Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-28 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesAPPROVED Approved Minutes 1 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 SPECIAL MEETING 6 July 28, 2022 7 Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Vice Chair LaMere, Commissioners Nellis 11 Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, Anne Cribbs, Amanda Brown, and Joy 12 Oche 13 Commissioners Absent: 14 Others Present: 15 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Javod Ghods, Lam Do 16 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17 BUSINESS 18 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 19 Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency 20 Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the Resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Cribbs, 21 the motion passed, 7-0, by roll call vote. 22 PUBLIC COMMENT 23 Matthew Lennig commented on building a second swimming pool in Palo Alto because 24 Rinconada pool has gotten too crowded with seemingly twice as many people using it 25 since the pandemic. He suggested building a second pool either in Mitchell Park or some 26 other location, but Mitchell Park makes sense because it could serve the southern part of 27 Palo Alto. He said there are more details in an email he sent. Currently there are many 28 programs using the Rinconada pool – the Master’s program, the Palo Alto Stanford 29 Aquatics (PASA) and the Camp Rinconada, all sharing the pool with lap swimmers and 30 recreational swimmers. A second pool would help balance the load, and some of the 31 programs could be at the second pool, with less crowding and availability for people to 32 use it for recreation. He advocated for setting up a committee to explore building a new 33 pool. 34 APPROVED Approved Minutes 2 AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the June 28, 2022, Parks and Recreation 3 Commission Meeting 4 Corrections to the minutes were discussed as well as a general decline in accuracy and 5 quality of the minutes noted. Mr. Anderson reported that there will be a new vendor 6 preparing the minutes, and the staff will also be spending more time reviewing the minutes 7 to catch errors. He will also check with other commissions to inquire about best practices. 8 Commissioner Cribbs mentioned prior discussions about changing to action minutes, and 9 that they would revisit the question the fall. Chair Greenfield noted that they were 10 originally using verbatim minutes and then were given the option to go to either summary 11 or action minutes. Currently, the minutes are in summary form. Overall, the content is 12 pretty good, but they could be cleaner, so it makes sense to see what happens with the new 13 vendor and revisit the question of summary versus action minutes. 14 Commissioner Brown clarified that they had been asked to move to action minutes, and 15 there was strong opinion on the Commission at the time to retain a semblance of what they 16 had before. Chair Greenfield commented that it might be helpful to find out what the range 17 of other commissions are doing. Some are using action, and some are using summary. Mr. 18 Anderson replied that he had checked on that, and there are only two other commissions, 19 Public Arts and Human Relations, that use action only, but all the other boards and 20 commissions use some form of either summary, or a mix of summary and action. Or, in 21 some cases, like the Planning and Transportation Committee (PTC), it is summary and 22 verbatim. 23 Motion by Commissioner Cribbs to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2022, Parks and 24 Recreation Commission meeting with amendments noted by Commissioner Oche, 25 Commissioner Cribbs, and Chair Greenfield. Seconded by Commissioner Brown, the 26 motion passed, 7-0 by roll call vote. 27 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 28 3. Department Report 29 Mr. Anderson gave a recruitment update for Community Services. They are in the final 30 stages of filling a vacant Park Maintenance position. They are still in the recruiting stage 31 for a vacant Parks Irrigation position, as well as a Senior Management Analyst. They are 32 recruiting three Program Assistants that are vacant to help with the three community 33 centers. They are in the interview process for a CSD Manager at Cubberley. 34 APPROVED Approved Minutes 3 Mr. Anderson updated the Commission on the Cubberley gyms, A and B, which still 1 remain closed due to the flooding issue. On February of 2022, City staff discovered major 2 flooding under Cubberley gyms A and B during the process of investigating two areas 3 where the hardwood floors in the gym were showing signs of discoloration and waviness. 4 They found three inches of standing water and a tremendous amount of humidity and 5 moisture in the crawl space under the floors. There was significant water damage and mold 6 found in the crawl space and the gym floors, walls, and significant pipe corrosion in the 7 hot water piping for the heating system. There are a number of repairs that are required. 8 These include hazardous material remediation for the mold, asbestos, and lead paint; 9 heating system and piping replacement; gym floor replacement; gym wall replacement – 10 two layers, sheet rock and gypsum board. Also, gym bleacher removal, moving and storage 11 and installation while the rest of the repairs are taking place. These repairs are anticipated 12 to be quite expensive. There is currently no estimate for when the gym will reopen. The 13 City will need time to analyze the options once the analysis is complete. An added 14 complication is that the gym is owned by the school district and leased to the City. Repairs 15 will involve creating a capital improvement project requiring a significant amount of 16 funding. Mr. Anderson said he may have more information at the next meeting. The 17 Pavilion is still available for use, and people who were displaced from A and B are being 18 placed there. Where space is inadequate, they are referring people to other gyms, like the 19 YMCA. 20 The Stanford Palo Alto playing field infill replacement project was delayed because they 21 received only one bid to do the work, and that bid was four times the anticipated cost from 22 the estimates received. They are working with the procurement team to issue an RFI, 23 request for information, from other contractors to look at the bid. This is to see if the 24 original bid is an accurate reflection of the current market cost for this work, or if they can 25 get a better price if they were to go out to bid again. They hope to have the results from 26 the RFI by the third week in August, and once they have the information will form their 27 direction. Mr. Anderson anticipated going back to Council in September to request 28 funding. The work would then be scheduled for late Fall. In the meantime, staff is doing 29 extra cleanup, using a new piece of equipment that helps pick up the clumps of melted 30 infill. They will be using this machine once a week in addition to staff helping supplement 31 the effort. 32 Mr. Anderson reported on a Commissioner’s question at a prior meeting about student 33 enrollment in middle school athletics programs. He reminded the Commission that the 34 middle school athletics program includes basketball, volleyball, flag football tennis, track 35 and field, cross country, and wrestling. In academic year 2019-2020, pre-pandemic, there 36 was total enrollment of 1,409 students. Academic year 2020-2021, during the heart of the 37 pandemic, total enrollment was 850 students. In 2021-2022, the recovery stage, total 38 enrollment was 1,120 students. 39 APPROVED Approved Minutes 4 Regarding open space, Mr. Anderson reported that there was a downed tree on the Los 1 Trancos Trail at Foothills Nature Preserve which the Rangers cleared. He also gave an 2 update on efforts to ensure that trees are still getting water, as irrigation is reduced due to 3 the drought. Mr. Anderson explained that areas that are being irrigated regularly include 4 the functional turf, which is a term the State uses to describe what is allowed to be irrigated. 5 Functional refers to turf used for active recreation, such as playing fields. These areas are 6 irrigated as necessary for health and safety, with care taken to not waste water. Non-7 functional turf – aesthetic turf such as what might be seen between a roadway and sidewalk 8 – is no longer being irrigated unless there are trees adjacent to those areas. During the 9 previous drought there were some areas where the trees were unintentionally impacted as 10 irrigation was dialed back. It was quickly noticed and remedied, but this time they are 11 trying to preemptively make sure areas where trees are adjacent to turf are still getting 12 irrigated. 13 Mr. Anderson explained that in some cases a green piece of turf can be seen that is not 14 used for active recreation, which begs the question, why? The reason is that there are 15 adjacent trees that are still drinking from that area since there is not an independent 16 irrigation system. The roots are going far out into the turf area and need to be irrigated. 17 Mr. Anderson shared examples of areas where this is the case. One, a section of East 18 Bayshore Road between the roadway and bike path, where there had been some irrigated 19 turf. None of it is currently being irrigated at all and is browned out and patchy. There are 20 no trees adjacent to areas where grass is turned off, so there are no impacts there. Also, at 21 El Camino Park, a mix of efforts can be seen. There is a natural grass turf baseball field 22 being irrigated regularly which will look green, but outside the outfield fence there is a lot 23 of grass that is just aesthetic and not used actively, which is being allowed to go brown. A 24 little further on, towards the south end of the park, there is a stand of redwood trees which 25 drink from that portion of grass, and this is irrigated. So, there is a mix, which can look 26 strange but is aimed at keeping the play areas safe and functional and the trees alive and 27 letting the rest brown out. 28 Chair Greenfield asked who should be contacted if someone has concerns about public 29 trees that may not be getting sufficient water. Mr. Anderson thought Urban Forest would 30 be the first one to contact. Staff works closely with them. If the tree is in a park or open 31 space area, they will coordinate with staff to address the issue. Mr. Anderson said 32 sometimes they will bring out a water truck if it’s in an area that’s not possible to irrigate 33 and there is a stressed tree. Chair Greenfield asked if there is a hotline for concerns. Mr. 34 Anderson mentioned staff will provide this number before end of staff report. 35 Mr. Anderson spoke of a grove of redwoods at Foothills Nature Preserve that has never 36 been irrigated, as there is no irrigation there, nor is there adjacent turf. He shared a photo 37 of the area called Lee Grove where there are several large redwoods. Staff noted that they 38 were starting to stress with lack of rainfall and showing a delayed reaction. Mr. Anderson 39 APPROVED Approved Minutes 5 said there is also a delayed reaction in improvement, and it might be a while after starting 1 irrigation before the trees start to show improvement. The Rangers set up a temporary 2 irrigation system using an underground quick coupler, which is helping provide extra 3 water to those redwoods. 4 Mr. Do shared the phone number for the Urban Forestry hotline, (650) 496-5953. 5 Mr. Anderson reported on the July 4th summer festival at Mitchell Park. It went well, with 6 live music, food trucks, kids’ games, and activities. He didn’t have an estimate of the 7 number, but said it was well attended, and many visitors reported to the Recreation staff 8 that it was a great event. The Fourth of July was also a busy night for open space preserves, 9 with visitation from folks wanting to watch fireworks shows. Rangers reported that 10 everything went well. There were no fires or medical calls. It was good event because they 11 were well-prepared and put in a lot of effort, likewise true of the Fire Department, Police 12 Department and Office of Emergency Services. All coordinate within their own 13 departments and also with other jurisdictions and agencies. Parking was not allowed on 14 sides of roads where vehicles might park and set off fireworks. 15 Mr. Anderson reported that summer camps are going well, including camps for music, 16 dance, theater, art, science, sports and recreation, Foothills Camp, Lego, technology, 17 writing and cooking. Most camps are offered in person, but there are a few academic 18 camps that are virtual. Vice Mayor Kou made a special appearance on July 1st at the Young 19 Mayors Kidizens Camp where Kidizens build their own small-scale cities with Legos and 20 learn how their decisions impact the community. 21 There are three more Summer Twilight Concerts coming up. These are free, located in 22 Mitchell Park, and start at 6:30 p.m. The next one will be Saturday, August 6th, 6:30 p.m. 23 There are also concerts on August 13th and August 20th, all at Mitchell Park, at 6:30 p.m. 24 There is a free family concert series at the Magical Bridge Playground. There is a concert 25 tomorrow, July 29th, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The concerts are free, family-friendly, 26 sensory-friendly and all are welcome. Concerts are every Friday in August and 27 livestreamed on the Magical Bridge Facebook page for those unable to attend in person. 28 There will be a Zoom community meeting regarding the Cubberley Field restrooms project 29 on Wednesday, August 17th, 6:30 p.m. Mr. Anderson sent an invitation to the Commission. 30 RSPVs to Peter Jensen, City Landscape Architect at peter.jensen@cityofpaloalto.org. 31 The Moonlight Run will be held on Friday, September 9th from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. in the 32 usual location. Mr. Anderson will provide more information as the event draws closer. 33 Mr. Anderson offered a thank you to Commissioner Cribbs for alerting him to a problem 34 at the Rinconada Pool. The chemical controller that manages the chemistry for the lap pool 35 APPROVED Approved Minutes 6 failed. They are working on a replacement for the controller. Mr. Anderson was expecting 1 an update midday with more information. In the meantime, people can swim at Burgess 2 Pool until the controller is fixed. They can freeze their lap membership by logging into 3 their account or emailing customer service at infoatpaloaltoswim.com. 4 Chair Greenfield invited questions from the Commissioners. 