The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-02-25 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesAPPROVED Approved Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING 7 February 25, 2020 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Ryan McCauley, David Moss, Jackie 13 Olson, and Keith Reckdahl 14 Commissioners Absent: Jeff LaMere 15 Others Present: Council Member Kou 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin 17 I. ROLL CALL 18 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 19 Chair Greenfield: Any agenda changes, requests, or deletions this evening? We'll move 20 onto Oral Communications. 21 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 22 Chair Greenfield: We have one speaker, Monica Williams. 23 Monica Williams: Good evening, Chair Greenfield and Commissioners. I'm Monica 24 Williams, President of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. On behalf of the club, I want to 25 give you a quick update on pickleball at Mitchell Park. First, I want to say that we are all 26 extremely grateful to you, the Parks and Recreation Commissioners, also Daren and 27 Kristen and the Community Services Manager, Adam Howard, for the work that you all 28 did to bring these courts to fruition. We appreciate that the City Council had the 29 foresight to approve their construction. We'd also like to commend Jeannette Serner 30 [phonetic] for her hard work and supervision when the courts were under construction. 31 Jeannette's perseverance, attention to detail, and not settling for anything but excellence 32 has helped make these courts the best place to play pickleball in the Bay Area. The club 33 provides paddles for any visitor who needs one, provides balls for every player, and we 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 2 are purchasing and replacing our temporary nets with seven portable net systems for the 1 multipurpose courts in preparation for the Bay Area Senior Games, which we will be 2 helping to host in May. Our ball manager predicts that our budget for balls alone in 2020 3 will be $7,500. We fund these purchases from our membership fees, which for Palo Alto 4 residents is only $30 a year. We teach pickleball classes. We have seven official 5 instructors and nine assistants who are all registered through the Recreation Department. 6 All 16 of these members volunteer their time to teach the City of Palo Alto classes, so all 7 pickleball class revenue goes to the City. Classes are always full with a waiting list. We 8 have ladders for all abilities, including a youth ladder. In the summer, we will be 9 offering youth clinics. The new pickleball court facility is an amazing resource that the 10 City has provided, so we encourage that it be used by everyone. The number of weekday 11 players averages about 50, and on weekends we often get close to 100 players, many 12 younger people, workers, and students. We welcome residents and nonresidents alike to 13 these public courts, knowing that we do not have jurisdiction and that we cannot reserve 14 the courts any time except for tournaments or City classes. We are working toward 15 encouraging the use of the courts throughout the day and the evening so that everyone 16 can benefit. We're accomplishing this by suggesting times on our website when players 17 of similar levels may gather to have a more rewarding experience. We're happy to report 18 that the number of our club membership will soon reach our goal of 50 percent Palo Alto 19 residents. Our club motto is "arrive as a stranger and leave as a friend." We often get 20 visitors who tell us that Palo Alto has the friendliest and most welcoming players on any 21 pickleball courts they have visited. On behalf of all members of the Palo Alto Pickleball 22 Club, thank you very much to all of you for making this happen. Thank you. 23 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. 24 IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 25 Chair Greenfield: We'll now proceed with the Department Report please. 26 Daren Anderson: Good evening, Daren Anderson with the Community Services 27 Department. I wanted to make you aware of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, 28 NVCAP, and the Boulware Park expansion project. We're hosting a joint community 29 meeting and open house workshop on Thursday, February 27, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 30 p.m. The workshop's going to be at Gunn High School in the new student activity room, 31 P115 and 116. There will be a presentation between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m., and then the rest 32 of the meeting is an open house. You can come by for as little as 10 minutes or stay the 33 whole time if you'd like. There will be interactive stations for you to participate and 34 share your thoughts. The Green Streets for a Sustainable Community symposium is on 35 Thursday, March 12, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The description on the website for this—I'm 36 going to read it to you—says our park roads and their rights-of-way are huge public 37 assets that must be better managed in an imaginative and integrated way. The 38 DRAFT Approved Minutes 3 symposium will bring together diverse stakeholders to explore how to better design, fund, 1 build, and maintain streets to optimize performance on many dimensions. This will be at 2 the Mountain View Community Center, and there is a registration fee. Registration is 3 $25 for the advance registration, and it goes up to $50 if it's for the last minute. I wanted 4 to make you aware that the Foothills Park Access Pilot Program is going to be discussed 5 with Council on April 20. I also wanted to follow up on a community comment we had. 6 A couple of meetings ago, a person spoke, and they asked a question and made a 7 comment regarding park dedication for the new portion of Boulware Park. At the time, 8 we didn't respond to them. There were already plans in the works, and it has since 9 happened that the new addition, the .64-acre area of Boulware Park, went to Council for a 10 Park Dedication Ordinance on February 10. There was also the question about the 11 roadway, which has yet to be finalized as an option that we want to include. There's a 12 roadway separating Boulware and this new parcel that we just purchased. Can it be 13 closed and incorporated into the park? Staff is excited about this, but there are a few 14 more hurdles before we finalize that. The question was does it have to be dedicated to be 15 used as a park. The answer is no. We have a number of sites throughout the City that 16 aren't dedicated parkland, but they're used in park-like ways. If we didn't dedicate it or 17 for some reason there was another obstacle, it does not mean it can't be used that way, if 18 we were given authority and permission to do so. That said, of course, we would try to 19 dedicate it if we could. I wanted to follow up on that and make sure you're up to speed. 20 A couple of meetings ago, Palo Alto Little League came to speak to the Commission 21 about a proposal to slightly alter one of our fields. This is El Camino Park. They wanted 22 to cut out a small section of turf, which would allow them to extend the base paths to 80 23 feet where they're currently at 70. At first, it wouldn't quite work. We couldn't quite find 24 the magical formula that would make this successful without impacting the safety or the 25 conditions for other users. Staff and Little League and the ad hoc committee came up 26 eventually with a successful proposal. We made that work. This new league, called the 27 5480 League, will now be able to use under a pilot program that little section of El 28 Camino Field that will accommodate them. We're glad to report that we were able to 29 meet their needs without any impacts to other field users. I wanted to make you aware of 30 Valley Water, Santa Clara Valley Water District now known as Valley Water, will be 31 hosting two community meetings to discuss the Baylands tide gate replacement. They'll 32 be running that project. On March 13 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., they're going to have 33 a site tour. If you'd like to participate, they ask that you meet at the Byxbee Park parking 34 lot, and they'll walk out to the tide gate, which is a short walk from that site. 35 Commissioner Reckdahl: Can you repeat that date and time again? 36 Mr. Anderson: That's March 13, 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. That's the site tour. The second 37 meeting is April 14, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. This one will be at the Palo Alto Art Center 38 to discuss the project with people who couldn't make it to the site tour. The Earth Day 39 and Great Race for Saving Water is scheduled for Saturday, April 25. That's always a 40 DRAFT Approved Minutes 4 fun event. The tentative time for the Rinconada Park Improvement Project to start 1 construction is August 2020. It's about a three-month construction project. At the 2 December Commission meeting, we had a presentation on the Aquatics Program. We 3 learned that swim lessons were down from prior years. Commissioner Cribbs had asked 4 for an update on the status of those swim lessons. I was able to reach out to Jazmine 5 LeBlanc, who provided some good information. I'm going to share that with you now. 6 It's a bit of a misunderstanding to say that the number of swim lessons declined year over 7 year. The swim lesson program, where families sign up for weekly 30-minute sessions, 8 saw a decline in total lessons taught in 2019 versus 2018. In 2019, there were 7,738, and 9 in 2018 there were 8,830. However, the swim camp program, which offers five straight 10 days of 45-minute lessons plus a fun wrap-around camp experience, served far more 11 families year over year, resulting in essentially many more swim lessons taught through 12 that program in 2019 versus 2018. The total number of swim lessons taught by Tim 13 Sheeper grew from 10,000 in 2018 to 11,253 in 2019. It's a pretty significant shift in the 14 type of lessons that families wanted with far more families opting for the swim lesson 15 embedded in the swim camp. The camps usually run from 9:00 to 2:00 every day with 16 optional pre- and post-camps. There was also a question about adult lessons and what 17 we're doing with that. The adult lesson development is an initiative for 2020. Tim 18 Sheeper's team will be working on that. They launched a pre-Masters program in 19 January. We've evolved the program, and it will soon relaunch as a swim for style and 20 skill. It's open to the community and will target lap swimmers, Masters swimmers, and 21 non-swimmers. More adult programs will launch later in the year. An update on the 22 Masters team. I know that was an issue and a concern for the Commission. The Masters 23 team has transitioned from being coached by Carole MacPherson to a new person hired 24 by Tim Sheeper. There was a kickoff party in January. Lots of the Rinconada Masters 25 swimmers attended to learn about the new team. Nearly all the old team has joined with 26 the new team. The feedback so far has all been extremely positive, both the new 27 participants and the old participants. That concludes the Department Report. 28 Chair Greenfield: Any questions? 29 Commissioner Moss: Can you say anything about last night's meeting with the City 30 Council about Commissions in general and more specifically this Commission? If there's 31 nothing for this Commission, then don't bother. 32 Mr. Anderson: Thank you for that comment. I think the Chair had some ideas that 33 maybe we'd get an update from Council Member Kou when we get to the Liaison update. 34 Chair Greenfield: I was at the meeting last night as well. At the end of the meeting, we'll 35 go over that. Thank you. 36 Commissioner McCauley: Daren, concerning Rinconada swim lessons, I totally 37 appreciate the information that Jazmine shared. I think that's something that was more or 38 DRAFT Approved Minutes 5 less shared back in December as well. There's a belief that it's probably a switch between 1 lessons to these swim camps. In the back and forth at that meeting with Keith, one of the 2 things that Tim Sheeper noted is that they're actually down at all of their programs, not 3 just in Palo Alto but also in Menlo Park. By the way, that could be something that's just 4 demographic entirely. The concern from my perspective is, is it potentially something 5 that Team Sheeper has a problem. For whatever reason, their particular programs are 6 seeing declines. It's nothing that you need to respond to now. For the next time that you 7 bring an update to our group, that's the concern, at least from my perspective, that it's 8 something specific to Team Sheeper rather than being a demographic shift or something 9 else. 10 Mr. Anderson: Thank you. We'll look into that. 11 Commissioner Reckdahl: Maybe Sunnyvale or Mountain View lessons would be a good 12 checkpoint. A question about El Camino Park. You mentioned separately about getting 13 a pump to help the irrigation. That's going in. Is that anytime soon? 14 Mr. Anderson: Yes. We're working on that. When we initially spoke about this 5480 15 field configuration, my staff had a lot of reservations for fear that adjustments to the 16 irrigation would compromise the condition of the turf. Part of the reason we are able to 17 make it work is this longstanding effort to get a booster pump for that site has come 18 through. We should have that very soon. 19 Commissioner Reckdahl: The grass right now is very splotchy. Is that going to help it or 20 is it just the fact that the soil is so bad? 21 Mr. Anderson: It's a combination. The better the irrigation system, certainly the better 22 the turf. What we want is head-to-head coverage. Right now, we don't necessarily have 23 that completely because of the lower pressure on that site. It will definitely help. I don't 24 know that it will 100 percent resolve it. What Commissioner Reckdahl is referencing is 25 the poor soil. You might recall in 2015 when the El Camino Park project was happening, 26 an underground reservoir was placed there. A lot of the soil that was used on top of that 27 reservoir was not necessarily of the highest quality for turf-growing. A lot of it had a lot 28 of rock. Our staff's doing our very best to amend the soil every year with better nutrients 29 and better conditioners to hopefully have a healthier stand of turf. Over time, we will see 30 it continue to get better. 31 Chair Greenfield: Any other questions? I have a couple of quick comments regarding 32 the Green Streets symposium. I am planning to attend it. I encourage anyone else who 33 wants to attend, just let me know if you're planning to go. Regarding the tide gate 34 replacement, I was on a tour with Valley Water and some environmental stakeholders 35 yesterday. I encourage all the Commission members to try and make the tour in March. 36 DRAFT Approved Minutes 6 It's something that potentially we may want to get on a future agenda as a presentation for 1 community feedback. 2 Mr. Anderson: That one's scheduled for a Park Improvement Ordinance that would come 3 to the Commission for a discussion. 4 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. That's all. We can move on with our next order of 5 business. 6 V. BUSINESS 7 1.Approval of Draft Minutes from the January 28, 2020 Parks and Recreation8 Commission Meeting9 Approval of the draft Minutes was moved by Commissioner Olson and seconded by 10 Commissioner Reckdahl. Passed 6-0, LaMere absent 11 2.Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 13, 2020 Parks and Recreation12 Commission Retreat13 Approval of the draft Minutes was moved by Commissioner Moss and seconded by Vice 14 Chair Cribbs. Passed 6-0, LaMere absent 15 3.Ramos Park Renovation Project Update16 Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commission. