Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-11 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary MinutesPlanning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: March 11, 2026 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 6 7 PTC Chair Akin called the special joint meeting of the Architectural Review Board and the 8 Planning and Transportation Commission to order and outlined the slightly modified process 9 that would be used. 10 11 Each PTC Commissioner and ARB Member introduced themselves. 12 13 The clerk called roll and declared there was a PTC and an ARB quorum. Commissioners James 14 and Ji were absent. 15 16 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 17 18 There were no agenda changes. 19 20 PUBLIC COMMENT 21 22 There were no requests to speak. 23 24 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 25 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 26 27 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer announced there would be a PTC and ARB San Antonio Road 28 Area Plan Study Session on March 19. It was expected that staff would bring a draft ordinance 29 to the PTC on March 25 related to retail vitality. On March 9, Council had planned to discuss SB 30 79 implementation but it was postponed, the De Minimus Exception Ordinance had been 31 approved and there had been a prescreening for a zoning code amendment concerning TDRs 32 specifically applying to 51 Encina Ave and if a formal application should be submitted, staff 33 would take it through the normal zoning code amendment process. It was anticipated that on 34 March 16 Council would review the 2100 Geng Road Project and a PC Amendment for 4075 El 35 Camino Way and consider adopting the Bird-Friendly Design Ordinance. The OOT would not 36 provide a report at this meeting but a representative was online to answer questions about the 37 Cubberley Project. 38 39 PTC Vice Chair Chang asked when SB 79 would go to Council. 40 1 Jennifer Armer answered that a date had not been set. 2 ACTION ITEMS 3 4 2. Cubberley Community Center Conceptual Master Plan [Master Plan; 4000 5 Middlefield Road]: Recommendation to City Council on Adoption of the Cubberley 6 Conceptual Master Plan. CEQA Status: A Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative 7 Declaration (MND) Report Was Circulated for a 30-day Public Review Beginning on 8 March 2, 2026, and Ending on April 1, 2026. 9 10 Assistant Director Community Services Amanda Deml provided work plan updates. It was 11 anticipated that the fourth and final community poll would be released on March 16 and that 12 the Conceptual Master Plan and the CEQA document would be presented to the Parks and 13 Recreation Commission on March 24 to seek their recommendation for Council adoption. Staff 14 was scheduled to present the Conceptual Master Plan and finalized CEQA document to Council 15 on April 20 for them to consider adoption. In June, Council would decide on placing a measure 16 on the November ballot. August was the deadline to submit final ballot language and the 17 placement of a ballot measure and the election would occur in November 2026. Attachment B 18 in the packet linked to the Conceptual Master Plan document and the associated appendices. 19 Amanda Deml provided details of the Conceptual Master Plan. The plan was conceptual and 20 served as framework as one possibility for future development of a phased approach to site 21 development, which included new construction and building renovations. Amanda Deml 22 explained that the phased approach was intentional. Staff was exploring funding mechanisms, 23 which would influence the pace and scope of redevelopment. Potential funding mechanisms 24 might include a combination of development fees, grants, philanthropy, a ballot measure and 25 community partners. Phase one would include a combination of new and renovated buildings 26 and could include programmable spaces for education, visual arts and flexible use space to 27 serve changing community needs. 28 29 Amanda Deml discussed how the concept plan had evolved since the last meeting. A slide was 30 displayed showing the current site, the 8 acres the City owned, the 7 acres the City was 31 negotiating to purchase from the School District and the 20.5 acres the City anticipated 32 continuing to lease from PAUSD. Amanda Deml detailed what one option of a completed Phase 33 1 might include, which could offer complete services for the site. Targeted renovations or new 34 construction could be pursued independently of a full Phase 1 implementation, which would 35 provide new and revitalized indoor and outdoor spaces. If Phase 1 should be completed, the 36 City could pause or continue subsequent phases pending available funding. The conceptual plan 37 would depend on funding limitations and partner contributions. Phase 1 would include 38 relocating some programming to temporary facilities for periods of time but the goal would be 39 to continue as much existing programming as possible during deconstruction and construction. 40 PAUSD occupied multiple onsite buildings and if they vacated, new square footage would be 41 available for use during the transition period. A slide was furnished indicating what the site 42 might look like at the completion of Phase 1. With the project advancing into the architectural 43 phase, the design and phasing might evolve in response to factors such as funding, community 1 needs and partnered development timelines. The City had 2 public-private partnerships 2 committed to supporting site development – the Friends of the Recreation and Wellness Center 3 and TheatreWorks Silicon Valley. 4 5 Amanda Deml stated that the partnerships continuing to refine their scopes and work would 6 help inform and influence the overall development and phasing of the site. Amanda Deml 7 discussed a complete Phase 1 from a programming perspective. Many service categorizations 8 could be fluid as many services could fit into multiple categories. The program categories were 9 developed based on input from the community and stakeholders and reflected space for 10 current tenants while allowing for additional square footage to support new programs and 11 services. The exact locations and future service providers would be determined in later phases. 