5 Commissioner Freeman asked whether the soccer field replacement project had been 6 posted. Mr. Anderson responded that the RFI will go out soon. The bid went out, and only 7 one was received, so they are now going with the RFI route, and it should be published 8 soon. Commissioner Freeman wondered if that would give them enough time to receive 9 input and evaluate it. Mr. Anderson hoped it would and said they’ve been in touch with 10 some vendors to ask them to respond. Commissioner Freeman asked if the pool is 11 something that is under periodic maintenance so that such things don’t surprise them. He 12 also asked if the pool would be out of commission for a while. Mr. Anderson stated that it 13 will be out of commission, but he did not know for how long. He said he has worked for 14 the City for quite some time and can’t remember this happening in 23 years with the City. 15 It seems rare, and they do have regular maintenance for such things, both through the City 16 and through Team Sheeper keeping an eye on it. The pool is currently closed and at this 17 point there is no timeframe for how long. Mr. Anderson said he would make sure to send 18 an email to the full Commission with more information. Once they get complete 19 information, they will go through the Communications Officer to have them spread the 20 information more broadly. 21 Chair Greenfield asked if the website would be updated on the closed status. Mr. Anderson 22 will check on this and make sure it is. Regarding the Cubberley gym closure, Chair 23 Greenfield referenced Councilmember DuBois’ request that the City Council be notified 24 with more detail on the status of the closure and its impact. City Council will be returning 25 from their break on Monday. He said he would be sending a letter to City Council and will 26 plan to speak during Oral Communications on Monday to update City Council with 27 updated information provided by Mr. Anderson. 28 Commissioner Freeman said he thought they had received an estimate on the repairs for 29 the Cubberley gym. He asked if someone had been out to look at it and give a ballpark 30 estimate. Mr. Anderson said they have had fairly extensive investigation by 31 subcontractors. He wasn’t sure if they had gotten an estimate that they could share at this 32 time. He thought they were expecting more information soon, but don’t have the final 33 numbers. He said this is largely led by Public Works, so he is getting information 34 secondhand. Commissioner Freeman noted it is a partnership with the Palo Alto School 35 District, and he wondered who takes the lead on the situation. Mr. Anderson said that is to 36 be determined, which is part of the uncertainty. Not all the information is in yet, and they 37 need to have a conversation with PAUSD. 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 7 BUSINESS 1 4. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison: Reports and Assignments 2 Commissioner Freeman said he had nothing to report. They have discussed what is 3 happening with the fields and the work being done, and that they need to stay on top of 4 what’s happening with the clean-up and whether the weekly clean-up is working, because 5 the longer it is out there, the more potential there is for someone getting hurt. 6 Commissioner Brown reported that the courts committee will meet with staff the next 7 week about information on hours. She said there was nothing major to report from the 8 school at this time. 9 Commissioner Kleinhaus said progress is being made on the eBike and other electronic 10 conveyance/mobility devices, and she hoped they would have something to share soon. 11 They have separated open space from other parks and looked at the different directions for 12 those categories. They have looked at different classes of bicycles, ADA requirements, 13 and how to define different types of trails. Chair Greenfield added that they recently are 14 looking for applicable references in the Comprehensive Plan, in the Parks Master Plan, 15 and in the Municipal Code, and are clarifying the scope and the goals, and looking to come 16 to the Commission for discussion soon. 17 Chair Greenfield noted that the Park Dedication Ad Hoc will meet early next month. They 18 hope to get to the Commission with a discussion or recommendation in the next month or 19 two. Website updates are continuing in process. Regarding Urban Forestry, the Tree 20 Ordinance Update to Title VIII, which City Council adopted, is now in effect, and staff is 21 working to release the associated updates to a new Tree and Landscape Technical Manual. 22 Commissioner Cribbs gave a report on aquatics. According to Tim Sheeper, the open swim 23 has begun to resemble pre-pandemic operations with busy and active weekends, both in 24 the big and little pools, with the diving boards and shallow areas as well. He is happy to 25 see the community returning to the pool for family recreation. He has started group youth 26 swim lessons. It is the last piece of his aquatics puzzle that he has been working on. Mr. 27 Sheeper did another in-depth analysis of lap swim cost, especially for seniors concerned 28 about the increase in and lack of discounts for senior residents. He is now able to 29 demonstrate that Rinconada has the highest availability of lap swimming opportunities and 30 also is one of the lowest cost options in the area. Commissioner Cribbs said she asked a 31 friend who swims at Rinconada, who is a senior, who told her he loves the cost. 32 Commissioner Cribbs reported on the Youth Council which is not in session now but soon 33 will be. Applications are out for people who want to join. They are working hard on 34 marketing in response to the Council’s question when the Youth Council came to give a 35 report. The Council is concerned that there are mostly students from Castilleja, which is 36 APPROVED Approved Minutes 8 great, but they would like to see students from all the high schools participating, and a 1 good gender balance as well. There are applications out on social media. The Coordinator, 2 Christopher, also shares the youth counseling program for summer camps and he thinks 3 they might be able to assist in finding potential Youth Council candidates. 4 Commissioner Cribbs reported on funding partners and said they have been in touch with 5 Roger Smith and Friends of the Parks. They are standing by to open buckets to put money 6 in for the skate park once it is approved, as well as other buckets for people who want to 7 contribute to some specific things in the parks. They have a bucket for dog parks, for 8 Foothills Nature Preserve, for pickleball, for Cubberley Track, and for the general fund. 9 Commissioner Cribbs thanked former Commissioner David Moss, who has implemented 10 many ideas after leaving the Commissioner and gone on to a role as boardmember of 11 Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. 12 Commissioner Cribbs reported that she spoke to the head of the Recreation Foundation, 13 and they are very conscious of the activities that have had to be curtailed because of 14 COVID. They are continuing to look for family-friendly and safe activities that they can 15 fund, such as the movie nights. 16 Chair Greenfield inquired regarding the Sheeper report and that the Rinconada pool was 17 getting back close to pre-pandemic levels, asking if the number of group lessons are similar 18 to pre-pandemic levels. Commissioner Cribbs said he was not specific about that. Many 19 lessons were directed to his summer swim camps, and she thought what they are doing 20 now is opening group lessons. Chair Greenfield said he is interested in the details and 21 thought if they were close to pre-pandemic levels it would be difficult without having 22 group levels active and in place. 23 5. Skate Park Project 24 Mr. Anderson and Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect, Public Works Engineering, initiated 25 discussion and sought feedback regarding addition of a new skate park. On April 12, 2021, 26 City Council referred a proposal for a new skate park to the Parks and Recreation 27 Commission to evaluate the need, identify a suitable location, and prioritize a skate park 28 facility within the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. The 29 initiative started with a local high student, Sam Kaplinsky, and his friends and colleagues 30 advocating for a new skate park in early 2021. On April 27, 2021, the Parks and Recreation 31 Commission formed a Skateboard Ad Hoc. The Committee and the stakeholder group have 32 met over the last year to work on the three tasks assigned by the City Council. 33 The existing skate bowl in Greer Park was built in 1990. It has historical significance in 34 the northern California skate community, as it is one of the oldest skate bowls on the West 35 Coast. The bowl and surrounding paving is approximately 6,000 square feet. The existing 36 skate bowl is still beloved by many in the community. However, the sport of skateboarding 37 APPROVED Approved Minutes 9 has evolved in ways that require new styles of skate parks. The Ad Hoc committee and the 1 skateboarding community agree that a new, inclusive skate park would be an asset to the 2 community, benefitting children and adults who are interested in skating. 3 The only skatepark in Palo Alto is currently the one at Greer Park. There are new styles of 4 skateparks, such as street style, and parks having transition features to support 5 skateboarders of all abilities and skill levels. Almost 2,000 people signed a petition asking 6 for a new skatepark, and many cities on the Peninsula and around the country, even around 7 the world, have added new skateparks to provide safe and supportive environments for the 8 sport. Not having enough skateparks can lead people to drive long distances to find a 9 skatepark. Many skate in the street, sometimes trespassing on private property, or 10 skateboarding in an unsafe environment. Skateboarding made an Olympic debut at the 11 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, and interest and participation in it is likely to continue. 12 Mr. Anderson shared that the Ad Hoc Committee, staff, and stakeholder group analyzed 13 Palo Alto’s parks and city-owned land to find a suitable location for the skatepark. Some 14 key features that are desired included: having at least 12,000 to 15,000 square feet., a 15 location minimizing impact to neighbors as much as possible, available restroom access, 16 adequate parking, safe biking access, and a location which avoids displacing other park 17 users by targeting underutilized sections of parks. Locations considered included the 18 Rinconada Park existing skate bowl, which is only 8,000 square feet and heavily used for 19 different activities. Robles Park, which has a 1950’s roller skating style skate bowl, is 20 6,800 square fee,t and is also used for other activities and close to neighboring homes. The 21 Briones Park basketball court and adjacent grass area was considered, but they could come 22 up with only 8,000 square feet, and it was also too close to neighboring homes. A 9,000-23 square-foot underdeveloped area of the Baylands Athletic Center was also considered. The 24 area looked promising; however, it is very remote with unfavorable bicycle access and 25 restroom access. Lastly, the group looked at a fairly large, 14,000-square-foot area at Seale 26 Park. It is also very close to neighboring homes, and there are already complaints from 27 neighbors about noise from the playing fields at that location. 28 Mr. Anderson summarized that each location has challenges in regard to the amount of 29 space, displacing current usage, or proximity to neighbors. This led to the preferred 30 alternative – the area adjacent to the Greer Park skate bowl. This area would not impact 31 other uses, it has a restroom, a parking lot, and good bicycle access. The existing skate 32 bowl is about 6,000 square feet, including the paving. The new skatepark area would be 33 approximately 22,000 square feet. The combined area, if a new skatepark was built around 34 the existing one, would be 28,462 square feet. 35 Mr. Anderson stated that, per feedback from the skaters, they propose making no changes 36 to the beloved old skate bowl. They propose using the surrounding underutilized grass area 37 around the perimeter of the existing bowl to expand the area. The fence line surrounding 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 10 the area could be expanded and kept out of the adjacent soccer fields. On June 15, 2022, 1 staff held a virtual community meeting to gather feedback regarding this proposal. Among 2 the 21 participants there was broad support for the proposed location and appreciation of 3 working closely with the skateboard community. There were comments on the importance 4 of preserving the existing skate bowl. The question was asked if the City will be 5 contributing towards the cost of this, and staff explained that at this time it is intended to 6 be community-funded, without City funds. This was originally proposed by Sam and his 7 group in their original petition to City Council. There were comments from skatepark 8 advocates who pointed out that skateparks don’t have a standard size; it is more about 9 maximizing the use and creating a good flow within a given size. They felt the space at 10 Greer was more than adequate. 11 The third task was to prioritize the skatepark facility within the Parks, Trails, Natural Open 12 Space and Recreation Master Plan. Mr. Anderson noted that this is a challenge, considering 13 that the Master Plan is an enormous document and includes many important projects. The 14 Ad Hoc acknowledged this but, given the high level of community interest in having a 15 new skate park, the growth of skateboarding, and the benefits to youth, the Committee 16 believes it would be one of the highest priority projects identified in the Parks Master Plan. 17 They noted that funding for the project is proposed to come from the community, and it 18 would not be in competition with general funds for other City projects. However, 19 designing and constructing a new skatepark will require staff time. Even if fully funded 20 with outside dollars, there would be a significant impact to staff in helping manage the 21 project and process. 22 Mr. Anderson noted that Friends of Palo Alto Parks have agreed to serve as the fundraising 23 organization for the project, and this could begin once City Council approves the project. 24 Next steps would be for staff to return to the PRC next month with a recommendation to 25 Council. This would be brought to City Council in October and if approved, fundraising 26 could begin. 27 Chair Greenfield invited clarifying questions from the Commissioners. 28 Commissioner Freeman asked about the staff time that would be required – how much 29 time and how many people would be involved in the project. Mr. Anderson said he looked 30 at a couple of similar projects such as the JMZ. Although that is a bigger project, John 31 Aiken, Director of the JMZ, had shared with him that his involvement from early on was 32 from conceptual to completion, and there were times when staff involvement was very 33 heavy. Staff were involved in conversations ranging from design implications to adjacent 34 areas, planning and funding, and the relationship with the funding organization. It also 35 involved directors from different departments. Mr. Anderson thought this project would 36 be similar, to a somewhat lesser degree, with multiple departments involved – CSD, Peter 37 APPROVED Approved Minutes 11 Jensen, Legal and possibly others. He anticipated that it would likely fall on staff to run 1 the program, as opposed to having enough money raised to hire a project manager. 