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 17 City of Palo Alto. I'm going to go through a presentation about Ramos Park. It's up for a 18 fairly small renovation as far as park renovations go. There are some key features that 19 are going in there that we'd like your feedback on before we put the design together. This 20 is to talk about the scope of work, what occurred, and the feedback that was provided by 21 the community meeting and, of course, your questions and answers. I'll go through the 22 presentation. If you have questions as we go along, you can ask me them as we go. I 23 thought this would be an interesting slide I added to the presentation. This is a historical 24 plan of Ramos Park. I can't quite see the date down there, but it's fairly a long time ago. 25 You can that the majority of the park does look the same today. The framework of the 26 structure of the park is similar to what the original design was. You can see Meadow is 27 located out here. The playground exists in here. The large paved area in the back existed 28 there. What's interesting to look at is you can start to see what type of striping was 29 intended for that area. I think they have a volleyball court here and a little basketball 30 court right there. Is that what it's saying on there? At some point, there was an 31 elementary school adjacent to the park. That explains a weird nuance that occurs with 32 some of the pathways. The school, I guess, was torn down at one point. This concrete 33 pathway just ends where there was an existing pathway, but now it's gone. It still 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 7 remains that way today. That's something we'll talk about in the renovation plan. 1 Overall, the park is maintained in good condition and is in its overall original design. 2 Here's an aerial with East Meadow up on top of the screen. Here's the pathway I was 3 talking about before, ending at that point. Of course, the playground is one of the main 4 features of this renovation as well as looking at restriping the paved court area. The 5 actual CIP language talks about refurbishing the court surface. Unfortunately, with 6 concrete that's not really a possible thing to do. You pretty much have to rip it out if you 7 want to make it a better surface. It is a quite large paved area. It's not in the best 8 condition, but it's not in the worst condition. It's got one basketball hoop that exists back 9 there. I think we can do some other things back there that can make it a little bit more 10 usable as far as the space. This goes along with the historic ideas of the parks in Palo 11 Alto, built mostly in the '50s and '60s. This had court striping on it, but I'm sure that at 12 some point it was thought that it could be a roller skate rink as well. Most of our big 13 paved areas were called out to be that. That is not something that is very popular these 14 days. Finding other uses for the community to use that space is something we'd like to 15 do. Here are some existing images of the playground. Currently, the playground is only 16 for tots. That's between the ages of 2 and 5. The equipment that's out there is rated for 17 that age. You can see there are climbing structures that are smaller scaled for younger 18 kids in a tan bark area. There's a defined sand area that has a whole bunch of spring 19 riding toys. More old school in the sense of a playground. I think the playground is 20 somewhere between 50 and 20 years old. That's usually when we renovate the 21 playground and swap out the equipment. That's something that we talked a little bit 22 about with the community in the meeting. The project is made up of two different capital 23 improvement projects, one for the park renovation work itself, which is funding of 24 $271,000, and for the addition of a new park restroom with funding of $350,000. It was 25 felt that Ramos Park, since it was on the schedule to be renovated now, would be best to 26 include the bathroom in the work so it could all be done at the same time without having 27 to come back later and trench the park work that had been done. The first community 28 meeting was held about a month ago. It was very well attended. I think we had 32 29 people or something like that, which is very good for a community meeting. The 30 community meeting centered around a series of questions and sticker boards to gain 31 feedback about the proposed renovations to the park, a question about the restroom, 32 questions about the playground. We'll go through those things, the responses from the 33 meeting. Subsequent to that, we've had an online survey going, which has garnered a lot 34 of responses, and we'll talk about those. You can see at the bottom a sample. This is the 35 questions and how they were asked and then voted on with stickers. The other thing we 36 talked about in that meeting was the location of the restroom. We gave three options of 37 where the restroom could be. I think the consensus overall from the community was they 38 would rather have it closer to the street than more inward to the park. We're looking at 39 those locations for putting the initial design together. These are the results from the 40 community meeting. The question that was asked was do you favor a bathroom in the 41 restroom, 21 votes for yes and 4 for no. The second question concerned the playground, 42 DRAFT Approved Minutes 8 either maintaining it as a tot lot or mixing and providing equipment for older aged kids, 1 ages 5-12. It was favored by the community to have some older children equipment in 2 the playground. The striping of the court in the back was favored to maintain what's out 3 there and keep the basketball. I think there are additional basketball courts or half courts 4 that we can put back there to make it more usable. This is the voting for the restroom 5 location. You can see the two that are closest to East Meadow are the ones that received 6 the most votes. I think this one actually beat it out by one, that was closer to the 7 playground. From the meeting, a couple of other questions came up about the park that 8 were not in the original scope. One concerned security lighting. The community felt we 9 needed to provide more lighting in the park. Questions about adding native or habitat 10 planting to the park and the extension of the current dead-end walkway to make a 11 continuous loop path. There was actually a lot of conversation about a dog park. 12 Apparently, dogs are off leash in the park quite a bit. There was some vocal support for 13 having a defined dog park in the area. That's not a part of the scope of the project in the 14 current CIP, but it did seem to be something the community was interested in. Those 15 questions were added to the questions for the online survey. The online survey started on 16 February 3 and is going to run through this Friday. To date, 167 people have taken the 17 survey. That is a very good turnout for a survey. We would expect somewhere in the 30-18 40 count of people to take the survey. A lot of people have taken the survey. The 19 neighborhood reps have really helped to push out and promote the survey on email. 20 That's done a really good job of getting people to participate. You can see, as things go 21 with the restroom, that's always a polarizing topic. Currently the vote is 86 for and 80 22 against. I think a majority of the neighborhood would like a restroom there. We'll talk a 23 little bit more about why the City would like to see a restroom in that location. Adding 24 playground equipment for older kids is something the community would like to see. 25 They'd like to see the basketball court restriped and added to. The paved area is the one 26 they supported. That question gave the option of writing things in. Summarized at the 27 bottom is what those are, tennis, refurbishing, pickleball creating a loop pathway. The 28 overall majority was to maintain and expand the basketball experience on the paving. 29 Security lighting has a lot of support. Lighting is always a big-ticket item when you start 30 to put electrical in the park. For our purposes, where lighting is lacking in the park is 31 mostly around the picnic area. The dense trees make a dark place there. I think we can 32 incorporate a lighting element on the restroom building that would illuminate that area 33 enough, which the community would like to see done. The community supports adding 34 native and habitat planting to the park, which it does lack now. It supports having some 35 type of dog park facility there. That's something we will explore more in the next 36 meeting with the community, locations of where that could be and the size of that. That's 37 something we weren't expecting to find, but that's why we go through this process. I 38 have talked to Daren about the funding that we have for dog parks. If it is something we 39 do want to move forward with, the community is in favor of doing, then we can find 40 some funding to have a dog park there. As far as our budget, which again is fairly small 41 for a park, $271,000, we are doing our best to enhance that by doing all the design and 42 DRAFT Approved Minutes 9 community outreach work in house, which means I do most of that work. It does save us 1 a little money to have more amenities out there. This graphic shows where the proposed 2 features could be that we could use that funding for. Along the street, we recognize that 3 there is an unused turf area that could be converted into native habitat. The yellow line is 4 the connection of the concrete walkway out to the street walkway. Right now, there is a 5 nice loop path that goes around the park. As it gets into this location and into the picnic 6 area, the path is not concrete. It is decomposed granite, which most of the time is fine. 7 In inclement weather, it's maybe not as nice to walk on. Adding the extension of the 8 walkway around, we can hook to the City sidewalk in front and make a continuous loop, 9 which would be a bonus feature of the park as far as walking goes and providing that 10 activity for the community. The playground area will remain where it is. We will look, 11 at the next meeting, about what we're proposing to put in there as far as playground 12 equipment and how it fits in that space. The location for the restroom, just by looking at 13 the invert elevations of the utilities in the street, it is easier to place it in this location here. 14 I also think it is a better location as far as lighting goes to illuminate this area here. We'd 15 set it out there, closer to the street. This area here, I show a space for a potential dog 16 park. We've talked about dog parks before. If we're going to try to install a new one, we 17 try to have at least a half acre for the impact of the dogs on the area. Peers Park is used 18 quite regularly and it's very difficult to keep the grass alive there. I think this is easier 19 because the grass is in the sun in this location. The blue area shows a little over a half 20 acre. I'm showing that so we can see what it looks like in a plan. That will be further 21 discussed with the community, the size and location. This is a passive turf area and is not 22 really used for programmed practices. It has the difficulty of being closer to the 23 residential houses that back up to the park. If it was decided to have a dog park, we 24 would fence 360 degrees around it and have a buffer between the houses, not use the 25 house fencing as part of the fence. There are also quite a few residential gates that access 26 the park. For the people that live there, we want to keep that access open to them. It is 27 very difficult in some parks to add a restroom. The Parks Master Plan looked at 28 formulating a list of parks that don't have restrooms but do have a fairly large size and 29 multiple amenities, such as playgrounds, group picnic areas, play fields. By providing 30 those amenities in a park, we should provide some type of restroom facility for those that 31 are using the park. Ramos Park is no different. It has a wide variety of facilities. I know 32 the picnic area is well used on the weekends. The field is used for children's practices. 33 We would recommend moving forward with a restroom. It looks like we have majority 34 support from the community for that. We can do better educating in this process of what 35 the restroom facility is. There is an older idea of what the restroom is and that it attracts 36 nuisances to the park. The new restroom designs are very hardened structures that have 37 some security features. They automatically lock in the evening time when the park closes 38 at 10:00 p.m. This particular feature, if we'd like to have it and we can discuss this more, 39 has a timed door lock. You can only be in there for 10 minutes before the door lock 40 opens. It has motion-detecting lights in the evenings. If you are inside there, it's very 41 easy to see that someone is moving around inside the restroom. The restrooms are much 42 DRAFT Approved Minutes 10 more hardened to use and much more secure than they have been in the past. The most 1 recent ones are at El Camino Park, Juana Briones Park. I think they've been very 2 successful. I haven't heard many complaints about them. They operate along the same 3 level as this restroom would be. The restroom is two unisex stalls. They're ADA 4 accessible. You can see the layout of them here. They're very easy to maintain. They're 5 prefabricated offsite, so you basically set a structure onto a foundation. It's actually not 6 built in the area. Once we get the utilities there, it usually takes about a day to install 7 them and hook them up. There are some aesthetic options for the outside of the restroom. 8 This one is not as fancy or vibrant as the other ones are. All the materials on the outside 9 are made to be tamper proof and graffiti proof. If you'd like more aesthetics, you can 10 have that. The restroom does go through the Architectural Review Board where they 11 provide comment on the aesthetic value of the restroom. That is something we will take 12 them for their comment. We'd like to have the second community meeting some time in 13 April, go to the Architectural Review Board to discuss the restroom in April, do a third 14 community meeting to look at the finalized design, bring that back to the Parks and Rec 15 Commission for final comment, which would happen in the summer. Once that happens, 16 we would have a Park Improvement Ordinance to do the work in the park, mostly for the 17 restroom as it is a new facility. If we have a dog park, that would be part of the Park 18 Improvement Ordinance. We'd like to bid out the project some time in late summer or 19 fall and start working on it some time this year. Not an overly difficult project, so I 20 would say the construction would be three months or less. That's my presentation. I'll 21 take questions from the Commission. 22 Chair Greenfield: Do any Commissioners have a clarifying question before we get 23 started? 24 Commissioner Moss: Can you put the restroom slide back up? 25 Chair Greenfield: I'm sorry, David. Before we get into comments, we're asking 26 questions. Do you have any questions, clarifications? I think we'll have some 27 community speakers first. 28 Commissioner Moss: I have questions. 29 Chair Greenfield: Go ahead with your questions. 30 Commissioner Moss: Do we need to do that first? 31 Chair Greenfield: Can you ask clarifying questions about the presentation before the 32 public speaks? If you want to hold them to when talk later, that's fine as well. 33 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is that standard, that restrooms go to ARB? 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 11 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 1 Commissioner Reckdahl: For Briones, we went to ARB also? 2 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 3 Chair Greenfield: We have a couple of public speakers regarding this item. The first is 4 Michele Rosenhaus [phonetic], followed by Lakshmi Sender [phonetic]. 5 Michele Rosenhaus: Hi. I live right next to Ramos Park, actually right next to where 6 they want to put the dog park. Ramos Park is very small. It's used by a lot of kids for 7 soccer and baseball and picnics. I see it from my house, the volleyball courts and soccer. 8 If you put the dog park there, you're going to take away a huge chunk of this area for 9 people to play. It's true that there are a lot of dogs in the afternoon that are off leash. 10 Maybe there are six dogs. If you build a dog park there, you're just asking more people 11 to come and use it for dogs. It's smelly and noisy and dusty. Living right next to it is not 12 the ideal. I think it would really ruin the park. I think Lakshmi has some better ideas of 13 what to do with the dogs. Thank you. 14 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. Lakshmi Sender. 