12 Amanda Deml highlighted some of the features of the buildings that could be offered and noted 13 that longer descriptions and full details were the Master Plan document and appendix. If the 14 Friends of the Recreation and Wellness Center secured funding sooner than the broader 15 project, the gymnasium could move forward earlier than the adjacent buildings. At the end of 16 Phase one, the last step would be to complete renovation of existing buildings. Amanda Deml 17 spoke of outdoor program spaces, which were a central component of the project. Community 18 input emphasized the importance of welcoming, inclusive and flexible intergenerational 19 gathering spaces connecting to the site's natural amenities. Amanda Deml provided a slide and 20 noted that the buildings shown in the background of the outdoor spaces represented only 21 general massing, not architectural design and architectural style would be determined in a 22 future design phase with community input. 23 24 Amanda Deml voiced that elements of Phase 1 could be implemented in different sequences, 25 scales and scopes. The Conceptual Master Plan outlined Phases 2 and 3 to reflect the broader 26 long-term vision for the site, although unlikely to be constructed in the near term. The phases 27 reflected input that had been gathered from the community and stakeholders. Including the full 28 site buildout within the Conceptual Master Plan allowed the City to complete the CEQA analysis 29 for the entire project area. Amanda Deml briefly outlined the proposed sequencing for Phases 2 30 and 3. The Phase 1 walking and biking plan prioritized pedestrian and biking safety and 31 increased vehicle accessibility. Phase 1 would include a new parking lot to meet demand and it 32 was recommended there be a second exit lane out of the Cubberley campus, that a traffic light 33 be added at the north access road and that consideration be given to evaluating a center turn 34 lane to Middlefield Road. Updated traffic studies would need to be done through the 35 architectural phases of the project. In compliance with CEQA, the City prepared and released 36 the draft IS/MND for a 30-day public review and comment period of March 2 through April 1. 37 The document was required to assess potential environmental impacts of the Conceptual 38 Master Plan and identified measures to reduce the impacts. The document was required to 39 allow Council to adopt a long-term site plan and enable the City to proceed with near-term 40 improvements. 41 42 Amanda Deml noted that 5 environmental resources were identified where impacts were found 43 to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, which were air quality, geology and 44 soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and transportation. Impacts for all other 1 environmental resource areas were found to be less than significant or that no impact would 2 occur. The full report was on the project website and could be accessed in person at the 3 Mitchell Park Library, Downtown Library and the Palo Alto Development Center. Comments 4 could be submitted via a comment card on the project website, by public comment at the 5 commission meetings or sent to Community Services Director Kristen O'Kane by email or 6 physical mail. Amanda Deml spoke of the broader vision and significance of the Cubberley 7 Conceptual Master Plan. The plan reflected the vision Council established at the outset of the 8 effort on February 18, 2025, and the community further refined it at the first co-design 9 meeting. Staff believed the Master Plan would bring the vision to life. Anticipated next steps 10 included presenting the Conceptual Master Plan and CEQA document at the Parks and 11 Recreation Commission meeting on March 24 to seek a recommendation for Council adoption. 12 Staff was scheduled to present the Conceptual Master Plan and the completed CEQA analysis 13 document to Council on April 20 to seek Council adoption. Staff recommended that the PTC and 14 ARB consider the draft IS/MND for the Cubberley Conceptual Master Plan and recommend that 15 Council adopt the Master Plan. 16 17 Board Member Rosenberg asked what in the analysis brought staff to the conclusion that 18 Phases 2 and 3 would likely not be done in the near-term and if there were estimated budget 19 numbers for Phase 1 funding. 20 21 Amanda Deml replied that cost estimates were being refined but it appeared that Phase 1 22 would cost $300M to $400M. Staff was refining the overall project cost for the full buildout but 23 it seemed that it would be substantially larger than $300M to $400M and why it was not a 24 near-term option. Staff would make an announcement upon having a more precise number. 25 26 Board Member Rosenberg asked if Phases 2 and 3 combined would be similar to the cost of 27 Phase 1. 28 29 Amanda Deml could not say with certainly if Phases 2 and 3 combined would be similar to the 30 cost of Phase 1. 31 32 ARB Vice Chair Adcock requested the status of purchasing the 7 acres from PAUSD and the 33 timeline of the purchase relative to the ballot measure. 34 35 Director of Community Services Kristen O’Kane responded that there was a Memorandum of 36 Understanding with the School District and a purchase price of $65.5M had been negotiated. 37 Staff was in the process of working on a purchase agreement, which would be presented to 38 Council in the Spring of 2026. The funding mechanism had not been secured for the purchase 39 but Council would discuss it. 40 41 Assistant City Attorney Tim Shimizu added that if a ballot measure should raise the required 42 revenue that the City and the District planned to close on the purchase of the 7 acres in July 43 2027. 44 1 ARB Vice Chair Adcock asked if it was intentional that some of the Phase 1 work would be on 2 the leased property; if Building U would be demolished in Phase 1 and, if so, why; and if Phase 1 3 would renovate buildings planned to be demolished in Phases 2 and 3 and if the renovations 4 would include seismic upgrades. 