2 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked what California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 3 documents they would expect for the project and what the timeline for that would be. Mr. 4 Anderson said he would consult with Planning to understand this more. He would first 5 want confirmation that they have the right spot, and this would guide the subsequent 6 questions – planning, requirements, timeframes, costs, etc. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked 7 about trees in the expansion area. Mr. Anderson said they are on the edge of where a new 8 fence would be placed. He thought one was a Pepper tree, but he was not sure, and the 9 analysis was not complete on that. 10 Commissioner Freeman asked if a project manager would be beneficial in reducing some 11 of the staff resources needed. Mr. Anderson responded that it would be beneficial from the 12 City side but shared that he wanted to support the project and get it done in a timely 13 manner. The Ad Hoc has been concerned that the more burden placed upon the fundraising 14 efforts, the less likely the skatepark will happen within the time span that the people 15 advocating for it get to actually use it. He acknowledged it is ultimately Council’s call on 16 how much staff time should be allocated to it. 17 Chair Greenfield invited comments from the public. 18 Frank Rothacker, 3717 Greer Road, said he lives about two blocks from the park, and he 19 goes there often. He lived there when the original skatepark was installed. He stated that 20 it has made the park safer. He noted that a busy park is a safe park, and the facility brought 21 in swarms of skateboarders who used the facility as it was intended, and for once, the 22 restroom was used for its intended purpose and not for something else. The last time he 23 walked by the skateboard facility it was empty, but the one in Menlo Park has many 24 skateboarders. He advocated for the park and bringing activity back to Palo Alto, and in 25 his neighborhood, to help make it a safe park. 26 Sam Kaplinsky shared that he is grateful for all the support for the project and grateful to 27 see it moving forward, stating it has been great working with the Ad Hoc and Mr. 28 Anderson. He hoped to work closely with the PRC to get the project done. 29 Mark Whiteley spoke in support of the park project as a long-time Palo Alto resident and 30 lifetime skateboarder. He was in high school when the original Greer park was built and 31 has watched its legacy grow. He emphasized that it is wonderful to see support for keeping 32 the existing park intact, because it is still of international significance, while also 33 expanding and adapting the park to meet the needs of modern skateboarding. He said Sam 34 has done a great job reaching out to the community and has done due diligence in 35 collecting information and getting people involved and connected with the City. He 36 thought Palo Alto was in a position of both honor and respect for having a unique and very 37 APPROVED Approved Minutes 12 significant park while attracting a new generation of skateboarders and adapting to their 1 needs. 2 Jason Strubing remarked he is also a lifelong skateboarder having grown up in Santa Cruz 3 and having enjoyed Greer when it was first built in the 90s. He congratulated the 4 Commission for coming to the decision to keep the original park. The evolution of 5 skateboarding has accelerated over the last 20 years, and while there are many who still 6 enjoy the old one, many more will enjoy the new one. He felt the generous footprint of the 7 proposed new park is more than enough. He appreciated the stakeholders listening to the 8 community, which will be key in the project’s success. He had questions regarding the 9 community funding. He is currently working with the City of Santa Cruz on a similar 10 project with the same builder who originally built the Palo Alto skate park. They are adding 11 an addition to Derby Park in Santa Cruz, which will be community funded, which provides 12 advantages in being able to cut costs and not having to go through the traditional city 13 process of going out to bid, et cetera. He wondered if Palo Alto would be constrained by 14 a city-funded process, or if they could cut some corners and economize in more 15 untraditional ways. He said he is happy to share his experiences with the Santa Cruz 16 project. They are soliciting donors for materials and finding that many people are 17 interested in being involved in the project. He congratulated the Commission for their 18 commitment, stating it looks like a big shoe and he thinks it will fit well. 19 Chair Greenfield called on members of the Ad Hoc to speak to the project. Vice Chair 20 LaMere thanked Mr. Kaplinsky for sparking the project as a sophomore in high school and 21 said his civic engagement has been important for the city. He said Roger Smith has been 22 before the Commission a couple times, speaking about the parks and people getting 23 involved, and it seems that many who are involved tend to be part of an older generation, 24 so it is great to see younger people involved, and hopefully it is something other youth will 25 take note of in terms of their ability to effect change. He complimented Mr. Kaplinsky on 26 his organizational skills in pushing the project forward. 27 Vice Chair LaMere said it is a very exciting project with a long way to go, but to get to 28 this point as quickly as they have is a positive sign. He thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. 29 Jensen and all the staff for all their work on community meetings and organization. He 30 said he is excited to see the project move forward and agreed that a busy park is a safer 31 park. When the project started, he said he was among those who felt the older bowl should 32 be replaced by an entirely new project. However, in listening to the skate community he 33 witnessed the passion for the history of the old bowl and what it stood for and now feels 34 like this is the way to move forward to bring the skatepark community together, especially 35 with their community funding. He asked about potential impacts on existing park users of 36 the current space. 37 APPROVED Approved Minutes 13 Mr. Anderson said they were asked by the skaters how to make the smoothest transition 1 into this actually happening. He said it would be possible to choose challenging spots 2 which would provide more opportunity in design, but there are many obstacles in the way. 3 They are trying to not impact current uses and projects, and trying not to infringe on any 4 use, but trying to use the low-use space as much as possible. Mr. Jensen added that the 5 square footage is a little bit larger than a standard skatepark, but this is because there is a 6 slope around the edge of the old skate bowl that will require some finessing and will 7 probably be given over to plantings or walls. He said there should be no real impact to the 8 overall use of the park. 9 Commissioner Cribbs agreed with Vice Chair LaMere’s comments and commended Sam 10 and his group, recalling that when they started out in the initial meetings there was not 11 consensus or agreement about what to do with the old bowl. Under Sam’s leadership, the 12 rest of the skating community came together, and with Mr. Anderson’s advice were able 13 to bring the plan to the Ad Hoc and the Commission so that it can go on to Council. She 14 said she has a fondness for the skate bowl because she was part of City staff in the 15 Recreation Department when the original park opened in 1991, and had a good time with 16 the skaters, opening it, and watching the programming part of it. She is anxious to see this 17 move on and was excited to hear they are able to keep the historic bowl. She said there are 18 a lot of resources within the skating community who would like to participate and help 19 with information and ideas. She encouraged the Commission to take advantage of that and 20 was excited that the skating community has taken this on as a public-private partnership 21 and that it bodes well for the future that Sam and his group are doing this. She noted that 22 Sam was a sophomore when this was initiated two years ago. She hoped to see the project 23 accelerated and asked Mr. Anderson if it is possible to get it to the Council in September, 24 because the sooner they can get Council approval, the sooner the skaters can raise money 25 to begin the project. Mr. Anderson responded that he can’t guarantee that, but he will do 26 his best. 27 Commissioner Oche appreciated the due diligence of staff in their consideration of 28 locations before finalizing their decision. She asked about the term “inclusive” used in the 29 presentation and wanted clarification on which features would qualify the potential of the 30 new skatepark as being inclusive. Mr. Anderson responded that they have been talking 31 about being inclusive of skaters of many different skills and abilities, ages, and experience. 32 The old bowl would not be useful for someone brand new to skating because it is too 33 advanced. With the new one, his intent is to let the skaters do the design and decide how 34 it will work, because they know the principles and the goal of making it something 35 everyone can use and can help find a way to make that work. Sam and others will be able 36 to advise on elements that are good for younger folks in one area and more experienced in 37 a different area, so that the park is complementary. 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 14 Commissioner Kleinhaus thought it seemed like great public advocacy and participation 1 that led to a good project in the right location. She was happy to support the project but 2 encouraged them to look for places at the edges to plant trees and create habitat. 3 Commissioner Brown also complimented everyone involved in bringing the project 4 forward as a case study for how community engagement should be done. She wondered if 5 the existing bowl was costly to maintain and what the delta would be for the new bowl and 6 if the inclusive features and other features would be more costly. She also asked if the 7 maintenance cost is intended to be privately funded as well, or if it is something that the 8 City would take on. Mr. Anderson said the existing bowl has not been burdensome in terms 9 of annual maintenance. In the beginning it was predominantly trying to address the graffiti, 10 and then at some point because of how quickly it was re-graffitied and the other potentials 11 for damage to the concrete, they stopped cleaning it. He felt this was the bulk of the 12 maintenance that was required. The routine cleaning is no more of a burden than for a 13 picnic area or anything else. Occasionally there would be something strange, like broken 14 glass or a sofa that had been left there, and staff would have to remove it, but that happens 15 elsewhere in the park as well. 16 Regarding new materials that might be added, Mr. Anderson said the City will have input 17 on such things. If taking it on for the lifetime of the skatepark for maintenance and 18 eventually replacement, they will make sure that they are choosing things that are long-19 lasting. He said the skateboarding community supported using robust and durable 20 equipment. Mr. Anderson confessed he did not have a great deal of experience and had a 21 lot to learn as the process begins, but he referred to the comment that there is another city, 22 Santa Cruz, to confer with in deciding how to handle the existing skate park. Mr. Anderson 23 said they have talked to their staff and are learning from their experience. 24 Commissioner Brown asked if it has been decided if the City will be responsible for 25 funding maintenance costs. Mr. Anderson thought it was likely. 26 Commissioner Freeman said he attended a Zoom meeting in June and was blown away by 27 the enthusiasm, support, and an excellent presentation. He looked forward to giving full 28 support to the project. He asked about the impact to the existing park once construction 29 begins, whether it will be unavailable, and for how long. Mr. Anderson said it would 30 definitely be closed during work on the surrounding area, and it might also be an 31 opportunity for some maintenance on that area, too. Mr. Jensen thought the length of time 32 will depend on how extensive the plan is. Developing the entire area around the skate bowl 33 would be the highest cost, and if that was the case, the old skate bowl would be closed 34 because of the proximity of work around it. However, if it is done in phases, or if it was 35 felt the side to the right was developed, then the old skate bowl could perhaps stay open 36 during construction. If the entire area around it were developed, he estimated it would 37 probably take nine months to a year to complete. 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 15 Commissioner Freeman commented that he thought it would be a project which other cities 1 would take note of, and it would be interesting to see how all of the new skateboarders 2 coming in to use the new, premiere park would be handled. He felt it will benefit the city 3 and the stakeholders. 4 Chair Greenfield thanked staff and the community members for bringing the project. He 5 reiterated that it is great to see the community coming together and working productively 6 on all aspects of the project. He asked Mr. Kaplinsky what the most popular usage times 7 would be anticipated for the skate park. He wondered about the typical modes of 8 transportation for people who will be visiting the park and what geographic area they 9 expect users to be coming from. Mr. Kaplinsky responded that mid-afternoon and late 10 afternoon will probably be the most popular usage times, but there would be usage all 11 morning and throughout the day, and if there are lights, even later than that. He said when 12 he drives to Burgess Park, there is always activity any time of the day, but generally the 13 after-school hours from around 3:00 p.m. to sundown would be the most popular. On 14 weekends, it will probably be all day, from 8 a.m. for early birds, until night. Chair 15 Greenfield asked if people would travel to and from via car, bike or board. Mr. Kaplinsky 16 replied all three, since the surrounding area is pretty accessible. Chair Greenfield said his 17 question related to concerns about parking and restrooms. The one restroom at the park is 18 not in the vicinity, and the peak times for the skatepark may overlap with the soccer usage, 19 especially on busy weekends. He asked that staff look into this and provide some 20 information. 21 Chair Greenfield said regarding the proximity to Greer Five field, he was pleased to hear 22 they are planning to keep the soccer area in its current use. He suggested putting a high 23 net on the fence between the skatepark and the soccer field. He said in the drawing it is 24 not clear where the border is projected to be, but he suggested making sure that there is 25 enough room for a sideline on the soccer field, which is already narrow. A bench could 26 perhaps be built into the outside wall of the skate park so that the soccer field could use 27 that space to store goals as well. 28 Chair Greenfield inquired about the overall size of the proposal, referencing the point that 29 the size is larger than City Council’s suggested target area. Council proposed an update to 30 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. He asked if this is the total area they are looking for, or if 31 that would be the additional area. The proposal exceeds the direction given, and although 32 he does not have a good feel for how large a skatepark needs to be, he wondered if there 33 is more information or diagrams showing features and/or a layout available to make it 34 easier to envision. Mr. Jensen responded that such questions are based upon the design 35 process which they have not begun. This proposal is just to look at the actual envelope that 36 could be part of the skatepark. Some of it may not need to be developed. Those details will 37 come in the design process. 