HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-26 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 26, 2015 AGENDA City Hall CMR
7pm 250 Hamilton
*In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Open Space and Parks Office at 3201 East Bayshore Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-496-6962.
Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda,
please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at
the appropriate time.
I. ROLL CALL II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission
reserves the right to limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV. BUSINESS
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Special April 28, 2015 Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting – Chair Reckdahl – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Approval of Memo to Council on supporting funding for the implementation of the Foothills
Park Fire Master Plan – Daren Anderson/Ed Lauing - Action - (20 min) ATTACHMENT 3. Approval of recommendation to Council to adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for improvements identified in the Byxbee Park Hills interim park concepts plan – Daren
Anderson – Action – (20 min) ATTACHMENT
4. Matrix Comments Review for the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master
Plan - Peter Jensen – Discussion (60 min) ATTACHMENT 5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Discussion - Chair (15min)
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JUNE 23, 2015 MEETING VII. ADJOURNMENT
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
April 28, 2015 8
DOWNTOWN LIBRARY 9 270 Forest Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie 13
Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: 15
Others Present: Council Liaison Eric Filseth 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 18
19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20
21
Chair Reckdahl: Does anyone have any modifications they want to make? 22
23
Commissioner Hetterly: I do. 24
25 Chair Reckdahl: Okay. 26 27 Chair Reckdahl: This is for the agenda. 28
29
Commissioner Hetterly: Oh, I don't have agenda changes. Sorry. 30
31 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 32 33
None. 34
35
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 1
DRAFT
IV. BUSINESS: 36
37
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Special Retreat March 20, 2015 Meeting. 38
39 MOTION: Commissioner Lauing moved, seconded by Commissioner Hetterly to 40
approve the draft Special Retreat March 20, 2015 Minutes as amended. 41 42
MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Crommie absent 43
44 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting March 24, 2015 45 Meeting. 46 47 MOTION: Vice Chair Markevitch moved, seconded by Commissioner Hetterly to 48
approve the draft Regular Meeting March 24, 2015 Minutes as amended. 49
50 MOTION PASSED: 6-0, Crommie absent 51 52 3. Study Session on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities 53
Master Plan to Include: Recreation Program Data Analysis Report, Survey 54 Summary Report and Matrix of Public Outreach and Data Collected with 55 Draft Findings. 56 57
Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you very much for coming earlier 58
this evening. We do have a few things to get through tonight. Our Master Planning 59
project and connecting the data to the eventual recommendations that will be made. 60
Tonight we are going to discuss the matrix that's set up, which is a tool that we put 61
together to help cross-reference some of the data and to gather that in one location that's 62
easier to reference back to. From the review that we've had over the last week, I feel that 63
this tool is a good tool to use. It makes it a lot clearer for us to understand the analysis 64
that has been done, the data that's been collected. It will definitely help in our next phase 65
of prioritization. This tool, of course, is not the end or making any final 66
recommendations at all. It is a tool to help us cross-reference that data to those 67
recommendations that are going to be made and then to eventually help us prioritize and 68
make recommendations that will go into the Master Plan. We're going to go through that 69
matrix. Of course, tonight we have our team from MIG here, the consultants. Lauren, 70
Ryan, and Ellie will be discussing different aspects of the matrix. There was some data 71
given to you last week with your package. That is items for your binder of mostly 72 analysis and data items that are centered around the matrix and information that have 73
been put into the matrix. I'm hoping that you have had a little bit of time to look at some 74
of that stuff, because it will come up in some of the conversations with the matrix itself. I 75
think our goal here is to review the matrix, feel good about how it's going, and this line of 76
thinking along to get to this summary of the data that will then prepare and propel us to 77
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 2
DRAFT
the next phase, which is the prioritization and recommendation phase. I'll let Rob say a 78
few words as well, and then we'll dive right into it. 79
80
Rob de Geus: Thank you, Peter, for all the heavy lifting you've been doing. I'm 81
straddling two jobs here with Greg Betts gone and putting the department budget together 82
and other things and getting up to speed there. I've had to lean even more on Peter and 83 Daren and some of the other staff, so I thank them for that. I'd also thank the 84
Commission. You helped us create this matrix. This is new, you helped design it. What 85
you'll see this evening is still a work in progress, but this is an important meeting as we 86
work through the different elements of the matrix and start to look at the needs that have 87
been identified by MIG and the rationale that they've gone through to define those needs 88
which is a really fascinating discussion. I've had a chance to look at the matrix over these 89
last three days, and I definitely have some questions here and there. I think the logic is 90
really good. It's sound. I'm looking forward to this evening's discussion. Let's get into it. 91
I'll pass it on to MIG. 92
93
Ellie Fiore: I'm going to kick us off just briefly. Again, thank you for carving out some 94
extra time from your evening to be here today to devote some resources to this effort. As 95
Rob and Peter mentioned, our primary goal for the evening is to review and discuss the 96
Summary of Needs that we put together in this matrix. I think you folks saw the 97
framework a couple of months ago. It was an empty shell, but our initial thinking on how 98
do we draw that connective thread from the data, whether it's demographic data or data 99
from community survey or other community outreach efforts, how do we use that 100
information to come up with what we're calling a Summary of Needs. I think this is a 101
tool that, now that we've gone through and combed through all that information that's in 102 your binder and pulled it up to the surface, that we think we have hopefully outlined a 103 linear and logical path of those Summary of Needs. We want to spend some time tonight 104 getting you comfortable with the contents and the organization of the matrix. We have 105
until about 8:30. One of my jobs tonight is going to be keep us moving and keep us on 106
track as much as possible, because we do want to make sure that we devote time to each 107
of the three elements as we've structured the matrix, programs as well as recreation 108
facilities as well as parks, trails and open spaces. One process point, Ryan does need to 109
leave early tonight. He needs to leave at about 7:30, so if you see him leave the room, 110
don't be alarmed. We knew that was going to happen. Again, we want to talk about what 111
the data tells us and how that will be used when we get comfortable and start moving 112
forward. The data is not equivalent to recommendations, and it's not directive. It doesn't 113
tell us what the Plan will eventually say; it tells us what we've learned to date. I also 114
want to draw your attention to one thing in your data and needs summary. On page 2 is a 115
little graphic that outlines nicely what the major phases of this effort are. We are 116
essentially now in the second bubble, the second of two bubbles, so about half way 117
