5:
In our original, uh presentation, I had been told partial underground, but today um I did not hear that. So, thank you for clarifying because that does make a huge difference. So, um that's really important to know. And I would encourage you to always say partial for this site or else you're going to have the same discussion every time. Um be because we know this area is prone to flooding.

Speaker 6:
Like we just know and I know you know that. But if if we allow that um to be confusing. Um there was something I was going to agree with board member Joe Jarth, but I cannot read my own handwriting. So, uh, too bad. Um, the renovation versus rebuild, um, conversation. Oh, that says from chair Chen. Yes.

Speaker 1:
Like I I am surprised at the level of renovation um that you have described not being considered a rebuild. Uh, I don't know what what is the technicality for that.

Speaker 2:
I'm sure there's a reason you were describing it that way. Um, but I am concerned about the the cost being indistinguishable from a rebuild. You may wish to rebuild. Um, and the reason is like I've been in all those buildings. They're disgusting.

Speaker 3:
They're really bad.

Speaker 4:
I I hear no disagreement from my colleagues.

Speaker 5:
They're they're I this is not, you know, slap lipstick on the pig situation, right? It really needs to be completely redone. Um uh regarding the money question um by board member Adcock um I I am and reading staff's request of us to put money put the money question aside in terms of moving forward with the staff uh recommendation.

Speaker 6:
I'm comfortable doing that. I do still have all the questions that she mentioned and I think it's likely that not only will council have those questions, so will voters. It's really a serious uh thing that needs to be clarified and you only have a couple months to do it. So, that's what we're hoping that this conversation has been useful for you for those reasons.

Speaker 1:
Um, regarding the question about the path to nowhere, I I kind of love that. Um, I I recall our original conversation or our previous conversation. We really wanted to envision this diagonal space, this open space to be something akin to the Stanford oval, right? It's a dest family destination. It's a place to go and lie down in the sun on a beautiful afternoon or to play frisbee or um you know maybe uh maybe somebody would open a farmers market there or have a festival there.

Speaker 2:
So you you have kind of a vision for what to use the space for. But I will just come back to that Stamford Oval conversation. Stanford Oval is not a path to nowhere.

Speaker 3:
And I think that's sort of where we're we're finding a little bit of a disconnect because the story, the vision that we have to um promote to the public to get the funding for this vision of this project needs to have a little bit of cohesion. And right now that that path needs to connect to the neighborhood, right? And that's one thing we heard from our public commenter. This literally does it connects to neighborhoods and schools.

Speaker 4:
Okay, how does that tie into our design so that this path is not to nowhere, it's to your neighborhoods and it's to your friend's house or whatever it is going to be. Um, uh, it's a place where you can all go from different paths and get to the tennis courts to play a match together on the weekends or whatever it is. But that story needs to have some cohesion in order to get over the hurdle of the ballot box in November.

Speaker 5:
Um, okay. So then, um, I realize we have not yet heard from our PTC chair. So, um, I will hold off, but I'm just going to preview what I'm, um, I'm thinking. I'm I'm I'm also ready to support the staff recommendation. And I would like us to um consider adding a couple of thoughts to include in the motion about things for um this the project team to consider before it comes back after the next iteration.

Speaker 6:
So things like pool size, um renovation versus rebuild, the bike pedestrian routes, um a better plan for building I I'm totally sneaking that in there. Um um parking improvements clarifications on our our deal with PA USD.

Speaker 1:
um the adding the the uh language to the preface from page 52, but also those three words that that I mentioned um modern, safe, and sustainable.

Speaker 2:
Um and then I am not sure exactly what to do about the council prioritization if that's something we need to advise council on. I think somebody said maybe not. That'll come of its own accord. So maybe not. And then if we want to add a plug in there for any plan or recommendation about how to solicit legacy funding. Um so those are the notes I took and um yeah I'm ready to support this after we hear from everybody else in the last round. Thank you.

Speaker 3:
Thank you commissioner. You saved a few uh items that were on my list as well.

Speaker 4:
So um so we were asked to consider two things.

Speaker 5:
both the draft initial study and the master plan itself. So, regarding the initial study, um, prior to this meeting, I heard concerns from the public about environmental risks, particularly sea level rise, uh, but also seismic hazards from liquefaction.

Speaker 6:
Um, the initial study, I think, analyzes those carefully. Uh and it also covers uh other issues that people might have not been aware of. Uh exposure to asbestos and lead paint during demolition.

Speaker 1:
Uh leaking underground storage tanks that are nearby.

Speaker 2:
um and noise and I believe the combination of the mitigations proposed in the initial with the initial study and uh the master plan particularly appendix B um provide convincing mitigation strategies for all of these issues. Um, I am interested to hear the uh negative comments about the traffic analysis because I thought it was particularly well done uh compared to many we see certainly uh and I'm happy to see that it concluded some lane changes uh and a new signal on middlefield are warranted. I think both of those would have been required in practice.

Speaker 3:
Um, so the bottom line for me is that I think the mitigated negative declaration is appropriate and I have no remaining SQA concerns as regards the master plan.

Speaker 4:
Now, as far as the plan itself, um, I would say that it's comprehensive and well prioritized.

Speaker 5:
It's interesting that I got such a different impression than uh some of the other comments we've heard tonight. But thinking about it, I believe that's because I treated it as a very high level conceptual plan and assumed that many if not most of the key issues that we brought up tonight would be addressed during architectural program development.

Speaker 6:
Uh so that made those of less concern to me. Um the phasing made sense to me. I identified the same I identified the same uh comment on page 52 that Commissioner Hecman noted. Uh yes, I did not go so far as to recommend that it be um used more heavily throughout the document, but I believe that is the right answer. uh so that that understanding is um more widespread.

Speaker 1:
Um for me the circulation looked well designed for all modes.

Speaker 2:
Now Miss Elson's comments about the crossing uh particularly the one to piaza um had not occurred to me and I would like to make sure that when uh design reaches that stage that that's given adequate attention. Um, I'm not sure that anything more needs to be done at the master plan level, but it's clear that making that crossing safe is going to require care. Uh, so that's a good a good point to highlight um, regarding the architectural programming process to come. Um I just observe as I have earlier that there is really great guidance in appendices B and C of the master plan that covers the building systems uh the parking analysis uh and it sketches architectural programming outlines in sufficient detail that you can feel some confidence u about the uh cost estimates.

Speaker 3:
Um, so I think that's it's really important to emphasize that those documents exist.

Speaker 4:
Um, I might also add that this version of the plan addressed all the questions I'd posed previously um in our uh analysis. So I was happy to see that. Um, so all in all, I'm impressed by the thoughtfulness and care that went into this. Um, as many of us have said, thank you to the residents, to the consultants, and to staff who spent so much time to create this.

Speaker 5:
I will add a couple of things in response to comments I've heard tonight uh on the tennis pickle ball noise. Um, yeah, you should check out the uh initial study on some of that, but I agree that there may need to be a sound wall uh around the north and perhaps western uh edges of that court. Uh there are substantial playing fields there already. So, people are getting some um getting some noise already and there is some distance particularly to Nelson Drive. Um but we may we may need more.

Speaker 6:
So that should be the uh a consideration during the architectural design.

Speaker 1:
Um my understanding of the prominade was as commissioner Templeton mentioned that it might also be a destination event space.

Speaker 2:
Um so I would like to see um more thought about how that could be explained and used.

