Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-25 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesAPPROVED APPROVED 1 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 October 25, 2022 7 In-Person & Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Vice Chair LaMere; Commissioners Amanda 11 Brown, Anne Cribbs, Nellis Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, and Joy 12 Oche 13 Commissioners Absent: 14 Others Present: Council Liaison Tom DuBois 15 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Javod Ghods 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 MOTION 21 Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the resolution. Seconded by Chair Greenfield, the 22 motion passed, 6-0, by roll call vote. 23 PUBLIC COMMENT 24 Rich Pearson, Palo Alto Pickleball Club Board Member, was disappointed with the 25 commissioners' comments and reaction to the support displayed for pickleball court night 26 priority at Mitchell Park 7 nights a week. He presented a petition of signatures of nearly 27 400 Palo Alto residents and recapped the reasons presented at a previous meeting for 28 why pickleball needs night court priority seven nights a week. The group losing access 29 is tiny and has many other options for lit courts. 30 Jimmy Young, a South Palo Alto resident, described that there are 7 pickleball courts 31 shared with 2 tennis courts. The tennis players usually play singles, so 4 tennis players 32 can displace 28 active pickleball players plus the people waiting, sometimes up to 40 33 APPROVED APPROVED 2 people total when the 2 tennis courts are being used. He asked the City Council to 1 consider giving pickleball priority in the evening to serve the most active players on the 2 Mitchell Park Courts. 3 Monica Williams, representing the Palo Alto Pickleball Club, requested the court usage 4 policy for pickleball priority hours be updated to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. 5 The Palo Alto Pickleball Club has almost 900 members, more than half of them Palo 6 Alto residents; the Palo Alto Tennis Club has 150 members. There are 51 tennis courts 7 in Palo Alto, but Mitchell Park is the only pickleball facility in Palo Alto. Pickleball 8 players are not asking for more courts, only more time at the current courts. 9 Joseph Afong, Palo Alto resident, suggested the staff go over the transcript of the last 10 meeting and provide answers to the commission members on their questions in order to 11 prevent repeated questions. He believed there had been enough time over the past year 12 to solicit input from the tennis players, the absence of such input is an input in itself, and 13 the most accurate, unbiased view by both tennis and pickleball players was already 14 provided by the court usage surveys over the past 1½ years. He advocated for an action 15 plan with a specific timeline. 16 AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 17 None. 18 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 19 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the September 27, 2022, Parks and Recreation 20 Commission Meeting 21 Herb Borock requested a correction to his comments on the first page of the minutes 22 under Public Comments. He requested his comments be changed to reflect a single fiber 23 hut site, rather than plural, and also that the phrase "at Juana Briones Park" be added to 24 the end of his comments. 25 Commissioner Cribbs requested to clarify the sentence on page 4, line 13, which reads, 26 "Commissioner Oche asked for clarification of the cost." She questioned whether the 27 cost referred to the lights or the courts. Page 11, line 7 should say "Gamble Gardens." 28 Line 9 should say, "a contractor dropped out," and the blank on line 15 should be 29 "Docent." She wished to delete her comments on page 13, line 18 about final 30 communication. 31 MOTION 32 APPROVED APPROVED 3 Commissioner Cribbs moved to approve the minutes of September 27, 2022. Seconded 1 by Commissioner Freeman, the motion passed, 6-0, by roll call vote. 2 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 3 3. Department Report 4 Daren Anderson, Community Resources Department, stated that recruiting for the vacant 5 park irrigation position and several open space technical hourly positions is ongoing. 6 The budget analyst and senior budget management analyst positions are in the final 7 interview process. He listed upcoming special events, including a Jack-O-Jaunt 8 Halloween event, a holiday tree lighting event at Lytton Plaza, Veterans Day recognition 9 at MacArthur Park Restaurant, a holiday toy drive for local youth in need, and a holiday 10 decorating contest. A test plot was completed safely and successfully at Mayfield Soccer 11 Complex to ensure safe removal of infill without damaging turf blades. The bid was 12 posted Tuesday, October 18, and all bids are due by the end of day Wednesday, October 13 26. The aim is to have the work done toward the end of November before the rainy 14 season starts, and the work will take approximately 12 days to complete. All the lights at 15 Mayfield Soccer Complex were replaced last week. Regarding the Foothills Nature 16 Preserve weekday entrance fee, the contract for the automated payment machine has not 17 yet been finalized. City Council approved the new skate park item, which allows the 18 Friends of Palo Alto Parks to begin fundraising. The Magical Bridge Playground 19 improvement project is scheduled to be completed Friday, October 28. Regarding a 20 question at the last meeting about JMZ ticket prices, increasing fees was mentioned at a 21 finance committee meeting and erroneously reported by the press as an announcement of 22 fee increases. There have been no discussions to date regarding fee increases for the 23 2024 budget. There was no update on the Cubberley Gym situation. 24 Commissioner Freeman questioned whether the Foothills Nature Preserve was currently 25 not charging an entry fee as the machine had not yet been installed and whether 26 communications would be sent to the public regarding that. 27 Mr. Anderson replied that he wanted to allow at least two weeks after receiving the 28 machine to communicate this to the public so people are aware. 