through the process, where we've paused to regroup and outline the data and needs 118
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 3
DRAFT
summary. With that, I'll turn it over to Lauren, who will give a bigger picture overview 119
of how this all fits together and where we go from here. 120
121
Lauren Schmitt: As Ellie pointed out, we're really about half way through. You 122
challenged us a couple of months, saying "Whoa. Look at this stack of information. 123
How can we as a Commission digest all of this and understand the way things are and 124 what the needs are in this community, so we can move forward and get behind 125
recommendations?" The last time I was here, I really tried to temper my expectations 126
about how connected those threads could be. Once we started doing it, I was surprised at 127
how many threads we could find. We talked about smoking guns and what those are, 128
maybe focus on those. We feel really good about where this ended up, but I want to point 129
out that this is an important step, right here in the middle. We have a lot of work ahead 130
of us still to do together, with staff, with you. to develop the recommendations. Once we 131
understand the needs, it's really getting our heads around what we want to do about them 132
and what the highest priorities are moving forward. This is a very, very critical step 133
tonight. We're really eager to hear your thoughts. Now, we're going to start with Ryan 134
reorienting you to the matrix, which we are now going to review again. Then we can 135
start digging in. As Ellie mentioned, as we broadly hit on each section tonight, we can go 136
as fast or slow as you want. This is really critical for you. 137
138
Mr. Jensen: Can you either (crosstalk). If you want your own, you can have your own. 139
At the end of the night, everyone should take one of these. I'm going to tend to the extra 140
ones. If you want one right now, you can have one. If not, at the end of the meeting 141
make sure that you take one home. I printed it out bigger so it's easier to read and look 142
at, but it is still a large matrix to look at. That's why we're not looking at it directly on the 143 screen. 144 145 Ms. Fiore: We might have to have Ryan walk through what the structure of this was and 146
then hit some of the highlights that jumped out at us as we analyzed it. Then we'll walk 147
you through what that logical, step-by-step process was in developing it and then talk 148
about the Summary of Needs. We obviously won't be able to get to every cell in every 149
line and that's not our goal. We do want you to get comfortable with what the contents 150
are, where they came from, and how it's being used. 151
152
Ryan Mottau: The updated file that you all got no longer says concept. It was asked of 153
me by a couple of the Commissioners, that being able to understand where the changes 154
were would be a helpful thing. We can pass along a redline copy of that, if that's useful 155
to you. We'll try to make sure that it's clearer as we're intending to update and replace 156
pieces in your binders. This one is a replacement. The earlier one was really a proof of 157
concept document so that we could show you what we were thinking. This one is what 158
we actually used as we were filling the document. If you remember, the first part of this 159
hasn't changed dramatically. We talked a little bit about the process and this goes 160
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 4
DRAFT
through and explains the elements, which are the three largest divisions of the overall 161
system. You'll see those divided on the matrix there. The top one being parks, trails and 162
open space. The middle one being recreation facilities, and the bottom one being 163
programming. We're calling those elements mostly to keep them straight. It's not 164
necessarily a scientific term. It's more a useful term for us to differentiate between those 165
and the one more level of detail that we felt was appropriate for this system-wide Master 166 Planning effort. Those we are calling components. Each of the rows essentially is a 167
component as you talk about the different pieces of the overall puzzle that we have 168
assembled here. I want to emphasize one other thing up front as we're looking at this and 169
getting oriented to it. One of the things that we heard across the process from you, from 170
staff, from the community as a whole, is that the focus here should really be primarily on 171
local needs, that we understand we are part of a region, that we have a connection to the 172
region, but that we are planning essentially for the park system in Palo Alto. If we were 173
to decide we were going to serve a larger audience than just the residents of Palo Alto 174
intentionally, then that really does change some of the end-of-the-day picture here. Just 175
to run you through really quick again. The rows, as I said, are the components broken 176
down between each of the elements. Across the column headings here are a whole series 177
of topics essentially that are tied to data points and data sources which are listed there in 178
the second row. Each of those references as well as the individual references that are 179
listed within cells are all keyed to your overall binder. The front of your binder has a 180
document that's just a couple of pages that has the sources that are in there. It describes 181
which document is which. When we say Document 5, this is what the full title of it is. 182
We'll try to stay consistent with that, because we really want between this matrix and this 183
binder and one additional source to be able to pin back. Where did we hear this 184
information? How do we backtrack it through the levels of summarization? As Lauren 185 said, you challenged us to make sure that we could show our work. This is what we're 186 trying to do here: give you guys access to the highest level of summary in this matrix, 187 the main level of summarization and analysis, which is the information that's represented 188
in your binder, as well as one more of level of detail. For those who are really, really 189
interested, we've also provided the raw data in a number of cases. On the project website 190
now, there are at least two of the main sources of raw data that were essentially more 191
paper than we would have ever wanted to produce for each of you for the binders, but 192
things like the program data export that we summarized and analyzed in the summaries 193
that you've been provided. Raw data behind the survey open-ended results, I believe, was 194
available. One final piece was additional appendices on the demographic report which 195
included the school district's latest update of their demographics overall, so the entire 196
report behind that which is another 40 pages or so, providing you the opportunity, if you 197
really want to dig down through our sources. Those were some key ones that we wanted 198
to make sure were available. For each of these columns, what we're essentially doing is 199
trying to provide you the bite of information, the most relevant piece of information or a 200
rating scale that gives us a sense of how intense this particular element or component 201
rated in terms of those topic areas, the level of control, geographic distribution, etc. For 202
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 5
DRAFT
each of those columns, there is a set of rating criteria in this document. I want to point 203
you to those, because we had a lot of discussion when we presented this concept about 204
the high, medium and low as a scale, the below, at, over. What do these mean in the 205
context of this matrix? Each of those is described. We tried as best we could where the 206
information existed to tie those to data points. We could use the natural breaks in that 207
data to really show why did this say this was high versus medium or why did we say this 208 medium versus low. When we started digging into the program data, one of the things 209
that we wanted to make sure we understood, where we have that real hard number 210
information, was where are we saying we are below, at or over capacity. Each of one of 211
those corresponds to, in the program analysis Part 2 you'll see references to that 212
throughout that section of the matrix, the tables that summarize the program data by 213