5 6 Kristen O’Kane did not know if it was intentional that some of the Phase 1 work would be on 7 the leased property. Staff was still finalizing the purchase boundary and the work on the leased 8 property would be addressed during the finalization or when doing architectural designs. 9 Building U would be demolished to accommodate a parking area. The plans were conceptual, 10 so nothing had been decided and adjustments could be made. 11 12 Amanda Deml added that U and H would be removed to make a new parking lot. Building V 13 would be renovated. Phase 1 would renovate buildings planned to be demolished in Phases 2 14 and 3 to make the buildings useable and safe until future phases could take place. Seismic 15 upgrades had been analyzed but staff would do more analysis. Renovations would include 16 finishes, building systems and structural upgrades and could include HVAC, seismic bracing, 17 utilities, roofing, windows and doors. 18 19 ARB Chair Chen queried if there was a timeline for Phase 1 construction and if there would be 2 20 major sections at the end of Phase 1, if the buildings would be connected or detached, if the 21 vehicular circulation would serve as emergency access and if the number of parking stalls would 22 meet the Building Code requirement. 23 24 Amanda Deml responded that if land acquisition occurred in 2027 with a successful ballot 25 measure and possibly other funding mechanisms the estimated start time was 2030 but the 26 timeline might need to be refined. At the end of Phase 1, the rec and wellness building would 27 be one entity with attached adjacencies, education enrichment would be its own building and 28 the performing arts complex would be connected with a lobby. Vehicular circulation would 29 serve as emergency access. There would not be through access for personal vehicles. The 30 number of parking stalls would meet the Building Code requirement. 31 32 Board Member Jojarth questioned if the road around the perimeter would be one- or two-way, 33 how many performances TheatreWorks would host in the pavilion and if there was a plan to 34 move regional performances to Palo Alto. The number of performances could impact traffic. 35 Board Member Jojarth asked if the kitchen space would be just for events or if there would be a 36 cafeteria open to the public. 37 38 Staff answered that the road around the perimeter would be 2-way. 39 40 Amanda Deml replied that the production schedule for TheaterWorks works had not been 41 detailed. Amanda Deml explained that TheatreWorks would not have performances every day 42 and she was sure that the contractural agreement would be in cooperation with the campus 43 and the rest of the activities and staff would consider their performance schedule. The full-44 service kitchen space would be for support and rentals but the café portion could be open to 1 the public as it was heavily requested. 2 3 Board Member Hirsch inquired what the arrangement was with the Board of Education relative 4 to the lease to Palo Alto. The lease should be long enough to utilize the space. Board Member 5 Hirsch asked if TheatreWorks was planning to continue the relationship with Lucie Stern, if the 6 diagonal circulation would go out to Middlefield Road and what the promenade would serve 7 and if it was flexible as far as its completion not being included in Phase 1. 8 9 Tim Shimizu stated the intention was not to build structures on the leased area. In general, the 10 current plan was to make sure the lease included parking lots and some of the athletic fields. 11 The City and the School District envisioned renegotiating the existing lease to make sure 12 operations would not be interrupted and that before closing the purchase the City and the 13 District would come to an agreement on the lease going forward. 14 15 Amanda Deml understood that TheatreWorks would move to Cubberley and no longer be at 16 Lucie Stern. At the end of Phase 1, the diagonal circulation would not reach Middlefield but it 17 would stretch across campus at the end of Phase 3. There had been discussion related to the 18 promenade not being completed in Phase 1 but it would provide circulation for pedestrians and 19 bicyclists and still be of benefit even though it would not make a full connection to Middlefield 20 Road. 21 22 Board Member Hirsch found the use of the promenade to be strange and suggested 23 consideration be given to extending it to be a drop-off area for those who did not want to enter 24 the site. Board Member Hirsch noted that early education buildings were scattered throughout 25 the site and inquired if those sites would be moved prior to the demolition of those areas. 26 Board Member Hirsch did not see a reference to FOPAL. Some parking areas were vacant during 27 much of the day and Board Member Hirsch inquired if Transportation indicated there would be 28 times when that parking would be used a significant amount of time and he asked if the Fire 29 Department had considered Fire access. 30 31 Amanda Deml stated there had been mention of extending the promenade to be a drop-off 32 area but had not been considered because some folks did not want cars entering the site. One 33 building was identified for all early education, which would have safe drop zones. Uses for a lot 34 of the buildings was flexible, so uses could change. FOPAL was incorporated into the plans. 35 There was a detailed transportation analysis in the Master Plan outlining peak parking times. 36 The Fire Department had considered Fire access. 37 38 Commissioner Templeton was concerned that a 25-meter pool would not be the choice of 39 competition swimmers and queried why the pool would be 25 meters and she asked if flooring 40 upgrades for dance studios, etc., would be part of the renovations. Commissioner Templeton 41 noted that the list of goals around safety and sustainability did not include the word 42 modernizing. 43 44 Amanda Deml responded that the community and stakeholders requested a 25-meter pool. 1 Upgrades would probably include flooring upgrades. The finishings for the renovations could 2 potentially be determined after Council moved forward. Staff would continue to work with the 3 spaces that had speciality flooring. Modernizing was a goal and had been communicated in the 4 meetings and in the polling. 