15 Lakshmi Sender: Hi. I'm Lakshmi, and I live next to Ramos Park, very close to where 16 Michele lives. I've lived there for 20 years, and for 20 years I've had dogs. We walk the 17 dog every single day through Ramos Park. I forget the number that I saw there. There 18 were a hundred people who were signed up for wanting a dog park. Michele is my 19 neighbor, and I totally understand if she has to face the dog park with a fence right in 20 front of her door. As I was doing some research, I looked at what a city called Brookline 21 in Massachusetts has done. They have a designated area of the park for dogs and 22 designated times when they can be off leash. There is a very strong, tightly knit 23 community that comes there every evening and morning. The owners know each other, 24 and they feel comfortable letting the dogs play with each other. I know it's not allowed, 25 but it still happens every single day. None of these people go to the JLS park because 26 they don't know who's coming there. We've had many different aggressive behaviors of 27 dogs, so they're not comfortable going to a place where they don't know the community. 28 What I found in this Brookline, Massachusetts, place was that you have to register with 29 the Parks and Rec, and you can get a green tag that you can put around the dog's collar to 30 tell you that you have permission to let it off leash. You can have certain times when you 31 can go and do that. There are rules and regulations that the dog owners have to adhere to. 32 If you have an aggressive dog, if it's not spayed, if it's in heat, you can't let it off the 33 leash. If there are kids playing soccer there, you can't let it off the leash. As a resident of 34 this area for such a long time and a dog lover, I have made so many friends. It's an 35 incredible opportunity to build a happy community there around these dogs and dog 36 owners, if you could implement something like that. I did send an email to the Parks and 37 DRAFT Approved Minutes 12 Rec Commission and a link to this green dog program. I think I've talked to almost all of 1 the dog owners, and they all agree with what it could do. I hope you guys will consider 2 something like that for Ramos Park. Thank you. 3 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. Now, we're ready for Commissioner comments and 4 questions. David, would you like to continue? 5 Commissioner Moss: Can you put back the bathroom—yeah, that one. When I see that 6 there's a survey out there with 84 people for and 80 people against, there's some 7 misinformation going on. I want to know how we can counter that in these discussions. 8 There's no question that having a restroom there with all those kids and parents and 9 seniors, it's a health and safety issue. The people who are against it are probably against 10 it for one reason, and that is they're worried that homeless people are going to come into 11 the park and start using the bathroom. When you look at this list here, somebody needs 12 to tell those 80 people that this list of technology that we didn't have even five years ago 13 makes the homeless problem a lot less. You have to point to El Camino Park, for 14 instance, where there would be a lot more homeless people and a problem if that really 15 were a problem. I do want a bathroom in this park. I want a bathroom in every park. 16 Whatever we can do to counter that discussion would be greatly appreciated. If you 17 could put up a sign that says "if there are any safety issues, call 9-1-1 or call the 18 Community Services phone number." There should be a big, fat number there. It's got to 19 be stopped. Can you put up the one with the dog parks? Every place we go, everybody 20 has a dog. Everybody wants a dog park. They just don't want it right behind their house. 21 That is an untenable situation, and something has to give. The ideas that are put forward 22 to make it smaller, make it a little bit in—I don't want them to say no, no dog park. 23 Somehow, we have to have a dog park. When they say that their dogs are well behaved 24 and everybody knows each other, what about when we get more and more people using 25 the park as the population grows? You're going to have issues. I do want everybody to 26 have a safe place for their dog to run. I don't know how we do this, but I don't want them 27 to say no. If you want to take that looped path and put it between the dog park and the 28 back fence, so they can get in and out of their house, that would be terrific. That gives a 29 little buffer. You get the loop. Everything's great. 30 Commissioner Olson: I second the vote for the bathroom because I have young children. 31 It's quite a crisis if there's a playground with no bathroom in our family. I agree that there 32 could be a little buffer between the dog park, whether it's a sidewalk or maybe even 33 putting a stretch of native plantings back there. That might be a good way to add 34 something nice to look at for the folks who are adjacent to the dog park. 35 Commissioner McCauley: Thanks again, Peter, for the presentation. I believe that we on 36 a seasonal basis have a port-a-potty located in Ramos Park, mostly for soccer users. 37 Mr. Anderson: Yes. Oftentimes, leagues will bring out one. 38 DRAFT Approved Minutes 13 Commissioner McCauley: Have we had any problems with those facilities when they've 1 been there? 2 Mr. Anderson: We have. Oftentimes, they aren't requesting permission to do it. 3 Sometimes they don't pick it up. It'll stay out there and have a smell. It's not connected 4 to a sanitary sewer, so it's more prone to smell issues. 5 Commissioner McCauley: From those perspectives, having a permanent restroom 6 facility is preferable to the current situation? 7 Mr. Anderson: Yes. 8 Commissioner McCauley: Do we have an issue with people using the bushes, so to 9 speak, when those port-a-potties aren't available at Ramos Park? 10 Mr. Anderson: Yeah. That's true of most of our parks. 11 Commissioner McCauley: Is it particularly the problem at Ramos? I know it is, for 12 example, at Pardee. 13 Mr. Anderson: I couldn't say for sure. I've heard it from our park inspectors for almost 14 all our sites. They didn't call out Ramos any more than any of the others. 15 Commissioner McCauley: I think it's a great idea to add a restroom as well. Peter, I 16 know that you were thinking initially that you might actually have it be in the third 17 location, which was the least preferred location. I'm wondering whether, because it's now 18 going to be closer to the street and closer to utilities, you'll actually have some savings in 19 the cost of installation that might allow you to have lighting that would extend down that 20 new proposed path to near where the restroom was thought to be more central to the park. 21 At the same time that you were to install that path, it might make sense to install the 22 electrical conduit underneath the path potentially. Certainly, you'll have to do excavation 23 for the path, and maybe that can dovetail with electrical pole installation there. For the 24 playground, I think it's a great idea to add some playground equipment for older kids. I 25 can actually say my daughter is not yet 2, and she sometimes gets bored on the 2-5-year-26 old playground equipment. I think that's a great idea. Are we going to be able to expand 27 the footprint of the playground at all with the new equipment? 28 Mr. Jensen: The current footprint is the existing footprint that was designed originally. It 29 wasn't planned to expand it. It would be difficult to do that because of the existing trees 30 that are around it. If this area was a little bit more open here, it would be a great spot to 31 expand the playground, but it is a stand of trees. That limits that space. No, there wasn't 32 an idea of expanding the playground. What we were starting to look at was using the 33 existing sand area, where the spring toys are, to mix tot equipment in there. It's not going 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 14 to have as many spring toys, but it's still going to have a climber and spring toys in that 1 space and use the rest of it for older kids. That's trying to get some type of swings in 2 there, which take up a large area, and a couple of other objects. I should mention that the 3 surfacing will be accessible, so we are looking at replacing all the surfacing in the 4 playground to rubberized surfacing and removing the sand. 5 Commissioner McCauley: You're going to be creative with the space and try and fit in as 6 much as you reasonably can. 7 Mr. Jensen: From the learning that we've taken from Magical Bridge, being more 8 inclusive and providing a variety of equipment that people with different abilities use is 9 always what we focus on now. 10 Commissioner McCauley: Since we have a number of people who are community 11 members here, it makes sense to note for the broader community that particularly for add-12 ons that might cost something, whether it's better playground equipment or the lighting 13 issue, particular types of lighting, particular facades on a restroom, etc., if those are 14 things that the community cares about—I think they are—there are ways through the City 15 that they can help to make that a reality through organizing within their community and 16 sponsoring those sorts of improvements. I think, Daren, it's called adopt a park. Is that 17 right? 18 Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 19 Commissioner Reckdahl: I'll echo Jackie's request. Having that loop trail go all the way 20 around closer to the fence would be good. It makes a longer loop and gives the neighbors 21 some buffer. Having those native gardens along the edge would be a good buffer also. It 22 would make sense if we are anticipating doing something with a dog park there, doing 23 that right now, having that loop trail go on the outside now. I also like mixed-age 24 playgrounds. There will be cases where you have an older kid and younger kid, and the 25 older kid doesn't want to go to the kiddie playground. Having a wider range is always 26 good for families. That back corner is right now kind of unused, and it's kind of an 27 awkward location. Did you put any thought into what you could do back there? 28 Mr. Jensen: We've looked at that area. Right now, it is a passive turf space. This is the 29 old image. I think it does get cut off, doesn't quite go back to the point that it's showing 30 on the old plan. If it didn't have such a big tree back there that shades the area, I thought 31 about a nice community garden. 32 Commissioner Reckdahl: That tree is healthy? 33 Mr. Jensen: Yeah, it is. Due to the size of the budget as well, that's something we did 34 not add in there. It is something we could explore more with the next community 35 DRAFT Approved Minutes 15 meeting. It's maybe something that we can work on over time. Of course, it's just grass. 1 Just like the community garden at Rinconada Park, I can see the ivy out towards the 2 parking lot starting to go away because people keep working on it. If we perhaps opened 3 it up to be a community garden, it could start to do its thing by itself. That is something 4 to consider. 5 Commissioner Reckdahl: If you could put benches back there, it could be a reading spot. 6 A quiet spot in the park would be reasonable. If you have an awkward corner, that may 7 be the best option, just to have reading. Thank you. 8 Vice Chair Cribbs: Peter, thank you very much for the presentation. I thought it was 9 great. I also wanted to say that I thought your leadership of the community meeting that 10 we attended was really good too. There was a great spirit in the room, and the neighbors 11 and the community were very appreciative of the park and what everybody was trying to 12 do and had really good ideas. I'm happy to see them incorporated in this. To the 13 bathrooms, I'd just have to echo what everybody else says. It's a public safety issue. The 14 more that we can talk about what bathrooms look like now and how they can be locked 15 and how they're kept clean and all of that, the better off we are going to be to helping the 16 public understand that this is a really important thing for us to have in all of our parks. 17 That's one thing about the bathrooms. I'm glad to see all that information in there. That 18 was great. About the dog park, I'm always delighted when you can find a space for a dog 19 park, but I feel badly because it seems like we've talked about north Palo Alto having a 20 dearth of dog parks. This would be another one in south Palo Alto. Since you said that 21 there was no money right now and you would have to look for some money for the dog 22 park, what (crosstalk). 23 Mr. Jensen: We do have the dog park fund for this year. We could tap into that and use 24 it for this space, if that was (crosstalk). 25 Vice Chair Cribbs: What I was thinking is we could try the green tag dog program as a 26 pilot program in Ramos Park for a while, while you were searching for money. If you 27 have money, that's a different thing. I remember the obligation toward north Palo Alto. 28 Finally, just to talk about the nice young man who was about 12 at the community 29 meeting and who was very interested in making sure that the basketball court stayed and 30 maybe another hoop and maybe we could stripe it. That's so great because kids need the 31 opportunity to do unstructured kinds of things. The more we can provide for that, the 32 happier everybody will be. Thank you very much. It's really good work on that. 33 Mr. Jensen: I would like to touch base on the restroom. In the next community meeting, 34 we will do a more focused educational presentation on the need for the bathroom and 35 what bathrooms are in the current state. That's one of the things to overcome, some of 36 the fear of the restroom. We can educate the community on the newer restrooms and set 37 them at ease with having a restroom in the park. I understand where they're coming from 38 DRAFT Approved Minutes 16 with that, but for the park's purpose the restroom is something we'd like to have. The dog 1 park, I know that we have discussed in the past and tried pilot programs for shared-use 2 space. We've done it in bigger, open fields that were programmed for things like soccer. 3 This particular piece of turf is unprogrammed. Maybe this is another that we want to 4 explore that option and make hours that people can use it to have their dogs out there and 5 define it to that side of the pathway. That could be an option without having to fence the 6 whole thing. If there was an easy way to create a pretty barrier along the edge, that 7 would be nice. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is with some type of fence. That is 8 something to consider with this space. I think it has the opportunity to be more 9 successful than the Greer Park one, which was on soccer fields that people wanted to play 10 on. This park does have a close-knit group of dog users that do use the space. From 11 what I've seen out there, they do patrol themselves fairly well. I think they would 12 respond to a space like that. Because we do have some Code that makes that illegal and 13 you can have some type of fine levied against you for having a dog off leash there, it's 14 definitely used for that. We need to reconcile and figure out how to make that a thing 15 that is legal for them to be doing in the park without fear of reprimand. I was happy to 16 see that this came up because this was not part of the scope of work. It was brought up 17 by the community with the recognition that there was a lot of dogs out there and perhaps 18 a defined dog park would be needed. This has been the process of figuring out what that 19 is. 20 Chair Greenfield: Thank you, Peter. I appreciate the presentation and the update you've 21 done to encapsulate community feedback and expanding what you're presenting as 22 options. Of the options that you're presenting, aside from the dog park, do we have 23 budget for all of these within the current CIP? This includes the original items and the 24 addition of some lighting, the full extension path, and some native planting. 