program area and really looking at do we have classes that are not meeting minimums, 214
are we over a third of the classes that we're offering not meeting the minimum 215
enrollments, which was one of the critical data thresholds that the staff has been using to 216
evaluate that program data. Also looking at the classes that were indicated as full or 217
waitlisted as the other side of that criteria. We're using a mix of those and hard cutoffs. 218
If it was 34 percent, then it falls into the next category. We're really trying to keep it at 219
that point, that those are not arbitrary numbers. Where we use those specific numbers, 220
we really used the data to tell us where should these cutoffs be, where do these make 221
sense based on what we're seeing overall, so that we can divide these into meaningful 222
categories. That's one of the things I wanted to point out. In some cases, because the 223
data varied by element, we had a couple of different criteria that would float into there 224
depending on where we were at. We tried to keep it as clear and simple as we could to 225
define these. The final piece on that overall orientation, I want to emphasize that high, 226
medium and low does not mean good, okay and bad. This is high, medium and low as 227 defined in these criteria. Probably the most important one to look at, because it pops out 228 visually as you're reading across this, is the second to last column which is projected 229 demand, Column K. These tend to have a high, medium and low with no sources. This 230
column is largely about our professional judgment and our tracking of what's going on. 231
We've talked that there would be some of that going on in this. It's an important part of 232
this overall process. High, medium and low here does not mean that this is a high need or 233
a medium need or a low need. This means exactly what it says here. High means that 234
there is a lot of opportunity in the future to see new user groups or populations to expand 235
those services, to expand that area. Medium means there is some opportunity, some new 236
user groups. Low is that we didn't see much opportunity to serve new user groups. This 237
is not saying, if there is a low projected demand, that you should stop doing this right 238
now. We're not making those value judgments at this stage. What we're saying is line-239
by-line do we see in the future opportunity to grow this area. That was a good example 240
of both how the high, medium and low works as well as how we want this information to 241
be read at this stage. We're really looking at the needs overall. 242
243
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 6
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: By opportunities to grow, this is really more about projected 244
opportunities to grow as opposed to demand. It's not related to demand at all. Or are you 245
talking about capacity of the system to add on in that area? Are you talking about 246
expected changes in user groups that will make the demand greater in the future? 247
248
Mr. Mottau: Yes, the last. 249 250
Commissioner Lauing: (inaudible) 251
252
Chair Reckdahl: Say that again. 253
254
Commissioner Lauing: It's (crosstalk). 255
256
Mr. Mottau: The projected demand column is about the changes in the overall 257
environment, the way that things are going, that we see the potential to increase the 258
overall user base if additional opportunities were offered as it evolves. I'm sorry I'm 259
tripping over that. Overall the concept is that there is going to be in the future an 260
opportunity you could serve more people with more activities in this area. 261
262
Commissioner Hetterly: You're not saying you expect a greater demand in these areas 263
that have an H there in the future? 264
265
Ms. Schmitt: Yes, we are. There's either a recreation trend that's happening or there's a 266
population segment ... 267
268 Commissioner Hetterly: The first one is an expectation of greater demand. That would 269 get a high if there are also opportunities to expand usage of that particular element. 270 271
Mr. Mottau: There's also the capacity column which is essentially addressing the first 272
part of your point there, which is that there is room within the system as it exists today to 273
... 274
275
Commissioner Hetterly: This Column K is only about demand. 276
277
Mr. Mottau: Yes. 278
279
Commissioner Hetterly: It's not about capacity to grow. 280
281
Mr. Mottau: Yes. 282
283
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. 284
285
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 7
DRAFT
Council Member Filseth: Let me see if I can try it. What you're saying is that if it's high, 286
that means you see a lot of potential for demand in the future. If it's low, you don't see 287
potential for a lot more demand than there is today. That doesn't mean you should stop 288
doing it, because it might be fully utilized today. 289
290
Mr. Mottau: Yes. 291 292
Commissioner Lauing: It is demand, because we were talking originally about what all 293
these opportunities might bring us and why do we care about the opportunities if there's 294
not much demand. 295
296
Mr. Mottau: It is demand. It is demand looking forward. It's not a realized demand at 297
this point. Because we aren't offering them now or we aren't offering them at a scale, we 298
need to be able to look beyond what we have the data for. Your Chair pointed this out. If 299
we only look at the things that we can measure right now, how are we ever going to know 300
what the next thing is, how are we ever going to know how to look beyond that. It is 301
demand, but it's a perspective demand. 302
303
Commissioner Lauing: On the same point, I didn't quite get how you said it was 304
quantified. There was a cutoff between low, medium and high based on ... 305
306
Mr. Mottau: On this one, there is not. This one is pretty much purely a professional 307
judgment call. On other columns, there are specific quantifications such as the capacity 308
of talking about the program data. If you look at Column F, where below capacity would 309
equal 33 percent of the classes in that area are not meeting their minimum enrollment 310 which means, according to the overall structure of pricing and enrollment setting, they're 311 not meeting their cost recovery goals. 312 313
Commissioner Lauing: When you get over to G, sorry, yeah, the G Column (inaudible) 314
walkability and that's H and the next one's N. You're saying that is quantitative? 315
316
Mr. Mottau: In Column G, there are some parts of that that we were looking specifically 317
at quantitative data that was provided in the Mapita input. When we were looking at the 318
overall quality of parks, we were using the scores that people gave for those parks 319
overall. There's also an element of that that is about the number of times that it was 320
referenced. If there were deficiencies noted over and over again, then the process is 321
working its way down that rating. 322
323
Ms. Fiore: The data and needs summary beginning on page 5 with the description of the 324
criteria and wherever possible based on the available information and data, we set some 325
quantitative boundaries to those or parameters for having been (inaudible) impossible for 326
every single element and every single component. When you get to Column K, it's our 327
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 8
DRAFT
roll up of all of the things that came before overlaid with our professional judgment to 328
come up with the high, medium, low. The next column is the narrative summary 329
providing a little more detail of what that means. 330
331
Mr. Mottau: What we feel the need overall is stated at. The final column there is 332
ultimately the summation of how we read these data points, where that thread led us as 333 we worked through the information. 334
335
Chair Reckdahl: When you measured demand back on Column K, you're measuring this 336
in the users, you're not measuring this in dollars or demand for money to maintain. When 337
Rob and I were walking through this earlier, the special (inaudible) in the departments. 338
Lucy Evans I'm thinking of now in the Baylands, that's not as useable as we would like it. 339
There's a big public demand to bring that to what it used to be. Even though we wouldn't 340
be adding facilities, it would take a significant amount of money to bring that up to what 341