Speaker 3:
Uh, I will make um a note about parking that's precisely the opposite of some that I've heard tonight. And that is that I appreciated the attention given to the possibility of eliminating parking in the future. Uh so the flat floors, the high ceilings, the ability to convert parking. So should it happen that we've al overestimated the amount that we need, we may have more usable space here at a reasonable cost and I appreciate that uh foresight.

Speaker 4:
Um so bottom line um I also support this. I have faith in the architectural programs and design to come to address the issues that have been raised tonight. That's it for me.

Speaker 5:
We have uh opportunity for another round of comments or follow-ups if anyone cares to make any. If not, I think we're ready to make motions.

Speaker 6:
And to provide clarification, just so everybody understands, we are looking to do two separate motions and two separate votes. There will be one you you may choose whether you'd like the if the planning commission would like to go first followed by the ARB or the other order. Um that's not critical but that there would be one vote and recommendation from each body individually.

Speaker 1:
As our guests I would like to invite the ARB to go first.

Speaker 2:
Commissioner Tempe, do you still want to say something since your light is on?

Speaker 3:
Yeah, I just wanted to say I was going to offer to make the motion, but I was surprised that the chairs like you other people do it. So, uh, it's up to you guys, but I will tell you as an offer, no, hold on. As an offer, I'm I'm prepared to make a motion that you may also wish to reuse or modify. So, it's totally up to you. Um, but I'm prepared whenever ready. Chair, thank you.

Speaker 4:
Miss Armor, is that acceptable or does a member of the ARB need to make the motion?

Speaker 5:
So, um, based on what I'm hearing, uh, I think it would be fine for once the planning commissioner made a motion, a second, and we had a vote that then the ARB could say, um, I make a motion as um as provided by the PTC with the following modifications.

Speaker 6:
So kind of using it similar to the way you would say I make a motion to recommend the staff recommendation with the following modifications.

Speaker 1:
I I see nods that that's acceptable to everyone. So Commissioner Templeton, would you proceed?

Speaker 2:
Thank you guys. Um I I know we're we're some of us are even way past our bedtime here tonight. So I appreciate everybody's patience. Um so I'll start with moving the staff recommendation and um then with the following modifications uh to include notes to staff to review or revise the following issues that we identified tonight.

Speaker 3:
Is is there a way that we can get someone to type this up on the board just to make sure we're all on the same page here?

Speaker 4:
I I know that we often do have that capability at the ARB level. It's not something that we do as standard practice at PTC. Um we can this once let me see if understood. Understood. You got a different liaison here today though. So, um, give me a moment and see whether it's something we can do. Um, so that's a strong maybe. Give me a moment.

Speaker 5:
Not that we would object to that being policy for PTC as well.

Speaker 6:
All right, we'll give it a try this evening. No promises for the future.

Speaker 1:
Appreciate your flexibility. I think with this many people involved in this many additions, um it would be super valuable. So, I appreciate you guys taking a stab at this. Okay. So, the motion uh to recap is to move the staff recommendation and and to recommend the council asks staff to review or revise the following. And then we're going to do a bulleted list.

Speaker 2:
Okay.

Speaker 3:
Um, consider competition friendly pool size of 50 m by 25 yards.

Speaker 4:
25 yards. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Um, revisit the cost effectiveness of a renovation versus rebuild on buildings ST VF. Were there other buildings A or B friends?

Speaker 6:
I'm trying to remember.

Speaker 1:
Okay, thank you. And just a raider. S T V E F.

Speaker 2:
Oh, thank you. Also C N G. Yeah, partial. Yeah, C.

Speaker 3:
Yeah, thank you. I love it. Teamwork making the dream work.

Speaker 4:
Okay. um to review bike and pedestrian routes including the diagonal.

Speaker 5:
What was the word below? Is it below? No.

Speaker 6:
Prominade. prominade and the existing safe routes to school through the property.

Speaker 1:
Man, you're fantastic. Thank you so much. I know we're giving you a lot of words here tonight, but thank you. Okay.

Speaker 2:
Um to clarify the agreements about parking lot improvements and duration of access.

Speaker 3:
Okay, next one is that would be parking uh improvements. Yeah. Oh, thank you for catching that.

Speaker 4:
Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Preface. I'm not sure if preface is the right word, Steph, but the language we want to add is that section called the preface. The one you had on the slide.

Speaker 6:
It was the agreed to description of the project. Is preface the right word?

Speaker 1:
Uh, sure. As far as uh, Commissioner Hecman's comments. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
Um, so that was moving language from page 52 to the preface.

Speaker 3:
And yes, I wanted to phrase it 49. Okay, that's okay. But I wanted to know if it was called a preface. Okay. So, I would I would change uh Can we start over? um modify the preface to include language from page 52 about flexibility of the plan.

Speaker 4:
Okay, I think that's sufficient for the motion. Yeah.

Speaker 5:
Um just to I think it's the executive summary.

Speaker 6:
Thank you. That is that is the word I was looking for. I was like my brain is not if we can change from preface to executive summary. Thank you so much.

Speaker 1:
It's It's actually both. The preface preface is on page three.

Speaker 2:
The executive summary is on page 48. If you're wanting to choose one of those, let's do both. Now, I don't want to choose. I want staff to choose. I really Yeah, whatever. However, we want to we can to include language.

Speaker 3:
Thank you. To include language from language from Thank you. Good catch. and to add the words modern, safe, and sustainable to the project goals.

Speaker 4:
Okay.

Speaker 5:
Be anything else? Don't don't type. I'm going to ask questions. Um, the other two things I had written down were Yes.

Speaker 6:
were do we want to put anything about council priorities? I think we decided that was not necessary. And do we want to include direction um suggestions about legacy funding? Um okay. Okay. So then we'll add one more bullet when you're ready to encourage a program to raise formal process. a formal process to raise funding for legacy projects within the site.

Speaker 1:
Is that I'm open to other fra phrasings.

Speaker 2:
If you want your building named after you sign here, something like that, right? That's the idea. Is this the right way to describe the program to encourage a formal process to raise funding for legacy?

Speaker 3:
Maybe to raise funding from private sources.

Speaker 4:
From private sources. Okay, let's do that.

Speaker 5:
Yeah, I think that will cover all the Okay. All right. How does this look? First of all, thank you so much, Mr.

Speaker 6:
Divera. I appreciate that. Okay. Um, this is the motion. Uh, chair, is there a second?

Speaker 1:
Uh, I was waiting to hear if anyone from the ARB had an addition that they would like to make. Okay. We will certainly entertain that.

Speaker 2:
They could make suggestions though this isn't their motion yet.

Speaker 3:
They can on discussion. We can always modify if there is a and we will restrict our uh attention to these. Looks like board member Hirs.

Speaker 4:
Yes. Uh so could we could we add to uh your number four clarify the agreement the parking improvements including landscaping because it's not just trip hazards etc.

Speaker 5:
It's okay. Uh I I accept that suggestion.

Speaker 6:
the parking improvements including landscaping and paving.

Speaker 1:
Okay.

Speaker 2:
Good interaction between PTC and ARB is to be encouraged.

Speaker 3:
And um I I I would like to highlight one of the comments made by chair Akin u about uh the noise M uh and possible um uh mitigation around the tennis/pickle ball court.