29 Chair Greenfield asked how the 95% success rate at the Mayfield Soccer Complex 30 compared with that at El Camino Park. 31 Mr. Anderson stated that there was no test plot done at El Camino Park and that was 32 completely covered by the contractor, so that removal was more cautious. He gave a 33 rough estimate of 60% given the analysis after the fact. He anticipated far less old 34 material coming up and clumping at the Mayfield Soccer Complex. He added that one 35 contractor was confident the work could be staggered so that one field could be left open 36 APPROVED APPROVED 4 at all times. 1 Commissioner Freeman asked about the number of bids received. 2 Mr. Anderson stated that he will not know until the bid is closed. 3 BUSINESS 4 4. Palo Alto Youth Council 5 Chris Penaranda, Recreation Coordinator with Community Services Department, stated 6 the members will report accomplishments from last year and goals and initiatives for his 7 year. 8 Julia Zeitlin, President of Palo Alto Youth Council, discussed the themes prioritized for 9 the 2021-2022 year, mental health, college support, and climate action, and the group 10 discussed projects and events related to these themes. 11 Kayley Spencer, Secretary of Palo Alto Youth Council, described the current year's 12 themes, mental health and civic education. 13 Matthew Lee, Palo Alto Youth Council member, discussed the group's Mental Health 14 Resource Guide. 15 Paul Cherian, Vice President of Palo Alto Youth Council, discussed the planned Finals 16 Study Cram Slam. 17 Ms. Spencer described a yearlong project, a monthly newsletter to get Palo Alto teens 18 more involved in civic education and political events. 19 Ms. Zeitlin stated the group hopes to organize a City Council Meet and Greet after the 20 November election to help bridge the gap between youth and political leaders. 21 Anika Raffle, Palo Alto Youth Group member, stated there is low engagement in local 22 elections among young voters, yet when teens vote, they are more likely to become 23 strong voters in the future. This incentivized the group to get 16- to 18-year-old students 24 to preregister and register for the upcoming election. 25 Mr. Cherian thanked Council Member Greer Stone and Commissioner Anne Cribbs for 26 attending the group's retreat several months ago. He also thanked the group's advisors 27 Chris Sanchez and was grateful to the Mitchell Park Community Center for allowing 28 them to meet there. 29 APPROVED APPROVED 5 Ms. Zeitlin described the things the youth group would like to focus on in the future and 1 asked what the Parks and Recreation Commission would like to see from them. 2 Commissioner Cribbs felt privileged to be able to attend the youth council meetings and 3 congratulated the group on their outreach. She stated would like a better line of 4 communication and be able to ask the group their opinions on projects and what is 5 important to them. 6 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated she would love the group members to be more involved 7 and reach out to work on or learn about any of the Commission's issues. 8 Commissioner Oche stated she wanted more of the group's input and also wanted to see 9 the group invite the Commission for more events and possibly have a mentorship 10 program for younger people. She encouraged them to continue to embrace civic duties. 11 Commissioner Brown stated the planned civic education and engagement efforts were 12 wonderful. She encouraged the group to attend City Council and Commission meetings. 13 Commissioner Freeman encouraged the group to bring to the attention of the 14 Commission anything that would benefit the youth group to make sure the Commission 15 is reaching out to help them as well. He asked how they reach out to other youth within 16 other communities. 17 Mr. Cherian answered that they communicate and spread the word through student 18 councils and social media. 19 Ms. Zeitlin added that there is a lot of engagement through other teen groups in Palo 20 Alto, such as the Teen Arts Council and Teen Library Advisory Board. 21 Vice Chair LaMere commended the focus on mental health and reaching out to others. 22 He stated a youth voice is important and encouraged the group to attend City Council or 23 Commission meetings to speak of things that are of interest or concern to them. 24 Chair Greenfield agreed and stated it is a good opportunity and experience to be civically 25 involved. He asked about the interaction with the local high schools. 26 Ms. Spencer replied that group has members from a variety of schools and some 27 members also participate in student government, which both help with engagement. 28 Ms. Raffle stated there is a lot of support from school administration as well. 29 Chair Greenfield asked how the college admissions panel compares with those done by 30 the schools. 31 APPROVED APPROVED 6 Ms. Zeitlin replied that there was help from school college counselors who were able to 1 provide advice. Unique to the group's panel was voices from current college students, 2 which she felt was helpful. 3 Chair Greenfield suggested a meet and greet with the Parks and Recreation Commission 4 outside of a meeting. 5 Mr. Cherian agreed that having informal meetings between government and citizens are 6 a great way to engage. 7 Chair Greenfield stated supporting youth programming is an area the Parks and 8 Recreation Commission would like to do more in and thanked the Palo Alto Youth 9 Group for attending. 10 5. Park Dedication – Measure E Site 11 Chair Greenfield stated this is part of the work plan commitment to consider 12 recommendations to City Council regarding the potential rededication of the Measure E 13 site, at the Palo Alto Baylands. 14 Mr. Anderson stated that in November 2011, Measure E passed and undedicated the 10 15 acres for a 10-year term to be used for an energy compost facility. In December 2014, 16 City Council directed staff not to pursue the development of the compost facility, which 17 was not cost effective. Public Works and the Utilities Department have no plans for the 18 Measure E site. 19 PUBLIC COMMENT: 20 Peter Drekmeier, representing Palo Altans for Great Energy, the sponsors of Measure E 21 in 2011, talked about the history of Measure E. In 2008, the dump, which had an 22 effective compost operation, was going to close and be converted to parkland. The 23 Planning and Transportation Department's blue ribbon task force recommended 24 anaerobic digestion. PAGE needed 4400 signatures to pass Measure E and had 6000, 25 65% of the vote. He asked why there is a rush to rededicate the land as parkland. He 26 stated it smells bad and is the worst location in Palo Alto for a park but the best location 27 for waste conversion. 