the community wants it to be. When you're talking about demand in that case, are you 342
talking about demand for money to be allocated to these rows or is it just the gross 343
number of people that are going to be going in? 344
345
Ms. Schmitt: This is definitely the people side, looking at what people want to do. The 346
next step in terms of criteria and prioritization is where we start to bring in decision-347
making criteria, like what is the capital cost, what is the long-term operating costs. You 348
are going to help us set criteria because you may have different financial criteria. 349
350
Chair Reckdahl: I just want to clarify that this is just users. It has nothing to do with 351
money or anything like that. 352 353 Ms. Schmitt: Yes, yes. 354 355
Mr. Mottau: Those other criteria is the next layer of information that we're going to 356
adding over the top of this. 357
358
Chair Reckdahl: It would be useful for me if you would walk through some of these 359
columns. Some of these columns aren't clear exactly what they're measuring. 360
361
Mr. Mottau: Okay. 362
363
Ms. Schmitt: One of the things that we are planning on doing is actually walking across 364
on these shaded ones, because they're really illustrative. I guess a process question for 365
you is do you want some time to just sit back and soak this in for a couple of minutes 366
before we start on that or are you ready to dive in. 367
368
Commissioner Lauing: I think the specific of examples as we're asking about them. 369
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 9
DRAFT
370
Mr. Mottau: Great, great. I'm going to following along on my own copy here, because I 371
want to be able to read it a little bit. One of the places that we wanted to start overall was 372
a message that you've heard us talk about as we've gone through different analyses, 373
different summaries, the first of the rows that is highlighted in your matrix. It's Row 11, 374
experience nature as a component of the overall system. I'm going to walk you across the 375 columns here, with one or so examples of each of the pieces. We're going to walk 376
through this experience nature as a starting point to explain where we're at and where our 377
thinking is. The first couple of columns are just identifying it. You've got the component 378
name. As you get to Column C, what we're trying to identify is what's in the inventory. 379
Let's just get strictly facts. What's the volume of what's in our system currently? The 380
next column is level of control. What we're measuring here is really how much authority 381
or ability does the City have to change things or to influence how things will change on 382
that site. There's two big factors in this that we use primarily based on the information 383
we have available. I'm going to stop repeating that over and over again, because I'm just 384
going to make that a blanket statement. All of this is based on the information we have 385
available. We're happy to hear about other sources you think might be relevant. Level of 386
control is primarily based on two major factors. One is ownership of property, whether 387
or not the City owns that property or has control through a contractual obligation. The 388
other that we wanted to acknowledge and recognize was sea level rise, because there are 389
changes that will be beyond our control at some of our sites as a result of sea level rise. 390
It's a relatively small part of the overall sites, but it was something that was definitely part 391
of our analysis. A high level of control would indicate that the City can basically choose 392
what it is that we want to do. There are, of course, policy and legal limits and everything 393
like that, but overall we can decide. If we want to have programming, this is what it's 394 going to be. The next column, E, is geographic analysis. What this is really looking at is 395 the spread of features across the City. We did a couple of different ways of looking at 396 that. You'll see Source 9 listed here. Source 9, if you go back to your handy dandy 397
reference from your binders, is the site-by-site analysis and existing conditions maps. 398
We've got a map in your binder for each of the individual sites. We've also done, as you 399
all know, a set of maps that are referenced in other places that are about the geographic 400
analysis, a kind of breakdown of how far different parts of the system are from the 401
average residents across the City. That's another piece that falls into that geographic 402
analysis column. Capacity and bookings for this item is not available. We know that 403
ultimately there probably is some capacity, but we have no way to measure it. There's an 404
n/a in this column for experience nature. You'll see as we get down into some of the 405
more measureables that that is an important column. The next column is perception of 406
quality. We did not make a decision about absolute quality; we aren't going to make that 407
judgment. What we are measuring here is what people told us about how they see the 408
quality of these sites. In this case, we have a mix. The median is a mixed result 409
essentially. One of the things that is referenced here, specifically where we tried to 410
reference things, was where we heard something that really felt like it pointed in the 411
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 10
DRAFT
direction. It's not necessarily the be-all and end-all of our decision, but it was something 412
that was the most clear point on it. In this case, it was Source 13 which is the workshop 413
summary. We heard a lot of things back-and-forth about the desire as well as the mixed 414
availability and opportunity to experience nature in the park system especially outside of 415
the preserves. Looking at expressed need, again this actually goes back to some of the 416
same sources. Sorry, 13, yeah, 13 was the workshop summary. In expressed need, what 417 we're talking about here is not how good it is, but how much do we need it, how much do 418
we need more of it. The criteria there were set up around are we hearing this message, 419
are we hearing that we need more of this particular component in the system across 420
multiple modes of input, across multiple different forms of communicating with the 421
community. 422
423
Chair Reckdahl: Expressed need relative to the current capacity. 424
425
Mr. Mottau: Yes. Not "we love it and we want it to stay." It's "we want more of it. We 426
need more opportunities." Dog parks is a great example of this. We heard over and over 427
again in different forums across the community, "We need more. We need more." We 428
need more of something. Here we're referencing particularly the survey and, I believe, 429
the ... 430
431
Commissioner Hetterly: Stakeholder summaries. 432
433
Mr. Mottau: Stakeholder summaries, okay. Continuing on then, that's an important 434
column. That's one that draws in survey results. It draws in Mapita results. It draws in 435
the individual interviews that we held with folks which are summarized in one of the 436 documents you were provided today as part of your update. The next column, Column I, 437 is about demographic trends. This is really about how we see the trends impacting the 438 overall demand. Thinking about is there based on population growth, based on shifts in 439
the way that people are using parks and recreation across the country, can we see an 440
expectation that demand will be growing as a result of those trends. Or is it going to be 441
basically stable or it's going to be in decline. Overall, because of population growth, 442
we're really seeing most things to either be in a stable situation, essentially growing with 443
population growth, or overall in a growth mode. There really weren't any that we were 444
identifying that were really in decline. I think that what you're seeing there ultimately is 445
that those that have been in decline are essentially getting squeezed out of the system in 446
the first place. It's a natural selection process. 447
448
Chair Reckdahl: If we look at Column I on this experience nature one, we're citing 449
Source 7 that we have growth. Can you explain why we have growth in that one and 450
maybe on Line 6 we're stable for play for children? 451
452
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 11
DRAFT