25 Mr. Jensen: If we combine the funding from both CIPs, we can cover that scope of work 26 that we're proposing. If we move in the direction of having a dog park and we can tap 27 into that funding, that would help that out. We are helped out a little bit if we do move 28 the bathroom closer to the street. We do save some money there. Even the concrete path 29 that connects over there, we could start to incorporate that as an aspect of the restroom 30 and access to it; use the funding for lighting the pathway and the restroom to get those 31 features in; and then use the money for the playground, some native planting, and the 32 court restoration; and hopefully maybe tap into the dog park thing and have the dog park. 33 We have and we can locate enough funding to get all those things done. 34 Chair Greenfield: If we did not put in a dog park, would we have funding? I'm very 35 much in favor of pursuing the off-leash pilot there. That's a great opportunity. I know 36 from personal experience that grass area is not good for much. I've coached soccer there. 37 If there's a game going on, just trying to get kids to warm up there, it's very uneven and 38 mushy. It seems like it'd be great for dogs. It's a great opportunity. I'd love to have the 39 DRAFT Approved Minutes 17 park amenities ad hoc spend time looking into the off-leash program and maybe coming 1 back to the full Commission. 2 Commissioner McCauley: We are. 3 Vice Chair Cribbs: We are. 4 Chair Greenfield: I know I'm preaching to the choir here. That's great to hear. When 5 was the last renovation of the playground at Ramos? 6 Mr. Jensen: That's a good question. I do not know when that was. In the schedule for 7 parks, it usually follows the playground. The playground is the main catalyst that starts 8 the renovation. That usually happens every 15 or 20 years, so I'm going to say 15 or 20 9 years ago was probably the last time. 10 Chair Greenfield: I want to say it happened in '96, '97. I used to live right next to—the 11 back fence backed onto Ramos Park for a couple of years, so I'm very familiar with the 12 park. It was new then, and I had young kids. Our timing lucked out pretty well there. 13 The playground certainly is in need of some work now. Regarding the paved area, I'm 14 glad to see there's interest in putting a full-court basketball court there. It seems like a lot 15 of pavement for just a half-court basketball. If we're not going to do something with the 16 pavement, would we want to consider removing some of the pavement? If we were 17 going to consider a full court, would we want to reduce the pavement, and would we have 18 budget to do so? 19 Mr. Jensen: That would take up a significant amount of the budget to demo out some of 20 the paving. We started to look at maybe having three half courts on each side of it, not 21 even having a full court, because the span is too big to have a full court. There's one 22 hoop out there that has no striping. It's just a hoop and concrete. I think we can get at 23 least three basketball hoops there in a half court. We haven't really started playing with 24 that yet. We'll see what we can figure out. 25 Chair Greenfield: I think it would be good to get some more community feedback on 26 what to do with that paved area. Do I understand correctly that there would be some 27 resurfacing included? 28 Mr. Jensen: No. Unfortunately, concrete is not an element that can be resurfaced. You 29 either tear it out and start over or you live with what you've got. For our purpose, we 30 have to live with what we've got. We can stripe it. Overall, it's not in bad shape. It's 31 feasible to play basketball on. 32 Chair Greenfield: If we were to add lighting, would this be on a timer that would go off 33 early in the evening, like at 10:00, or would be on all night? 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 18 Mr. Jensen: Eleanor Pardee Park has some big light poles, streetlight poles, in the park 1 now that stay on all night. The idea would be security lighting, so the lighting is not 2 intense. It's there to provide enough lighting to see but not to play a sport. Depending on 3 budget, we could add a fixture to the restroom that would illuminate the dark picnic area 4 that people are mostly responding to. I think it would operate the same as the lights do 5 now, which I think are on when it gets dark and go off when it gets light. 6 Chair Greenfield: The lighting wouldn't have a negative impact on wildlife? That's a … 7 Mr. Jensen: I can't answer that question. I don't know much about the impact of lighting 8 on wildlife. That is low-intensity lighting. I don't know what the impact would be. 9 Daren, do you have any insight on that? 10 Mr. Anderson: There are studies that indicate lights can be problematic for wildlife. 11 Whenever possible, we try to minimize it. Safety concerns are a matter of balance, so it's 12 worth discussing. 13 Chair Greenfield: Would a possibility be to have the lighting be brighter earlier in the 14 evening and dimmer later in the evening and still have some security unless impact on 15 wildlife? Some ideas to consider. 16 Mr. Jensen: The area we want to illuminate is in a stand of very large cedar trees. Some 17 of them are 100 feet tall. It shouldn't impact the canopy as far as illuminating that. Birds 18 in the trees should be okay. We should consider where we're going to do some native or 19 habitat planting so that we don't put it in the area that the light is right on, that it's more 20 on the street frontage or towards the back of the park where it's darker. That is something 21 we should consider in the design. 22 Chair Greenfield: I'm glad to see you're looking at including a loop trail all the way 23 around the park. I've never understood why it didn't exist to begin with. I'm definitely in 24 favor of looking at the native planting and potentially pollinator pathway gardens in the 25 locations you've indicated. 26 Mr. Jensen: A few community members that live around the park expressed interest to 27 me at the community meeting in having habitat and also maintaining and caring for it and 28 planting it. There would be a lot of community assistance with that, which is good. 29 Commissioner Moss: I wanted to address one comment made by one of the community 30 members that said dog parks have a reputation for being smelly, noisy, and dusty. Is that 31 really true? With the newest park at Peers Park with the wood chips, the artificial turf, 32 and the recycled water irrigation, how true is that? 33 DRAFT Approved Minutes 19 Mr. Jensen: It depends upon the surfacing that you use for your dog park. As we can see 1 over time and as in any type of confined space, the more use it gets, the turf is 2 problematic. It's just not built for that. It's also about how we respond to it. Peers Park is 3 a good example of using the mulch material to keep a clean surface and to keep the dust 4 down. It does very well there. Synthetic turf is another way to go. It just has a lot of 5 costs associated with it. It has a little bit of heat island effect to it because it gets warm. 6 The mulch is a much more organic way to treat that. We also have a few decomposed 7 granite dog parks. Mitchell Park has half the area in decomposed granite. In that 8 situation, if you had dogs running around on it, you could cause dust. I think this dog 9 park would start out as turf. The bigger the area, the longer and more realistic chance 10 you have of maintaining the turf. When you make it too small, it just goes away. That's 11 something we have to see how it goes over time. If the turf was not a viable surface, we 12 would probably move in the direction of mulch like we did at Peers Park. 13 Commissioner Olson: On the dog pilot question, I came from a town that did have 14 shared use like that with baseball fields. It worked really lovely in our community. We 15 had certain hours beyond which it was that other use, whether it was baseball or other 16 people using it. Again, in the evening the dogs could come back in and be off leash. It 17 sounds like the use here could be quite similar. The one thing that might be a little more 18 tricky here is the road immediately adjacent without a buffer. You may have concerns 19 that the dogs, once they start chasing each other, are a little hard to control. That would 20 be the only thing I would say. Everything else looks pretty surrounded by other 21 structures that would be okay there. I'd be happy to connect Daren with the staff in San 22 Anselmo if you want to talk about how that worked there. We didn't have special tags or 23 anything. It was kind of this community rule, and everyone knew the rules. It worked 24 really well there. 25 Mr. Jensen: That would be the most economical way to do it, I agree. I also agree with 26 you that, even if the space was designated without being defined by fencing, we should 27 do something along the street frontage. We should probably run a little fence up there 28 and plant around it with native plant materials, so it goes away and the balls can't go out 29 there. If we designate the dog park there, we should do something to the street frontage. 30 It is wasted space in the front. It's a little turf strip that could be changed to native 31 planting that helps reduce maintenance and water use. All those things are positive in the 32 conversion of turf grass to native planting. 33 Commissioner Olson: It seems relatively easy to phase a dog park later. The bathroom 34 and playground, I can see you want to do it at the same time. If we wanted to try 35 something with a dog park, we could phase that later if the Commission desired. 36 DRAFT Approved Minutes 20 Mr. Jensen: Right. It could be a transition over time. We could start out with having the 1 area as an ad hoc dog park area that's not fenced or defined for certain hours. We could 2 always come back in the future and consider making it more defined. 3 Chair Greenfield: Council Member Kou, do you have any input? 4 Council Member Kou: All good. 5 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you for the community input and a 6 good discussion and for the presentation and thoroughness as always, Peter. 7 Mr. Jensen: I would like to make a quick announcement. Thursday night is Boulware 8 Park's second community meeting. We've joined with Planning to do a group meeting for 9 the North Ventura Plan and Boulware Park, just so we don't burn out the community on 10 community meetings. These things dovetail with each other. That meeting will be a 11 presentation about the North Ventura Plan and also about Boulware Park. At some point, 12 we'll break into groups, and there will be a specific section of Boulware Park stuff. That 13 is Thursday night at Gunn High School, 6:00 to 9:00. It's in their new room, which is 14 P115. If you're interested, that's what we're doing. 15 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. We'll move on to our next item, which is the review of the 16 draft Community Garden Guidelines. 17 4. Review of the Draft Community Garden Guidelines18 Chair Greenfield: I have some speaker cards already. If anyone else would like to speak, 19 please bring your card up. 20 Mr. Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson with Community Services Department. 21 My colleague, Catherine Bourquin, and I are here tonight to discuss the Community 22 Garden Guidelines with you. We last discussed this issue with the Commission at the 23 October 22 Commission meeting. The feedback from the Commission at that time was 24 that staff should continue to work with the ad hoc committee and the gardeners to address 25 the PVC issue within the gardens and make the document a little more user friendly. 26 Catherine Bourquin manages the Community Garden Program, and she met with the 27 garden liaisons and with the ad hoc committee to discuss how we should address the PVC 28 issue. I'm going to turn it over to Catherine to give you some of the feedback from both 29 the liaisons and the ad hoc. 30 Catherine Bourquin: Good evening, Commissioners. Catherine Bourquin, Community 31 Garden Coordinator. I want to thank you for taking the time to review the Guidelines for 32 the second time. As Daren mentioned, the steps that happened after the last review, the 33 staff, the garden ad hoc and the garden liaisons met to discuss how to address the PVC 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 21 use in the garden. First, the challenge we have is that there are a few gardeners who feel 1 that PVC has no place in our community gardens both for aesthetic issues and concerns 2 about it not being appropriate in organic gardens. A large number of gardeners feel that 3 PVC is appropriate in the garden and that there aren't other cost-effective or efficient 4 alternatives to PVC to help them manage their gardens. The main use for PVC is to 5 create a frame to protect the garden plants from pests. The material is easy to slide their 6 netting over versus wood, which snags and causes damage to the netting. Staff and the 7 garden liaisons along with input from the ad hoc committee came up with the following 8 compromise to address this issue. "Any new PVC trellis or other garden structure that is 9 3 feet or less in height is permitted." The majority of the gardeners use this type of 10 covering. "When PVC is permitted, neutral colors are required, for example, green, 11 brown or gray rather than white, and should be appropriately rated for outdoor use." This 12 would only apply to trellises and structures 3 feet and under. "Any new PVC trellis or 13 structure exceeding 3 feet is not permitted. Any preexisting PVC trellis or structure will 14 be allowed but must be replaced with permitted material upon its deterioration, if it 15 became brittle, discolored, and the stability structure was at risk, as determined by the 16 Garden Coordinator." The ad hoc and staff debated on how to address this last section 17 concerning replacing with permitted materials upon deterioration. We considered adding 18 a time limit of something like five years because we aren't sure how long some PVC will 19 last before it deteriorates. The Guidelines were also reorganized and will include a table 20 of contents when this is accepted. I also wanted to bring to your attention a couple of 21 edits that we found in the document and that we would like to correct tonight. Under 22 fees, the old Guidelines state "low-income senior and/or disabled residents may apply for 23 a fee reduction, 25 percent to 50 percent, through the City's Fee Reduction Program. 24 Applications are available at Lucie Stern Community Center or in the Enjoy! catalog. No 25 combining discounts. Only one will be applied to annual garden fee." What we left off 26 here was "senior." Now, it's become available to "low-income and/or disabled residents." 27 That was the change we made. Under watering, "flood irrigation (using a garden hose at 28 full volume let down the soil without any attachment to spread water) is prohibited." The 29 wording was incorrect. We have it now as "flood irrigation is prohibited. For example, 30 leaving a garden hose at full volume in the soil without any attachment." That concludes 31 my presentation. I'll open it up for feedback, please. 32 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. Any clarifying questions from the Commissioners before 33 we hear from the public? 34 Commissioner Olson: On that first change on the fees, was that meant to be "low-35 income, senior, and/or disabled" or was it really only seniors who were low income? 36 Ms. Bourquin: The old version? 37 Commissioner Olson: Mm hmm. 38 DRAFT Approved Minutes 22 Ms. Bourquin: It was low-income seniors. 1 Commissioner Olson: There's no special discount for seniors? 2 Ms. Bourquin: There is, 25 percent, but this is for fee reduction. They have to apply 3 with their income paperwork. Otherwise, 25 percent is for fee reduction because they can 4 get up to 50 percent. 5 Chair Greenfield: Anyone else? 6 Commissioner Reckdahl: Can you clarify that? Seniors get a 25-percent discount. Low-7 income gets 25 percent, and disabled gets 25 percent? 8 Ms. Bourquin: No. They come in with their paperwork so they can qualify for 25-50 9 percent. Most of them qualify for 50 percent. They would choose the 25-percent senior 10 without having to do any paperwork. 