28 Elaine Elbizri, resident of Palo Alto for more than 30 years, stated there is no shortage of 29 places to enjoy outdoors in Palo Alto. She agreed the 10 acres are not an inviting spot 30 for hiking. Residents accepted using anaerobic digestion to make use of solid waste and 31 provide gas to the city; Measure E meant having a system to contribute to the goals of 32 sustainability and zero waste. Since then, there are new methods to address municipal 33 waste disposal, and Palo Alto is in a perfect place to develop a state-of-the-art method. 34 APPROVED APPROVED 7 Jeff Brown requested the Commission not recommend to rededicate the Measure E site 1 as parkland. In 2011, 65% of the voters wanted the land put aside for future use to be the 2 site of a bioenergy facility. Water treatment byproduct is one of the biggest sources of 3 biowaste, so there is no better place to site a bioenergy facility than directly adjacent to a 4 sewage treatment plant. He felt the ad hoc committee should have talked to supporters 5 of Measure E before coming to the Commission with its recommendations. He would 6 not expect Public Works or Utilities to have plans for the site. He asked the Commission 7 to extend their perspective to providing a future for Palo Altans. 8 Herb Borock supported the recommendation to dedicate the land as park. The 9 proponents of the initiative passed the initiative with a provision that the Council could 10 rededicate the parkland in 10 years. When the City made the decision not to go ahead 11 with an anaerobic digestion facility, Phil Bobel, the Assistant Director of Public Works, 12 stated, "What the City does with its waste is more important than where it does it." The 13 sludge facility removes all the water, and the pyrolysis project would use 30% of that 14 water. They cannot use that water if it is going to the planned advanced water 15 purification facility, and the equivalent would be needed for the pyrolysis project. 16 Karen Porter explained that this is the worst location for expanded parkland because it is 17 next to treatment site and directly under the flight path for arriving flights to the nearby 18 Palo Alto Airport, which is the busiest single-runway airport in the state. Not only noise 19 but leaded fuel emissions from piston-engine planes are a problem. She discussed the 20 health effects of lead exposure and stated that this airport is number 19 on a list of top 21 lead polluting airports in the United States. She felt the only use for this land would be 22 something that serves an environmentally beneficial purpose. 23 Rani Fischer, representing the Santa Clara Audubon Society, supported the rededication 24 of the Measure E site as an important wildlife corridor used by many people who enjoy 25 the park. It creates a natural connection between Harbor Marsh and the Emily Renzel 26 Wetlands and is not where an industrial facility bringing noise, light, smells, and traffic 27 belongs. The Measure E site can provide a new place to plant a grove of native trees to 28 replace those removed by the planned desalinization plant. 29 Susan DesJardin, Chair of Sierra Club's San Francisco Bay Alive Campaign, stated the 30 San Francisco Bay is a critical habitat for wildlife. Urban and industrial health have put 31 pressure on the Bay's environmental health, and climate change further impacts those 32 pressures. The Sierra Club has developed a campaign to restore the Bay's ecosystem. 33 She supported the restoration of the Measure E parkland to provide a functioning 34 hydrological and habitat connection and afford better resilience to sea level rise. 35 Debbie Mytels, a 40-year resident of Palo Alto who supported Measure E in 2011, was 36 disappointed that the City had not made progress on using the site for a forward-looking 37 approach to handling the City's waste. She felt the site next to the water treatment plant 38 APPROVED APPROVED 8 was not suitable for parkland but was located in the midst of other sustainability services. 1 She felt the City needed to follow the voters' direction and refer the discussion to the 2 Planning and Transportation Commission, which handles land use decisions. 3 Susan Stansbury, longtime resident of Palo Alto, was disappointed at the plan to convert 4 the Measure E site to parkland. While the site has not yet been used for waste 5 conversion, technology has advanced and building infrastructure will help the City reach 6 its Climate Action Plan goals. She felt pyrolysis was a better alternative than trucking 7 organic waste miles away for handling and also felt the site was not ideal for parkland 8 and not suitable to convert into wetlands. She suggested letting the voters decide. 9 Bob Wenzlau, Palo Alto resident, stated the reason for Measure E was that the City 10 needs infrastructure for sustainability and that it is essential to minimize water quality 11 impact on the community. He spoke about environmental justice, balancing the interest 12 of preservation toward the impacts of the efforts to create a pristine bubble in Palo Alto 13 by shipping waste materials to the Central and South Valley, impacting economically 14 distressed communities. Communities like Palo Alto need to do their fair share. He 15 suggested talking to the youth council about this issue. 16 Michael Ferreira, former Palo Alto resident and currently on the executive committee of 17 Sierra Club's Loma Prieta chapter, seconded Ms. Desjardin's comments. He stated he 18 was the conservation chair of the Conservation Committee at the time of the proposal of 19 Measure E, with a vote of 11 in opposition and 2 in favor. He stated the supporters of 20 Measure E had 10 years to come up with something and have not done so. He 21 commended the Commission for wanting rededicate the land. 22 Kip Husty believed the vote was clear and that it was disingenuous to suggest that no 23 other form of materials could be converted at that site without a ballot initiative. It has 24 been 10 years but with a lot of delays, and he believed there should be a fair and full 25 hearing on this land before making a decision to return it to parkland. 