Mr. Mottau: Source 7 is going to be the primary source for this because that's our 453
document on demographics and trends. In that document on pages 10 to 11, we describe 454
the overall trend which is a very large push nationwide right now to increase the access to 455
nature for youth and families and adults and everybody else, because of disconnection. 456
There is a very strong push in that that is beyond just a growth with population change. I 457
would say that play for children as an access point is going to grow as the population of 458 children grows, which is fairly stable based on the school-age demographics and 459
everything else. We're seeing an increase in the push, so more of those kids and more of 460
those adults are going to be involved in experiencing nature as a result of this overall 461
push across the country right now. 462
463
Chair Reckdahl: On page 10 we're talking about this core plan. They're saying they're 464
spending more and more time with electronic media, and they shouldn't be. They should 465
be playing more with nature. Are you saying that they should be playing? Is that how 466
you get growth here or that we actually have seen that children ... 467
468
Mr. Mottau: We are seeing a trend shift. We're seeing the upward swing of that, but 469
we're also expecting a greater upward swing overall. It is again a little bit perspective. 470
Overall we are both seeing and expecting a larger shift towards this. Much like we've 471
seen in the last five to ten years in the obesity epidemic, we could have said five or ten 472
years ago everybody's getting fatter. The reality is that through concerted efforts and 473
national attention we have actually stabilized that trend and shifted it in a lot of places. I 474
think that it's a very similar and a parallel reasoning. 475
476
Chair Reckdahl: I look at the data, and it doesn't seem to support the conclusion. The 477 conclusion certainly from adult standpoints could well be true. It's just the data that 478 you're citing doesn't seem to support the claim. 479 480
Mr. Mottau: Okay. That's part of the push back that we're totally open to here, Keith. I 481
want to make sure that you don't take this as the honest Gospel truth here. We are trying 482
to interpret data, and we're trying to summarize it at a level that will work. 483
484
Chair Reckdahl: I'm not saying you need to change your conclusion. What I'm saying is 485
in this section I would want some explanation why you would expect growth. If you add 486
another paragraph in here saying we expect more growth because of X, Y, Z, I think that 487
would back up your statement in the matrix. That's the point I'm giving. 488
489
Mr. Mottau: I appreciate that. I do. It's a good point. I think that we do want those 490
connections to be visible. 491
492
Ms. Schmitt: There's also a lot of this external industry research about what the different 493
age segments want to do. Things like bird watching, hiking, you're seeing that increasing 494
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 12
DRAFT
rapidly in the older adult population, which also happens to be the population that is 495
increasing rapidly here. That's also one of the other factors in that. 496
497
Chair Reckdahl: That's a good point. 498
499
Ms. Schmitt: That is one of the other factors there. Bird watching is an activity. When 500 you look at national participation data and California specific participation data, it's gone 501
woo, like that. It has really tracked with the population. Now, at some point it's going to 502
plateau unless you're building new bird watchers or whatever. Trying to be attuned to 503
some of those things that happen in more of a natural setting, some of that tracks with 504
your population segments that are projected to grow most rapidly. I think the two that 505
you brought up, the play for children is more stable because your child population is 506
more stable. Older adults, the trajectory seems to be more like that. In addition to the 507
push for the more natural experiences for kids, there's this overall potential growth in 508
those types of activities. That may be better suited to Column K. 509
510
Mr. Mottau: Just to round out the discussion of this particular row here, I want to point 511
out the barriers to participation. In most of the top element here in the parks and 512
recreation element, the barriers to participation are really about access. They're really 513
about do we have the places to experience this near the people who are living there. In 514
this case, we cite Source 10 which are those geographic analysis maps. I just want to 515
point out we're actually reading it a little bit in inverse. It's the map that shows where the 516
opportunities to experience, relax, and enjoy the outdoor environment are. One of the 517
things that we noted in reading those maps overall is where most of the opportunities to 518
experience nature are. We saw this in our side-by-side evaluation as well. It exists 519 around that periphery and is difficult to access on foot or by bike. There are barriers to 520 people just getting there. That's Column J. Column K, as I said, is a little bit of a 521 summary, a little bit of professional judgment. As Lauren is saying, there's definitely the 522
two big demographic segments of the youth and the elderly or the active adults where 523
we're seeing potential for growth in that area. There's a lot of audience that could be 524
served but is not yet being served. Our summary overall of the need for that area then 525
reflects that. It's really talking about needing additional spaces to relax and enjoy the 526
outdoors. This citing is critical. Oh, right, I'm looking at the wrong one. Sorry. The 527
integration and natural process is in features in parks and potential to support this. Parks 528
with tree fringe are an interesting opportunity. As explored in the visual preference 529
survey across the workshops, the opportunity to integrate natural features and experiences 530
into the more urban parks was something that is an expressed need as well as a need that 531
we think is borne out by the overall data set. 532
533
Chair Reckdahl: There's a park in Los Altos where there's a creek flowing through it and 534
the kids can actually go down and play in the creek. 535
536
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 13
DRAFT
Mr. Mottau: Touch the creek, yeah. 537
538
Chair Reckdahl: I've had a lot of the people comment saying, "I wish Palo Alto had 539
something like that." Unfortunately, most of the creeks in Palo Alto are concrete, so it 540
makes it much harder. I would concur, but there seems to be a (inaudible). 541
542 Mr. Mottau: Yeah. 543
544
Commissioner Ashlund: Bol Park has creek access. 545
546
Commissioner Lauing: Clarification on this Column J. I'm just trying to stay with a 547
specific example so we can understand conceptually what you're doing. You've got J as 548
being high and your reference there was because the nature areas, I presume that means 549
that you identified in C, are on the outer rim of the City. I'm going to ask the quantitative 550
question then. Is there some sort of mileage number that you have in there? Let me 551
explain why I asked that. You've taken out 30 parks for this description, because you 552
want only natural parks. You've taken out most of the inventory of the City, because you 553
say there's difficult access. On the other hand, if somebody really wants to get into 554
nature, then maybe a 10-minute drive to get to Foothills Park is not so tough. I'm just 555
trying to figure out how you're making these quantifications here. 556
557
Mr. Mottau: In terms of the first part of your question, in terms of there being a specific 558
mileage, no. What we were analyzing is really how people were responding. There were 559
a variety of points here. People saying, "W know that this stuff exists out there, but we're 560
not able to get to it." There's an assimilation of a variety of points that are feeding into 561 that. The second point really of how do we define what that experience of nature looks 562 like, why do we rule out 30 parks, is a very valid one and a difficult one to pin down. 563 Specifically, we heard overall that the people of Palo Alto do not believe that their typical 564
park experience in the City parks represents that natural experience. 565
566