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 16 Chair Greenfield said he was wanting to clarify what their goal was for the evening and 1 for the recommendation going to Council. He wondered how specific they needed to be, 2 beyond the location. Mr. Anderson said his perspective is that they would need to address 3 the three directives in a recommendation to Council – prioritizing the project within the 4 Master Plan, identifying the need, and verifying this is the right location. He advised 5 looking at it in general terms. He said it is too early to talk about design at all at this point, 6 other than the basic principles that they would like to have an inclusive design for skaters 7 of different abilities, and they want to work around the existing skate bowl. Council’s 8 three directives were the focus. The point at which they would know the exact boundaries 9 would be closer to the design process, which is still a way off. He recommended that not 10 be part of the recommendation from the PRC to Council, but to stay within the three 11 directives. 12 Chair Greenfield assumed the project would have no net loss of tree canopy and any trees 13 removed would be replanted. He asked if graffiti was expected to be an issue at the new 14 bowl, and if there were any mitigation steps that could be taken to minimize that. Mr. 15 Anderson said they talked about this with stakeholder groups and the original skatepark 16 designer’s son, who is a designer himself, to get feedback on tactics to prevent it. The 17 feeling from the skateboarders was if you build a great skatepark and you light it, and it is 18 filled with people, it will protect it and keep it safe from graffiti. He added that there is a 19 desire for lighting, which is lumped in with other design features that will be discussed 20 when the time is right. 21 Chair Greenfield asked if they had a feel for what level of user base would be from Palo 22 Alto versus outside of Palo Alto, although he wasn’t suggesting it be built exclusively for 23 Palo Alto use. He said there was a petition with over 2,000 signatures, but it is not clear 24 how many are residents, how many are registered voters, included in the petition. Mr. 25 Anderson did not think they had data on what the future use would be but thought they 26 could probably extract some information from Santa Cruz, which would probably be 27 comparable in terms of the drawing region. 28 Chair Greenfield commented on the revered nature of the old bowl and thought they should 29 consider including a plaque honoring it as part of the project. Mr. Anderson said a 30 comment he heard a lot was, “Do not change a thing.” “Even the cracks are sentimental 31 things that I learned to skate around. That’s part of my whole experience there.” Mr. 32 Anderson said his recommendation is a hands-off policy as much as possible, but if there 33 was a good place to put a plaque it could make sense. Chair Greenfield said it reminds him 34 of when the Mitchell Park playground was being updated and there was discussion on what 35 to keep and not to keep – the bears, and the holes you used to crawl through. 36 Commissioner Cribbs said the skatepark obviously would include skaters from Palo Alto, 37 but she thought they could survey other cities, because when they first built the skatepark, 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 17 there were no skateparks other than Santa Cruz in 1991, so it was very well-used and 1 popular with visitors from many places. They now know that Burgess Park in Menlo Park 2 has a great skateparks, as well as Mountain View and San Jose, among others. She thought 3 they would get more visitors during the newness of it, but then it would be more equally 4 distributed across the Bay area. 5 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there would be lighting. Mr. Anderson said there is one 6 there presently. Commissioner Kleinhaus noted that lighting is of great concern to her in 7 terms of light pollution and impacts on the environment. She would be in favor of the park 8 closing when it is dark, and if lighting must be included, it should be dim. Chair Greenfield 9 asked if agreement on lighting was something that could be reasonably accomplished or 10 those were competing priorities. Mr. Anderson reiterated that they were not yet at the point 11 to dig into those types of issues at all. However, when he checks with Planning, he will 12 bring it up to help understand what kind of things are associated with it and what to 13 consider when the time comes. 14 Commissioner Cribbs asked if a report will be written, with action taken at the next 15 meeting. Mr. Anderson said that is correct. He might have to do some homework to answer 16 some of the questions and concerns, but a report should be coming back, probably next 17 month, and it would be an action item. 18 Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Anderson to follow up on the outreach to other Greer Park 19 stakeholders and the field users, and to make sure they have the opportunity to submit 20 comments before the next meeting. 21 6. Dog Park PIO Park Improvement Ordinance 22 Mr. Jensen, Landscape Architect, Public Works Engineering, opened the discussion of the 23 expansion of the Mitchell Park Dog Park and a recommendation to Council to approve the 24 Park Improvement Ordinance that would allow for continuing along the path of expanding 25 the dog park. 26 Mr. Jensen summarized that there is a limited dog park system in Palo Alto, and they 27 would like to expand it as an item referenced in the Parks Master Plan and which is a 28 priority that the City Council directed staff to look at ways to expand the system. The 29 project also correlates with an ongoing CIP to provide funding for dog park expansions or 30 new dog parks. The Mitchell Park Dog Park is currently the second largest dog park in the 31 system. It is a well-used, good-sized dog park. The park is approximately .56 acres in size. 32 The goal in developing dog parks in the future is to have them closer to one acre in size, 33 as this size is much easier to maintain for dog use. The goal for this park is to expand it 34 and give more space. The scope of the project includes the following: expand the existing 35 dog park; creating a small dog park separate from the main area; replacing the existing 36 five-foot fence; replacing the double gates with another gate and adding larger gates for 37 APPROVED Approved Minutes 18 vehicle access and maintenance; adding more seating; maintaining existing hose beds and 1 moving them around to make more sense of them in the spaces; reconfiguring the irrigation 2 to aid in maintaining grass in the dog park; moving the park ten feet away from the creek, 3 which is an easement requirement; keeping the picnic area and hilltop area out of sight of 4 the fenced area for community use; and changing the type of grass in areas outside of the 5 dog park to a lower maintenance, no-mow variety. 6 Mr. Jensen shared illustrations of the existing dog park along with the proposed expansion. 7 A small amount of area will be lost in moving it away from the creek, but space will be 8 gained in the dog park location as well as the smaller dog park area. By expanding the 9 area, they will capture another quarter-acre for the larger dog park area and create another 10 0.1 acres, which is a good size for small dogs. The combined space will be almost one 11 acre, as proposed. Mr. Jensen reported that there was a community meeting on May 4th, 12 with 26 attendees. The group was supportive of expanding the dog park. Comments ranged 13 from providing seating and shade, trying to maintain the grass, making the area as big as 14 possible, and also to keep the hilltop and seating area open to the community. The prior 15 PRC discussion also included feedback regarding incorporating more trees into the design, 16 reduction of the height of the small dog park fence, maintenance of the two separate dog 17 spaces as shown, and also maintenance of the hilltop seating area and picnic area outside 18 of the fenced dog park area. 19 Mr. Jensen shared an exhibit demonstrating the surfacing differences between the dog 20 parks. The larger park will be more of a grass area in addition to the decomposed granite 21 area. The small dog park would involve maintaining the grass there as well. The passive 22 use areas of the hillside would be using the no-mow grass to reduce water use and overall 23 maintenance. 24 Mr. Jensen shared an exhibit created in response to discussion with the PRC regarding 25 trees. There are 21 existing trees, and Mr. Jensen pointed out the proposed 15 new trees in 26 the plan, all native trees, with 10 Valley Oaks and 5 California Sycamores. Since 27 publication of the agenda and staff report, there have been a few topics that have come up, 28 one about the height of the small dog park fence. It was discussed to be three feet, and the 29 current PIO refers to the small dog park having a three-foot tall fence. There was some 30 concern from maintenance staff that three feet is too low, coming from experience at 31 Hoover Dog Park, which originally had a three-foot-tall fence, and it wasn’t tall enough 32 even for the smaller dogs and had to be raised to five feet. So, an amendment could be 33 made to the PIO language as part of a motion. The other item was the fence layout at the 34 top of the slope for the larger dog park. There was discussion with the PRC members about 35 shifting the fence over to capture only the hillside but maintaining the top of the slope 36 outside the fenced area for recreation and seating. This is a reduction of about 0.1 acres, 37 about 14 percent of the overall added size, which could also be an amendment to the 38 motion on the PIO. 39 APPROVED Approved Minutes 19 Mr. Jensen explained that a PIO is something they do when expanding existing areas in 1 parks or changing the use of areas. This PIO would specify that they are enclosing some 2 of the area of passive use and creating an area that is for sole use of a dog park now, which 3 requires a PIO – a Park Improvement Ordinance. The Parks and Recreation Commission 4 makes a recommendation for the Council to approve the PIO. The PIO also lays out all of 5 the modifications to the park that will take place, serving as the legal document of the 6 ordinance itself. If it is the desire of the Commission to recommend the PIO for approval 7 to Council, it will go to Council for a vote. If Council approves it, then there are another 8 30 days, after which there is a second reading on the Consent Calendar, and then it is 9 approved. During that time – and already started – they will be putting the bid package 10 together, so once the PIO is approved by Council, they can quickly move forward with 11 sending plans out to bid, allowing them to quickly start work on construction of the 12 expansion, hopefully within the next few months. 13 Chair Greenfield clarified the Commission’s options for this item. The PIO before them 14 could be approved, with the option of including the changes that were suggested. If the 15 Commission felt that they are not ready to make a decision and want to consider this 16 further, it could be treated as a discussion item and can voted on next month. Mr. Anderson 17 said he confirmed with the attorney that the Commission does not have to vote on the PIO 18 as it stands in the report but can make modifications and include them in the motion. 19 Chair Greenfield invited clarifying questions from the Commissioners. 20 Commissioner Cribbs asked if there was an At Places memo that she missed. Chair 21 Greenfield confirmed that there was a memo included in an email to the Commission as 22 well as a separate attachment within the agenda. The memo essentially talks about the 23 alternate layout discussed by Mr. Jensen. 24 Commissioner Oche was curious to know what prompted the new fence line. Mr. Jensen 25 said it was in response to a discussion at the site during the week with Chair Greenfield 26 bringing it up for discussion at this meeting. Chair Greenfield added that it was based on 27 consideration after doing a walking tour with Mr. Jensen and Commissioner Freeman. The 28 details of it are included in the At Places memo. It was essentially considering options and 29 tradeoffs of keeping the hilltop area reserved for people to use, rather than the dogs, 30 noticing that there are shady areas at the top of the hill which people enjoy, and which 31 provide solace, and are a unique area in the park. There would still be a lower hilltop area 32 included in the dog park with slope area included. Commissioner Freeman remarked it is 33 something you need to see to appreciate the need to move the fence. He felt that making 34 the change would still leave a good balance. 35 Commissioner Freeman said it still looks to be somewhat narrow, and he wondered if there 36 would be benches on the hill. Mr. Jensen said the proposal includes adding seating inside 37 the dog park, not on the hillside area, but down on the flat portion. Commissioner Freeman 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 20 asked if there is still enough room outside the fence for people picnicking to be able to sit 1 on the hilltop in a shaded area. Mr. Jensen said the level part on the hilltop would be 2 outside the dog park for people to sit on. He didn’t know if they were large enough to 3 picnic on. Some areas are smaller, but large enough to sit there. Chair Greenfield said the 4 existing seating area at the top of the hill was never going to be included as part of the dog 5 park. 6 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked to see the slide of showing the trees and asked for 7 clarification of what the new trees would be. Mr. Jensen pointed out the15 new trees. They 8 will be a mixture of Valley Oak and the Native California Sycamore, both native to the 9 area. Most are planted in the no-mow, passive area. The massing of the trees would help 10 to shade a portion of the dog park once big enough. A few were placed within the dog 11 park, but the irrigation water main line runs along the back edge and there is a drain line 12 that connects, so the trees were positioned so as to avoid damage to the utilities over time, 13 but also to provide shade and habitat along the Creekside. 14 Commissioner Kleinhaus pointed out three trees on the illustration and thought there were 15 already trees there. Mr. Jensen said most of it is just a large massing of black acacia and 16 there is no significant tree or canopy in the area, so that is why they propose to create some 17 canopy there. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked about the area along the path on the bottom 18 side where there are always people sitting, and it is very sunny. Mr. Jensen said there is no 19 irrigation in the decomposed granite area along the edge, so there is nowhere to plant along 20 that edge. He pointed to areas where they are trying to create shade in the hottest part of 21 the day. 22 Chair Greenfield invited comments from members of the public. 23 Michal Shalon, Acting President, Palo Alto Dog Owners, said she is in full support of 24 improvements to any existing dog parks in Palo Alto. Their members definitely want shade 25 and more adequate seating. She was glad to see the addition of the trees. She hoped others 26 who use the park regularly would add more specific comments. Ms. Shalon commented 27 on moving on from the past two pandemic years into a changed future. She said just as 9-28 11 changed travel forever, they need to contemplate the importance of parks in a totally 29 different way going forward. Many groups want and need access to these outdoor spaces 30 now, and Palo Alto has many dog owners. She noted that data from Pets In Need suggests 31 a total of over 1,500 or more dog licenses either added or renewed every year, indicating 32 thousands of dogs in the city. For dog owners, the daily chore of taking care of and walking 33 their pets is enhanced when there is a friendly destination to look forward to. For many it 34 is a highlight of their day, a place to meet up with neighbors and congregate with their 35 dogs outdoors and is essential for the mental and physical health of the city’s dog owners. 36 Ms. Shalon appreciated the work Mr. Anderson and Mr. Jensen have done on the project 37 APPROVED Approved Minutes 21 and the improvements to the existing park. She hoped more parks and more off-leash 1 opportunities can be added in the future. 2 John Guislin, Palo Alto dog owner, seconded the previous caller’s comments about the 3 importance of parks. He thought the design is nice but felt they are not following the Parks 4 Master Plan guidelines in their priorities. The plan says that staff should actively pursue 5 adding dedicated fenced dog parks in multiple neighborhoods, equitably distributed 6 between North and South Palo Alto. He said today there is no dog park in North Palo Alto, 7 so for him to go to a dog park it is about 2.2 miles to the nearest one, which is too far to 8 walk his old dog there and back and include some time to play. He felt, while spending 9 money on dog parks is important, it is most important to create an equitable distribution 10 of dog parks in the city first, before making improvements to existing dog parks that he 11 feels are fully functional. Mr. Guislin noted attempts in the past 18 to 24 months to get a 12 new dog park which did not come to fruition. During that discussion he proposed pocket 13 parks along Palo Alto Avenue near the creek, part of Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park, 14 which are small parks that have no playing fields, relatively low usage and are already 15 fenced on about half the perimeter. He felt they would make an excellent choice for a low-16 cost park to serve some residents of North Palo Alto, although not sufficient for all. He 17 hoped they would table spending this money on improving an existing park and instead 18 put efforts towards building dog parks that will serve the unmet needs of North Palo Alto 19 residents and their dogs. 20 Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Anderson for some background information, including a 21 brief history of dog park efforts in recent years, including Ramos Park, the CIP schedule, 22 the every-other-year, how they are doing so far, and the current status of exploration into 23 new dog parks in North Palo Alto. Mr. Anderson responded that the last dog park added 24 was Peers, which they do consider North Palo Alto. The next new dog park to be built will 25 be Boulware Park. That PIO was brought to the Commission and was approved by 26 Council, and is now pending last reviews, and it will eventually be constructed. That will 27 also be in North Palo Alto. Mr. Anderson said they have struggled to find different 28 opportunities, but they have not stopped looking for more permanent ones. However, both 29 Greer and Mitchell, existing dog parks, have had a number of complaints about being 30 undersized without adequate space for smaller dogs, which is why they started looking at 31 this. It also seemed to be a path of least resistance in their ability to make it happen. 32 Mr. Anderson felt that they have pursued North Palo Alto and will continue to pursue more 33 dedicated dog parks in areas where they make sense, but he would also like to try to expand 34 Greer after the improvements at Mitchell, because Greer is chronically a source of 35 complaints among dog owners as being too small. Frequently they see dogs out in the 36 outfield of the adjacent fields because it is too small, and there is some adjacent landscaped 37 area where it could possibly be made larger. They have not given up hope on the concept 38 pitched at Ramos – a shared use model, which would take a given park area and use a 39 APPROVED Approved Minutes 22 piece of it for dog off-leash area for a certain amount of time. It was not well received at 1 Ramos, although they had initially thought they had positive feedback, but it was followed 2 by an outpouring of community feedback coming in to say, “This is not the place for this.” 3 Mr. Anderson said they will need to be judicious in their search for other opportunities, 4 but they are still active in looking for all possibilities – fixing existing ones, finding new 5 ones throughout Palo Alto, and enhancing existing ones, as well as looking for 6 opportunities for off-leash as well. 7 Commissioner Brown noted that they are a bit behind in the CIP dollars spent because they 8 were exploring that path, and those dollars were unspent, so they are a little behind with 9 these projects. Mr. Anderson agreed and said that, given the process and how long it took 10 to find Peers Park, it was an exhaustive amount of time invested. He did not know if they 11 could fully expect to have an approved location every other year. It is an admirable goal 12 to strive for, but he didn’t think they could bank on having a new, fenced, unique dog park 13 every other year. Commissioner Brown said in the very north part of Palo Alto, where 14 Alma and El Camino meet by the train, there is another location that is currently being 15 explored by staff. Mr. Anderson thought this was the case, in addition to El Camino Park 16 itself. There are a few spots where he thought it may be possible, and staff continues to 17 look for new opportunities in that area. 18 Commissioner Brown thought that the project looked great, and the tree updates are 19 wonderful, with excellent visual to get a sense of where the shade will be. She appreciated 20 the addition of the five-foot fence in response to the comments from Maintenance. She 21 was not in favor of changing the fence line, because it is directly in conflict from what was 22 heard in the community meetings, asking to include the slope in the dog park area. She felt 23 the change comes too late after already having many community meetings and outreach 24 with the original layout, so asking to change the fence line at this point, especially when it 25 wasn’t published in the original agenda packet, is not very transparent for the community. 26 She said she would be in favor of keeping the larger footprint, especially as the dog park 27 community is already having to compromise by improving an existing dog park rather than 28 being able to add a new dog park access elsewhere in Palo Alto. 29 Commissioner Cribbs said she is happy that they are expanding and making improvements 30 at Mitchell Park and thinks it will be a nice improvement. She appreciated adding more 31 trees, because when she was there the previous day there weren’t a lot of places for shade. 32 Commissioner Cribbs said she supported really paying attention to North Palo Alto and 33 said as long as she has been on the Commission, they have tried to find appropriate places 34 for dog parks without causing consternation with neighbors about living close to a dog 35 park. She thought they need to continue to redouble efforts and make sure they’re thinking 36 about North Palo Alto, focusing on finding a couple places to do a pilot program. She 37 congratulated whoever created the dog park page on the City’s website. She wasn’t sure if 38 you can get to it through Community Services or if you have to go to Public Works to find 39 APPROVED Approved Minutes 23 it. She complimented Mr. Jensen on another nice job and added that she actually would 1 not support moving the fence, either. Mr. Ghods responded that the link to the dog park 2 page is found via the Public Works Department and is not linked to Community Services 3 at this point, but they will work on doing so. 4 Commissioner Freeman felt it was an excellent presentation for expansion of Mitchell Park 5 but also advocated continuing to look at other parks in response to neighborhood needs. 6 He supported looking into what can be done for North Palo Alto. He agreed that it is a 7 long trek to go to Mitchell Park and other areas. He was happy to see the addition of more 8 trees. He asked about the size of the trees that will be planted, because it determines how 9 quickly they are going to grow. Mr. Jensen said this is a tricky question because trees that 10 are planted smaller grow faster. On day one, the impact of the shade that they have will 11 not be as great, but they will create a canopy faster over time, so normally they don’t get 12 into planting trees of large size, but usually plant a 15- to 24-inch box, which is six to eight 13 feet tall, and fairly spindly when planted. This is done because over the long run it has 14 been shown that a bigger canopy can be grown by growing a smaller tree. It adapts better 15 to its growing environment that way. Commissioner Freeman said the dog owners will 16 appreciate the added trees especially going forward as the trees get taller. 17 Vice Chair LaMere appreciated all the work on the project. He asked Mr. Anderson about 18 Pardee Park in North Palo Alto. He thought it had been considered, but then community 19 meetings ended up tabling it. Mr. Anderson said that was correct. They had pitched Pardee, 20 and when the opposition was too great, they started looking elsewhere and eventually went 21 to Peers. Vice Chair LaMere appreciated the design. Regarding the fence line, he preferred 22 it to be changed; however he agreed with Commissioner Brown, wondering if changing it 23 at this late date, after the community meetings and the design, if it is a lack of transparency 24 or overstepping. He preferred to give a little more area to the picnickers and other passive 25 use of the park but did think perhaps they should keep the original design as is. 26 Commissioner Oche thanked Mr. Jensen for an excellent presentation, especially 27 regarding the trees. She echoed Commissioner Cribbs and Commissioner Freeman’s 28 comments as well. She wanted to confirm how the discussions with the Girls Scouts are 29 going as discussed at the last PRC meeting regarding fundraising for some amenities. 30 Commissioner Kleinhaus was appreciative of including the trees. As someone who lives 31 in the area and has been witnessing and participating in the dog issues in Palo Alto for 32 quite a while, and using this particular park and others, she still felt it might be better if a 33 new park could be created rather than expanding one park. She asked if there was any 34 outreach to users outside of the dog group on where the fence would be. She asked if they 35 could present an example with the snow fences to see how people feel about the new 36 fencing in the park, especially the people who come and go from the Magic Bridge, and 37 how it would impact the continuity and visibility of the park. She felt that moving the fence 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 24 was a good idea for people that use the little picnic area, including people who come to 1 cook their dinner in the picnic area, who probably don’t have a home to cook in. She also 2 felt that they didn’t ask the non-dog owner park participants about the use, and it is 3 important to ask them. Last time she asked about it, it was suggested maybe they could 4 post some signs. 5 Mr. Jensen responded that emails for all the neighborhoods in the area were sent out 6 promoting the community meeting. Over 1,500 people received an email about it, and 100-7 some postcards were mailed out for the community around the dog park area, inviting 8 participation in the design process. He said people did participate, although there weren’t 9 as many people as there were in the dog group, but the opportunity was provided. 10 Commissioner Kleinhaus advocated putting up one of the snow fences so people could see 11 where it goes, noting that the guy who lives in his truck and comes to cook his dinner in 12 the picnic area probably did not get a postcard. Mr. Jensen replied that the picnic area 13 remains outside of the fenced area. Commissioner Kleinhaus said if they don’t move the 14 fence, then the fence is quite close. The new plan is more respectful of people who use 15 that picnic area and the one on top. She supported moving the fence as recommended in 16 the At Place package. 17 Commissioner Kleinhaus said in terms of the motion of what to do next, she asked if they 18 could bifurcate and look at the two dog parks separately. The small dog park makes her 19 uncomfortable. She likes to go there and walk on the bridge, go from one place to the 20 other. She likes the atmosphere of the park the way it was designed, so the small dog park 21 is very intrusive to her. She could see supporting the expansion of the dog park if the fence 22 line provided more buffer for people currently using the park. 23 Commissioner Brown responded to Commissioner Oche’s comment, stating that the Girls 24 Scouts did reach out and are interested in providing funding for some benches or amenities. 25 Mr. Jensen added that staff continues to have discussions with them, and he thought they 26 were looking at some amenities that would be appropriate, to give them guidance on what 27 to raise funds for. Mr. Anderson echoed the comments and said they are at the beginning 28 of those conversations, though it may not happen right away. They intimated that 29 additional shade might be considered. A shade robust enough to stand up to use in a dog 30 park has to be fairly robust, so it would probably be more on the expensive side. He was 31 cautioned that the Girl Scouts are largely making this donation money from bakes sales, 32 so it’s not going to be $5,000 but something more like $500, which is greatly appreciated. 33 He thought they could find a good way to use it, being thoughtful to choose something 34 that would hold up, and be of good value to the location and something they can maintain. 