5 6 Commissioner Templeton wanted to ensure that the goals were conveyed in writing. 7 Commissioner Templeton asked if the ballot measure would cover purchase only, purchase plus 8 Phase 1, purchase plus Phase 1 through 3 or if it would be approved for perpetuity and then the 9 other phases would occur upon receiving funding. 10 11 Amanda Deml did not know if the ballot measure would cover purchase only, etc. Poll 4 was 12 going out in the field and would help inform that decision. 13 14 Tim Shimitzu added that Council had not approved either way the ballot ask being for perpetual 15 funding or there being a finite date and he thought Council would discuss the details at an April 16 meeting. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton wanted to understand the scope of what should be forwarded to 19 Council. 20 21 Jennifer Armer responded that funding would come from multiple sources. The goal was to find 22 funding for Phase 1. Consideration was being given to providing funding through a ballot 23 measure, negotiating opportunities for funding through other sources and developing a Master 24 Plan for a longer term vision. The Master Plan would assist in future grant funding, etc. The goal 25 was to do Phase 1 through a combination of funding. 26 27 Commissioner Templeton asked if there should be a vision through Phase 1 forwarded to 28 Council with staff determining the funding. 29 30 Jennifer Armer wanted the vision to be through Phase 3 but recognizing that the immediate 31 improvements would be Phase 1. Council would decide on the funding. 32 33 PTC Vice Chair Chang asked if phasing was included in recommending the Master Plan to 34 Council. 35 36 Director O’Kane recommended making a recommendation to Council on the CEQA analysis and 37 the Master Plan document, which would include phasing upon receiving funding. The timing 38 and the boundaries of the phases was fluid. 39 40 PTC Vice Chair Chang questioned what in the Master Plan was not fluid and what would be 41 immovable after a recommendation to Council. 42 43 Director O’Kane stated the maximum size would be immovable. 44 1 Commissioner Peterson inquired if the project was intended to be net zero, what body would 2 make a net zero recommendation and if the project was carbon neutral. Commissioner 3 Peterson did not see a reference in the Master Plan related to walking access to the site. 4 Commissioner Peterson inquired how the pool would be heated. Commissioner Peterson 5 addressed the Traffic Plan and did not see a simulation showing what might happen with traffic 6 with 2 large events happening at the same time, which could create traffic gridlock. 7 8 Amanda Deml answered that the City had adopted various policies and procedures to mitigate 9 impact but did not think it would meet net zero. The plan did not address how the pool would 10 be heated, although the City had plans to electrify. The Master Plan did not have any traffic 11 modeling but when the Transportation analysis was done there had been a discussion related 12 to strategically scheduling events, off-site parking options and other mitigation techniques. 13 There would be strategic planning in the future. 14 15 Jennifer Armer replied that net zero detail would likely be part of building design review. 16 Regarding carbon neutrality, the City strove to do the best possible within certain limitations. 17 Reusing existing buildings had benefits and drawbacks in terms of reaching some of the high 18 standards. Walkability to the Caltrain Station would be discussed at the next meeting related to 19 the San Antonio Road Area Plan. There was coordination with the staff working on the San 20 Antonio Road Area Plan and the staff working on the Cubberly Master Plan. 21 22 PTC Chair Akin recommended that everyone review the Master Plan appendices and the 23 Transportation analysis. 24 25 PTC Vice Chair Chang asked if the pool size was flexible, what would occur if there were not 26 enough funds to complete Phase 1, if the different pieces would be modular and functional if 27 there was only enough to do certain things and if the City was relying on leased land from 28 PAUSD for some of the parking counts. 29 30 Staff answered that the pool size was flexible and the different pieces would be modular and 31 functional if there was only enough to do certain things. Some of the parking counts relied on 32 leased land from PAUSD. 33 34 PTC Vice Chair Chang asked what would happen with parking if PAUSD changed plans in the 35 future. Chair Chang did not see a reference to additional parking being added in Phases 2 and 3. 36 Vice Chair Chang asked what the size of the outdoor amphitheater would be relative to the 37 Mitchell Park Bowl. 38 39 Director O’Kane responded that consideration had been given to parking and PAUSD possibly 40 changing plans in the future. If PAUSD changed its plans, the City would have to look for 41 alternate parking. 42 43 Amanda Deml answered that Phases 2 and 3 parking would include underground, which added 1 to the expense of Phases 2 and 3. Amanda Deml furnished a slide showing the amphitheater, 2 which would be flat space so it could be used for multiple purposes. 3 4 Director O’Kane voiced that the amphitheater and surrounding space would be about 2 acres. 5 6 PTC Chair Akin referenced the document illustrating Phase 1 complete and the subprojects 7 being identified by number but the numbers not being explained. He suggested there be a 8 reference to Pages 56 and 57 as a footnote. 9 10 PUBLIC COMMENTS 11 12 Penny E. was delighted to see progress on Cubberley. The bike/ped facilities on the north and 13 south boundaries of the property were unclear and Penny E. wanted to know what to expect in 14 Phase 1 and what would happen with the central bike facility not connecting all the way 15 through. Penny E. discussed vehicular circulation and students needing safe crossings and 16 requested attention be given to that. 17 18 Board Member Hirsch voiced that the original master planners had in mind a cross-through to 19 the shopping center. Board Member Hirsch found proximity of the project to be an issue and 20 wanted to consider the younger children relative to the drop-off. Board Member Hirsch asked if 21 the preschool would be on the perimeter of the site. 22 23 Amanda Deml answered that one of the main childcare facilities was off Middlefield and there 24 was street parking and parking in the lots. 25 26 Board Member Hirsch found the street parking and parking in the lots to be an issue because it 27 was on the opposite side. Closeness to parking and a possible drop-off on the site should be 28 prioritized. Board Member Hirsch was concerned about the noise produced by pickleball. 