Ms. Schmitt: The reason that first column says you can experience nature at four park 567
sites as well as the preserves is really about is it a manicured setting. Your parks are 568
lovely, but mostly every piece of ground has been developed as a landscape. There are a 569
few parks where it's more of what was there before and it's more of a wild (crosstalk). 570
571
Commissioner Lauing: I think we get the differences, and I think that's a fair statement. 572
I'm just saying how hard is it to do a 10-minute drive to get to nature. I look at it the 573
other way. Imagine this goes to Council and they say, "We're really pleased that what 574
our citizens want to do most is experience nature." But the source says that's really hard 575
to do. What we have to do now is put in some more. We're trying to do that to please 576
them. (crosstalk) It's a moot point. 577
578
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 14
DRAFT
Ms. Schmitt: Here's the thing. This is where we're getting to on the priority setting. You 579
can decide how to respond to that. You can say, "You know what? What we've heard 580
from the community is it's really most important to get out in real nature." It might take a 581
little longer, but you can have a couple hour experience and it's a great experience. That's 582
okay. You might decide, based on what we heard, to reintegrate, as we suggested as a 583
need, some natural spaces into appropriate developed parks, so people have something a 584 little closer to home. There could be a big expense if you wanted to monkey around with 585
a creek, but there could also be some benefit. The point here is to try to give some data 586
points on which you can make those decisions as we develop criteria together. Some of 587
those are going to be cost-benefit and what the return on investment is. Yeah, they're not 588
exactly the crux of the problem, but the crux of what we need to do next together. 589
590
Commissioner Ashlund: What were the four sites that ... 591
592
Mr. Mottau: I have a file that specifies, and I believe that what we came down to was El 593
Palo Alto Park, which while small is a much more natural experience. There were, I'm 594
trying to remember. 595
596
Commissioner Crommie: Probably Bol Park. 597
598
Mr. Mottau: Yeah. It was a mix of the inventory and the individual site analyses. I have 599
this list, and I'm trying to remember what they are off the top of my head and I don't 600
remember them off the top of my head. Basically there were four sites that were called 601
out as a result of our site visits and the inventory work that basically were highlighted 602
there. 603 604 Commissioner Ashlund: When you're saying (video break) the existing condition maps 605 and all the maps are here, so there's no indication in the binder of what four sites you're 606
referring to? 607
608
Mr. Mottau: That is a real possibility actually. I know that we had made references to 609
specific ones in the existing condition maps and that's not referenced which is a good 610
point. Where it's not all of the preserves or all of the parks, getting those numbers 611
clarified would be a good clarification for us. We've got that backup. We thought we 612
were referencing something that may have been more in our collective minds than on 613
paper. 614
615
Mr. de Geus: What I found to be helpful with the matrix and trying to understand the 616
thinking, one of the things in particular was to take out this sheet for the data needs 617
summary report and keep reminding myself how is that defined and then reread that and 618
then look at this and then look at the data. I was able to make the connection a little 619
easier. Ed had a couple of questions here about a number of these headings and these are 620
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 15
DRAFT
just headings, the way they're described and what does high really mean and low really 621
mean in this context is helpful to me. There's so many data sources, it's helpful to be 622
reminded by having this with you as go. That's what I found helpful. 623
624
Ms. Fiore: Two points. One, I just want to remind you this is a working draft, so this is 625
an evolving document. We're going to refine it based on what we hear tonight, and we're 626 going to refine it based on questions you come back to us with. Don't think this is a static 627
be-all end-all document by any means. Please give us those questions. The other point is 628
on the time and process. We've got about 10 more minutes before I'm going to shift to 629
the programs element particularly while we still have Ryan here. Would it be helpful to 630
walk through another example that we highlighted in this section? Was that a useful 631
exercise? 632
633
Chair Reckdahl: I think that would be (crosstalk) another row (crosstalk). 634
635
Mr. Mottau: Sure, sure. I'll do this one a little bit quicker. We've got a few of the 636
questions starting to sort out a little bit here as we go. Let's go down to Row 14. 637
638
Mr. Jensen: I think we need to change the tape. 639
640
Mr. Mottau: Okay, we'll pause for a moment while we change the tape. We're on. I'm 641
going to zip through real quick one that I know is near and dear to everyone's heart which 642
is the availability of restrooms, Row 14. This one was particularly called out because it is 643
an absolutely essential function of parks in some settings. I'm not trying to make a value 644
judgment that you should have a restroom in every single park and every single place in 645 the community. That is the component that more people commented on, that more 646 people noted in terms of quality, in terms of everything else. It is high in people's minds 647 in terms of park usage. Working across here, inventory. This one is a little bit more 648
explicit. It's called straight out in the inventory, where they exist, where they do not. The 649
level of control, these are all in sites pretty much that the City owns. We can decide 650
whether or not there are restrooms in those sites. There are of course caveats to that. The 651
geographic analysis, while we did not run a map-based analysis of it, we definitely made 652
an observation here essentially that what we heard overall was that there was a 653
dissatisfaction with the availability of restrooms across the system. The capacity in both 654
observation of the site as well as overall from the input, we're really saying that the 655
existing facilities are over their capacity to support the overall system. That is not 656
necessarily true at individual levels. Thinking about the system as a whole here, we felt 657
that it was. Perception of quality overall, this was something that ... 658
659
Chair Reckdahl: I have a question. Over means we have more capacity than need. 660
661
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 16
DRAFT
Mr. Mottau: No. Over is over capacity essentially. There's not enough capacity to 662
support the need. 663
664
Chair Reckdahl: If you go down to community gardens, which is four lines lower, we 665
have a big waitlist on community gardens and there you say below. 666
667 Mr. Mottau: We actually don't have a wait list on community gardens any more. 668
669
Chair Reckdahl: We don't? 670
671
Mr. Mottau: No. This year there are available community garden plots currently, 672
according to the data that we were given two months ago. We were talking with the 673
gardeners. They've cut down the size of plots; that was a functional decision not a 674
capacity decision. The demand has fluctuated a bit, but currently we are actually below 675
the overall capacity. 676
677
Chair Reckdahl: Over means that we have a shortage? 678
679
Mr. Mottau: Yes. 680
681
Chair Reckdahl: At the top of the column it says capacity divided by bookings. 682
683
Mr. Mottau: No, it's capacity or bookings. I would say that it's because we don't have 684
bookings data specifically for all points. We wanted to talk about capacity or bookings. 685
686 Chair Reckdahl: It would be nice if someone could put a key up there that said over 687 means shortage or something like that. It wasn't obvious to me that over means that we 688 have a shortage. 689
690
Mr. Mottau: I agree that it's a little awkward language-wise. I think we can try to clarify 691
that, maybe choose some different language. The perception of quality overall, these 692
were out of, double checking my guess here, out of the intercepts. The availability as 693