Speaker 4:
And so those are included in the SQA the environmental review document. And so if that is recommended for approval, that would be included already in the proposed project. And also I want to clarify just cuz I know pickle ball is a very hot item at this time. They're tennis courts only. Um, if we ever add, just because I know this it could go communitywide very quickly. If we add pickle ball in the future, that would be something we would take, you know, to the proper sources and stakeholders if we were to add pickle ball lines. And so, I just wanted to make sure that was clear. I feel really targeted by that comment.

Speaker 5:
Anywh who, I'm just kidding. Go ahead, Sher.

Speaker 6:
Just want to point out that pickle ball is, uh, active at, uh, Mitchell, you know, very close by.

Speaker 1:
It's true. It's true.

Speaker 2:
Commissioners, uh, PTC commissioners, anything to add, Commissioner Hecman?

Speaker 3:
So, I think we need to clarify bullet four a little bit. I think what we're talking about there when we say the agreements, I think we're talking about wanting to make sure that our leases with the school district cover these topics. Is that is that what's intended? What excellent wording. I love it.

Speaker 4:
Please proceed with modifying this and then I will accept the modification.

Speaker 5:
Okay. Um to clarify that the city lease agreements with PAUSD.

Speaker 6:
Uh I think what we want to say is provide flexibility to the city to make and then you can get rid of and u the agreements of the um and then I need a little help on the back end of this. the duration of access. Are we talking about the term how long the lease lasts? Right.

Speaker 1:
One of us is a lawyer and one is not. So yes, thank you for that. Um that's exactly what I mean. How long are we going to have access to this if we enter into this agreement?

Speaker 2:
Sure. Okay. So let me think about that for a minute.

Speaker 3:
So would it be term of lease rather than duration of access?

Speaker 4:
Well, the lease agreement sufficient A and have a sufficient duration.

Speaker 5:
U yes for to to adequately serve the improvements contemplated in the master plan and now in English.

Speaker 6:
That costs extra at the end. Everything you have there is right. So add this to the end starting with to adequately serve.

Speaker 1:
Split infinitives are acceptable in legal language.

Speaker 2:
um so actually to adequately um provide access to we're going to get rid of the access before provide access to the improvements contemplated in the master plan.

Speaker 3:
Sorry. Sorry. Sam, you are doing awesome by the way.

Speaker 4:
Just no pressure. You're doing awesome. I didn't even know that was a word.

Speaker 5:
Yeah. And then up in the second line there, you can after duration, you can get rid of of access.

Speaker 6:
Okay.

Speaker 1:
You guys are amazing. This is This is great. What a what a good motion. I'm very happy I have made this motion. Would anyone like to second it?

Speaker 2:
May I jump in quickly through the chair? We're so close.

Speaker 3:
We Yeah, I know. But I want to make sure the language is really strong. Just the first um actually it's the second line.

Speaker 4:
Um staff would recommend just for clarity that it be that the words ask staff to review and revise be deleted so that it's just saying recommending that city council um maybe consider the following. I like that. Let's do it.

Speaker 5:
So after city council put the word consider, but we really want you to be ask staff.

Speaker 6:
Yeah, delete them. Yeah, there we go. Are we done? Can I second? I second. No, you do adjust. Thank you, vice chair.

Speaker 1:
You know, staff, we want more than that, right? We We'll use that word.

Speaker 2:
Any discussion? Any final discussion? Commissioners? Okay.

Speaker 3:
Moved and seconded. Mr. Tero, would you call the role, please?

Commissioner Hecman:
Um, yes. Uh, Commissioner Hecman, yes.

Commissioner Peterson:
Uh, Commissioner Peterson, yes.

Commissioner Templeton:
Uh, Commissioner Templeton, yes.

Vice Chair Chang:
Uh, Vice Chair Chang, yes.

Chair Aken:
Chair Aken, yes. Motion carries 5-0. Motion, if you want to change something.

Speaker 3:
Thank you, Commissioners. And now we hand it over to Chair Chen. All right. To my ARB uh board members.

Speaker 4:
So, do we have any changes, modifications to this motions?

Speaker 5:
I'm going to make a motion that we start with the same template.

Speaker 6:
I would include a a point around um you know consider um uh consider you know adequate amount of parking amount of parking and coordination between the school district and and uh you know the the tenants especially in especially in future phases to make sure there is enough parking. So in plain language that would be um review um adequacy of parking given um uh significant new uses outlined in the master plan and uh consider uh tighter collaboration with various stakeholders to ensure adequate parking at all times.

Speaker 1:
Safe, adequate and safe something like that. What do you think?

Speaker 2:
considering sorry processing um I'm trying to make sure that it's something unique from the parking commentary earlier and that we're not being repetitive lease agreements. So just basically review the adequacy of parking and who would be the various stakeholders. So Powell to Unified School District.

Speaker 3:
Yeah. and the theater works and the pool.

Speaker 4:
Pool will probably have an anchor tenant like Pasa.

Speaker 5:
Well, I think maybe we could make four and the new one to be two separate ones.

Speaker 6:
One is maybe more focused on the leasing agreement. Yeah, I think the other is more functional.

Speaker 1:
More functional. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
Now, my question to follow up with this is if this should be tied into the concept of some type of um operations management, but I don't know how we recommend that to city council. Right. So, that's that's sort of my my the reason that I'm pausing here is because I want to make a recommendation that actually city council can do something about. This is something that's actually going to end up so far down the line. Um that I don't know if that's something that we should be including right now other than to say, "Hey, by the way, when this project's actually built and up and running, let's make sure that parking's I mean parking planning for parking ahead of time and making sure the parking's adequate." That's something we can do ahead of time. So, sorry, I'm don't mean to be delaying. And I'm just trying to understand what is an active action item that we can present to city council. And also apologies to the uh uh PTC that we didn't bring this up on theirs as well. I was hoping these would be pretty mimicked. Um I mean I'd almost leave it as Luc's review adequacy of parking. Um, and just almost leave it that open open-ended, just making sure that we've got really a solid review of parking ahead of time and that they plan it out ahead of time because while I would love to get operations and management stuff in here, it's just I don't know if that's something that city council would be able to require or approve at this time.

Speaker 3:
How do you feel about leaving it more open-ended and just saying review adequacy of parking? Are you comfortable? Amazing. Okay.

Speaker 4:
All right. Let's keep it simple.

Speaker 5:
Does anyone else have any recommendations to add? I do.

Speaker 6:
And I feel like typically we do a motion and then a second and friendly amendments with ARB. So, I'm wondering if we're a little bit out of order here.

Speaker 1:
Is this working? No.

Speaker 2:
Uh number you want to keep it there for a second. I think when we have too many mics on. Yeah.

Speaker 3:
Um under to review bike and pedestrian routes including clarifying the intent and use of the diagonal prominade. including and then add in the words the intent clarifying the intent and use.

Speaker 4:
So bullet point number three to review bike and pedestrian routes including the intent and use of the diagonal prominade.

Speaker 5:
Mhm. Intent and use.

Speaker 6:
Yeah. Beautiful.

Speaker 1:
And then I would change the and to as well as the existing safe routes. So I'd change and to as well as. It's a small thing but as I'm just adding the word as right where your cursor is.

Speaker 2:
As well as Yeah. As well as the existing safe routes.

Speaker 3:
Can you read that one more time?