26 Eileen McLaughlin, representing the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, stated 27 that any empty 10 acres that nobody does anything with is going to look shoddy. 28 Thinking about the future, with sea level rise will come groundwater rise, with enormous 29 restoration possibilities. Tidal marshes are carbon exchange engines and cost nothing 30 when allowed to develop. She believed that allowing nature that is already there to grow 31 and expand would be of more value over time than this potential plant and recommended 32 keeping the land as parkland, allowing it to be restored, and making it fit into the 33 environment around it. 34 Cedric Pitot de Beaujardiere asked the Commission not to rededicate the site back to 35 parkland. The feasibility study commissioned by the City for doing anaerobic digestion 36 on the Measure E site showed this was the best option from a financial and climate 37 APPROVED APPROVED 9 emissions perspective, but the Council did not pursue that. Because the City is not 1 handling the organic waste locally, many trucks move the materials hundreds of miles, 2 which has a large climate impact. He believed this site is not great land for a park but its 3 adjacency to the water treatment plant is key in addressing climate goals. 4 Karen Holman stated there are many ways to be the best possible environmental 5 stewards and listed reasons not to pursue the project, including odors, noise, truck trips 6 in and out, and visual impacts of the facility. She questioned investing millions of 7 dollars in an area subject to sea level rise and stated it was not economically or 8 environmentally feasible for every city to have its own facility. The area is a wildlife 9 corridor, critical for the survival of wildlife. She suggested another way to reduce 10 landfill impacts is to ask City Council to require salvage of demolitions to avoid trucking 11 thousands of tons of landfill. 12 Annie Yang asked to recommend rededication of the Measure E site. She stated that 13 holding the land indefinitely for new technologies belies the promise that the land would 14 be converted to open space. The final language of the ballot measure promised that if an 15 environmentally protective waste processing facility had not moved forward within 10 16 years, the land could be returned to its previous parkland designation. It has been 10 17 years, and the City has had that time to explore the options. She believed delaying 18 rededication would be inconsistent with public expectations. 19 Emily Renzel stated if something were built to process sewage sludge on this site, it 20 would put the rest of Bixby Park even closer to the sewage plant. In 2022 when the 21 Council approved the new sludge hauling contract, they said newer technologies were 22 studied but not considered the best option. She urged the Committee to rededicate the 23 site. 24 Winter Dellenbach stated that at a recent City Council meeting discussing the proposed 25 potable water reuse facility and salt removal facility close to the Measure E acreage, 26 serious concerns were expressed about investing in building infrastructure adjacent to the 27 Baylands in light of a potential sea level rise of multiple feet. She believed the 28 Commission should move forward of this site and find a different location if the facility 29 is a viable idea. 30 Chair Greenfield discussed the role of the Parks and Recreation Commission in 31 considering this action. Assessment of the technical merits of potential future plans and 32 concerns about sea level rise are beyond the scope of the Commission. The City Council 33 will consider things beyond Parks and Recreation's area of expertise. 34 Commissioner Oche wanted to know if a recent study had been done to weigh the pros 35 and cons of rededication or going ahead with a future energy or compost facility. 36 APPROVED APPROVED 10 Mr. Anderson responded that there is not a recent study weighing pros and cons of 1 compost versus parkland. 2 Karin North, Assistant Public Works Director for Environmental Services Division, 3 stated the ballot initiative gave direction to look at different technologies. The digester 4 was very expensive, and the Council held off and then decided on a sludge dewatering 5 and haul-out facility while technologies changed and evolved. Since that time, staff has 6 been working to rebuild the liquid side of the wastewater treatment plant and has not 7 been directed to do an analysis on Measure E pros and cons, mostly due to staff 8 constraints. 9 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated the study in 2019 looked at 7 alternatives for how to deal 10 with the sludge and 5 alternatives were considered potential. She asked about the 11 comparative emissions that those 5 alternatives would have and also wanted to know 12 more about Mr. Borock's comments about the loss of water with pyrolysis. 13 Ms. North stated that staff has not yet done a thorough analysis on the different options. 14 When staff updated the biosolids facility plan, it was a high-level update to determine 15 cost. Staff will be directed to look at an analysis and may need to add resources to do 16 that analysis. 17 Vice Chair LaMere asked about the climate plan or concerns for the water treatment 18 plant and asked about the elevation. 19 Ms. North anticipated needing to protect the current wastewater treatment plant from 20 rising sea level. All critical infrastructure is being raised for flood protection, and she 21 anticipated also building a levee to protect the facility. Those determinations have not 22 yet been made by Council. 23 Commissioner Freeman asked for elaboration on the timeline regarding protecting the 24 sewage treatment and analysis on how to handle biosolids in the future. 