35 Commissioner Kleinhaus reiterated the question of splitting the two projects. Mr. 36 Anderson responded that the Commission can deviate and modify the PIO that is in the 37 APPROVED Approved Minutes 25 packet. It would just need to be clarified in the motion. Commissioner Kleinhaus wondered 1 how to make that motion. 2 Chair Greenfield thanked staff for all their work on the dog park. He spoke to the alternate 3 plan, mentioning that he did suggest adjusting the fence line below the hilltop area when 4 they met last month, but there wasn’t any follow-up on that. He had also suggested that 5 signage be placed in the hilltop area to notify members of the public about this, because 6 he is also concerned about outreach to the public who is not part of the dog park 7 community. The dog park community has responded with a lot of input, which is 8 appreciated. He said it is always easier to come out and speak in favor of something you 9 support, but he didn’t feel like there is sufficient awareness of the people who use the 10 hilltop area that it will go away, that’s what he was looking for in putting some signage 11 out there, to alert people and give them an opportunity to speak this evening. The area is 12 used frequently and is a valuable respite for people to get away from the noise of the park 13 in a quieter, more isolated, shady area. It also provides more privacy for the group picnic 14 area down below. 15 Chair Greenfield remarked that he appreciated the concern about making the changes at 16 this late date. They have reached out to staff to get guidance on whether it would be 17 appropriate to move forward, potentially, with a change in the PIO based on the At Places 18 memo or not. It sounded like, via the letter of the law, they can move forward with that. 19 However, there are questions regarding the spirit of things, whether it is appropriate or not. 20 He appreciated that those are reasonable questions to ask. Chair Greenfield said he will 21 not be supporting the original plan that has the dog park fence line including the top of the 22 hill, but instead would be in favor of either moving forward with the PIO with the modified 23 plan or delaying the item until next month to potentially do further outreach to the 24 community and have more time for consideration with all the parties involved. 25 Commissioner Cribbs wanted clarification that the Chair’s two choices were to either 26 modify the PIO or delay until next month. Chair Greenfield said that was correct and added 27 that he was interested in hearing from staff if there was particular urgency to have the PIO 28 approved this month, besides setting the project back a month. Mr. Anderson thought the 29 matter of public expectation was probably the primary driver, that there is some 30 expectation that they would be moving forward with this. He added that he did not expect 31 that the item would be back next month if they were doing additional public outreach. The 32 outreach and figuring out a possible new plan and bringing a new recommendation would 33 likely take longer than a month. Chair Greenfield wondered if putting some signage at the 34 top of the hill area with a QR code, informing that it would be discussed at the PRC 35 meeting the following month would be sufficient public outreach. Mr. Anderson thought 36 if it was limited to that it might be an option, although it might be a fairly small amount of 37 feedback generated from such an effort, but they could look into it as an option. 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 26 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if they would also put a sign by the small dog park as well 1 as on top of the hill, above the picnic area. Mr. Anderson pointed out that that kind of 2 outreach, although helpful, is one-way. There is no dialogue or opportunity for discussion 3 and explaining the matter through a sign in the park has value but is not a full solution 4 because it is one-way. Chair Greenfield said what he was envisioning was a notification 5 similar to what goes on a site when a tree is about to be removed, or when some 6 construction is going to be done. It would be a sign at the site that people in the vicinity 7 are able to see and be informed that some change is going to be made. The QR could link 8 to the dog park website, which describes the plan and the process, and provides an 9 opportunity to speak at the Commission meeting. Mr. Jensen said that technically they 10 have done that already. They could do it again, but he thought that their response to having 11 signage at the location is going to be very small. He guessed perhaps 15 people max would 12 respond to such a thing, from his experience with the Parks Master Plan, which was much 13 larger scale and impactful to the community. Very little feedback was received from QR 14 codes or having people go to a website, and his expectation was that there would not be a 15 lot of feedback provided that way, and it would probably not provide the guidance they 16 would like to see for making a revision to the plan. He said they also had signage at the 17 dog park outside the gate and another sign by the bridge where the small dog park is 18 proposed. 19 Commissioner Brown commented that she appreciated the community engagement efforts 20 done so far and agreed that a broader community has been reached through the community 21 meetings and postcards. Just because it is a dog park meeting doesn’t mean that only dog 22 owners would show up. If there was a playground being developed at a park near her 23 house, she would still show up. She appreciated staff’s work to date. 24 MOTION 25 Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend that the City Council adopt the Park 26 Improvement Ordinance as in the original packet that was published, and not the At Places 27 memo, with the amendment to change the small dog park fence height from three feet to 28 five feet. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Freeman. 29 Commissioner Freeman supported keeping the project on track and not delaying it because 30 their citizens are used to having things moving forward and he would advocate for keeping 31 the traction going. He felt it was an opportunity to show that they can make a plan and 32 keep moving forward with it, even with some adjustments. 33 Commissioner Brown added that she received notification for the community meeting and 34 outreach in her mail inbox, not including Commission-specific emails from the 35 Department, just from neighborhood groups or various interest groups, and she lives 36 nowhere near the park. 37 APPROVED Approved Minutes 27 SUBSTITUE MOTION 1 Chair Greenfield made a substitute motion to recommend that they go with the alternate 2 layout, with both of the changes mentioned by staff, both the five-foot high fencing for the 3 small dog park, and with the revised layout keeping the hilltop area outside the dog park. 4 Commissioner Kleinhaus seconded the substitute motion. 5 Chair Greenfield said he felt that the right thing to do was to maintain that area for people 6 to gather and congregate. The area is very popular and frequently used. He felt there is a 7 broad section of the public who uses it that has no awareness that this change is coming. 8 Given that, he was in favor of continuing on the track they were on but adjusting the border 9 accordingly. 10 Commissioner Kleinhaus commented that providing the privacy and quiet to the people 11 who use the area in question is important. People do use it and it is also very visible from 12 the park, so if the fence is right on top, the intrusion to the rest of the park is substantial. 13 Whereas moving it down a little bit gives people the privacy in the picnic area without 14 having dogs running on top of them. She said although she loves dogs, not everyone does. 15 In terms of the fence for the smaller dog area, she advocated telling people that there is a 16 community meeting, and to come and participate, because they don’t know what they are 17 going to lose, so it is still a problem. More important to her was to move the fence line to 18 where it is not as visible from the park to people that are using the areas around it. 19 Chair Greenfield clarified the process with the motion and substitute motion in place. It is 20 not permitted to have more than two motions active, so the next step was opportunity for 21 comment from Commissioners regarding the substitute motion. There will be a vote to see 22 if the substitute motion is accepted or not. If it passed, it could be adopted. If it failed, it 23 could go back to the original motion. 24 Chair Greenfield invited comments on the substitute motion. 25 Commissioner Oche asked if the substitute motion was the last one, which Commissioner 26 Kleinhaus seconded. Chair Greenfield said that was correct and the only difference 27 between substitute motion and the original motion was the fence line. The substitute 28 motion includes the revised fence line, which decreases the overall area of the dog park 29 and keeps the hilltop area out of the dog park and available for public use. Commissioner 30 Oche said she would choose the substitute motion because she felt they should give more 31 space to people who use the area for picnics. She added she loves dogs, too. 32 With no further comments, Chair Greenfield called for a roll call vote. The substitute 33 motion passed (4-3). 34 7. Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project 35 APPROVED Approved Minutes 28 Samantha Engelage, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, shared an update on the 1 Horizontal Levee Pilot Project. The project is seeking to meet numerous goals, including 2 improving the habitat of the site; adapting to sea level rise utilizing nature-based adaptation 3 strategies; integration of a horizontal levee on the bayfront of a flood control levee; 4 maintaining and providing compatible, low-impact recreation and social infrastructure; 5 providing polishing treatment to treated wastewater; and being on the leading edge of 6 integrating habitat enhancement with sea level rise adaptation and novel wastewater 7 treatment. She shared details on how the project proposes to meet all six goals in the staff 8 report but wanted to dig into two of the goals of the most interest to the Commission – 9 improving habitat and maintaining and providing compatible, low-impact recreation and 10 social infrastructure. 11 Ms. Engelage defined horizontal levee as a gently sloping vegetative berm or ecotone slope 12 that is on the water side of a flood control levee. The simplest definition of ecotone slope 13 is a transition between two habitats. In this case it would be a transition between tidal 14 marsh and upland habitats that would utilize freshwater marsh habitats. These transition 15 zones, or ecotones, used to occur where creeks, rivers, and springs discharge to the Bay. 16 Currently, these outputs are mostly restricted to very specific areas, and most of them are 17 channelized for improved flood control. As such, to try to recreate the ecotone, the 18 horizontal levee, in this proposed project requires a fresh water source. The proposal is to 19 use treated wastewater from the adjacent wastewater treatment plants to provide that fresh 20 water source. 21 Ms. Engelage explained that, in another context, horizontal levees are a green 22 infrastructure alternative to traditional greyscape solutions for wave attenuation on the Bay 23 side of a flood control levee. The traditional solution is riprap, which is made up of large 24 boulders that are able to absorb wave energy and protect the core of the flood control levee. 25 An alternative to riprap is a horizontal levee. Horizontal levees would not only attenuate 26 the wave energy but would also provide benefits, including habitat enhancement. 27 Ms. Engelage discussed the main components for the Horizontal Levee Pilot Project, 28 which include a 500 linear foot berm that is fronted by a roughly 300-foot horizontal levee. 29 The proposal includes installing around 1,600 linear feet of underground piping to convey 30 treated wastewater from the adjacent wastewater treatment plant to the project site. They 31 would need to replace the Renzel Marsh pump located currently at the treatment plant so 32 that they can not only continue to feed Renzel Marsh treated wastewater, but also use the 33 same pump to feed this project site. They would also vegetate the horizontal levee to create 34 an ecotone slope and diverse habitats and to realign the public marsh front trail to the top 35 of the new berm. 36 Ms. Engelage discussed how the project proposes to carry out goal number one – 37 improving habitat at the project site. The site is roughly two acres in size and is adjacent 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 29 to many facilities, including the Palo Alto Airport, Regional Water Quality Control Plant, 1 and Byxbee Park. It is also situated in the middle of the current public access trail network. 2 The project site in particular has the public access trail currently running on the bayside 3 perimeter of the project site. Ms. Engelage shared an illustration of the location. The area 4 is made up of poor-quality upland habitats that support rural non-native grasses. Ms. 5 Engelage shared photos of the project site and pointed out that there is very little transition 6 between the small area of salt march and the brownish upland on the other side of the 7 public access trail. The transition is a couple of feet right now. She pointed out a slough 8 on the far-left side of the salt marsh, constraining the little strip of salt marsh. 9 Despite the poor-quality habitat currently at the project site, they do know that the site and 10 surrounding area is used by various species, including two endangered species – 11 Ridgeway’s Rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. A recent study found that about 30 rails 12 are known to use the area. Another study found that the small transitional area is most 13 likely used as refugia habitat by the salt marsh harvest mice during high tides, but the 14 public access trail most likely deters them from going further into the project site and using 15 that area for foraging or nesting. 16 With the project they estimate, Ms. Engelage said they would be increasing the marsh 17 habitat by about 33 percent at the site. They are diversifying the habitats to now include 18 wet meadow, freshwater marsh, and riparian scrub. They are increasing the amount of 19 refugia habitat for key species, including Ridgeway’s Rail and the salt marsh harvest 20 mouse, and increasing the habitat connectivity in the area which is also expected to 21 improve species utilization of the site. 22 Ms. Engelage spoke to goal number four - to maintain and provide compatible low-impact 23 recreation and social infrastructure. The Baylands sees roughly 700,000 visitors a year, 24 many of whom enjoy the network of trails that spider web throughout the area. The Marsh 25 Front Trail in particular was built around 2000 and is a part of not only the local trail 26 network, but the regional Bay Trail as well. The area is also within the jurisdiction of the 27 Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as well as other resource 28 agencies. The segment of trail within the project site is roughly 500 linear feet and runs 29 the Bayside perimeter of the project. 