Speaker 4:
It's just adding the word as right where your cursor is so that it reads to review bike and pedestrian routes including the intent and use of the diagonal prominent as well as the existing safe routes to school on the property. David, you good with that?

Speaker 5:
Maybe it's a little different in you don't need intent in use of a safe route. So, but Exactly. That's why I changed it to instead of and to as well as the existing safe roots on school on the property. So, it's two separate items.

Speaker 6:
That's what I'm trying to I would slip in there maybe defining the existing safe routes or something like that.

Speaker 1:
As well as defining the existing safe routes. Mhm. I'm good with that.

Speaker 2:
I have an item to add if I can go next.

Speaker 3:
Um so, uh maybe it goes after the second item. consider I'm not sure if it's viability or value of saving building I and designing the master plan around the angle of that building. Yes, please. Thanks.

Speaker 4:
Yes.

Speaker 5:
Well, it's fun. So, it's funny. I I heard that brought up several times during the meeting. Please continue writing for now. Um and designing the entire plan around this one building. Um you can literally write it that way. be a little value of saving building I and designing the master plan around it around it. Yes.

Speaker 6:
So I had heard that brought up and again I'm sort of pulling from my memory bank and and I did a cursory review of my previous notes before this um from when uh we had our presentation several months ago. Um I remember there were several schemes right that we had gone through and so just understanding that this one was one of the ones that we had sort of leaned towards. So I again I heard it brought up and I'm like I'm not as fussed about it because we had gone through several schemes and this seems to be the one that we had leaned towards back then. And so again if you get rid of that you're really changing the overall master plan right to one of the other schemes. So that's sort of the question is, you know, how viable are the other master plans at this point or are we really sort of set on this one?

Speaker 1:
Um because once you remove building I you're changing the whole diagonal.

Speaker 2:
You're changing all of that around it and it really ends up being a totally different scheme. And so I'd hate to put a recommendation in here that completely changes everything that we just looked at tonight. I mean, not necessarily. that building can go and still have similar layout, but it is a little bit of a tail wag in the dog. Um, so I think at least it should be considered cuz it's a small building, 6,000 square ft, that's driving a lot, even like the shape of that amphitheater and everything else.

Speaker 3:
So cuz this is a framework, it's about parts and pieces, not necessarily this layout is what I keep hearing from, you know, the preface and everything, which is true. And therefore in this being fluid, I feel like that should not be so set in stone.

Speaker 4:
And the other item which may be related that I want to add is uh the council uh uh that um recommend the council consider the phasing of um the phasing within phase one um in the implementation of this master plan in the in the future phases. is the phasing within phase one.

Speaker 5:
Phasing within phase one is that's all kind of goes back to funding being one but it's sorry Sam I want to back you up. Consider the phasing within phase one.

Speaker 6:
Yeah. Consider the phasing within phase one.

Speaker 1:
Yeah. Just because if they need to again and all this is going to depend on funding and what permits we get first.

Speaker 2:
Um, I'm fine with that. I'm still dwelling on the saving building. I I I definitely hear uh PTC's comments on that and ARB's comments on that. I just correct. And it's one of those that if they've gone through three rounds of public comment and public comment landed on this scheme and we say throw out that building and all of the diagonals that go with it, then we're completely changing the scheme to something that has had three rounds of public comment and is preferred. So that's sort of where I'm a little bit hesitant here.

Speaker 3:
But I, if I may, please, but it is very fluid. I mean, that's the preface is that this is a framework.

Speaker 4:
It's about the the overall square footage and the the f the big vision and in that what you know whether phase 2 and three happen whether parts of B and sorry C and D get fractionally chopped those are all an idea to be further studied right so I feel like building I is also an idea to be f further studied yes uh you know to add to that you Look at it Kendra in another way. Look at the building from the outside from the landscaping. You know, imagine that that can be an amphitheater of note in that area, a feature of the of the site planning here that I think we'd be remiss not to not to emphasize.

Speaker 5:
So, so that's a that's a valid point, David. Or maybe it doesn't need to stay the building. Maybe it can become something else. Well, there was a suggestion become a stage house, become a gazebo was this was this thought and it's not a bad not not a bad idea because it it could work in with the landscaping.

Speaker 6:
So, let's let's also trim this down. I like things short and sweet. Uh, so I just leave it as consider the value sorry and add the word the please.

Speaker 1:
Consider the value of saving building one.

Speaker 2:
There you go. That bullet point building I excuse me. Thank you. Appreciate that. To the left.

Speaker 3:
Yeah, there you go. And just put the word 'the' between consider and value because I'm a stickler. Thank you.

Speaker 4:
Should May may I interject here just to say um I would clarify because if someone hasn't been in this discussion, they might think we're recommending like that. So you may want to say versus other uses of that space or something clarifying that.

Speaker 5:
I I I appreciate that. Yeah, it's up to you. I know you versus other uses of that space.

Speaker 6:
Yeah. Again, it's just it's I guess the intent here is to try and understand that like we've definitely had public comment. We've definitely had people reviewing this and and we're not trying to redesign this from scratch today.

Speaker 1:
That's you know, we've gone really far down this road of what people appreciate and approve. And while we understand there's some fluidity and some flexibility and exactly what's happening that taking that out and completely redesigning it would be a major Can we clarify that with staff? because I did ask that question and they did not say that there was a reason other than we thought we could save it. Other than that, is there is there the question being why did we uh renovate building I?

Speaker 2:
Uh yeah, the main Well, I there's probably a couple points and Kristen, you can chime in. I'll start. Um we're guided heavily by a coverly ad hoc committee which includes three council members. And so one of their biggest priorities um reflected from community need is trying to keep our cost as low as possible throughout the project. Um and so we one of the first things that we did was uh structural analysis um to see which buildings could be preserved. So it's one of three. Um so that was one of the main drivers. Um so it could be preserved and renovated. um if it was to be replaced, it would be significant cost added to the project.

Speaker 3:
But could you respond to um board member Rosenberg's um concern that this was a feature that was requested by the public in terms of the use of that building being kept? Other than the cost, you've explained the cost, which is very helpful to understand, but did people say, "I really need that building to remain." I think that I was at two of the meetings and I never never heard any I don't believe anyone specifically has said I love the eyebuilding so much. Um so I believe it's probably cost savings um and has been a priority expressed by council.

Speaker 4:
So to follow up with this if you don't mind um how set are we on this scheme?

Speaker 5:
How far down the road are we with this scheme versus those other schemes that we had seen several months ago?

Speaker 6:
Um this is our final master conceptual plan. So at this point we would consider it done. Um the community weighed in and made their selection and we have built off of it and at this point we are in our final draft. So can you clarify that compared to your statement earlier that everything here is completely in flux?

Speaker 1:
Yeah, it can be changed but as far as selecting the scheme. We had a meeting all about it and the community weighed in and they chose their scheme. That was the purpose of one of the community meetings. So yes, we could start all over. Um, but this has all been built off of the community impact. So, um, thank you for answering those questions and I apologize, board member Rosenberg.

Speaker 2:
I'm just trying to clarify because I think there's some assumptions about the level of completion of this plan that I'm just challenging with staff and it's uh, you of course can do whatever you want with your motion.