25 Ms. North stated the vulnerability assessment was done in the last year and a half and 26 anticipated working on the adaptation plan for climate protection for sea level rise in the 27 next year. In tandem, staff is also working with larger agencies on potential levee 28 alignments, which can take a much longer time horizon. It is anticipated that the sewage 29 treatment plant will need to be protected, like all the sewage treatment plants around the 30 perimeter of the Bay Area. In regard to solids, the timing may change based on Council 31 and the Climate Action Plan goals. The current plan is to look at solids processing after 32 the secondary treatment plant process is upgraded, which is a 5-year project. 33 Commissioner Freeman clarified that it has been ongoing the last 2 years but there is a 34 resource issue that staff may or may not be able to do all of the planned analysis. 35 APPROVED APPROVED 11 Ms. Brown agreed that there are competing demands on time and a finite amount of 1 resources. If Council determines that biosolids and hauled food waste and yard 2 trimmings need to be handled on site, then staff would need to reshuffle priorities to do 3 more analysis. 4 Commissioner Cribbs asked where the sludge is going. 5 Ms. Brown stated with the current contract, a majority goes to Fairfield-Suisun and is put 6 through an anaerobic digester and reduced into fertilizer and a third of it goes to the 7 Central Valley and is repurposed into biosolids. None of the sludge goes to San Jose. 8 Commissioner Cribbs was concerned that the ad hoc did not talk to the Utilities 9 Commission and Committee for Sustainability. 10 Chair Greenfield stated the committee spoke with the Public Works Department and 11 went on a tour of the site. They also met with the Director of the Utilities Department 12 and the Chair of the Public Utilities. 13 Commissioner Cribbs stated the Commission's role is to protect parkland and keep as 14 much as possible. She wondered if it would make a difference if the ad hoc or the 15 Commission went back and interviewed anyone else. 16 Chair Greenfield suggested finishing up with questions before making comments. He 17 asked if there is a rough dollar amount in terms of staff time and consultant fees that 18 went into analyzing proposals for the use of the site consistent with the guidelines in 19 Measure E. 20 Ms. North stated there was a consultant on board that was probably a couple hundred 21 thousand dollars and it took a considerable amount of staff time. The measure was very 22 specific that it needed to be all three, food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids, for an 23 energy compost facility, so that is what the analysis was done on. 24 Chair Greenfield wanted to clarify that any future use of the site per the terms of 25 Measure E would require treatment of all three types of material. He questioned if 26 rededicating the site as parkland or using the site for a purpose that did not include 27 addressing all three types of materials would each require a vote of the public. 28 Ms. North stated she would need to check with the attorney about the interpretation of 29 both questions. 30 Mr. Anderson stated the City Attorney's office had not made a decision on that, so more 31 research is needed to form a legal opinion. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 12 Chair Greenfield stated there were 3 plans considered and then 3 more after that. He 1 stated ultimately in 2014, City Council advised staff not to pursue an active project on 2 the site any longer. 3 Ms. North stated it was not that clear. Hauling was an option for handling the biosiolids 4 but it was more of a stopgap measure while technologies changed and based on staff 5 resources. 6 Chair Greenfield asked the last time staff reviewed a potential project for the Measure E 7 site consistent with Measure E. 8 Ms. North replied 2014. 9 Chair Greenfield stated the site has been sitting in limbo for 8 years. He questioned how 10 long it would take to approve a new plan for the site. 11 Ms. North stated if the staff resources were available and it was a direction from 12 Council, a new plan could probably been done in a year or two. 13 Chair Greenfield asked if the footprint of the maintenance facility currently on the 14 Measure E site has changed since 2011. 15 Ms. North stated that the landfill was not officially closed at that point in time. It is a 16 post-landfill closure location and needs to be maintained. The footprint is slightly larger 17 than in 2011, but the landfill area has remained consistent. 18 Chair Greenfield asked if there is funding available to improve the landscaping of the 19 site. 20 Mr. Anderson stated there is a CIP for the Bixby Park Improvement Project slated for 21 FY26 with money allocated toward the parking lot, landscaping, native planting, 22 irrigation, and additional seeding. On a smaller scale, there are existing funds to do 23 incremental work but it would require a more robust plan. 24 Chair Greenfield asked what other potential sites the City could use in terms of the 25 Measure E site being used for a future project. 26 Ms. North replied the sewage stream plant site is space limited. Staff has not looked at 27 space for increased treatment of the facility. The Los Altos Treatment Plant site is 28 currently being looked at by Valley Water for a regional purification facility but not for 29 handling of yard trimmings and biosolids. 30 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated it seems like a lot of soil was deposited along the road 31 and wondered when and why. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 13 Ms. North reported the City capped and closed the landfill in 2015. There has been a 1 major grading project and minor grading and settlement repair work throughout the 2 landfill. Staff recently completed a settlement repair project in the area overlooking the 3 Measure E site for positive draining so the rainwater is not pooling. Staff is trying to 4 keep the contours as close as possible to the final grade at the time of the landfill closure. 5 She was unsure about the extra soil on the Measure E site. There have been issues with 6 subsidence, and staff has had to add dirt to keep it consistent with when the landfill was 7 closed. 