11 Commissioner Reckdahl: How about disabled? Disabled gets 25 percent? 12 Ms. Bourquin: It's 25-50. 13 Commissioner McCauley: It's a sliding scale. Dependent upon your income, you could 14 receive either a 25 percent discount or a 50-percent discount. 15 Commissioner Reckdahl: How does the disability enter the calculation? 16 Commissioner McCauley: I'm not sure about disability. 17 Ms. Bourquin: It's disabled residents. 18 Commissioner Reckdahl: If I'm disabled but don't have low income, do I get a discount? 19 Ms. Bourquin: Correct. 20 Commissioner Reckdahl: I do? 21 Ms. Bourquin: Correct. 22 Commissioner Reckdahl: And that's 25 percent? 23 Ms. Bourquin: It depends on what the scale is. 24 Chair Greenfield: This is a standard City policy that applies to other programs? 25 Ms. Bourquin: Yes. 26 DRAFT Approved Minutes 23 Chair Greenfield: Maybe we can get clarification and information on that forwarded to 1 us at a later point. 2 Ms. Bourquin: Recreation handles the Fee Reduction Program. 3 Commissioner Reckdahl: I still don't understand. If I'm disabled but have a very high 4 income, do I get a discount? 5 Ms. Bourquin: I'm not sure. I don't handle the program. Sorry. 6 Chair Greenfield: I've got speaker cards from six members of the public. You'll have 7 three minutes each to speak. We'll start off with John McFarland. Rather than repeating 8 themes, if you want to reference what someone else has said and cut down your time, 9 we'd be happy to accept that. John will be followed by Nate Saul. 10 John McFarland: Good evening. My name is John McFarland. I'm 74 years old and, as 11 my grandkids would say, I'm going on 75. I'm the longest gardener at Eleanor Pardee 12 Park. I helped build that park. I was the one who put the fence up. I was one of many. 13 I'm still suffering from banging those fence posts in. I've seen a lot over the almost 40 14 years that I've been at that park. I do that by traveling the park and visiting the other 15 plots, looking at their plants, the irrigation systems, protection against pests, trellises, 16 gazebos, even sitting areas, which leads me to suggest a change in one of the proposed 17 Guidelines. If you'll note on Number 4, general plot responsibility, under A, 18 maintenance, it says "paths must be kept wide enough to accommodate full 19 wheelbarrows." I'm actually not sure how that ever got in there. When the paths were 20 designed, they were designed for people to walk down those paths, to visit their plots and 21 see the other gardeners. We now have plots and paths, which are covered with plantings. 22 That would be the gardener trying to either extend his garden so he could get more plants 23 or to make it a trellis around the side. The problem is it's dangerous. It's a safety issue. 24 There's a lot of seniors in that garden, and there's a lot of children running up and down 25 the paths. When we allow plants to be in the middle of the path, on the side of the path, it 26 brings down the width of the path. People cannot walk freely. I can't walk freely. That's 27 why I'm looking for the change. The change I'm asking for is "paths surrounding each 28 gardener's plot must be clear of any plantings." Simple. Do not put your plants in the 29 path. Overall, the rules that are proposed should be restricted to safety and rules that 30 protect one gardener from interfering with another. PVC colors, brown, green, in their 31 use is not a safety issue. They don't restrict other gardeners' use of their plots. It's an 32 aesthetic view, which I feel is like me telling another gardener how he should plant. I 33 would not allow that. I would say let's keep the rules simple. Thank you very much. 34 Chair Greenfield: Nate Saul followed by Terry Andrea [phonetic]. 35 DRAFT Approved Minutes 24 Nate Saul: Hello, Commissioners. Thank you for your attention. I'm a native Palo 1 Altan. I've been gardening over at Pardee for about ten years now. I have some concerns 2 about the new rules, particularly around PVC. The first thing I want to mention is it 3 sounds like all the gardeners came together as part of this ad hoc, and there was no notice 4 to any gardeners about participating in that. I think there were some gardeners who did 5 participate, but those are the ones who have a particular opinion. It's a little bit of a 6 squeaky wheel situation, in my opinion. There are real reasons, real needs for the PVC. I 7 get about half the produce from the plants that I put out there right now. Rats are a huge 8 problem. I'm in Section A, surrounded all by fence near a big oak tree. Rats and 9 squirrels are coming. There's literally rat feces and urine on our tomatoes that I have to 10 wash off when we take them home for the ones that we get. The nice thing about PVC is 11 it's easy to install, easy to take apart, easy to throw the netting over. Going to other 12 colors, other materials, harder to install, harder to move, can be more expensive. It's 13 going to be harder for lower-income people to afford to do that. That's one issue I have. 14 Also, we're addressing the symptom, not the problem. If we can get Vector Control in 15 there and help reduce the rat population, I'd be very happy to get rid of all the PVC that I 16 use. Again, my understanding of how this started is, at least regarding PVC, a particular 17 gardener was upset that their neighbor had a lot of PVC trellising. That's been 18 influencing a lot of what we see in the rules. The primary purpose of the garden is to 19 garden. I didn't get into aesthetics because it's problematic. Let me make some particular 20 comments on the rules. Three feet is from ground. I garden all in raised beds, which 21 means it's 2 feet up. Three feet leaves me 1 foot, which is essentially nonfunctional. My 22 elderly mother also gardens there. The raised beds are very helpful. Again, it's listed as 23 existing grade and not from ground or plant level. If the goal is to get rid of subjective 24 wording, the phrase "contributing to the community garden's overall visual continuity" is 25 problematic. That's still in there. I wouldn't want the liaisons to have to deal with that 26 kind of language. I believe we shouldn't be in the business of dictating aesthetics or 27 having the liaisons dictate their personal aesthetics and opinions and how that changes 28 over the years. Seven feet is reasonable. I have no problem with that. If we're going to 29 allow PVC at 3 feet, I guess I don't understand why in Number 4 we're actually banning 30 new PVC even if it's in the new color between 4 and 7 feet. If it's an allowed material, 31 why is it being essentially outlawed at those particular heights? That doesn't make any 32 sense to me. 33 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. 34 Mr. Saul: Thank you. 35 Chair Greenfield: Terry Andrea followed by Penny Proctor. 36 Terry Andrea: My name is Terry Andrea. I am a Master Gardener and also a Master 37 Composter. I teach most of the six or seven compost classes that we have here in town as 38 DRAFT Approved Minutes 25 well as in Los Altos and other places. I garden at the Ventura Garden. I'm having a 1 severe rat problem. For three years, I have not gotten any tomatoes, none. Last year, 2 they also took the squash, and then they moved onto the kale, the peppers, the bok choy 3 this winter, and have completely denuded my kale through the winter. Rats, not just an 4 aesthetic issue but also a safety issue. I have written two letters to the Coordinator but 5 have not heard responses on those. Tonight she said the City does not want to deal with 6 this. I'm now realizing that I have other comrades who are having problems with this. 7 There are many solutions we could look at. Obviously, extermination is one of the first 8 ones we think of. After not hearing back from the Coordinator, I called County Vector 9 Control. They're willing to come out, and I will call them again to have them. I have 10 heard lots of other gardeners who are having problems. Can we maybe consider putting 11 together a group? I saw in these notes that there was something called an ad hoc 12 committee. Maybe something like that, where we can start to look at problems with the 13 sanitary issues. There are many things we could do. We could be fencing the gardens 14 more effectively. We could even divert the rats by teasing them to come over to the 15 creek or some other location where they could eat nicely without disturbing our food 16 crops. Palo Alto Master Gardeners' demonstration garden is also having problems with 17 rats. People at Eleanor are also having problems. I think I've pretty well summarized 18 what I would like to say. I could give up my plot, but the poor chump who rents it next 19 year is going to have the same sad problem. Let's not pass it onto the next poor person 20 and see if we can find some way to resolve this. In addition, one of the reasons that this 21 came up for me was that I was considering creating a structure that would go through the 22 soil and up 7 feet to be able to cover my non-determinant tomato plants. Some of the 23 rules that we're considering tonight are not going to allow that. Also, it's very expensive 24 to construct a structure like that. I'd prefer not to; I'd like to solve the problem on a 25 garden-wide basis or a Citywide basis per garden. Thank you. 26 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. Penny Proctor followed by Melane Hennessey [phonetic]. 27 Penny Proctor: I'm Penny Proctor. I'm the volunteer liaison for the Eleanor Garden. 28 Overall, I think the new rules are wonderful. They're going to solve a lot of problems 29 we've had in the past in the gardens and make the garden easier to administer. There's 30 been so much work that has gone into it, and it really shows in the final result. The PVC 31 has been really difficult. I had hoped that the dark gray PVC would be allowed for the 32 structures higher than 3 feet. It doesn't show very much. It's about this color and blends 33 in pretty well. The white doesn't, of course. It's very white. It's great for clamps to hold 34 on various coverings. Overall, I feel like this compromise is workable and enforceable. 35 It seems like a good thing. Thank you. 36 Chair Greenfield: Thank you, Penny. Melane Hennessey followed by Karen Holman. 37 DRAFT Approved Minutes 26 Melane Hennessey: I'm just getting out my phone in case I have an extra minute to quote 1 something that somebody sent to me. Hi. I'm Melane Hennessey. I live in Palo Alto. I 2 have been a gardener at Eleanor Pardee Community Park since 1995, which is 25 years. 3 My husband and I both had plots at the park before we were married. Between the two of 4 us and the length of time that I've been a gardener there, we have had plots at three 5 different locations. I'm actually, I believe, the reason that one particular gardener at 6 Eleanor Pardee is very upset about PVC structures. I moved my blueberries three or four 7 years ago from another plot at Eleanor into the plot adjacent to this particular person's. I 8 had triplets at the time, and I was giving up a plot and concentrating on one. When I 9 moved blueberries, I moved PVC structures made out of white PVC. I put blueberries in 10 my original plot in 1998. I don't remember when I built my nearly 7-foot-tall structure to 11 cover my blueberry beds, but it has been at least 15 years. However, those were 12 originally in a plot far away in the garden from the person in question who's really 13 behind, I think, a lot of this. I believe when I moved my blueberries into this adjacent 14 plot and subsequently moved my PVC structures that have been there for a really long 15 time, I might have opened up this can of worms. I apologize. What I can tell you is I 16 spoke with Nicolette Heaphy at Hidden Villa Farm this morning. She's the farm liaison. 17 They use PVC, and it is white, in the garden with netting to protect crops and to make 18 structures. I asked to protect them from what. She said birds. I don't have a rat problem; 19 I have a bird problem because I have blueberries. The rats have not apparently 20 discovered that blueberries are tasty. If you don't put netting over your blueberry crop 21 when it's in season and ready to pick, it doesn't matter if you're there every single day. 22 You will not have a berry to pick because the birds like to eat them. I have a tall 23 structure because I'm a 5-foot-6 person, and I need to get underneath and harvest 24 blueberries. It is not the most visually appealing structure. Would it be more perhaps 25 attractive to certain people or every person if it was made out of bamboo or wood? Yes, 26 but it would also cost me a whole lot more, not be nearly as effective when it came time 27 to drape it with netting, and would be a sort of crazy retroactive rule for something that's 28 been in place for me personally for about 15 years. Thanks for your time. 29 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. Karen Holman. 30 Karen Holman: Hi, there. Good evening. Just to be clear, the aforementioned person is 31 the only person and a single person. It's me. It's not just me. There was a letter sent for 32 the last meeting. There seems to be a focus on me because I've been vocal about it. 33 There was a letter sent for the last meeting from Carol Kiparsky. The letter didn't seem 34 to get to you guys. It was in the next packet. She spoke very eloquently about the white 35 PVC structures and how they don't fit in the gardens. There's a letter tonight that was 36 sent about these being eyesores. There's another letter that Catherine has because there 37 were two other people that were sending letters in today. They both had very busy days. 38 One has now been sent to Catherine, and she should have that. Another one is coming 39 later tonight. It's not just me. I want to focus a little bit on the mission. The mission of 40 DRAFT Approved Minutes 27 the garden rules is Palo Alto Community Gardens are places where gardeners adhere to 1 organic gardening principles, concepts, and practices with mutual respect for their 2 gardening neighbors. Regarding structures, trellises, fencing, and garden materials, 3 natural materials such as unpainted wood are recommended when developing garden 4 plots. All trellises and other structures must be functional, orderly, safe, and contribute to 5 the Community Garden's overall visual continuity. This compatibility and continuity 6 thing is something that's typical. It's common. It's common, whether you're dealing with 7 urban settings or pastoral settings. Continuity and compatibility is not a foreign term. 8 All trellises and other structures must be in use. It's still not clear quite what "in use" 9 means. If they're not in use, then they must be removed. As of when? This is not 10 personal. Melane's plot is next to mine. The PVC structure hasn't been there for 15 11 years. She said it's been moved. It isn't personal. You can put in earbuds. You can do 12 something to block out noise. There's no way to avoid the PVC structures. It's not about 13 one structure either. There's been a proliferation at Eleanor Pardee. It's an eyesore over 14 there, if you recall the images that I showed last meeting. I'm sorry you weren't here 15 then. I took a couple of you on a tour over there. It's quite an astounding impression that 16 it leaves. If there must be a compromise, then the colored PVC and the height limit is 17 good, but it's still inconsistent with the mission and other things. I ask if no new white 18 structures are allowed that are tall, then you must surely think that the white PVC, large 19 structures are not appropriate. Think about that. Any PVC trellis or structure will be 20 allowed but must be replaced with permitted material upon its deterioration. PVC doesn't 21 deteriorate really. You can run over it with a vehicle, but it doesn't really deteriorate. 