Speaker 3:
Again, sort of trying to clarify this point. I think that to board member Adcock's commentary, I just want to make sure that we're not treading into the territory of saying let's get rid of building I and redesign, right? So, if building I gets removed and turns into an amphitheater or something like that, I'm amendable to that, but I I we you know, from my understanding and from what they're saying right now, we've had significant public outreach on this. And if this design hinges on building I one way or the other, I'm a little less inclined to say let's let's remove it and reorient the prominade and redesign this thing. Now if we're saying that's not how I sorry to interrupt.

Speaker 4:
That's not how I understood this master plan and the framework to be right because at the beginning as you said and as um Terry also said is that this is and I've read through this master plan word for word um and it does say that it's a framework and therefore it you know whether there's a block building and an L building those are all to be studied. further because there is the program has not been developed enough to say this is the plan, right?

Speaker 5:
So, it's a little bit of the chicken or the egg. Yes, you have to have a master plan framework to then go into detailed programming of each building which will then form the shapes of the overall site.

Speaker 6:
I I would argue the other way. I think that the reason why they have this master plan is to show the overall layout and whether that building is sort of, you know, purposed as one item versus another, whether it's a theater or whether it's back of house for something. I I would argue that that is sort of where the the flexibility is coming in. But I think that by saying, well, we've got this master plan, but you know, 6 months from now, we're going to throw it all out because this building doesn't angle this way anymore, and so now we don't need this big angle anymore, is is taking the at this point years of work and sort of tossing it out the window. And I'm really hesitant to go down that path. Now, while saying, okay, maybe building I doesn't need to be saved in its current state or maybe but I would argue that yeah, we do have a master plan for a reason. They've done this work for a reason and it's been chosen by the public for a reason. As a as a general layout, right, but building I is 6,000 ft. In a 3 to400 million project, 6,000 ft² building is $6 million. So, so let me clarify because maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. What it sounded like with your earlier comment to saying let's, you know, what's the point of keeping this building and having everything designed around it, right? So, my comment is I have no problem getting rid of that one specific building, but I am very concerned about removing everything else around it. Right.

Speaker 1:
Yes. But it's also um this diagonal alignment of this prominade that we've also discussed, correct? which is the way it's been chosen by the public is based on that angle sort of it's not exactly parallel um but that overall layout yes that pathway can remain with or without that building correct right I agree with you and the then there's this curved area I I think I understand that to be the amphitheater the four um the focal point of that curved area is the exterior of this I building which is you you know, not a glorious thing to look at. And the point of that eyebuilding is not a glorious thing to look at. And that framing this being the center, you look at the site plan. Sorry, I have it on my screen. Is the center of this overall layout seems a little presumptuous to say that this 6,000t building should stay and therefore that should be what people look at as they come in to this amphitheater.

Speaker 2:
Yes, I want to just add to that that really the community was very concerned about having a a wonderful green space landscaping in the middle of this area.

Speaker 3:
They emphasize the the biggest emphasis that the community has was actually make sure we recognize the landscaping here.

Speaker 4:
Keep keep this the green space a major element of this project.

Speaker 5:
Totally agree with that. So again, to sort of clarify my standpoint on this, I have no issue with saying that building I could be removed and utilized as green space or an amphitheater or something else. I draw the line at saying sort of that second half of the sentence that we were sort of snarkly saying before is and having the whole master plan designed around it.

Speaker 6:
Certainly not. It's not being designed around it. I say that let me see. Sorry to interrupt you, David. Let me see if I can rephrase this in a way that everyone sort of is on board. So consider the value of saving building I uh comma versus reutilizing that space for something else for another purpose for another program and keeping the building its shape. No no no it's not about keeping the building. It's consider the value of saving building I versus reutilizing that space as part of the landscaping. As part of anything else, right?

Speaker 1:
Yeah. Yep.

Speaker 2:
Part of the landscaping would be the better way. Anything else for another program?

Speaker 3:
Right. Say instead of saying anything else, say for another program which could include landscaping.

Speaker 4:
Perfect. Are you guys on board with that?

Speaker 5:
And may I suggest we try for a second soon? Sure. We're coming up in 10:00 here.

Speaker 6:
I second. Thank you.

Speaker 1:
Okay. Any final comments?

Speaker 2:
Turn through my notes. Sorry. No problem. Any any other friendly amendments?

Speaker 3:
Nope. All good.

Speaker 4:
Awesome. Thank you. And appreciate the uh back and forth. I think that those things always sharpen our commentary. So, appreciate it.

Speaker 5:
Call. Can I call for the W vote, please? Yep. Um, board member Jar. Yes. Board member Hirs.

Board member Hirs:
Yes. Uh, board member Rosenberg. Yes.

Vice Chair Adcock:
Uh, Vice Chair Adcock, yes.

Chair Chen:
Chair Chen, yes. Motion carries 5-0.

Speaker 3:
Thank you all. That was well worthwhile, I think.

Speaker 4:
Um, moving on to the penultimate item here. Uh, board member and commissioner questions, comments, and announcements. So, do we have any from the BTC?

Speaker 5:
Commissioner Tippleton?

Speaker 6:
Yes. There's a community meeting tomorrow to discuss the closure of Churchill at the PA USD facility at uh 6 p.m.

Speaker 1:
Any other commissioners, questions, comments, announcements? If I can just make a quick comment. Thank you guys for hosting us this evening. We uh definitely are used to our morning meetings. So, we appreciate the time and effort that you guys have to put in taking these nighttime meetings. I'm ready for bed.

Speaker 2:
It's it's really been a privilege to share the dis with you tonight. Um thank you staff for arranging all this. Uh, thank you to board members, all of you for contorting your schedules to to fit this in. Um, and thanks to everyone. These deliberations were well worthwhile tonight.

Speaker 3:
Anything else?

Speaker 4:
I have something. Good job, chairs. You navigated this and you set this up really well. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
Thank you. And thanks for thanks for Sam for feeding us. Thank you.

Speaker 6:
Very well. Then we are adjourned.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cubberley Community Meeting 3 - Presentation</title>
      <link>https://transparentcities.org/palo-alto/transcripts/m4kj4J5_LA0</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://transparentcities.org/palo-alto/transcripts/m4kj4J5_LA0</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The third Cubberley Community Meeting presented an updated master plan concept that integrates new facilities with existing campus buildings, developed iteratively from feedback in prior meetings. Presenters reviewed the project background, the phased demolition and construction approach (phases one through three), program adjacencies covering recreation/wellness, performing arts, visual arts, cafe, and outdoor spaces, and detailed circulation, parking, and increased square footage figures. The meeting concluded with a two-part hands-on activity asking attendees to evaluate the phase one plan and the complete master plan for what works, what needs improvement, and creative ideas. Key upcoming dates include city council approval in March 2026 and a bond vote in November 2026.</description>
      <category>Iterative process explanation</category>
      <category>Welcome and icebreaker</category>
      <category>Meeting agenda and goals</category>
      <category>Project background and ownership</category>
      <category>Process timeline and key dates</category>
      <category>Meeting one program priorities</category>
      <category>Meeting two site layout options</category>
      <category>Master plan phasing</category>
      <category>Program adjacencies and uses</category>
      <category>Outdoor spaces and amenities</category>
      <category>Circulation and parking</category>
      <category>Square footage increases</category>
      <category>Activity instructions</category>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[Speaker 1:
Good evening everyone. Let's get Ed fellow city manager herself and uh start and we'll begin tonight by saying thank you so much for dedicating your time and your energy, your thoughts to this really important process um process, right? So everything in a process and tonight is the third of our community meetings here on site. After tonight, we're going to move our uh discussions actually to the city council and in a series of conversations about this overall master plan and how it comes forward uh to PAL community. Uh but that said, I think if you've been one of these meetings in the past, you've heard us talk about this as an iterative process. But of course, you know, being an engineer, I should realize that unless you're a hydraulics engineer, you may not that term may not mean anything to you. So, let me just define it for a second in the way we're using it here.