8 Vice Chair LaMere asked if, when this was voted on in 2011, it was before the current 9 Bixby Park. 10 Ms. North confirmed that it was passed before the landfill was officially closed and 11 turned into Bixby Park. 12 Mr. Anderson clarified that phase 3 of Bixby Park had not been opened yet. 13 Chair Greenfield listed the options available to the Commission regarding voting on 14 making a recommendation to the Council. He was unsure how much taking time to hear 15 more about the plans would help. He did not believe this commission was the best group 16 to make an assessment in terms of the viabilities of various plans. There was the 17 consideration that the public voted on this and also a time consideration that after 10 18 years City Council had the discretion to rededicate the area as parkland. 19 Commissioner Brown did not think the role of the Commission was to protect parkland 20 at all costs but to advise on planning and policy issues related to parkland. She also felt 21 a more recent study and more work on this issue was important and that it was premature 22 to recommend action at this point one way or the other. She stated what was absent from 23 the conversation is the state legislation related to SB 1383. In theory, the legislation 24 allowed for renewable energy purchase, but that is not realistic right now and there are 25 fines associated. That cost has to be factored into any analysis moving forward as well. 26 Every other jurisdiction is trying to deal with the increase in processing of compost. It is 27 not just a Palo Alto problem; it is a regional and statewide challenge. There were 28 comments made that Public Works and Utilities have no plans for the site, but this has 29 not been prioritized or budgeted for. The analysis on the benefits of the parkland 30 conversion is equally incomplete. She felt the issue required more study but it was not 31 the purview of this Commission and would need to be referred to the City Council. She 32 felt it was irresponsible to make a recommendation based on a 2014 study without 33 looking at the technology and legislation requirements. 34 Council Member DuBois stated there have not been any recent policy decisions from the 35 Council on Site E. He felt the point about the scope was a good one and that ultimately 36 the Council would have to make a decision based on the different factors. He stated that 37 APPROVED APPROVED 14 whether Parks and Recreation makes a referral that the land should be dedicated or that 1 the Council needs to make a decision, it would be good to get this in front of the Council. 2 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated this area is important to a lot of people. There are funds 3 available under 30x30 now that may not always be available for nature-based sea level 4 rise solutions. She understood people want to study more but the measure had a 5 potential sunset date of 10 years. People did not vote to keep it open and in limbo 6 forever. She believed if there was a good proposal in the future, a vote should be 7 considered again. She referenced a study done in 2019 that looked at various options 8 and was surprised some of these technologies were presented as a better solution when 9 the net energy consumed and greenhouse gas emissions for some are much higher than 10 sending 2 trucks a day to the Central Valley. There are impacts of building projects that 11 also contribute to climate change. She hoped City Council would look at the study and 12 look at how much water would be retained out of the sludge with these new 13 technologies. She suggested rededicating the site while staff is busy with so many other 14 projects and these 10 acres that people would like to see restored are not being used. 15 Commissioner Freeman stated the Commission needed to make a decision. The 16 technology is still fluid and changing and could be out 5 or 10 years. He suggested 17 taking advantage of what is in hand now with rededication as parkland. 18 Chair Greenfield felt it was reasonable to make a recommendation to City Council to 19 look into this item. He believed everyone on the panel would be in favor of a viable 20 project on this site that is environmental for climate change purposes if this site is the 21 best location for it. It has been 8 years since the area has been assessed for a viable 22 project, and any future project is going to take years. If the project is not consistent with 23 the terms of Measure E, it is going to have to go to the voters to be approved, and 24 rededicating it as parkland makes it more transparent to the voters. He believed it was 25 reasonable to revert this back to parkland and was in favor of making that 26 recommendation to City Council. 27 MOTION 28 Commissioner Kleinhaus moved to recommend to City Council to rededicate the 29 Measure E site as parkland. This was seconded by Chair Greenfield. 30 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated keeping the land in limbo and looking for a magic bullet 31 that has not been found yet is unjustifiable. She stated if something appropriate is found 32 in the future, it should be considered at that time. 33 Chair Greenfield added that he takes into consideration the fact that the public has voted 34 on this and is certain that City Council will take that into consideration when they 35 consider this action to rededicate the area as parkland. He felt the clause that after 10 36 APPROVED APPROVED 15 years the area could be considered for rededication was important. It is likely to be a 1 number of additional years before a project is put forward. The area has been neglected 2 for too long. 3 The vote passed 4-2, with 1 abstention, by roll call vote. 4 6. Open Space and Parks Electric Bicycle and Electric Conveyances Policy 5 Chair Greenfield stated this is a discussion point on the work of the ad hoc and staff and 6 various outreach undertaken. It will return at a later date with an agenda action. 7 Mr. Anderson gave definitions for e-bike and other electric powered mobility devices by 8 California Vehicle Code, which also prohibits the use of class 3 e-bikes on recreational 9 trails and paths unless the public agency with jurisdiction chooses to permit them. New 10 legislation, AB 1909, takes effect on January 1, removing the prohibition on class 3 e-11 bikes from trails and paths. Instead local public agencies would be able to prohibit the 12 operation of an E-bike of any class on equestrian, hiking, or recreational trails. The ad 13 hoc has met several times to prepare this draft and met with Transportation staff and the 14 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to get feedback on the policy. 