22 There's something in the staff report that talks about stability and that kind of thing, but 23 it's not in the garden rules. Also, from the garden rules, no chemically treated wood is 24 allowed. Only organic products may be used for fertilizer, weed control. If consistent 25 with that, then PVC should not be allowed. There was an ad hoc committee meeting. I 26 presume it was the ad hoc committee. I don't know what it was. There was one 27 community meeting where I and many other people attended. I don't know about any 28 other ad hoc committee other than maybe of you guys. It's come up that gardeners should 29 be able to realize their investment. Some structures have been in existence for a very 30 long time. Other gardeners have actually offered to help pay for replacement of 31 somebody else's structure that hasn't been there very long. My understanding is it used to 32 be that gardeners had to tend their own plots as opposed to having professional gardeners 33 come tend them. I don't see that in the rules, but I understand and have been told in the 34 past that was the case. It seems like a reasonable rule. Maybe that's one that would be 35 good to add. Boards and Commissions, I would say, are—one last thing. I asked the 36 Master Gardeners at Eleanor Pardee if they had rules about PVC, and they said no. I 37 said, "What if somebody wants to use PVC?" I dare say they would say no. Boards and 38 Commissions exist to advise on policy, plans, etc. While it always good and admirable to 39 find middle ground if possible, it is incumbent on Boards and Commissions, just as it is 40 on the City Council, to focus on the best practices, procedures, policies, plans, and 41 regulations that are in the public best interest. To do that, compromise is not always the 42 DRAFT Approved Minutes 28 best path. You are leaders. I ask for you to lead on this as you do on so many other 1 issues. Organic gardens need to be respected as organic gardens. Thank you. 2 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. Commissioner McCauley, you're currently the community 3 garden liaison. You and I have worked together on the updates to the park rules and regs 4 and the community garden rules. Would you like to make any comments to start our 5 discussion? 6 Commissioner McCauley: First off, thanks to everyone who's spoken this evening. I 7 personally am impressed. I imagine the rest of the Commission members feel the same. 8 I'm also very impressed by Catherine and Daren's diligence on this project. They've been 9 working on it for a long while to try and come up with what they believe is the best set of 10 rules to govern the community in a reasonable way that respects everyone as much as 11 possible. I also recognize that what is an eyesore to one person is perhaps a minor 12 architectural masterpiece to another, and vice versa. The aesthetic piece of this is always 13 going to be difficult. From my perspective, having observed the work that the 14 community garden liaisons have done and the work that Catherine has done to facilitate 15 all these discussions, I think the compromise that's been struck is actually a good one. 16 Again, it's intended to respect everyone as much as possible. The grandfathering of the 17 PVC structures that are currently in existence is a good way to approach this without 18 having new ones in the future. I realize that it's always easy to flyspeck or nitpick these 19 sorts of proposals. It's actually time in this instance to try to wrap it up. I would 20 encourage all of our Commission members, if you have big picture comments to 21 contribute, that would be great with the thought that it's important that we bring this 22 process to a reasonable conclusion. If you don't think it's ripe for that conclusion, that's 23 fine. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on that. Given all the discussion amongst 24 the community garden liaisons, the work that Catherine has done, this is probably in a 25 place where with our final comments tonight Catherine and Daren can actually 26 implement these new rules. 27 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. I will clarify that this is a discussion item for us. This is 28 not an action. The final rules decision will be made by staff on this. This is something 29 that's not going to Council for approval. The park rules and regulations, which we've 30 previously discussed and acted on, will go to Council for approval. The new garden rules 31 will be decided on by staff in the same timeframe. Previously, the garden rules were part 32 of the park rules and regulations, code, policy. It was deemed that they weren't 33 appropriate for that document, so they've been split out. Keith, would you go next? 34 Commissioner Reckdahl: I sympathize. This is a tough situation. I sympathize about the 35 aesthetics. White PVC really is an eyesore. I also sympathize about the rat population. 36 I've had kale just cut to the ground by rats. It's demoralizing. I also sympathize if people 37 have made structures in the past that were legal and they've invested both their time and 38 DRAFT Approved Minutes 29 their money making it, that we may force them to throw it out. This is not an easy 1 problem. We heard people on both sides tonight. What I don't know is how 2 representative is this. Is it 50/50? Is it 90/10? What's the dividing? If it closer to 50/50, 3 maybe one long-term solution is you segregate the gardens. If there is a significant 4 number that really don't want PVC, we'll push them to one side. The people who don't 5 mind PVC, in fact maybe like PVC, put them on the other. Maybe that's one way of 6 splitting the baby. At least, it's not a PVC garden. If you want a certain aesthetic, you 7 aren't forced to have PVC right next to your garden plot. That may be one way to attack 8 this. 9 Ms. Bourquin: Obviously, we have five locations. Eleanor Garden is the one that has the 10 most PVC structures that you can visually see. The other ones in the other gardens are 11 low just to cover what they're growing, not big, huge trellises made out of PVC. 12 Commissioner Reckdahl: What's proposed here is reasonable. If it's 3 feet, your 13 neighbor will see it, but you won't see it across the garden. I'd be inclined to support this. 14 I'd also be inclined to reach out to the gardeners and understand what percentage of the 15 people really have an issue with PVC. If it is significant, maybe we do look at—if they 16 really want one corner, one half to be PVC free, they may be more than willing to move 17 their garden. One of the problems is that you may have gotten your soil just right, and 18 now you have to move across the garden. Nothing's easy. I'm sorry. I do appreciate 19 Ryan's work and also Catherine and Daren. This is a very frustrating situation. I think 20 we're really trying to make the citizens get the most from their gardens, so I think it's 21 worth it. 22 Vice Chair Cribbs: I don't really have too much to say on this except to appreciate both 23 of your observations. I appreciate all the gardeners coming here tonight and continuing 24 to work on this and certainly appreciate your work, Catherine. Thank you all. The two 25 things I was struck by, beauty being in the eye of the beholder and different people see 26 things different ways. It is an issue to try to solve. The second thing that I thought was 27 interesting was this whole idea of a community rat patrol. The rats are terrible. They 28 take things that don't belong to them and take food and stuff. It would be really 29 interesting for the gardeners to come together and talk about this and see if collectively 30 we could all solve the problem. I have this little dish at home that says planting a garden 31 is a symbol of hope. I'm sure that we all can hope to get this all resolved and move on. 32 Thank you very much. 33 Commissioner Olson: The thing that really struck me about all of the comments is how 34 much you all love your gardens. I think that's a really beautiful thing. There are 35 disagreements about what makes that garden special to you, whether it's the community, 36 the actual things that you're getting from your plants versus the aesthetics. The common 37 theme there is still that you all love your gardens. One thing I really wanted to get clarity 38 DRAFT Approved Minutes 30 on, because I was not reading this to see the 3 feet as from the ground up. It says the 1 structure doesn't exceed 3 feet. If you have a raised bed 2 feet, then you really can only 2 have a foot? 3 Unidentified: (inaudible) 4 Chair Greenfield: Let's not have comments from the public please. 5 Ms. Bourquin: I've gotten this advice from the liaisons who know that if you install a 6 trellis from 5 feet, it's going to exceed 7 feet that we've set our rules on. Most of the 7 planter beds are a foot maybe. It's starting from there. It's not like this huge thing 8 coming from this table and then starting it from that measurement. We've found that the 9 pathways were the way to structure it from. 10 Commissioner Olson: That to me is not clear in the way this is written. I don't know if 11 we need to make it clear that it's from the ground to 3 feet high. I'm still going back to 12 the edits to the Guidelines. On the new language excluding seniors, if seniors are able to 13 qualify for this fee reduction, I'd still like to have the word "seniors" in there maybe with 14 a comma or something. It could say "seniors, low-income, and/or disabled residents may 15 apply for a fee reduction," if that's in fact true. 16 Ms. Bourquin: The change was to remove the word "senior" because now it's open to 17 anybody. They don't have to be a senior to get fee reduction. That's why we removed the 18 word "senior." The way it was written before implies that you have to be a senior. 19 Commissioner Olson: If you're a senior with a high income, you wouldn't read this and 20 think you could have a fee reduction. 21 Ms. Bourquin: I'll have to look at that. 22 Mr. Anderson: I think we can reword that to make it clear exactly who's getting the 23 discounts, which is everyone that (crosstalk). 24 Ms. Bourquin: It's written that way through Recreation for anybody that's signing up for 25 a class that has fee reduction. 26 Commissioner Olson: I just want to make sure if a senior can qualify for a discount 27 without being low income or disabled, they're clear they can apply for that discount. We 28 have to probably figure out the facts behind it before doing the language. 29 Ms. Bourquin: Seniors with low income would apply for fee reduction. Otherwise, if 30 you're a senior, you get the 25-percent discount already without applying for fee 31 reduction. 32 DRAFT Approved Minutes 31 Commissioner Olson: With no application, okay. Is that somewhere else in these 1 Guidelines, that the senior would know that? 2 Ms. Bourquin: Yes. It is … 3 Commissioner Olson: It might be we're looking at one pullout section. 4 Ms. Bourquin: It's on Number 4, any gardener who is 60 years of age is eligible to 5 receive a 25-percent discount. 6 Commissioner Olson: Perfect. That answers it. Thank you. 7 Commissioner Moss: I have no comment about the Guidelines. I want to echo what 8 Vice Chair Cribbs said, that the best practices from the Master Gardeners to solve the 9 pest problems of all kinds should be sent around to everybody. People should help others 10 to use those best practices, whatever they might be. 11 Chair Greenfield: I want to thank all the community members for their input this evening 12 and also for all the hard work that staff's put into this. It has been quite a bit of an 13 around-and-around. I do agree with Commissioner McCauley that we're looking to get 14 some resolution this evening and move forward. I did find Keith's what I'll term a PVC-15 free zone suggestion interesting. While we go with catchy titles, I wonder if we can have 16 some type of cats for rats program. I'm assuming we're not encouraging cats in the 17 community gardens right now. From my personal experience in the backyard garden, 18 when there's neighboring cats who patrol regularly, things go pretty well. When there 19 aren't, things don't go very well. I do have no love for rats. I know they may have been 20 here first, but if there's anything we can do as a community to address this, I'm interested 21 in staff's feedback on that. I'm sure this is not a new discussion. There was a comment 22 about paths and needing to be clear. I think we already have something in the Guidelines. 23 Catherine, do you want to comment on that? 24 Ms. Bourquin: Under general plot responsibility, maintenance, Item 7, all plants, 25 planters, planter boxes, and trellis must be placed inside plot perimeter. Plants must not 26 overhang into the walkway, neighbor's plot, or any fence adjacent to playgrounds. 27 Overgrown plants that block walkways are to be trimmed back. 28 Chair Greenfield: Would you say that you're already enforcing plots not overflowing? 29 Hopefully we're not having issues, and we have that under control. On the PVC issue, I 30 do appreciate both sides of the argument. I appreciate the aesthetic issue. It's not what 31 we're looking for in an ideal setting. I also appreciate the general need for it. We are 32 working towards a reasonable compromise. Eventually, we'll be phasing out the larger 33 structures. I'm not 100-percent comfortable with the language we have in terms of 34 existing structures are grandfathered in until they deteriorate, which generally they don't 35 DRAFT Approved Minutes 32 unless something happens that shouldn't happen. I'm wondering if we would want to 1 consider something longer term, something like phase them out within five years or 2 something like that. I'm interested in Commissioner feedback on that. I know there's an 3 impact, but maybe there's a number that we would use to phase out the larger structures. 4 Beyond that, I'm supportive of the staff effort and interested in resolution. Lydia, do you 5 have any comment you'd like to add? 6 Council Member Kou: I heard that this discussion is just discussion, and there's no votes 7 at all. How do you give staff directions or is this just left for staff to come up with? 8 Chair Greenfield: We're just offering our feedback in this discussion. Staff will make 9 their own decision. 10 Council Member Kou: This is in staff's hands. Thank you. 11 Chair Greenfield: Any other comments? Thank you. 12 Unidentified: (inaudible) 13 Chair Greenfield: Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment, but it's not really the place for 14 it. It's good to hear that nonetheless. We'll move onto our next item of business. 15 5. Update on the Horizontal Levee Pilot Project16 Chair Greenfield: The update on the horizontal levee pilot project. 17 Mr. Anderson: Good evening, Commissioners. Daren Anderson, Community Services 18 Department. It's my pleasure to introduce my colleague from Public Works. She's a 19 Senior Engineer, and her name is Samantha Engelage. She's going to present on the 20 Horizontal Levee Pilot Project. 21 Samantha Engelage: Good evening. Before we head into some of the details on the 22 project, I wanted to give a little bit of background and some information on the drivers 23 for the project, so you get a sense of the context and why we're looking into horizontal 24 levees and looking at a Horizontal Levee Pilot Project. The current flood control levees 25 that surround the Palo Alto Baylands do not meet FEMA standards. They currently 26 experience some overtopping, especially when king tides and storm events occur at the 27 same time. In addition, they are not set up to address any of the sea level rise projections 28 that we are now evaluating. The flood control levees need improvement in order to 29 secure Palo Alto and some key City infrastructure that is in the Baylands. That 30 infrastructure includes the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, where all of our 31 wastewater is treated, as well as the Palo Alto Airport and the golf course. To evaluate 32 what improvements are needed and where along those levees, there are two major 33 projects that the City is looking at. One of them is the SAFER Bay Project, and the other 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 33 one that we just recently started up is the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project. 