Speaker 2:
An iterative process is when you take a whole bunch of data, a bunch of information, then you try to throw it on the wall and make some sense of it. And in effect, that's what we've had over the last couple of meetings. And quite frankly, tonight is another step in that iterative process of what you see in front of you being our team pulling together the information that we've received from you to date and try to put it on a plan that takes those inputs and tries to make sense of that. As Bobby pointed out, it's not set in stone. And so based on your feedback, there'll be another round of that. So, we really want to uh emphasize, as she did, how important your feedback is in allowing us to make progress on this plan. As you probably have peaked at the sheets in front of you, what you're seeing tonight presented is a lot different from what you saw last because it actually tries to integrate a bit of new with what's already here on the cover campus. And that will help us scale what's new and what we keep based on funding available as well as just how the pieces fit together. So I think you will hopefully be pleased with the evolution, the steps that we're taking in the development of this plan. So with that, I think we'll get to it, but we're actually going to show a little video that hopefully get you in the mood. Um, as city manager, you know, it's funny. You make off-hand comments sometimes and people take you seriously. And I I made an off-hand comment to our team last week. I said, "You know what? We ought to just on any given day, go take it take your phones and go video what's happening around the campus just as a reminder. We can hear it right now. I got a little bit of audio audio reminder of what it is we're here to build on. Uh because the activity is already here. We just want to make a space match the creativity and the energy in many ways is already here.

Ann:
So next thing you know comment turns into a video. So with that said, let's go and have our church back to our All right, let's get to it.

Speaker 4:
Thank you, Ann. And thank you everybody so much for being here tonight. It's great to see such a good crowd and we're very excited about what we're going to work on together this evening. But um first of all um I just wanted to check in on a couple things. How many of you all are 49er fans? Just just a few of you.

Speaker 5:
Well, for those of you that are 49er fans, I I wanted to pay you a compliment. Um if you are a big fan, you might know that you beat the Saints last week. Um and it was not too bad. I mean, it was what maybe a one one score game, but then again, you know, we were playing their second game quarterback and you know, well, we're in we're in a building here or maybe we're in a building for a couple two three years.

Speaker 6:
Um, but you know, in New Orleans, we do love the Saints even if they're losing.

Speaker 1:
And I'll tell you a little story that you may not know. Um, many years ago, the Saints were so bad for so long, but the fans kept going to the game, but they went to the game and they put bags on their heads. Did Did any of you all ever see that? Um, and that's where the name Who came from if you didn't know that? Because we are the dad that nation. Um, because with the bags on your head, they didn't know who anybody was. Um, and we're proud of that. We might have to put the bags on our own again, unfortunately. But um but we're hopeful for the future. But the compliment that I wanted to pay to you uh tonight is that on the plane flying here, over half the plane were 49 people. I mean, there was red, white, gear, everywhere. And they were all very, very nice. They were really nice and well behaved. Um, you can't say that that about some other teams like maybe another team that's kind of north and across the bay. You know who I'm talking about. Um, and also that other team that's kind of across the way from New York in another state with them. They're not very nice either, but um, we're nice in spite of losing a lot. And um, and thank you to the 49ers that were so nice on having fun here. So, enough of that.

Speaker 2:
Um, we're happy to be here this evening and, um, George and I are going to do a little back and forth to prepare you for tonight and our activity.

Speaker 3:
This is the right direction. Bobby, I can I can advance you.

Speaker 4:
We make this work. Okay. All right. really quickly our agenda.

Speaker 5:
We've already done introductions. We're going to have um a relatively brief presentation to get everybody up to speed and then we're going to have uh activity one and activity two. Those are going to flow right next to each other because basically it's a two-part activity, but we're asking the same questions. So, you'll have plenty of time to get into the nitty-gritty there.

Speaker 6:
And then if we have time, we'll do a little report after and we'll talk about next steps. Because as Ed said earlier, this is not the final plan by any stretch. The information that we get tonight is going to be very critical in moving this forward.

Speaker 1:
Okay? So, um please be sure that you have signed a signin sheet at your table and given yourself a name tag. If there's anybody who does not want their photograph published, um, just put a red dot or whatever dot is on your table on your name tag and that way we'll know and we will assure you that we won't publish your photograph anywhere.

Speaker 2:
It works now. backwards.

Speaker 3:
All right, we ask this as we start every meeting. We really want everybody to enjoy their time tonight and um engage with your group. Get to meet your neighbors. Um share those ideas, be open-minded, and please listen um listen to what your neighbors have to say. make room for everybody to be heard and share any questions at the end um either with your facilitator or in your afteraction review.

Speaker 4:
All right. So, what are our goals here tonight? Our goals here tonight is to review the concept design phase and discuss program adjacencies, the site layout and circulation and parking. Now, um let me give you a little project background. Uh let me ask this question first. Are there any people who this is your first meeting for co? Okay, good.

Speaker 5:
We have a lot of new people. That's fantastic. So, we want to do a quick review so that we can get you up to speed and then you can participate fully.

Speaker 6:
Um, the Cumberley project encompasses this area that you see in sort of the bluish purple and yellow. The bluish purple is the property that is currently owned by the city and the yellow is the property that is owned by the school district that will be purchased should there be a successful bond measure.

Speaker 1:
Um all of these facilities are somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 to 50 year years old. Um it predates the ADA act and seismic updates and such. And in 3 years, most of the buildings will be nearing the end of their life. And within 10 to 20 years, all of the buildings will reach the end of their life cycle.

Bobby:
So, how did we get here? Let me hand it over to George and we will get you all up to speak.

Speaker 3:
Awesome. Thank you, Bobby. Um, so how did we get here? This has been kind of a long and winding road. Um, as Bobby just went over the background, we also wanted to kind of cover uh the iterative process that was mentioned earlier. So, here's our process timeline. So, we did start from, you know, square zero. There was a 2019 coverly master plan in full.

Speaker 4:
Um, and in that one, the goal was to have both a community center and a full high school on the same site. Um, in the years that have passed, that goal has shifted. as Bobby just went over. So that's why we're here for a new updated master plan. Um we have had two meetings thus far and we are currently in the third one. Um so the first one was in March and then June and here we are now.

Speaker 5:
Um a couple of other dates that are really really important. Bobby mentioned at the bottom of the screen there you can see that in March 2026 next year that is when city council will uh approve the final master plan. And then a very important date is November of next year is when the vote will happen um to make all all of this work come to uh realation.

Speaker 6:
So what's happened in meeting one? So this is really important to see how we built this up that we just didn't come up with this overnight. This is really explicitly built with y'all's input with a lot of input from community city apartments and all of that. So in meeting one it focused on program priorities and adjacencies. And when I say program, I that's a different word for uses. What goes on inside of a building? What goes on outside of a building? How can you use that space? So when I say programs, that's what I mean.

Speaker 1:
So we ask people to say, hey, what do you want to make sure is in this future site? And so we got together all of the mentions of all the different programs.