29 Tennis courts should be laid out north-south, not east-west. Parking could occur under the 30 raised tennis and pickleball levels and at the end of the baseball fields and the playground. The 31 arrangement of the scheme was terrific. Board Member Hirsch inquired what Building I was for. 32 33 Amanda Deml replied that Building I was used by PAUSD and, if the property was purchased, 34 PAUSD would vacate it and it would be renovated and used for an education or flex building. 35 36 Board Member Hirsch wanted consideration given to the Building I space being open space. It 37 would improve the circulation around FOPAL and Board Member Hirsch hoped the traffic 38 engineers would look closely at making the connection from FOPAL around the pavilion to the 39 parking lot. 40 41 Amanda Deml responded that Building I would be renovated to save cost. 42 43 Board Member Jojarth remarked that the cafeteria should be in a more central location. The 1 circle going through the parking lot was not an ideal solution. The tennis court being on top of 2 the parking structure would be an eyesore and a noise issue and consideration should be given 3 to an underground garage in that area. Board Member Jojarth was concerned that there might 4 not be enough parking in Phase 1. Attention should be given to the sizing and heating of the 5 swimming pool and to the sizes of the ancillary buildings. From a taxpayer standpoint, 6 extensively remodeling existing buildings planned for later deconstruction might not be the 7 right decision. It was critical to recommend to Council that there be a long-term lease for the 8 parking space. 9 10 ARB Chair Chen thought the Master Plan was nice overall. There should be a list of priorities in 11 the event of not having enough funding for Phase 1. Since Phases 2 and 3 would not occur in 12 the near future, there should be dialogue between the new construction and the renovation 13 parties, which could result in architecture and programming being more cohesive. There had 14 been discussion about vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation for end users but back-of-15 house services and daily maintenance needed to be considered. Chair Chen addressed Fire 16 access being across the parking garage and wondered if the alleyway between the tennis court 17 and the garage and the gym could be utilized for that and for a service corridor. The cost of 18 renovations was concerning but Chair Chen thought staff had analyzed it. 19 20 ARB Vice Chair Adcock was disheartened about the later phases. Phase 1 looked like a plan 21 waiting for the future. The diagonal promenade ended randomly at the end of Phase 1. Vice 22 Chair Adcock understood there were subphases within Phase 1 that had priority, funding and 23 community need factors. Vice Chair Adcock queried what funding source would make the 24 education and enrichment portion, for example, possible. It appeared that community priorities 25 had less funding. Vice Chair Adcock worried about the kit of parts of the Master Plan being 26 done in a sequence that paired up with phasing in the Master Plan, even within Phase 1. It was 27 not a full Master Plan but a full dream and Vice Chair Adcock worried about even Phase 1 28 happening. Vice Chair Adcock requested more clarity, in written words, as to what part of the 29 Master Plan was being approved and which parts were likely to get funded in Phase 1A, 1B, 30 etc., and how all of it would fall into place. Since Phases 2 and 3 seemed unlikely, Vice Chair 31 Adcock asked if the Master Plan would be approved leaving loose ends. Partial demolitions of 32 buildings could require seismic upgrades, etc., and could come with a lot of baggage that might 33 not have been investigated. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to know what was being recommended 34 for approval and she wanted clarity on the part of the Master Plan being recommended for 35 approval. 36 37 Jennifer Armer stated the Conceptual Master Plan did not have precise building design or 38 funding guarantees but it would help obtain funding. Jennifer Armer recommended thinking of 39 it as a vision, which was important in making it come to fruition. Staff had realistic expectations 40 based on potential funding to get things in the near term while working toward the final vision. 41 The recommendation should be the final vision while recognizing that the exact layout could be 42 adjusted. Changing the total size, main components of the layout and general site circulation 43 would require a relook at the CEQA review. Phasing would allow for some improvements while 44 working for funding for other components. Jennifer Armer understood that the PTC and ARB 1 wanted the buildings to be seismically safe and to have appropriate flooring for the use and 2 appropriate access for students. Staff would continue to make revisions based on the PTC and 3 ARB’s biggest concerns and priorities and develop plans once funding was available. 4 5 Board Member Rosenberg looked forward to the item advancing. It was critically important to 6 have pedestrian and bike pathing. It would be good to have a competition-size swimming pool 7 and a small pool for the kids but the details would have to be developed upon learning what 8 the budget would be. As for traffic and parking, multiple large events should not be slated at 9 the same time. 10 11 [The PTC and ARB took a 15-minute break] 12 13 Commissioner Hechtman asked what parts of Cubberley the City did not own or lease. 