30 In considering where and how to locate the trail in the project design, there were several 31 design considerations to keep in mind, including the need to connect the relocated trail to 32 the existing trail network on both ends to ensure that they are maintaining the public access 33 experience. They needed to limit the creation of informal trails by the public in the hope 34 of creating a substantial no-access area to help species better utilize the habitat that they 35 are enhancing. They wanted to ensure that they were increasing habitat connectivity, so 36 they didn’t want the trail to interrupt that connectivity, in the hopes of improving species 37 utilization of the site. The goal is to utilize screening vegetation as a physical barrier and 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 30 promote habitat use. That screening vegetation is both for the public’s enjoyment as well 1 as the species utilization. They also wanted to promote tangential approach of wildlife. 2 Research has shown that it is less obstructive and less intrusive to species utilizing the 3 area. They wanted to limit raptor perching opportunities, provide educational areas and 4 ensure that they are maintaining access to the site for maintenance. 5 The proposal is to move the current public access trail from its current location on the Bay 6 margin to a location closer to the road. The new trail would still connect to the larger trail 7 network on both ends of the project site. The new trail is proposed to be eight feet wide 8 and roughly one-and-a-half feet higher than the adjacent road. The relocation would 9 actually reduce the trail length by about 80 linear feet but would provide 50 to 80 feet of 10 uninterrupted habitat on the Bay side of the trail. It also provides about 50 feet of buffer 11 between the trail and the adjacent road. The buffer also reserves space for that larger levee 12 improvement project to come in in the future and construct a larger flood control levee, 13 and not build directly on top of the horizontal levee pilot project. 14 Part of the proposed project is to create diverse habitats that include ridges or high points 15 and swales, which would be low points. The reserved area for the flood control levee also 16 provides a buffer between the road and the public access trail which is important to help 17 satisfy BCDC’s concerns about the project potentially degrading the public experience at 18 the site due to the shorter trail length and the closer proximity of the trail to the road. 19 BCDC also recommends that they make the existing intake structure for the ITT Marsh an 20 official part of the public access trail. Right now it is not an official part of the current trail, 21 but it is not excluding the public. The area is open, and the public can access it currently, 22 but it is not an official part of the trail. BCDC hopes that by them including this as an 23 official part of the trail that they can ensure that the project provides the maximum feasible 24 public access as required by their laws and policies. If they were to move forward with 25 making this an official part of the public access trail, they would have to allow for ADA 26 access and would have to adjust a few things on the intake structure as well as conduct 27 nesting season closures every year, from February to August. To further minimize the 28 impact to species utilization at the site, BCDC would also like to see additional screening 29 vegetation on the trail spur to the intake structure and also some signage reminding visitors 30 that it is a sensitive habitat and to essentially keep the noise down. Ms. Engelage said this 31 was one area in which she was looking for feedback from the Commissioners. 32 Ms. Engelage presented next steps for the project. They hope to continue collaboration 33 with the San Francisco Estuary Partnership. They are working hard to finalize the design 34 and CEQA by the end of this year. They are planning to come back to the PRC later in the 35 year to provide information on CEQA as well as ask for a recommendation on a Parks 36 Improvement Ordinance, hoping to get final resource agency permits by 2023, and 37 construct the project in 2024. Ms. Engelage concluded her presentation and invited 38 questions. 39 APPROVED Approved Minutes 31 Chair Greenfield asked Ms. Engelage if she could give a bit more of an overview, 1 particularly for members who haven’t heard from her before, to put in perspective what 2 this pilot project is, what the intended goals are, the region that it would be applicable to 3 and also, if the pilot is successful, what happens, and what potential implications are for 4 the full redesign of the area in the vicinity. 5 Ms. Engelage responded that there are numerous goals for the project, as stated previously. 6 Ultimately they are looking to install a pilot horizontal levee that they can not only improve 7 the project site in the near term for habitat and prepare it for sea level rise and the upcoming 8 larger flood control levee projects, but they also want to collect data on design parameters, 9 permitting requirements, costing of the systems, as well, so that hopefully they can 10 convince not only their community to adopt horizontal levees in the larger flood control 11 levee projects that are coming down the pipeline, but also to help the region adopt similar 12 nature-based sea level rise adaptation strategies as well. It is seen as an important project 13 locally but also has regional implications. 14 Chair Greenfield asked Ms. Engelage to speak to the uniqueness of this pilot project and 15 the precedents for it in other locations. Ms. Engelage thought if they built this horizontal 16 levee pilot project by 2024, it would be the first within the San Francisco Bay area of its 17 kind. There is a research site that has a horizontal levee built in San Leandro that has a 18 horizontal levee built at the Oro Loma Sanitary District. It is a demonstration project that 19 is a closed-loop system, so there is no interaction with the tide, no Bay interaction with 20 that system. This pilot project is looking to advance the knowledge taken from the Oro 21 Loma horizontal levee demonstration project to the next level and have some interaction 22 with the tides and the Bay to get a better sense of items such as sediment accumulation 23 and accretion. They also hoping to get more information from this project on the permitting 24 and construction cost aspects that the Oro Loma demonstration project could not do 25 because of the core components of it being a closed-loop system, and really, a research 26 site. The pilot project under consideration has a lot of people looking at it for answers, as 27 well. Ms. Engelage wanted to convey that it is a pilot project, but not a temporary project. 28 It is being designed to be a permanent installation, with ultimate integration into a larger 29 flood control levy improvement project that would then be improving the levies 30 throughout the Baylands and not just this one small portion of it. 31 Chair Greenfield invited clarifying questions from the Commissioners. Hearing none, he 32 invited comments from the public. 33 Eileen McLaughlin, representative of Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, said 34 she has, with other environmental groups, had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Engelage 35 and related staff for the project previously and also attend a webinar that they put together. 36 It was very informative from the view of how and what this habitat would be built to 37 replace and to do. Also regarding the separation of public and wildlife, they had several 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 32 researchers that spoke on studies about how wildlife responds when they have people 1 present along trails near them, and also what must be done to keep people and dogs and 2 other things out of wild areas. She said for anyone who hasn’t seen it, she recommends it. 3 She was very pleased in reading the document and hearing the presentation, that they are 4 actually planning on putting the trail behind shrubbery that will give the wildlife some 5 privacy, and also, they knew they were going to be moving it back to put a fence along the 6 trail as another way of keeping back the dogs that could be off leash wandering off there. 7 She said they are pleased to see the improvements and protections. She asked what is the 8 use of expanding habitat for wildlife if there is so much presence of people that the wildlife 9 doesn’t want to go there? She thought this was a good thing for both wildlife and people 10 in the end. They are concerned, long-term, about when the sea level rise levee is put in and 11 what that might have to do with changing the trail and where the people might walk on it. 12 They are concerned about a future tall levee – which this project doesn’t control – but 13 which might have a trail on top of it, and that would bring all those views of people right 14 into the marshland and into the species that are attempting to succeed there. She hoped the 15 project continues to move forward in the same way as it has. 16 Chair Greenfield asked if the regional water control plant project proposal was directly 17 related to the change Ms. Engelage was describing. Ms. Engelage said she thought he was 18 referring to the Local Advanced Water Purification System, which is separate from the 19 project. 20 Chair Greenfield asked Ms. Engelage to comment on the specific area of feedback she was 21 seeking from the Commission. Ms. Engelage shared the area that BCDC wants them to 22 consider making part of the public access trail on the map. The intake structure, the ITT 23 Marsh behind Byxbee Park, underneath a structure there is pipe bringing bay water from 24 Harbor Marsh. It goes underground and across Byxbee Park on the landfill access road 25 and over to the ITT marsh. The main purpose of the structure is to maintain the intake and 26 make sure it is flowing in the right direction and sending bay water down to ITT marsh. It 27 also provides the public currently with an overlook over the Harbor Marsh, and BCDC 28 thinks it would be a great addition to the public access trail to provide some sort of 29 waterfront view. She pointed out the area that would need to be closed seasonally, from 30 February to August, during the rail nesting season and said that BCDC suggests that they 31 annually close it off, and throughout the year remind users that the area is sensitive habitat 32 and to keep the volume low. That one area would need seasonal closure, but the rest of the 33 public access trail wouldn’t need to be closed. Ms. Engelage said this is the area that she 34 hoped to hear some feedback from the Commission on, whether or not to include it as an 35 official part of the trail, or leave it as is, with essentially the main purpose being for 36 maintenance, and if the public accesses it, that’s great, but they won’t advertise it or make 37 it an official part of the trail. 38 Chair Greenfield invited comments from the Commissioners 39 APPROVED Approved Minutes 33 Commissioner Oche inquired about community engagement and stakeholder feedback 1 about the project and asked for more information on that. Ms. Engelage said they have had 2 quite a lot of community engagement to date on the project. It has been a project in the 3 works for a long time, since 2018. They have made stakeholder engagement a core 4 component, and it is also very important to their partners in the project – the San Francisco 5 Estuary Partnership in which they are actively engaged the public and the community. 6 Around 2021 they had two stakeholder workshops focusing on different aspects of the 7 project, one focused on the competing goals of providing public access, but also enhancing 8 habitat utilization by species and looking regionally at how to balance those, and how 9 research indicates that it can best be done. They also had a workshop on engaging diverse 10 communities and non-profit organizations to explore whether it was better to hear from 11 different parts of the community, engaging and using non-profit organizations, as a sort of 12 partner on the project to build off their existing networks to gain more feedback and 13 participation from the community on the project. They also have plans to continue 14 stakeholder feedback, not only now, during design, but through construction and post-15 construction, during maintenance and monitoring. 16 Upcoming public engagement opportunities include a “Bio Blitz” which will occur in 17 October of 2022. They will be asking the community to come out to the project site and 18 see what kinds of species they can identify using the iNaturalist app in order to get 19 information on the current project site’s utilization by different species. They also have 20 some ideas for how to use community-based restoration during construction for the 21 planting aspects of the project and are looking into working on partnerships to develop 22 community-based science that would help them monitor the project after construction to 23 collect data on how it is working and developing. There is a lot of public engagement 24 planned, some more concrete than others, but it remains a key priority for the project team. 25 Commissioner Oche asked if it is publicized on the website how people can get 26 information about the schedule for community engagement. Ms. Engelage said the project 27 is on the Sea Level Rise website. There is also a San Francisco Estuary Partnership website 28 and a couple of email lists of known stakeholders that are interested in hearing updates on 29 the project and opportunities. They also use all of the City avenues to publicize stakeholder 30 engagement opportunities, including social network updates, advertisements and an email 31 through the Sustainability and Action Plan newsletter as well. 32 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if they had looked at the BCCP and if they had considered 33 how it might work with the BCCP. She said one of the things discussed with the Baylands 34 Comprehensive Conservation Plan was to daylight the connector that the intake structure 35 leads to, so that it all becomes, instead of a pipe, a facility that is good for the wildlife and 36 for people to enjoy. She wondered if this is compatible or if might later be more difficult 37 to implement for the connection to the ITT area. Ms. Engelage said that the horizontal 38 levees are included in the BCCP plan as an area to be looked into further and promoted. 