Speaker 2:
And this is our top 10 or 12 or so that were most mentioned. So, as you can see at the top, there's a lot of art, performance space, dance class, art studios, art classes, followed closely by gym facilities, cafe was another big one, wellness center. Um, so a lot of really great ideas and the list went on and on and on and on. Um, so we're trying to include as much as we possibly can there. So, we also asked about outdoor programs because there's a lot of outdoor space as well. So, in meeting one, a lot of people wanted to see more open green space. It's a lot of open space, but a lot of it's cement. Um, so maybe we could see ways that we can activate that a little bit differently.

Speaker 3:
Um, we also heard playground, amphitheater was a big one, a pool or water area, tennis courts, um, a variety of other kinds of courts, and then some other uh, walking biking paths. And so we have all those programmed ideas, indoor and outdoor. That was meeting one. In meeting two, instead of focusing on what's going on inside of the buildings, we wanted to focus on the site layout, how the buildings are arranged, what are the main paths, how you get around and through the site. So for this one, we actually presented the community three different options that looked, you know, different from each other, but had a similar square footage, um, similar space, um, being utilized to see kind of Frankenstein it together into one, you know, perfect concept design if we could. Um, so for the first time, we pulled this in a diagonal. As you can see, we had this diagonal main path going through. For the activity, we asked people to put green dots on the things that they liked, that they wanted to keep, and we asked people to put red dots on the things that they wanted to get rid of. So, couple main takeaways that we see here. A lot of green dots on the two kind of bigger green spaces, open spaces on either side. Um, and a lot of people did like the the diagonal.

Speaker 4:
Um, the second one we did was what we called the linear one because it was very uh vertical and horizontal. As you can kind of see the a lot of red dots and no very few people like the enclosed courtyard in that bottom corner and also some of the smaller green spaces. It seems like maybe the larger open spaces uh were preferred. And then this last one we call the prominade because of this uh larger central area. Um as you can see on either side a lot of green on those larger open spaces. The prominade was a bit divisive. A lot of people liked it. Um uh but some people that didn't like it, they said it was too big. Um but people who did like well it was very welcoming and getting people into the site. And finally at the end of that meeting we asked everybody to rank each concept in a variety of categories from one to five. One being not good at all, five being really great, really successful. So you can see kind of a snapshot here. Each of the concepts scored above average of three. Um but the most popular one, the most successful one was the diagonal with a 384 3.84 out of five. Then we had linear which was a three uh point49 and then the grid was 3.02.

Speaker 5:
And so that is a brief overview of how we built all of this together. We took all the programming information from meeting one and all the site layout from meeting two and put all of that together to uh have what we're presenting today.

Speaker 6:
So, I'm going to turn it back over to Bobby to get through the concept design.

Speaker 1:
Great. Thank you. Okay. So, today what we're doing is we're going to share with you very importantly the phasing of the master plan. And this is important for a number of reasons. Um, with a canvas that's this big, you couldn't possibly deconstruct and construct everything all at the same time. the the most negative impact of that would be that all the program that is here would have to stop and we have a lot of experience in doing these kinds of things because many times school districts and I know this has happened here as well have to do new school projects or renovations and so kids move to a temporary site while that construction is going on and then when it's done they move back to that site so it's kind of moving chess pieces around if you will so is very important and we had to do a lot of analysis and understanding the program that's here, the new programming that is being um asked for and figure out how to do that in a way that has the least amount of impact on that programming of those programmings um you know and hopefully can continue to happen. So the phasing is very critical. Um and so we're going to um walk you through what would be the entire master plan and what that looks like in phases. So the first phase we're going to start start talk um I'm sorry start if you will in that back corner and where you see the red dotted line would be the first part of demolition for this first base. And just to or orient everybody if you're not familiar with looking at uh at a map like this, this middle field right there along road which is right over there if you will and Montros. And so that back right corner is um is really kind of a little bit behind where the Charleston Shopping Center is a little bit past that. So hopefully you can understand that. So with that demolition, the first thing that would be built would be recreation and wellness focus and tennis and tennis court and and parking. So the tennis courts would be um torn down and there would be a onelevel parking underneath the tennis courts to be built on top of that. Um a twostory gymnasium. Each floor would have two gyms and ancillary programming area and offices and lockers and support room and such. So the focus of all of those would be recreation, wellness, tennis, and some green parking. And then you see just going counterclockwise. The next focus for demolition is those buildings right there. And you will also note the three buildings, the pavilion, the theater, and building I. those buildings remaining. So the demolition would happen there and then um those three buildings would be renovated. So we expand the programming to include education, early education, after school programs and such much of which is here. Um we would renovate the existing pavilion and theater. um and really focus on this this area becomes kind of the center of performing arts but also including um karate and martial arts and dance and um and all of that. So performing arts and then um the buildings along middlefield that you see in Brown could continue to remain in use. So this would be the end of phase one.

Speaker 2:
Moving on to go into a little more detail about the program because I know at the last meeting some people were concerned because they didn't really maybe they missed the first meeting and we were focusing on the layout of campus. So they might not have felt comfortable that the programmings that the program that they really wanted to see was designated to an area. So now we've done that. If I start at the top right corner here again, that's where the tennis courts are. Um, in the gymnasium, we have lockers, lobby, we have yoga, pilates, moving around.

Speaker 3:
That's there's parking. at Brave underneath the tennis courts, health and wellness programming, preschool in the blue, purple area, preschool and afterare, um martial arts and dance and moving around again per performing arts space, music rehearsal, lobby, theater, a lot of back of house that would support the theater and um and this pavilion turning into, if you will, sort of a multi-use performance space. Um and then uh beneath that in the buildings that would remain we still have we have gallery we have flexible rental space visual arts admin um and tenant and studios workspace maker space flexing rental. So this this plan here does incorporate all of the programming that exists as well as additional square footage. Second floor again we have um another level of gymnasium, yoga, basketball and such health and wellness rehearsal enrichment and dance and martial arts.

Speaker 4:
And there's the one building right there that is a three-story building that would have that.

Speaker 5:
So if we move then to phase two demolition again going counterclockwise the next component that would be demolished is right there kind of on middle field close to mantros and then that becomes the visual arts and technology maker space and such in that space. Um and then demolishing those buildings just a little bit farther down Middleton in that phase or phase three. And there we have the cafe and lounge. That's one of the things that came up a lot in um in people's request. Um a catering kitchen. That's something that is really not available anywhere around and there's a great need for that. And also people said, you know, we love coming to Cumberly, but we'd really like to be able to get some food. Maybe if we have something like Adidas, but maybe even a little bit bigger. Um, so community services and flexible space because flexible space is going to be really critical because by the time all this is done, there'll be new ideas. There'll be new new areas of programming. So, we have to have spaces that can adapt to new ideas and and new needs.

Speaker 6:
So when it's all complete, phase one, two, and three, we have a beautiful master plan in campus. Um, in addition to saving all of the protected trees, we want to bring in additional trees to create more of a, you know, a more tree friendly and more densely planted urban environment. Um, a lot more shade. Um if you can imagine how different that is in what we have now with a lot of concrete and black top in this space. Um places for um outdoor activities. Um um a an amphitheater, small group areas, larger group areas, all kinds of opportunities for incredible programming to go on both indoor and out.