14 Commissioner Hechtman understood the City would not build new structures on the leased 15 land but that the City could put in new asphalt and restripe parking lots. Commissioner 16 Hechtman expressed it was a wonderful visionary document and he was excited by the 17 prospect of the Conceptual Master Plan. Commissioner Hechtman stated the language on Page 18 52 of the Master Plan as it related to phasing needed to be more prominent and thought it 19 should go in the preface and in the summary on Page 49, so folks would understand that it was 20 not an end product but the beginning of figuring out the end product. The Master Plan was akin 21 to a design build 15-percent plan, which would change and be studied in more detail. Priorities 22 should be developed but there was a tight timeline to get a November ballot measure, so 23 priorities should be discussed after obtaining funding. It should be made clear in the document 24 that the Master Plan was a guideline for a future vision, not definitive. There should be an 25 aggressive pursuit of philanthropy and a process for doing such. With the aforementioned 26 comments, Commissioner Hechtman was comfortable with the Master Plan and otherwise 27 supported the staff recommendation. 28 29 Director O’Kane answered that the 27 acres was owned by the School District and Palo Alto 30 leased some of the space. The School District occupied the I and C Buildings, the wings of the A 31 and B Buildings, the auditorium and some other smaller rooms attached to buildings. 32 33 Amanda Deml responded that the plan evaluated restriping the parking lots once taking over 34 the lease but there would not be construction of structures and putting down new asphalt 35 would need to be discussed. 36 37 PTC Vice Chair Chang thought the swimming pool should be larger. Parking was a concern and 38 Vice Chair Chang was not sure the right level of analysis had been done. The times of theatre 39 performances might overlap with the times PAUSD used the playing fields, so relying on a lease 40 for a substantial amount of parking was risky. Vice Chair Chang inquired if there had been a 41 parking study other than the analysis. 42 43 Amanda Deml replied that 2 parking studies had been done – one through the Master Plan and 1 one as part of the CEQA analysis. The CEQA parking study addressed the environmental impact, 2 not use. 3 4 PTC Vice Chair Chang mentioned that the new space would be used differently than the current 5 space. PAUSD’s vision for the site could dramatically change the flow of traffic between the 2 6 sites. The diagonal promenade for Phase 1 was strange and maybe strange in the ultimate 7 vision. It felt like a path to nowhere. Vice Chair Chang noted that she had previously requested 8 use cases for the shape of the greenspace. 9 10 Amanda Deml had heard similar feedback related to the diagonal promenade. Part if it was 11 related to the cost of Phases 2 and 3, so it would not have to be reconfigured. It would provide 12 2 acres of greenspace and halfway complete the ped and bike paths. 13 14 PTC Vice Chair Chang mentioned that she had previously requested use cases for that particular 15 shape of greenspace. Vice Chair Chang had a hard time imagining the long promenade being 16 used for programming without creating spaces within a space. Vice Chair Chang seconded 17 Commissioner Hechtman’s comment related to finding a structured way to approach funding 18 via philanthropy or public-private joint ventures. Vice Chair Chang agreed with Penny E’s 19 comments related to the importance of maintaining an existing path and the concern about 20 vehicular circulation. Vice Chair Chang supported the plan. 21 22 Amanda Deml responded that there were outdoor programming ideas in the Master Plan – the 23 outdoor amphitheater, classrooms, programming, sculpture gardens, play and picnic areas, etc. 24 25 Commissioner Peterson reiterated that there was not an overall plan for bike paths and 26 walkability. Waiting for the San Antonio corridor would be too late to make decisions on the 27 path. At the last presentation, the 2-block radius around the site showed paths for foot traffic 28 and bicyclists to come into and leave the site, which Commissioner Peterson did not see in this 29 iteration. Commissioner Peterson discussed Palo Alto’s 2030 Plan related to net zero and 30 carbon neutrality. The site was sustainable and should be labeled as such and the documents 31 should reflect that it corresponded with the 2030 Plan instead of using a boilerplate of terms, 32 authors, etc. 33 34 Amanda Deml noted that Page 20 of the Master Plan showed existing bike paths and bus stops 35 and asked Commissioner Peterson if that should be scoped out more. 36 37 Commissioner Peterson suggested there be arrows showing the flowthrough. 38 39 Commissioner Templeton commented that the existing leased parking lots were of poor quality 40 and desperately needed more than paint and wanted the motion to be specific about what the 41 lease of the lots meant, which should include safety improvements. It should be seriously 42 considered that noise would carry farther on elevated tennis and pickleball courts and the 43 orientation of the courts should be taken into account. Commissioner Templeton agreed with 44 Board Member Hirsch’s comments related to Building I and wanted thought given to making 1 the space useable since it would be a feature of focus for the outdoor amphitheater space. 2 Commissioner Templeton considered the concessions being near the pool and the sports center 3 centrally located. Commissioner Templeton was surprised to hear that the idea of aboveground 4 parking had been abandoned as there had been a previous discussion about not having 5 underground parking because of the water table. Commissioner Templeton noted that water 6 could be pumped out but sometimes machinery failed. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton voiced that it was surprising that the level of renovation described 9 was not considered a rebuild and the cost being indistinguishable from a rebuild was 10 concerning. Commissioner Templeton was comfortable putting the funding issue aside in terms 11 of moving forward with staff’s recommendation, although she still had questions, which Council 12 and voters might also have, and funding needed to be clarified. Commissioner Templeton 13 envisioned the diagonal open space being akin to the Stanford Oval. The path needed to be 14 cohesive and connect to the neighborhood, etc., to urge voters to fund the project. 