well as the overall quality of the facilities, we were seeing people often comment on these 694
as low quality. I don't think that that is an absolute statement. Because of the sources of 695
this information, it is probably commenting more again on the availability of the facility 696
than the actual cleanliness on any given day; although, people are wont to comment on 697
that as well. I want to just point that out. Expressed need, this is one where we have not 698
only multiple sources listed. In our previous conversations about this matrix and trying 699
to identify data points that really do feel like a smoking gun, we have a survey result 700
specifically about the desire for restrooms. It's cited here. Citywide it was listed as one 701
of the highest supported features to overall support the usage of parks. We have a very 702
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 17
DRAFT
strong result there as well as supporting results from multiple inputs. Again we heard a 703
consistent message across lots of different input points. Demographic trends ... 704
705
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a question. 706
707
Mr. Mottau: Oh, sorry. Please. 708 709
Commissioner Hetterly: That's one in particular that I think if you drill down further you 710
might come to a different conclusion. While overall across the whole system there is 711
high demand, high expressed need for bathrooms. On a site-by-site basis, there's very 712
mixed and inconsistent opinion about whether any particular park should have a 713
bathroom or not. That may be helpful to capture in some way. 714
715
Ms. Schmitt: I think we can get some of that possibly through Mapita. I think what it 716
gives you a counterpoint to is when you do a site-specific Master Plan, the folks who tend 717
to come out are going to live right nearby and they're going to have their own particular 718
opinions based on "I live right next door." It's really hard to capture is there a need or 719
not. I think this helps give you a picture of where that priority is across the City and 720
might help you set policy based on a level of park use or we want to do this, we don't 721
want to do this, here's one we do. That might help you go into design processes later on 722
with some better foundation and grounding. 723
724
Mr. Mottau: In the demographic trends for this, we decided ultimately we were not going 725
to make a statement about demographic trends, because it felt as though it was a universal 726
point. It pretty much changes with population. Barriers to participation again, most of 727 these lines reference back to the overall availability. Because of the type of facilities 728 we're talking about here, the type of amenity that we're talking about here, it's a little bit 729 less differentiated in terms of the way that those points play out. We definitely have, as 730
I've said here, more times where we're citing the availability of the restroom as the issue. 731
Overall I think that this one as a whole rests largely on where they are distributed and the 732
overall expressed need across multiple inputs. 733
734
Chair Reckdahl: I'm still confused about the barriers to participation for public 735
bathrooms. 736
737
Mr. Mottau: If it is not ... 738
739
Chair Reckdahl: Does this reflect the current design or is this inherent in public 740
bathrooms? 741
742
Mr. Mottau: I would say that barriers to participation across the board is reflective of the 743
current situation. 744
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 18
DRAFT
745
Mr. de Geus: How many bathrooms are available (crosstalk). 746
747
Mr. Mottau: Are they where we want them to be? 748
749
Chair Reckdahl: Isn't that capacity as opposed to barrier to participation? 750 751
Mr. de Geus: You can look at it that way too. They both talk to one another. In this 752
case, if there's a park and it doesn't have a bathroom, it's a big barrier. 753
754
Mr. de Geus: There's a lot of parks that don't have bathrooms; therefore, the barrier is 755
going to be high. I think that's what you ... 756
757
Mr. Mottau: Yeah. That's generally the thinking here. One other thing that I would add 758
which isn't cited specifically here, it actually creates a barrier to participation in other 759
things. For example, the sports users made a very big point of it is almost impossible for 760
them to use a park that has no restroom, because they're going to be onsite with a whole 761
bunch of very small children for an extended period of time. It really does create a 762
barrier to using that site. I have personal experience as well as a lot of anecdotes about 763
the barrier that it presents for parents of very small children in general to use their 764
neighborhood park without a restroom available. That's not really how we intended that 765
category to be applied globally, but it is something that relates specifically to this element 766
or this component. Overall we see that projected demand, there's a lot of potential to 767
serve a larger set of the population. Ultimately the summary of our need there, restrooms 768
at more sites potentially provided as a standard feature at Palo Alto parks. I know that is 769 potentially a controversial statement. We want to emphasize again that this is not the 770 recommendation. We think, based on everything we've heard, it probably should be 771 considered as a standard feature. That's where we came out with the summary on that 772
point. We're a little bit over our desired time to make sure that we get into the programs, 773
but I do want to make sure that any other final comments got captured here. 774
775
Commissioner Crommie: I'm sorry I came late. I just wanted to capture a comment. I 776
know that people really want more experience of nature in parks. I think by putting in an 777
artificial creek in a park, in my view, that meets that less well than preserving (inaudible) 778
in the park. I just wanted to make that comment. 779
780
Mr. Mottau: It's a lower quality obviously of experience. It could even be detrimental in 781
some situations where it's not related. 782
783
Commissioner Crommie: Right. I would just put an emphasis on conservation and 784
protection of what we have. I think it feeds that desire more adequately. 785
786
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 19
DRAFT
Mr. Mottau: Yeah, please. 787
788
Commissioner Ashlund: Can I ask one more clarification about these barriers. I'm 789
talking physical barriers. Capacity is capacity. Is it redundant to that? When we have 790
high barriers for swimming pools, for example, does that mean that we have some ... 791
792 Mr. Mottau: I think that's an interesting point, a good point to focus on. I would say the 793
difference between capacity and barriers there, the capacity would be I got to the pool 794
and I couldn't get in because they had no more room in that pool for me to swim or no 795
more life guards or whatever. A barrier would be I cannot get to that pool because it's on 796
the other side of town and I don't have transportation. 797
798
Ms. Schmitt: Or it costs too much. 799
800
Mr. Mottau: Or it costs too much, yeah. They are related, of course, but I think they are 801
worth considering separate if possible. 802
803
Ms. Schmitt: As Rob pointed out, definitely refer back to the criteria, because the 804
barriers to access and participation say these could include costs, location, physical 805
accessibility. Around park sites we heard feedback from people for transportation 806
availability and to the specific facilities maybe less so with your system than with some 807
places where "Our recreation centers are open from 9:00 to 3:00 Monday through Friday. 808
Isn't that convenient?" That could be a barrier. Here this is reported, and it's a lot of 809
different sources. In using Mapita people could actually report specific barriers to 810
movement. In some cases, those are what is cited. In other cases at public meetings, 811 people talked about physical accessibility or perceived costs or transportation barriers. 812 The sources are pretty important there, because it's a real mixed bag because there's a lot 813 of different types of barriers. 814
815
Chair Reckdahl: I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this. On one hand, if you have 816