39 APPROVED Approved Minutes 34 She did not think the concept of daylighting the current pipe and intake structure to ITT 1 Marsh would conflict with the project since it is on the perimeter of the project site. She 2 would have to double check the BCCP plan, but she did not remember which side of 3 Embarcadero Road daylighting would be on. Mr. Anderson responded that he did not 4 believe the BCCP has any specific recommendations on daylighting that, nor does it say 5 where it would take place. He recalled that it was discussed among stakeholders. He did 6 not believe it is a recommendation in the current draft of the BCCP. 7 Chair Greenfield asked for an explanation of what daylighting is. Commissioner Kleinhaus 8 answered that there is a pipe underground, and daylighting refers to creating a little creek 9 instead of a pipe underground or opening it to the daylight and letting vegetation come in 10 to let people and wildlife enjoy it. Basically, the water would be exposed to sunlight, and 11 it would be made into a waterway instead of a pipe. 12 Commissioner Kleinhaus said she had questions about the trail and the reference to low 13 impact recreation. She said at Oro Loma, no one walks on the levees, and it is a closed 14 area with security. She said this project will experience a lot of activity, enjoying the levee 15 and the views, but also part of the Bay Trail, so all of the commuting will be there as well, 16 and that is not low impact. She wondered how they would reconcile these situations in this 17 location. She said the reason she worries about it is that many creatures will go to the top 18 of the levee to sit and there will be a lot of traffic there. Ms. Engelage responded that it is 19 currently a part of the Bay Trail, so she expects that the traffic will be fairly similar before 20 and after the project. Even with the current traffic there are significant populations of rails 21 in the area quite close to the project site, and there is some adaptation that species have to 22 public access. She felt that the project maintains the existing essence of public access and 23 actually improves it for species utilization of the site by pulling it back away from the salt 24 marsh habitat, so the species has more areas to hide from the current public using the trail. 25 She said it is always difficult to balance public access and species utilization, and this 26 project improves this particular site’s ability to balance the two things. It errs on the side 27 of more species utilization than public access with the proposed trail realignment and 28 increased habitat. 29 Commissioner Kleinhaus said the assumption that existing commute levels continue, given 30 all the development that is coming around the Bay Trail, it may not be a good prediction, 31 because there is much more that will be built. The projects that are proposing that level of 32 development, in the millions of square feet of office, all rely on the Bay Trail and other 33 trails to bring people in instead of cars, so she thought the much more traffic can be 34 expected. 35 Chair Greenfield reminded the Commissioners that Ms. Engelage was looking for specific 36 recommendations on having the access viewpoint be included as part of the public access 37 trail or not. 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 35 Vice Chair LaMere asked about the cost of the project and wondered if it is completely 1 funded by grants, or if the City is paying for any of it. Ms. Engelage said the majority has 2 been funded by grants, especially the design stage, which is about $2 million so far. By 3 the end it will probably be about $2.5 million design cost unless there is a significant delay 4 or change. All of that has been paid for by grants obtained by San Francisco Estuary 5 Partnership. The City, throughout the design portion has provided staff time and support 6 and, most recently, the City is paying for CEQA and starting to provide more funds as they 7 gear up for construction. But the majority of the funding for both design and construction 8 is going to continue to be from grants. 9 Vice Chair LaMere said utilizing grants to do a project like this is great, and he appreciated 10 the presentation. 11 Commissioner Freeman appreciated the well put-together presentation. He asked about 12 getting approval on the lookout for the trail. He said he thought it would be great, basically 13 giving something back. Once the work starts, he asked about the timeframe for it and the 14 impact to people being able to take advantage of using the trails. Ms. Engelage said timing 15 of the construction is a pretty quick, but also a little tricky as they will be constrained by 16 nesting season in terms of how much equipment they can use at the site. Currently work 17 is on the construction sequencing and scheduling, but it looks like it will likely be a couple 18 of months. The public access trail will have to be re-routed, and the users of the trail in 19 that area. There will also be a need for traffic control, and closure of one lane on 20 Embarcadero Road. Commissioner Freeman asked what was involved in re-routing and 21 whether it will have to be closed. Ms. Engelage replied that they do have a sidewalk on 22 the other side of Embarcadero Road that would be the extent of the trail closure, so people 23 would be re-routed to the other side to use the sidewalk rather than trying to create a new 24 trail out in the habitat. 25 Commissioner Cribbs said all of her questions had been answered. She did wonder about 26 the 30 by 30 that was mentioned last month, the State money that is supposed to be 27 available soon, whether it will be able to be applied to this. Ms. Engelage was not sure 28 about this. They have had funding in the past from Coastal Conservancy as well as the 29 EPA Water Quality Improvement Fund. They are still trying to get enough funds to 30 complete construction but are fairly confident that they will be able to get another EPA 31 Water Quality Permit Fund grant to complete construction. If the EPA grant falls through, 32 they would take a look at the 30 by 30 opportunity. Commissioner Cribbs said it is great 33 to know that the grants are available. She commented that, as they are having to close 34 things, she hoped they would be communicating to the public, so people aren’t surprised. 35 Ms. Engelage said they definitely would be. Commissioner Cribbs congratulated her on 36 the partnerships with environmental groups and the potential education coming out that. 37 She said it was a great report. 38 APPROVED Approved Minutes 36 Chair Greenfield asked for clarification of what the closure area would be on Embarcadero 1 Road and the timing, and also if there are any potential impacts with overlap timing for 2 the Baylands Tide Gate project which will also have construction impacts. He wondered 3 if trails would be closed at the same time, with road issues, etc. Ms. Engelage said she is 4 in coordination with the project manager of the Tide Gate as well as a few other projects 5 that may be occurring around the same time and in the same area. They do plan to 6 coordinate efforts, especially any kind of road closures and re-routing of pedestrian access 7 in the area. In reference to road closures, she pointed out the area they are mostly 8 concerned about, where they will need to trench a pipeline from the wastewater treatment 9 plant down Embarcadero Road. There will be a temporary closure at that location, and 10 another one further down, on to the project site. The second area will likely have a more 11 prolonged closure than the first one. They are still trying to figure out how long the 12 closures will be and what it will look like, but she said construction is expected to be a 13 couple months, so not too long for people to be re-directed across the street to use the 14 sidewalk to access the other trail network. There would be at least one lane of Harbor 15 Road, or Embarcadero Road open at all times, to maintain the car traffic as well. 16 Chair Greenfield noted it would be helpful to get a coordinated plan with the Tide Gate 17 project and this project and overlay them to understand if there are any issues they might 18 want to try to optimize. Regarding inclusion of the overlook area as part of the public 19 access trail, he asked if there was an estimated cost of what it would require to make the 20 overlook ADA compliant. Ms. Engelage said they do not have an estimate of the scope of 21 work required to do that or the cost associated with it. It was a very recent thought from 22 BCDC at their June site visit. They shared that potential requirement with them, so a design 23 team is currently looking at what the structure would need to make it ADA. They believe 24 they have sufficient turning radius, so they would not have to expand out the platform. The 25 thought is that they would just have to provide a ramp and some other minor adjustments 26 to the platform. Chair Greenfield said including it as part of the public access trail sounded 27 great, but it is difficult to endorse it without knowing what the cost is. He asked if staff has 28 looking for feedback as it is too early for a recommendation. Ms. Engelage said that is 29 correct. 30 Chair Greenfield asked if there are any potential impacts that might not be obvious if this 31 was included as part of the public access trail, such as a minor increase in maintenance 32 expenses. Mr. Anderson answered that it depends on what they are putting on that trail 33 that would be a new connection to it, and how they will handle the closure. They are trying 34 to get away from using cable gates due to potential for accidents if bicyclists don’t see 35 them, so they are moving away from that towards gates or something else to limit liability 36 and keep people safe. Open Space staff would love to be part of the conversation of what 37 happens in terms of the seasonal closure. It could be just signage, but for more 38 effectiveness it should probably be a gate. He did not think the seasonal closure would be 39 overly onerous to implement. He did not think, following current standards, that the 40 APPROVED Approved Minutes 37 mowing or trail surface upkeep would be too much either. 1 Chair Greenfield asked if they plan to return later in the year with the CEQA report and 2 the PIO request at the same meeting potentially. Ms. Engelage said that is correct. 3 Commissioner Freeman asked if the map shared of the roadway was where the trail is 4 being re-routed. He wondered which trail was the one being rerouted. Ms. Engelage said 5 they will have to re-route the Marsh Front trail and are still deciding the exact location 6 where it would occur. She pointed out a potential location where users would be re-routed 7 across the street, but said it is still being decided in conjunction with the timing and 8 sequencing of the pipeline trench work which may determine where they provide a bypass. 9 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there are any birds nesting under the structure at present. 10 Ms. Engelage did not believe so. There is a pretty constant high flow of water rushing 11 underneath the structure, and she would be surprised if there is any nesting or species 12 occupying the area for any period of time. She stated that they could take a look at it. 13 Commissioner Kleinhaus said she was curious because there is an intake structure in 14 Mountain View that has a lot of swallows nesting in it. 15 8. Fund Raising Ad Hoc Update 16 Chair Greenfield inquired of the Commission whether they would like to bring this item 17 back next month considering the time. Commissioner Cribbs said hopefully everyone had 18 read the memo that is part of the agenda. Her suggestion, since it was getting late and they 19 needed to have a very robust discussion about this important item, was for the 20 Commissioners to read through the memo and ask any questions via email, if appropriate, 21 and they can then re-look at this item next month, or not. Chair Greenfield said the 22 attachment is part of the public record, so available for all to read. But members of the 23 Commission who are not part of the Ad Hoc would not be able to send emails to the Ad 24 Hoc due to Brown Act constraints. However, they could make sure there is opportunity to 25 formulate questions. If deferred, it would also give staff an opportunity to review their 26 ideas and provide feedback. Commissioner Cribbs wanted to point out that this Ad Hoc 27 has been going on for four years in some form or another with very good work from 28 Commissioners. She thanked Vice Chair LaMere for suggesting that they have a 29 discussion about it, because during COVID they could not do that. She noted that David 30 Moss was a real contributor to this. 31 Chair Greenfield asked for input from commissioners on whether they would like to 32 continue with this item or not. It was decided to reschedule the discussion. Commissioner 33 Kleinhaus said the memo is pretty amazing and she had comments which would take a lot 34 of discussion. 35 COMMISSIONER/BOARDMEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR 36 APPROVED Approved Minutes 38 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 1 Chair Greenfield invited comments or questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner 2 Oche reported on the Institute of Sustainability Infrastructure Awards which she 3 mentioned at the last meeting. She had a meeting with the Director for Education, and they 4 are willing to do a free presentation if the Commission is open to that. Chair Greenfield 5 thought it would be helpful to share with staff and get feedback in terms of the 6 appropriateness and how it might fit in. Mr. Anderson said Commissioner Oche and he did 7 meet on general Commission business, and she had shared this with him. He said he 8 thought it had potential and he was interested in learning a bit more about it, and they 9 could then maybe see how it might fit into an agendized item. Or, Commissioner Oche 10 had mentioned that they could also do a presentation to staff to help flesh it out a little 11 more before bringing it the Commission if it seemed like a good thing. 12 Commissioner Cribbs asked, in terms of the swimming pool status at this point, if it would 13 be possible to re-engage with the school district regarding some shared use with the pools 14 and the various schools before talking about building another pool in South Palo Alto. 15 Chair Greenfield thought it was an obvious path to pursue. Mr. Anderson agreed. 16 Regarding the next month’s agenda, Chair Greenfield noted that the Vice Chair and he met 17 with Mr. Anderson earlier in the week, previewing potential agenda items for the rest of 18 the year, looking at all of the ad hocs and trying to figure out where to put down in the 19 picture what they are trying to bring into agendas for the rest of the year. He said there is 20 quite a bit to pack in, but they are going to get there. 21 Mr. Anderson said on the August agenda there will be the Advanced Water Purification 22 System, which had been to the Commission a couple months ago, and they will be coming 23 back. Also, the Utilities Department update on projects in Foothills and Arastradero 24 Preserves, giving an update on the undergrounding of electric utilities for fire safety. Then, 25 probably the skate park recommendation will be an action item in August. Chair 26 Greenfield added Fundraising Ad Hoc Update. Chair Greenfield also added in the near 27 term they will be looking to get the Park Dedication Ad Hoc, the Electric Conveyances, 28 aka e-Bike Ad Hoc, to look towards having a recommendation to City Council by the end 29 of the year. After that, potentially a First Tee update. Chair Greenfield invited suggestions 30 to upcoming agendas. Hearing none, he called the meeting to a close. 31 ADJOURNMENT 32 Meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. 33