1 These two projects are looking long term at what can we do to those flood control levees 2 to improve them so that we can face these impending sea level rise concerns as well as 3 deal with existing problems for flood control and management. With those projects 4 going on, there's also a discussion of how can we at the same time try and incorporate 5 some natural and restoration improvement opportunities into those projects, how can we 6 try and include habitat enhancement as a component of those larger flood control levee 7 projects. There's been a regional agreement that these transition zones between terrestrial 8 upland and the tidal marshes have been decimated throughout the Bay Area. The 9 regional perspective is can we now take advantage of all of this money and effort to 10 address flood concerns while also addressing this type of ecosystem that has been 11 decimated throughout the area. With that in mind, we have this traditional flood control 12 levee perspective, which is the top picture shown up there. You have a typical levee. On 13 the Bay side of that traditional flood control levee is what we call riprap. That's these 14 large boulders for wave attenuation and also erosion control. That's what is typically put 15 in for large flood control levee projects, especially ones that are paid for and approved by 16 the Army Corps of Engineers. On the bottom of the slide is what is called a horizontal 17 levee. Instead of that riprap, you now have a long, vegetated slope that's more of a gentle 18 slope rather than a steep traditional levee slope that now allows you to vegetate it with 19 different types of ecosystems that would create this brackish marsh. The brackish marsh 20 would be a combination of this tidal action and this freshwater action coming from the 21 upland area. That's the topic the Horizontal Levee Pilot Project is focusing on. We're 22 looking at how can we include this brackish marsh area into the traditional flood control 23 levee projects. The objectives of the pilot project include habitat enhancement. We want 24 to make sure that we are including high tide refugia for key species, including the 25 saltmarsh harvest mouse and the Ridgway's rail, and also increase biodiversity in that 26 area. Not just having it one homogenous, long strip of brackish marsh, but have some 27 areas that have swales and some areas that have uplands and create lots of little nooks and 28 crannies for species to inhabit and thrive in. Next is to help with sea level rise adaptation. 29 Horizontal levees have been shown to encourage sediment accretion. Over time, it helps 30 that tidal marsh move upland, if it has to, to try and adapt to rising seas. Instead of just 31 losing the marsh out there completely, we would now have a place for that marsh to 32 migrate up in those situations. It would help with flood management. It dissipates wave 33 energy, so it would replace that riprap that we saw in that first picture of the traditional 34 levees. At the same time, we want to make sure that we're maintaining the public access 35 and the social infrastructure that is currently out there. We don't want to completely 36 remove the trail that's out there. We want to make sure in this project we're reconnecting 37 the trail so that people have a place to enjoy nature and really reconnect with the 38 Baylands. Lastly, horizontal levees provide an opportunity for us to polish the treated 39 wastewater that is occurring right behind these levees. This system is not going to be 40 used to meet any limits for the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment 41 plant is doing a fantastic job. It meets all of its current limits. This system would provide 42 DRAFT Approved Minutes 34 additional polishing treatment. It would really remove more nutrients and some 1 contaminants of emerging concern. Stepping back a little bit, some of the goals that this 2 project is seeking to meet include implementation of the City's Sea Level Rise Adaptation 3 Policy as well as some goals listed in the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4 that's currently in progress. Looking from a regional perspective, this project has gotten a 5 lot of interest from funding sources. To date, everything for this project has been paid for 6 by grants. We've partnered with some very strategic people. The San Francisco Estuary 7 Partnership has been a key partner with use. They hold the grant contracts, and we are, 8 therefore, the very interested stakeholder. They get to do all the contracting, and we get 9 to participate and get something great built here in Palo Alto. On top of that, they have 10 brought some great technical engineers through ESA. They've also brought on ecologists 11 like Dr. Peter Bay. They are looking to extend the work that was done at the Oro Loma 12 Horizontal Levee Project. Some of you are familiar with that. That was more of a 13 research project that looked at a closed loop system similar to this one. This project 14 would extend that project and look at something similar that would actually be open to 15 the tidal action. We just completed a preliminary design for a small system that we are 16 proposing to be built within the Palo Alto Baylands. The idea for this project is we 17 would build it in a small location in Harbor Marsh. It's shown here in this green color 18 and within this dotted box. We would learn more information about types of plants and 19 how the tidal interaction occurs. The hope would be that we would be able to feed that 20 information into these larger projects for future flood control levee projects so that we 21 can see this type of system spread throughout the Baylands. I do want to point out a few 22 key areas that are very close to this proposed location and that will become pertinent later 23 in the discussion. We have the Palo Alto Airport, right behind the proposed location. 24 We have the Regional Water Quality Control Plant over here. If you see this blue line 25 here and this orange line here, those are the proposed alignments for the SAFER Bay 26 Flood Control Levee Project. We're trying to connect and coordinate very closely with 27 that project so that what we build out there doesn't cause any issues for them for 28 permitting and is sustainable. When they come to build their levees, we can connect 29 easily and make this a project that sustains. If we zoom into the proposed location, we 30 have Embarcadero Road right here. We would have the flood control levee here. This 31 brown line is the relocated public access trail. Following that, we would have utility 32 setback and then the horizontal levee would begin down here. Maybe 2 feet from the top, 33 the flood control levee would start sloping gently to where the tidal action is occurring. 34 In that space, we're creating different types of habitats. We're creating wet meadows, 35 alkali bulrush, a whole diverse set of ecosystems. Similar to what was historically seen 36 on the shorelines, we're trying to diversify a bit and create both swales and upland areas 37 for refugia. Now, I'd like to spend a little bit of time discussing a few of the challenges 38 that we've seen in the preliminary design report and process. The first is this balance 39 between public access and habitat enhancement. We want to make sure that we locate 40 public access trails such that the community has an opportunity to connect with the 41 natural environment and also that we're locating it in such a way that we're giving the 42 DRAFT Approved Minutes 35 species that are using that habitat space to live and not be scared and to reproduce and 1 thrive. That can be a bit difficult. There are some species that are sensitive and some 2 species that aren't. We're going to have to do more work on evaluating what species are 3 actually using that marsh right now and how best to address this particular challenge. We 4 have gotten initial environmental stakeholder feedback that has echoed that concern. 5 They've stated that the trail placement on the Bay side of the SAFER levee counteracts 6 the benefit to improve habitat along the perimeter of Harbor Marsh for native species. 7 They're asking that we relocate the trail to the road side of the levee, which becomes a 8 little bit challenging when we're trying to provide that view and connection for the people 9 who are using the public access trail. If we relocate that trail to the roadside, you're going 10 to see 5 feet of sloped levee, but you're not going to see the Bay. Now, we find ourselves 11 finding that balance between public access and habitat enhancement. To put that in more 12 context, I wanted to show where the current trail is, what we proposed, what we 13 compromised on, and what has been proposed by the initial environmental feedback. 14 This white line is what's currently out there. It's pretty far along into the habitat. Right 15 now, that habitat is pretty poor quality, and it's not quite marshland. It's not really what 16 we're looking to ultimately have up there. That's why we need to restore it. While it does 17 provide this interaction with the species, the species using it right now are somewhat used 18 to people out there. They hear the noise, the dogs, what people are using it right now for. 19 We want to improve on this. When we initially did the preliminary design and asked for 20 feedback from the environmental stakeholders, we showed this red line for the location of 21 the trial. It's a little bit down. It's not right on top of the levee. It's maybe 2 feet down on 22 the Bay side, right before we start that habitat. The feedback we got was that's too close. 23 We need a little bit more discussion on this. We need to bring in some experts, some 24 more research resource agency opinions before we make a final decision. Until we can 25 get that together and coordinate some workshops on that, we will move it up to the top of 26 the levee for further discussion. That would be about there, maybe 2 feet further away 27 from the original proposed location. The initial environmental stakeholder feedback is 28 they would like it where the yellow line is, way back. These are the four choices that we 29 have identified under the preliminary design. Right now, it shows it at the top of levee, 30 and we've earmarked it and identified it as a place where we need to do more. We need 31 to reach out to the community more. We need to reach out to some experts. What we've 32 decided to do is not only discuss it with resource agencies and ecologists offline, but also 33 create a workshop where we can bring the community and the experts together and see if 34 we can come up with a compromise that reaches both of those goals. We want both 35 public access, and we want species to enjoy the habitat that we're spending so much 36 effort to restore. Moving onto the second challenge, which is a slightly easier one to 37 discuss but also a bit of a disappointment. The previously identified location for the pilot 38 was on airport property. We found that out a little bit far into the preliminary design. 39 Once we started to get a sense of how many approvals are necessary through the FAA, it 40 looked like that location was not going to work. The FAA is very much worried about air 41 strikes, bird strikes. If we are enhancing habitat, we need to make sure that the type of 42 DRAFT Approved Minutes 36 bird that we are bringing to that habitat is not going to cause a safety issue for the people 1 using the airport. It's a great concern. I'm happy that we learned before we got much 2 further in the process. That's why we do these preliminary design reports. Unfortunately, 3 that means this location is not going to be the best for this particular project. In this 4 picture, I show the airport right here. You can see the runway right here. This red circle 5 is where we were planning on putting this horizontal levee. It's right on the approach to 6 the runway. It's definitely a valid concern. In response to that challenge, we are 7 proposing to relocate that pilot further in Harbor Marsh. The yellow is where we looked 8 at under the preliminary design. The red is where we're proposing to move it for the next 9 phases of the project. This is a location that was identified early on along with the yellow 10 one in the conceptual designs. It has very similar qualities to the first location. It has 11 poor quality habitat right now that needs to be restored. It's located close the Regional 12 Water Quality Control Plant so that we can irrigate it relatively easily. It has some great 13 opportunities for restoration and for public access aspects of the project. For next steps 14 for this particular project, we're looking to continue the collaboration with the San 15 Francisco Estuary Partnership. We just got another grant to move us to the next phase of 16 the project. We are going to start to progress to a 60-percent design. Because we are 17 relocating, we're going to have to step back a little bit and redo a few of the items that we 18 did in the preliminary design. We are definitely on track, and we have enough funds now 19 to move this project forward. Two community workshops are planned for this year, one 20 focusing on the public access and habitat intersection. The second workshop is focused 21 more on how we engage local communities, both disadvantaged and not. Mainly, we're 22 thinking that engagement would focus on the planting and the management of the system, 23 but we want to hear from the community. We want to know how we could engage 24 everybody in an interesting way that would also teach people about sea level rise and 25 these types of systems. We are continuing to try to secure funds for the next, next phase 26 of the project, which would include construction. This system is relatively pricey, but a 27 lot of agencies are very interested in this work and willing to bring money to the table. A 28 few next steps on related projects include some community workshops for sea level rise 29 adaptation work that is occurring as well as a community workshop for the SAFER Bay 30 Project. We are continuing the three-year initial study on the South San Francisco Bay 31 Shoreline Study, which is also evaluating flood control to those levees. Any questions? 32 Chair Greenfield: Thank you for your presentation, Samantha. Thank you for being with 33 us later in the evening as well. I know that's an accommodation. Any clarifying 34 questions from Commissioners before we comment? 35 Commissioner Moss: Thank you for coming back to talk about this. Yes, I was at that 36 Oro Loma study. We learned so much at that. I'm hoping this will go faster because of 37 that. I'm glad that you got to move it further down so that the FAA isn't a problem. I 38 want to tell you to keep going. That's great. 39 DRAFT Approved Minutes 37 Commissioner Olson: I think this project is really interesting. Kudos to you for all the 1 discoveries along the way, including the airport. The only comments I had related to the 2 bike path. I would second putting it away from the road and near the levee, not on the 3 other side of the road. Part of my reasoning for that is if it's on the other side of the road, 4 you have all those crossings to deal with, which is more of a safety issue. On the drawing 5 of the bike path, it looked like there are sharp turns to go to the new path. I was 6 wondering if we could round that out for safety. I love what we're doing. It looks great. 7 Commissioner Reckdahl: I realize the tradeoff between wildlife and use. In this case, 8 especially since it's a demonstration, we should err on the side of public use. Part of this 9 is PR. This is going to take more money to do more of this. The more people that get out 10 and use it and see it and appreciate it, the more likely we can add to it. If I had my 11 druthers, I would have the path on the top but maybe investigate potentially having just a 12 little short path to go down into it at one or two spots. At least, the kids can go down and 13 check things out closer, but yet most of the transportation is up at the top and staying 14 away from the wildlife. 15 Commissioner McCauley: Thanks very much for the presentation. It's very thoughtful. I 16 agree with Keith's comments. That would be ideal, what he just described. 17 Vice Chair Cribbs: Thank you very much for the work you're doing. It's very interesting 18 to learn more about this. It sounds like there's a lot of opportunity for grants and all of 19 that, so you don't seem to be too concerned about that. 20 Ms. Engelage: Always concerned about money, but we have received two grant funds so 21 far, one from EPA Climate Ready Estuaries Fund and one from the Coastal Conservancy 22 recently. Those opportunities continue to pop up, and we look really good to obtain 23 significant money through future grant funding. 