15 Transportation staff noted a significant increase in the use of e-bikes, especially on 16 school campuses, and felt the proposed restriction of class 3 bikes from open space and 17 park trails seemed appropriate, with an allowance for students who travel on park trails 18 to get to schools being able to use e-bikes. The draft policy was updated to note that e-19 bikes and regular bikes should be parked in designated parking locations where bike 20 parking is available and was also changed to reflect that e-bikes are restricted from trails 21 but not paved roads. PABAC recommended the draft policy be changed to allow e-bikes 22 access on the unpaved trails at the Baylands Nature Preserve as the Bay Trail is often 23 used by people commuting to work. Mr. Anderson discussed reasons why staff and the 24 ad hoc ultimately decided against including this in the draft. He reviewed the current 25 draft policy. Next steps are to meet with PABAC on November 1 for feedback and to 26 later target an action item with this commission. 27 Vice Chair LaMere asked what class of e-bikes is allowed at Baylands. 28 Mr. Anderson stated class 1 and 2 are allowed on paved roads and paved trails and 29 prohibited elsewhere and class 3 are not allowed at all. 30 Commissioner Freeman stated it is hard to differentiate visually between the different 31 classes and believed it would get harder as manufacturers look at ways to make the bikes 32 more traditional. 33 APPROVED APPROVED 16 Chair Greenfield added that some bikes can be switched between classes so simply 1 looking at the bike does not tell you what class it is. There is a speed limit on trails, but 2 it is self-enforced, looking to the community to understand the speed limit. 3 Commissioner Freeman questioned how the rangers handle enforcing the speed limit 4 currently. 5 Mr. Anderson stated staff is not trained to enforce speed limits. In the case of someone 6 obviously exceeding the speed limit in a hazardous way, the ranger may stop them and 7 request they honor the speed limit. He was not aware of any citations having been issued 8 and stated there is not staff capacity to do so. 9 PUBLIC COMMENT 10 Arthur Liberman hoped the Commission would reverse the decision not to allow class 1 11 and 2 e-bikes on unpaved trails in the Bayland open space where bicycles are currently 12 allowed. The Midpeninsula Open Space District allows E-bikes on the same kind of 13 unpaved, improved trails that are in the Baylands. By allowing e-bikes in the Baylands, 14 the Commission would be following the Midpeninsula Open Space Guidelines for the 15 nearby Ravenswood Preserve. He did not believe the environmental damage from e-16 bikes to these trails would be any different from what is done currently by cyclists. 17 People already ride e-bikes on the Baylands Trails, and if they feel the rules do not make 18 sense, they will likely not follow them. There is a sign that marks the boundary between 19 the Baylands and Bixby Park, but the trails are identical. He felt it made no sense to 20 allow e-bikes in one place and not the other. 21 Paul Goldstein, 50-year resident of Palo Alto and longtime member of PABAC, urged 22 the Commission to allow class 1 e-bikes on the improved trails in the Baylands. He 23 seconded Mr. Liberman's comments and added that while Foothills Nature Preserve and 24 the Baylands are both nature preserves, the trails in each are different. Bike are currently 25 allowed on the Bayland trails, and conflict with pedestrians and wildlife is minimum. 26 Many older bicyclists are now using e-bikes in order to keep up with younger bicyclists. 27 The trails in the Baylands are essentially improved roads. He stated bikes are allowed 28 and class 1 e-bikes should be allowed. 29 Cedric Pitot de Beaujardiere concurred with Mr. Liberman's and Mr. Goldstein's 30 comments. He believed the e-bikes should be allowed anywhere regular bikes are 31 permitted. The City is actively trying to encourage people to get out of their cars and 32 onto bikes as part of climate goals. Some places are more accessible with electric bikes. 33 Karen Holman, Midpeninsula Open Space District board member, stated Midpen had 34 long discussion on whether to allow e-bikes and comments were split down the middle. 35 She listed the areas in Ravenswood and Rancho San Antonio where a 1-year trial was 36 APPROVED APPROVED 17 done to allow class 1 and 2 e-bikes. One of the issues was enforcement as it is not likely 1 that speed will be enforced. She did not believe e-bikes belonged in urban parks and 2 unpaved trails in the Baylands, other than with ADA allowances. 3 Commissioner Kleinhaus felt the policy was difficult and appreciated how carefully 4 considered the document was in balancing all the issues. 5 Commissioner Freeman stated it is important to be proactive versus reactive and trying 6 to catch up. E-bikes are fast growing and bringing in people from all demographics and 7 age groups. An e-bike gives a little more flexibility, and he believed more people would 8 be willing to take advantage of the outside. He believed it was necessary to provide 9 realistic regulations that do not prevent people from taking advantage. The ad hoc was 10 able to look at what other agencies and neighboring communities are doing and mirror 11 that as much as possible while being good stewards in the approach. 12 Chair Greenfield stated it will be an evolving policy as time goes on. He believed 13 compatibility with bike transportation corridors and safe routes to school was an 14 important consideration. He felt it did not make sense that a class 2 electric bicycle 15 would be allowed on a park path or trail as it is like a moped in that someone can ride 16 without pedaling, but maintaining compatibility with neighboring jurisdictions and 17 people using this as basic transportation to get to school overrides that sensibility. 