15 Commissioner Templeton supported the staff recommendation but wanted the motion to 16 include items the project team should consider in the next iteration – pool size, renovation 17 versus rebuild, bike/pedestrian routes, a better plan for Building I, parking improvements, 18 clarifications on the deal with PAUSD, adding to the preface the language from Page 52 and the 19 words modern, safe and sustainable and possibly reference a plan or recommendation about 20 how to solicit legacy funding. 21 22 Amanda Deml clarified that parking would be partially underground and there had been an 23 initial study of the water table and drilling would be done. 24 25 PTC Chair Akin noted that the PTC and ARB were asked to consider the draft Initial Study (IS) as 26 well as the Master Plan. Chair Akin had heard concerns from the public regarding 27 environmental risks related to sea level rise and seismic hazards from liquefaction. He noted 28 the IS analyzed these carefully, and also analyzed exposure to asbestos and lead paint during 29 demolition, nearby leaking underground storage tanks, and noise. The combination of the 30 mitigations proposed with the IS and the Master Plan, particularly Appendix B, provided 31 convincing mitigation strategies for all the issues. Chair Akin felt the traffic analysis had been 32 well done and was happy that it concluded that some lane changes and a new signal on 33 Middlefield were warranted. Chair Akin found the Mitigated Negative Declaration appropriate 34 and had no remaining CEQA concerns in regard to the Master Plan. Chair Akin found the Master 35 Plan to be comprehensive and well prioritized because he considered it a high-level conceptual 36 plan and assumed that many/most of the key issues raised would be addressed during 37 architectural program development. The phasing made sense. The comment on page 52 that 38 Commissioner Hechtman spoke of should be used more heavily throughout the document, so 39 that that understanding would be more widespread. 40 41 PTC Chair Akin stated that the circulation looked well designed for all modes. Penny E’s 42 comments about the crossings should be given adequate attention when design reached that 43 stage, though it might be that nothing needed to be done at the Master Plan level. Regarding 44 the architectural programming process to come, there was great guidance in Appendices B and 1 C of the Master Plan, which covered the building systems and the parking analysis and it 2 sketched architectural programming outlines in sufficient detail that one could have confidence 3 in the cost estimates. Chair Akin emphasized that those documents existed. This version of the 4 plan addressed all the questions Chair Akin had posed at previous hearings. As for tennis and 5 pickleball noise, there was possibly a need for a sound wall for the northern and western edges 6 of the court, which should be considered during architectural design. More thought should be 7 given to the promenade being a destination event space. Chair Akin appreciated that attention 8 was given to the possibility of the amount of parking being overestimated and that the space 9 might be converted to usable space in the future at a reasonable cost. Chair Akin supported the 10 item and had faith that the architectural programs and design to come would address the 11 issues raised at this meeting. 12 13 Jennifer Armer requested one vote and recommendation from each body individually. 14 15 PTC MOTION 16 17 Commissioner Templeton moved the staff recommendation and to recommend that City 18 Council consider the following: 19 20 • Consider a competition-friendly pool size of 50 meters by 25 yards 21 • Revisit the cost effectiveness of renovating versus rebuilding Buildings S, T, V, E, F, C 22 and D 23 • Review bike and pedestrian routes, including the diagonal promenade, and the 24 existing Safe Routes to School on the property 25 • Clarify that the City lease agreements with PAUSD provide flexibility to the City to 26 make about parking improvements, including landscaping and paving, and have a 27 sufficient duration to adequately provide access to the improvements contemplated 28 in the Master Plan 29 • Modify the preface and executive summary to include language from Page 52 about 30 flexibility and to add the words modern, safe and sustainable to the project goals 31 • Encourage a formal process to raise funding from private sources 32 33 Board Member Jojarth wanted to include noise and possible mitigation around tennis/pickleball 34 court. 35 36 Jennifer Armer noted that noise and mitigation around tennis/pickleball court were included in 37 the CEQA document. 38 39 Amanda Deml added that there would be only tennis courts at this time. If pickleball should be 40 added in the future, staff would present it to the proper sources and stakeholders. 41 42 PTC SECOND 43 1 PTC Vice Chair Chang seconded the motion. 2 3 PTC VOTE MOTION 4 5 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 6 7 PTC MOTION PASSED 5-0-2 (Commissioner Hechtman, Commissioner Peterson, 8 Commissioner Templeton, Vice Chair Chang, Chair Akin ) (Commissioners Ji and James were 9 absent) 10 11 ARB MOTION 12 13 Board Member Rosenberg made a motion to start with the motion template used by the PTC. 14 15 Board Member Jojarth wanted consideration given to there being an adequate amount of 16 parking and coordination between the School District and the tenants, especially in future 17 phases, review the adequacy of parking given the significant new uses outlined in the Master 18 Plan and consider tighter collaboration with various stakeholders (PAUSD, TheaterWorks and 19 the pool tenant) to ensure adequate and safe parking at all times. 20 21 Board Member Rosenberg queried if it should be tied into the concept of operations 22 management. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to make a recommendation that Council 23 could do something about in the future. There should be a solid review of and plan for parking 24 ahead of time. 25 26 Board Member Hirsch requested that the review of bike and pedestrian routes include 27 clarifying the intent and use of the diagonal promenade. 