Speaker 1:
So in this phase, I want to explain a little bit more about what happens in the programming. So, what you see on this screen, the top is what I just went over a little while ago, but below we have again the maker space, workshops, gallery, cafe, commercial kitchen, partially underground parking. If you'll note the black dotted line around that area along Middlefield, the plan is to put a half a an half underground parking deck that goes all the way underneath.

Speaker 2:
it would be open and partially so it doesn't require any kind of ventilation mechanical ventilation and such and then we can use the the dirt that ex is excavated in order to build that to create a little more interesting topography across the campus and um and then these facilities would be built on top of that area and again the second floor you'll see down below we have studios and um and more admin space. Now, I want to point out to you that on the back of your handout, you do have information that corresponds to these colors that shows you that the square footage that's dedicated to those program areas. And I'll show you a slide in a little bit to show you how we have increased that um above what is existing today.

Speaker 3:
And again, that um that third floor dance and martial arts So, just another little quick focus on the outdoor uses. Um, people said in our last master plan and in this one as well, we really want such beautiful weather here. We want to be able to be outside. We want to be able to have all kinds of opportunities for activities, large and small groups. And so, in this plan, you see, um, we do have, um, an amphigator that would be right in that sort of U-shaped area. It could be that that the the stage for that is actually built in a little bit under the roof of building I um and then there's um seating that's available on the ground. Um and then we have opportunities for a learning garden.

Speaker 4:
You'll also note we have at the top of the prominade and at the bottom we have a place barber. So, this is an opportunity if those of you that are familiar with the campus, there's a totem um right out there. Maybe it's that, maybe it's another um piece of public art that's created by artists who are here in the studio. Maybe it's also some really beautiful and creative um welcoming signage, but a really a way to invite people into the site and to designate the community center as a special place that it is already and certainly that it will be with this new renovation. We also have a an opportunity for a cultural plaza, baby hairs, a labyrinth. Maybe there's um a way through art or through murals and such to really celebrate all of the different cultural heritage um that is so rich in this area, in particular in this neighborhood, in this city.

Speaker 5:
Volunteer may be a volunteer. We we have heard people talk about gardens. Well, you know, community garden is a is a little bit of a heavy lift. people trying to grow vegetables and such.

Speaker 6:
Maybe that can happen, but maybe it's a pollinator garden. Maybe it's it's certain plants that draw butterflies and other um insects and such. And it's something that can also be a learning opportunity for kids in the area. So, um again, there are many many programs. Oh, one other thing I want to point out is um right across from the um from the shopping center is an area where we have some parking, but we also have designated this as you see the little green spaces right where Elizabeth's cursor is. Um this is such that you could bring food trucks in here. this could be an area to program many different opportunities um on a flexible basis.

Speaker 1:
So I want to also point out the circulation. This is of course very important. Um the dark is the vehicular ser um circulation and um you could actually get in your car and you could drive all the way around. You can enter any of those areas. You can enter any of those parking lots. You can go through them and drive out one way or you can go and turn around and drive out the way that you came. Um the little bit lighter blue area is the bicycle um area for um for circulation. And we've set that up such that um the they the cyclists will have as few as possible um crossings for stopping. And then the lighter blue is the Oh, I'm sorry. Did I do that right?

Speaker 2:
Yeah. And the light blue is the pedestrian walking path throughout the campus. So you could come in over by the shopping center and you could make your way all the way across and go to a performance in the theater or you could park and walk on closely right in um adjacent to those spaces. So it offers a lot of flexibility, a lot of access from just about any part that you um you enter.

Speaker 3:
And important to point out the parking diagram. So, um, again, the tennis court parking is right there. To the left of that is existing parking. That is actually property that is will continue to be owned by the school district and leased by the city for parking. If you continue to go around, the same thing with that sort of um rectangular vertical piece. That's existing parking.

Speaker 4:
That will stay. And then along middle field is where the half submerged parking would be. And then the other little piece right there across from the shopping center.

Speaker 5:
So this plan is one that we say it has a flexible timeline and a flexible design.

Speaker 6:
It offers the most opportunity to maintain programming um to keep things going here and to pace this in a way that is going to be um affordable and acceptable and and something that hopefully people will get behind. So phase one, you could end up with that and and have a complete program and then maybe move to phase two and three and get to the full master plan. So, I want to point out this to show you how we have increased um what's here that we heard there's such a great need um for more square footage, more green space, more parking if you want to increase what you do here. So, the existing site has 20 uh 250,000 square ft of outdoor space, um 180,000 84,000 square ft of indoor space and 520 parking spaces. That's what we have right now. Phase one gets us to 390 square ft of outdoor space. Um, pretty significant increase.

Bobby:
It gets us to 265,000 square ft of indoor space. So, we could really increase the programming and another 60 parking spaces and 580 parking spaces. Now coming all the way through to the entire master plan with phase 2 and three, we increased the outdoor space to 415,000 square ft. Um we increased the indoor space to 284,000 square ft and we increased the parking to 840 parking spaces.

Speaker 2:
So now I'm going to pass it on to George so he can tell you how to get to work. All righty. Thank you, Bobby.

Speaker 3:
So, let's get to work. Um cuz I know it's it's hot in here even for us um from Louisiana. Um so, I'm going to go through this quick. All of the information that Bobby just went over is on your activity sheets um or on the back of your handout for reference. So, the activities, it's a two-part activity as Bobby mentioned. So, you have one large sheet on your table and then you have another one right underneath it.

Speaker 4:
The first sheet is focusing on phase one. What does the site look like and have going on at the end of phase one?

Speaker 5:
The second activity is what's going on at the end of phase two and three, the complete final master plan. Luckily, we made it as simple as we possibly could that the questions on both activities are the exact same. So, after you review the concept designs, you have at the top one of the views with a lot of these spaces labeled. Underneath that you have the first floor and second floor programming diagrams from overhead. And then underneath you have an eyele view and a few precedent photos to kind of get some of the uh creative thinking going. So the three questions that we're asking you is what is working well? What excites you at the top? What is not working well and what can be improved?

Speaker 6:
And then finally the third question is what are your creative ideas to make this space exciting? Um, so those are ideas of how can we use these spaces?

Speaker 1:
What are some events? What are some kind of almost like a what's a what's missing um from from these plans is that question. So after you're done with that one, um you can move on to the second uh activity sheet, phases two and three. Um if you want to spend 20 minutes on the first sheet and then 20 minutes on the second sheet, that's awesome. If you want to spend five minutes on the first sheet because you really want to get to phases two and three, that is also okay.

Speaker 2:
Whenever your group really wants to move to the second activity, you can move to the second activity. Um, whenever you're writing down your ideas, and that is super crucial, that is the most important rule and in fact the only rule. Please write down your ideas. If you don't write down your ideas, we won't see it. So all of that awesome conversation you're about to have, please write it down. You can write directly on the sheet. you can write on a post-it note and put it on the map.

Speaker 3:
You can write in the squares. Um just make sure your notes are clear. Um and uh we'll have a great great session. So um we're going to have about 30 40 minutes to go through both activities.

Speaker 4:
You'll hear some time checks from me or Bobby um to make sure that we're getting through both activities. Um and if you have any questions, I'm sure there's a lot of them. Um just uh please raise your hand. We have a lot of people that are going to float around and um we'll try to answer your questions to their best of our ability. All right, let's get to work.

Speaker 5:
Do you mind helping more with questions?

Speaker 6:
Yes, I see lots of hands. I'll just start at some point.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>