18 Encouraging ridership and getting people out of cars needs to be balanced with safety 19 concerns. Parking concerns are an issue for both e-bikes and all of the other electric 20 conveyances that are not properly supported in terms of parking. Class 3 e-bikes should 21 be permitted in the same places where motorized vehicles are permitted. They need to 22 have access to parking lots but also bike parking lots, which are typically not part of the 23 car parking lots. Speed and enforcement of 15 miles an hour is a major concern and the 24 overriding reason for not permitting e-bikes on the unpaved portions of the Baylands 25 area. The Baylands is right next to Bixby Park, where bicycles are allowed, and he 26 believed it made sense not to permit e-bikes on the trails of Bixby Park with the slopes 27 going down. Regarding the comment that the Midpen policy allowed e-bikes on the 28 trails that this policy suggests they would not be permitted on, e-bikes are only permitted 29 on a very short unpaved trail at Rancho San Antonio; for most unpaved trails throughout 30 the Midpen network, e-bikes are not permitted. The ad hoc wanted to maintain 31 consistency with the Midpen policy. 32 Ms. Holman stated that was accurate. Midpen does not allow e-bikes on any paved or 33 unpaved trails in any preserve other than Ravenswood and the very limited ones in 34 Rancho that have been mentioned. 35 Chair Greenfield stated that the most expedient path for commuting along the Bay Trail 36 through Palo Alto is the paved trail, which is open to e-bikes. 37 APPROVED APPROVED 18 Vice Chair LaMere appreciated the clarification on class 1 and 2 e-bikes and viewed a 1 class 2 bicycle differently than a class 1 because it can go on its own without being 2 pedaled. Class 1 bicycles are being used more by riders, especially older riders, who 3 may not be able to pedal as far anymore or get to where they want to go. He suggested 4 thinking about class 1 bicycles as a separate entity. 5 Commissioner Freeman stated there is no distinctive difference and it would put more of 6 a challenge on the rangers to try. He agreed that it would be nice to be able to separate 7 them but was unsure how to do so. 8 Chair Greenfield stated the fundamental concern is that if someone is not pedaling, they 9 are inherently in less control. If the device is capable of going 22 miles an hour, it is a 10 concern if it is not reliably enforceable. The next step is to hear from PABAC and likely 11 back to the Parks Commission in December as an action. 12 Mr. Anderson felt it would be valuable to hear from the rest of the Commission in 13 particular on the Baylands unpaved trails or with any feedback on which more research 14 was needed. 15 Commissioner Freeman suggested reduction of speed when approaching a pedestrian 16 might address any concerns about not hearing a bike approach. 17 Mr. Anderson stated that R 120 says bicyclists, e-bike and other powered mobility 18 devices, and equestrians are required to slow to 5 miles per hour when passing others or 19 approaching blind turns. 20 Chair Greenfield stated e-bikes are heavier than regular bikes and take longer to slow 21 down. He also asked other commissioners for their input on access to the unpaved trail 22 through the Baylands. 23 Vice Chair LaMere was in favor of allowing class 1 the same places regular bicycles are 24 allowed but acknowledged the problem with being able to tell what is a class 1. 25 Commissioner Cribbs agreed that she would like to see class 1 allowed on the unpaved 26 trails at the Baylands. 27 Commissioner Freeman suggested entertaining a sticker for class 1 e-bikes that would be 28 obvious to the ranger. 29 Mr. Anderson stated the rangers would probably not be able to manage that, but he was 30 glad to discuss it with them. 31 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated there are a lot of different types of mobility devices. It 32 gets complicated to start deciding which ones are allowed. 33 APPROVED APPROVED 19 Chair Greenfield stated that it is quite practical and reasonable to ride an e-bike to the 1 Baylands but less so for Foothills Park, Arastadero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park, 2 which is the reason for the different distinction for Baylands. 3 Commisioner Oche inquired about the results of the trial period of Midpen mentioned by 4 Ms. Holman and questioned the main concerns. 5 Chair Greenfield stated there is a link to the findings in the report. 6 Ms. Holman stated the trial was done in 2 areas to see how many complaints or positive 7 comments were received, and the results were mixed. There was information brought 8 forward about other places where e-bikes have been allowed, with indication of damage 9 to trails. The enforcement issue and the element of surprise were concerns. She 10 suggested allowing it on a trial basis because once it is city wide, it is very hard to take 11 back. E-bikes were not allowed in the preserves because they are powered by other than 12 human power and can go farther and longer, which means more interaction with and 13 disturbance of wildlife. 14 Chair Greenfield appreciated the work done by Midpen on the e-bike policy. 15 Commissioner Brown agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Cribbs and 16 Vice Chair LaMere. She felt this policy was a great start and has done a good job of 17 trying to be as simple as possible but also include the nuances of Palo Alto being 18 different from the other agencies that have similar policies. A lot of the enforcement will 19 come though public education and signage. 20 7. Urban Forestry Annual Update 21 Chair Greenfield suggested postponing this item to the next meeting, Tuesday, 22 November 22, 2022. 23 Peter Gollinger, Urban Forestry Project Manager, was agreeable to this. 24 8. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates 25 None. 26 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR 27 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 28 For November, there are 4 items: CIP review, advanced water purification system returning as a 29 discussion item, racquet court policy returning as an action, and Urban Forestry annual report. For 30 December, the items are a discussion on family rec center progress, an action for e-bike park and open 31 space policy, and hopefully a discussion item on the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 20 Commissioner Kleinaus invited everyone to a symposium by the Sierra Club and Audubon about dark 1 sky and bird safety on November 16 in the afternoon. 2 ADJOURNMENT 3 Meeting adjourned at 10:48 P.M. 4