28 29 ARB Vice Chair Adcock suggested that consideration be given to the value of saving Building I 30 and designing the Master Plan around the angle of the building. 31 32 Board Member Rosenberg noted that getting rid of Building I would change the Master Plan to 33 one of the other schemes that had been reviewed in the past. Board Member Rosenberg 34 questioned how viable the other Master Plans were and if this Master Plan was set. 35 36 ARB Vice Chair Adcock noted there could be a similar layout without Building I and she wanted 37 it to be considered. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to recommend that Council consider the phasing 38 within Phase 1 in the implementation of the Master Plan in the future phases, which related to 39 funding. 40 41 Board Member Rosenberg again addressed Building I and noted 3 rounds of public comment 42 indicated a preference to retain the building. 43 1 ARB Vice Chair Adcock responded this was a framework and fluid and about overall square 2 footage and the big vision. Phases 2 and 3 happening and/or parts of C and D being fractionally 3 chopped were ideas to study further, so Building I should be further studied. 4 5 Board Member Hirsch agreed and added that the area could instead be an amphitheater or a 6 gazebo. 7 8 Commissioner Templeton questioned why staff recommended renovating Building I and if the 9 public requested the building remain. 10 11 Amanda Deml answered that the Cubberley Ad Hoc Committee wanted to keep cost as low as 12 possible. A structural analysis had been done to determine which buildings could be preserved. 13 Replacing the building would add significant cost to the project. Amanda Deml did not believe 14 anyone specifically commented that they loved the building. Council expressed a cost-savings 15 priority. 16 17 Board Member Rosenberg asked how focused staff was on this particular scheme versus the 18 ones presented several months ago. 19 20 Amanda Deml replied this was the final Conceptual Master Plan, so staff would consider it 21 done. The community made a selection and staff had built off it. Staff was at the point of doing 22 the final draft. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton requested that staff speak to the comments made about everything 25 being in flux. 26 27 Amanda Deml stated it could be changed but the scheme had been selected by the community. 28 29 Board Member Rosenberg was amenable to removing Building I and building an amphitheater, 30 etc., but there had been significant public outreach and if the design hinged on Building I, she 31 was less inclined to remove it and redesign and reorient the promenade. 32 33 ARB Vice Chair Adcock voiced the Master Plan was a framework and buildings should be further 34 studied because the program had not been developed enough to indicate this was the plan. 35 36 Board Member Rosenberg felt the Master Plan showed the overall layout. Board Member 37 Rosenberg had no problem removing Building I but was concerned about removing everything 38 around it. 39 40 ARB Vice Chair Adcock expressed that the diagonal alignment of the promenade was somewhat 41 based on that angle and the pathway could remain with or without the building. The focal point 42 of the amphitheater curved area was Building I, which was not a glorious sight. Vice Chair 43 Adcock did not think Building I should be the center of the layout. 44 1 Board Member Hirsch added that the community emphasized they wanted greenspace 2 landscaping in the middle of the area. 3 4 Board Member Rosenberg had no issue with removing Building I and utilizing the space for 5 greenspace, an amphitheater, etc., but did not want the entire Master Plan designed around it. 6 7 Board Member Hirsch remarked that the Master Plan was not being designed around it. 8 9 Board Member Rosenberg rephrased the motion to read: Consider the value of saving Building I 10 versus reutilizing that space for another purpose/program, which could include landscaping. 11 12 • Consider a competition-friendly pool size of 50 meters by 25 yards 13 • Consider the phasing within Phase 1 14 • Revisit the cost effectiveness of renovating versus rebuilding Buildings S, T, V, E, F, C 15 and D 16 • Consider the value of saving Building I versus reutilizing that space as part of another 17 program 18 • Review bike and pedestrian routes, including the intent and use of the diagonal 19 promenade, as well as defining the existing Safe Routes to School on the property 20 • Clarify that the City lease agreements with PAUSD provide flexibility to the City to 21 make about parking improvements, including landscaping and paving, and have a 22 sufficient duration to adequately provide access to the improvements contemplated 23 in the Master Plan 24 • Modify the preface and executive summary to include language from Page 52 about 25 flexibility and to add the words modern, safe and sustainable to the project goals 26 • Encourage a formal process to raise funding from private sources 27 • Review adequacy of parking 28 29 ARB SECOND 30 31 Board Member Jojarth seconded the motion. 32 33 ARB VOTE MOTION 34 35 The clerk conducted a roll call vote. 36 37 ARB MOTION PASSED 5-0 (Board Member Jojarth, Board Member Hirsch, Board Member 38 Rosenberg, Vice Chair Adcock, Chair Chen) 39 40 BOARD MEMBER AND COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND 41 ANNOUNCEMENTS 42 1 Commissioner Templeton announced there would be a community meeting at the PAUSD 2 facility on March 12 to discuss the closure of Churchill. Commissioner Templeton thanked the 3 chairs for a job well done. 4 5 Board Member Rosenberg thanked the PTC for hosting the ARB. 6 7 PTC Chair Akin commented it had been a privilege to share the dais with the ARB and thanked 8 staff for arranging everything, board members for fitting this in their schedules and everyone 9 for the worthwhile deliberations. 10 11 Board Member Jojarth thanked the PTC for the meal. 12 ADJOURNMENT 13 14 PTC Chair Akin adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. 15