24 Vice Chair Cribbs: That's really exciting. Good work on that. Under the next steps, the 25 very last sentence is about the second workshop meant to brainstorm youth and 26 disadvantaged community involvement in the project. Can you talk a little bit more 27 about how that would work and how you'd do that? 28 Ms. Engelage: The engagement itself or the workshop? 29 Vice Chair Cribbs: The workshop. 30 Ms. Engelage: We are trying to partner with some strategic community organizations 31 that already have a lot of connections in that vein. We haven't completely reached out yet 32 to solidify those partnerships, but we have a few in mind. Our first step is to reach out to 33 them, see if they are interested in the project, and see what ideas they have first. We 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 38 want to bring more people to the table to discuss how that could look after we've 1 constructed this and specific tasks that we can include the community in. 2 Chair Greenfield: Thank you again for the presentation. It's always helpful and 3 appreciative for this body to learn about some important projects that are happening right 4 in our backyard. How do you know that the length of the pilot project area is long 5 enough to get good information and good data that will be useful moving forward? 6 Ms. Engelage: It's a great question. Ideally, we'd have a larger system and a larger 7 connection to the tidal action that we're looking to evaluate. For this particular project, 8 because it's one of the first of its kind in terms of the treated wastewater irrigation, 9 permitting is seen to be a challenge. We want to try to streamline the permitting aspect as 10 much as possible. We're zeroing in on areas that are already upland and limiting how 11 much work we're actually doing out in the marsh that would trigger a lot of concern from 12 permitting agencies. That's really one of the major limiting factors. The area that we've 13 identified to relocate to is large enough to give us initial information about that tidal 14 action and that connection that we're looking to answer. 15 Chair Greenfield: Good to know. I certainly appreciate the first challenge that you 16 articulated, which is the tradeoff between natural habitat and recreational use. It seems 17 like the trail at the top of the levee makes the most sense. I did read through the 18 preliminary design report from Peter Bay, who is the local expert, from December of last 19 year. It seemed to state very clearly that locating the trail at the top levee would be the 20 optimal design choice. Does that carry a lot of weight and would you guess that the 21 environmental community would appreciate that and go along with that to an extent? 22 Ms. Engelage: I do. I also think hearing it directly from the experts versus staff or 23 reading it in something that staff has asked of the expert is the best way to convey that. 24 They can ask questions directly to the expert and feel comfortable with that 25 recommendation. 26 Chair Greenfield: The plan is that Peter Bay would be participating as part of the next 27 workshop. 28 Ms. Engelage: We're going to try. We have our eyes set on a few different experts. He 29 definitely is one of them that we would like to get there. 30 Chair Greenfield: Are there other experts in the field that have similar opinions? 31 Ms. Engelage: Yes. There are resource agencies that have dealt with this concern and 32 this question previously as well, that we trying to also bring to that workshop. For 33 example, BCDC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife also deal with this question quite a lot. 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 39 Chair Greenfield: That's great. It does seem like a reasonable tradeoff. I appreciate the 1 comments of other Commissioners that erring on the side of recreation for a small pilot 2 project might be a good approach. Somewhere I read something about the need to keep 3 public and pets from treated and disinfected wastewater. Is that still an issue and is that 4 part of the consideration? If you had the trail at the top of the levee, would that be 5 sufficient? 6 Ms. Engelage: The trail at the top of the levee would be sufficient. Even if it was a little 7 bit closer to the system, it would be fine. Because it's the first of its kind, we're dealing 8 with a little bit more of conservatism than what is typical for water reuse and beneficial 9 reuse of that wastewater. We currently send a portion of the treated wastewater to Renzel 10 Marsh. The trail right now is along the perimeter, and there's no other barrier there other 11 than the start of the pond. It's something we're working through with the regulators. 12 More than anything, it's dealing with a gut reaction from the public, and the term 13 wastewater being kind of icky. 14 Chair Greenfield: Again, this is probably something we'll want to err on the side of 15 caution in a pilot program and make sure we do all the right things. Thank you very 16 much. 17 Commissioner Moss: Based on what Commissioners Greenfield and Reckdahl said about 18 having the path on the top of the levee, the reason not to do that was put forth by Shani at 19 Audubon. You're going to have people, bicycles, pets and walkers, joggers. That may 20 disturb the wildlife you're trying to attract. If there was some way to move it slightly to 21 the roadside, not all the way to the roadside but halfway to the roadside, so that you're not 22 right on top but slightly below the top. That was the reasoning. I hope when we get the 23 experts in the workshop that that will come out and there will be some kind of 24 compromise. 25 Chair Greenfield: I agree. In a workshop we want to hear from the experts and allow the 26 community with differing opinions to hear from the experts and figure out what the most 27 appropriate project plan will be and that represents a compromise that's acceptable to 28 everyone and, given the expert guidance, that we can be comfortable with. Any other 29 comments? 30 Council Member Kou: This is a great project. Also, would you be able to say about how 31 much percent flood protection this might bring forth to Palo Alto? 32 Ms. Engelage: I can't give a percent, but the project is planning to provide flood 33 protection for 3 feet of sea level rise. That's consistent with the SAFER Bay Flood 34 Improvement Project's projections as well. 35 Council Member Kou: Does it accomplish the 100-year flood protection? 36 DRAFT Approved Minutes 40 Ms. Engelage: That's a good question. I'm not sure what the 3 feet of sea level rise 1 equates to in terms of the 100-year flood protection. I think it would, but there's a 2 specific year where that starts to tail off. I'd have to look further into that. 3 Council Member Kou: That'd be great. Thank you. 4 Chair Greenfield: Thank you very much for joining us and for all of your efforts on this. 5 It is a very exciting project. It's nice to see something cutting edge like this being done in 6 our backyard. Next up is the Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 7 6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates8 Chair Greenfield: Do any Commission members have any ad hoc updates they'd like to 9 comment on or discuss that weren't included in the updates that went out in the packet? 10 Commissioner Moss: I wrote that there's a lot going on with the GSI committee and their 11 new GSI Master Plan. I'm hoping that we can bring that in a future meeting to talk about 12 their big and great work. 13 Chair Greenfield: We did mention earlier that last night at City Council there was 14 discussion on the forthcoming guidance to Commissions and Boards. Council Member 15 Kou, would you like to comment on that, or I can summarize it? I was at the meeting. 16 There were five Commissioners from four different Commissions that offered comments 17 to City Council, myself included. City Council ended up making a motion related to four 18 specific areas that the ad hoc committee, which was Vice Mayor DuBois and Council 19 Member Cormack, was studying. All of us had an opportunity to provide input to the ad 20 hoc committee. Regarding work plans from the Commissions and Boards, the ad hoc 21 will proceed with developing guidelines for consideration. The same is true for term 22 limits. In general, the Council was in favor of coming up with options for these ideas. 23 Regarding the selection process for Commissioners, the ad hoc will be moving forward 24 with details for a single interview time period, likely in the spring, and also more 25 selective pre-interview filtering of candidates to potentially cut down on the number of 26 candidates overall. Regarding changes to the Commission, Council will be disbanding 27 the Library Commission in the near future. Planning and Transportation Commission 28 will remain as a single Commission, i.e., it will not be split into two separate 29 Commissions. There were considerations to create a Climate/Environment/Sustainability 30 Commission that has brought acknowledgement of sustainability as a priority. There was 31 not consensus on the best path forward. It wasn't clear that establishing a Commission 32 for this would be the best approach or not. There was a public speaker that was 33 questioning this as well. The ad hoc will work to provide more information for 34 consideration of this Commission. Regarding a Senior Commission, generally I think 35 there was more support among the Council Members comments to use committees as 36 needed rather than a new Commission. There was some support for a new Commission. 37 DRAFT Approved Minutes 41 There was no consensus on the best path forward, and the ad hoc will again work to 1 provide more information to consider. Anything else that you'd like to add that I didn't 2 touch on? 3 Council Member Kou: No. I think you covered most of it. They might go back and 4 review the application to make sure it does summarize expectations and maybe look at 5 the relevant links that are included in applications. That was one other thing that they 6 were looking at. You covered most of it. 7 Chair Greenfield: The ad hoc will be meeting in person with the Chair and Vice Chair of 8 all Commissions as part of the evaluation process. At some point, as a Commission we'll 9 look to get input from Commissioners for anything they might want to specifically 10 forward. 11 Vice Chair Cribbs: What's the timeline for this? 12 Chair Greenfield: No specific timeline was discussed that I'm aware of. 13 Council Member Kou: According to the presentation from yesterday, it's expected to 14 come back around the March/April timeframe with some of the work that Council has 15 agreed to move forward and have asked the ad hoc committee to do. 16 Chair Greenfield: Any other comments regarding ad hocs and liaison updates? We'll 17 move onto the tentative agenda for our next meeting, which is scheduled for March 24. 18 VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 24, 2020 MEETING 19 Mr. Anderson: We had a couple of items. They're a little bit in flux, so it's not a 20 guarantee. Our hope is not to bring the 7.7-acre restoration plan as discussion but rather 21 for action with the intent of it being a Park Improvement Ordinance. The plan is very 22 close. We recently got some assistance from the Planning Department to help with some 23 of the lingering questions, for example, the way to make the trail accessible, what does 24 the surfacing have to be. I think we've got that now. We're getting pretty close, and it 25 might make it to the March meeting. The first tee proposal regarding the golf course and 26 some improvements to the driving range will be a discussion item. I'm reasonably sure 27 we'll get that to the March one, but I'll confirm that soon. We had the possibility of Pam 28 Rodrigues with GSI giving us an update. She had said March or April, so I'll confirm 29 with her to see if March might be feasible. Perhaps coupling that with recycled water. I 30 know that's been an interest of the Commission. I'll check in again with Karin North and 31 Sam Engelage, if they would like to couple those and do those the same night. Lastly, the 32 10.5 acres, potentially bringing that. A couple of them, I need more research, but those 33 are the tones that on the docket for March/April timeframe. 34 DRAFT Approved Minutes 42 Chair Greenfield: The other items that are on the radar are a first tee presentation and a 1 trails overview, which is probably further out as well. 2 Vice Chair Cribbs: Is it possible in the next couple of months that somehow we could 3 have the Youth Council come? I don't know what we call it, a joint session or hear what 4 they've done this year or what their plans are for the future and hear what's important to 5 them right now. 6 Mr. Anderson: I'd be glad to extend an invite. 7 Vice Chair Cribbs: I think it's important to us to know what our youth are thinking about. 8 Chair Greenfield: Great idea, thank you. 9 Commissioner Reckdahl: When we had our recreation opportunities ad hoc, one of the 10 questions was what do the kids want to do. It'd be really nice to get their input firsthand. 11 Chair Greenfield: Anyone else? We'll move onto Comments and Announcements. 12 VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 13 Chair Greenfield: Does anyone have anything to share? 14 Council Member Kou: You know the Mayor's State of the City Address is on the 4th of 15 March, 7:00 p.m. 16 Chair Greenfield: Yes, 6:30 to 8:30 at Mitchell Park. One other comment, something 17 that came out of the Council meeting yesterday. There is a directive from City Council 18 for Parks and Rec to report back with advice on planting recommendations for the Ross 19 Road/East Meadow traffic circle. This came out of a transportation discussion. In 20 talking with Daren, this is something he'll work on with staff. Maybe this would be best 21 to go through the urban forest liaison to meet with staff and then have a presentation to 22 the Commission that would be an action to provide advice to City Council as they 23 requested. Lydia, would you like to comment any further on that? 24 Commissioner McCauley: Is this something that the City Council actually wants the 25 PRC as opposed to the professionals in our Parks Department to weigh in on? 26 Chair Greenfield: They did specifically ask for PRC. I think that's maybe more of an 27 opportunity for a plan from staff to come to the Commission for some discussion. 28 Commissioner Moss: There is a connection to green stormwater infrastructure with those 29 circles and the strips on the outside of the road. Maybe we want to talk about that during 30 that same meeting. 31 DRAFT Approved Minutes 43 Mr. Anderson: Any of those designs in bioretention areas would also get reviewed by 1 Pam's group in Public Works, with the GSI team. 2 Chair Greenfield: Daren, we'll leave that for you to provide some advice on how we 3 proceed. 4 Mr. Anderson: I'll start with contacting the project lead and see where they're at and what 5 they'd like to do. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl: For these type of traffic circles and medians, if they don't have 7 irrigation, is adding irrigation a big thing or a little thing? 8 Mr. Anderson: In some areas, it is a big thing. The vast majority of the planted bulb-outs 9 in the AMBLR areas do not have irrigation. 10 Commissioner Reckdahl: Piping that in would be hard? 11 Mr. Anderson: In some areas, yeah, very difficult and very expensive. They 12 intentionally did not do that for the majority. The intent was to start them with a water 13 truck. They'll drive by and irrigate them from the truck. The concept is it should self-14 sustain. We're seeing some areas where that's less successful and some areas where it 15 does work. It's the nature of the game with landscaping without irrigation. Sometimes it 16 does great, sometimes not. 17 Chair Greenfield: If I recall correctly, there were comments from the public that weren't 18 happy with some of the landscape options that exist there now. That was the driving 19 factor on this. 20 VIII. ADJOURNMENT 21 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Moss and second by Commissioner 22 Reckdahl at 9:45 p.m. 23