something like golf that takes a long time to learn and it's expensive, that would be a 817
barrier to participation. Even though we might look at it and say we're considering 818
expanding the golf course, you'd say is this something that we should spend our money 819
and then say well there's barriers to participation that the people in the City don't know 820
how to play golf. It'll be hard for them to take advantage of this, so it makes it less 821
attractive for us to (crosstalk). 822
823
Mr. Mottau: I would clarify that I don't think that the length of time to learn and the cost 824
could be a barrier. I think you might address that in either programmatic or budgetary 825
decisions about that course. I understand the thought exercise, and I'm having a hard 826
time jumping back to where would we put another golf course or expanding the golf 827
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 20
DRAFT
course. I think the barriers would be an influencing factor to how or why you would 828
enhance ... 829
830
Ms. Schmitt: In the way that barriers are defined here though, the fact that it takes a long 831
time or you need a lot of equipment, that's really not factored in. The fact that your golf 832
course is one side of town and you have to go across a number of streets to get there, it 833 may be that somebody cited particular barriers along the way. We couldn't really 834
measure people's opinion on every single activity, like is it too much of a barrier for you 835
to learn how to play golf. That's really a programmatic decision of the golf course 836
operator about how to encourage play. We're not talking about barriers in that particular 837
way. 838
839
Chair Reckdahl: I see a high barrier. Does that mean it's more attractive to add that 840
facility or less attractive to add that facility? 841
842
Ms. Fiore: It's not a one-to-one. I think that's (crosstalk). 843
844
Ms. Schmitt: In some cases it's difficult to get to certain facilities. If you jump up to line 845
9 that activity aspect of gathering together, there's low barriers to participation because 846
you provide it in a lot of places. There's a lot of places throughout the City to do that. 847
People didn't report that they had a hard time going someplace to do that activity. That 848
got low; whereas, if you have fewer facilities or their location is something that people 849
reported as problematic in getting to or the facilities don't exist. According to Daren, his 850
staff sees the issue about not having restrooms at certain parks, because if little kids have 851
to go, their parents are sending them in the bushes. They either don't go to the park or ... 852 853 Chair Reckdahl: The barriers to participation, how am I going to use that in park 854 planning? We already have a column over here that talks about capacity. If you look at 855
the restroom one, the fact that we don't have enough restrooms has already been reflected 856
in Column F. What is Column J telling me that I don't already know? 857
858
Ms. Schmitt: Maybe restrooms would make sense to say n/a, because it's addressed 859
enough in capacity. In terms of many of these columns though, there's a lot of policy 860
decisions that affect how people might take advantage of your system and services that 861
you're providing. I think that is where it's really going to help you, as we get into the 862
policies around fees and charges and where you locate facilities, where you do 863
programming, where you encourage certain types of activities and where you allow 864
bookings of certain types of activities. They will be an input that will help you think 865
about how those policies play out (crosstalk). 866
867
Chair Reckdahl: I don't want to (inaudible) so let's move on to the recreation programs. 868
869
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 21
DRAFT
Mr. Mottau: We're going to jump down to Programs. Part of that is accommodating me, 870
and I your appreciate willingness to do that. We're going to jump into that because I have 871
a lot of the accumulated knowledge and thinking of this in my head. I'm going to have to 872
depart in 15 minutes. I want to give you guys an orientation to this. I want to emphasize 873
two of the pieces that you received that went into your binders today that really played 874
heavily in this one. The first one is Part 2 of the recreation analysis. We heard very 875 strongly from you all that you wanted to get more detail about how the current 876
programming is rolling out, what are the stats showing, what is the data behind this. This 877
Part 2 which is meant to be added behind the first part, which talked about generally what 878
programs are offered by who, what kind of barriers might we be facing. This one is very 879
specifically about the recreation registration data across the City of Palo Alto. This one 880
goes into each of the program areas that are listed here on the matrix. There is a table 881
that shows the number of classes, the number of participants, the participants per class, 882
etc. The number of classes that have waitlists, I want to emphasize that one because it is 883
the number of classes that have waitlists, not the number of people on waitlists. That is 884
an important distinction, because sometimes there is one extremely popular scenario. For 885
example, there's one swimming slot that obviously is the perfect swimming slot for the 886
entire City of Palo Alto, because there's like 400 people on the waitlist. That was a total 887
outlier in most cases. We counted them by the number of individual sessions that had 888
waitlists, not by the number of people on that waitlist. 889
890
chair Reckdahl: If you go to page 29, I don't understand how we get more than 100 891
percent (crosstalk). 892
893
Mr. Mottau: That's a good point. We didn't use that in a hard sense. Basically using the 894 data that we have, classes that were indicated as full could also have been indicated as 895 having a waitlist. The final column was the percentage of classes that were indicated 896 either as full or with a waitlist. Basically what we were doing was intentionally giving a 897
little bit of a double count to the classes that had a waitlist. Because it's 100 percent and 898
the other one is 150 percent, it's not meant to be that one's better than the other. It was 899
mean to acknowledge the fact that you have classes that fill and you have classes that 900
have standing waitlists. 901
902
Chair Reckdahl: Do you have two columns and have percentage of classes full and 903
percentage of how long approximately the waitlist is? 904
905
Mr. Mottau: We didn't break that down. 906
907
Commissioner Crommie: I agree with that. Does that relate back to the criteria that you 908
set on page 22? I had a comment on the last criteria. You have four bullets on page 22. 909
Do you know what page I'm talking about? I think it relates to this over 100 percent. Is 910
it this bullet point here? 911
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 22
DRAFT
912
Chair Reckdahl: Yes. 913
914
Commissioner Crommie: I'd like to comment on that bullet point. Is this the time to do 915
it? 916
917 Mr. Mottau: Sure. 918
919
Commissioner Crommie: I agree with Commissioner Reckdahl. We are not well served 920
by seeing something that's over 100 percent, because it doesn't give us a granular 921
(inaudible). 922
923
Commissioner Hetterly: If you have the number of classes and the number of classes 924
with waitlists listed separately, I actually liked the double count because it stands out 925
more. 926
927
Mr. Mottau: It gave us a simple metric. I agree that percentages over 100 make people 928
antsy. I get that; I do. Maybe it's the fact that it's a percentage ... 929
930
Ms. Schmitt: It got extra credit. 931
932
Mr. Mottau: It skews it because you're naturally trained to not want it to add up to more 933
than 100. The intention there was definitely to give that extra emphasis. 934
935
Chair Reckdahl: I guess as long as we have the raw data there, then it's not quite as 936 important. 937 938 Mr. Mottau: The information that it's calculated on is presented right there. If you're 939
comfortable with that, I understand the comment. In a lot of ways I would prefer not to 940
go back and rerun 27 tables or whatever to break that out. I have the Excel sheet; I could 941
do that fairly quickly. It's just getting back into a document and getting back out and 942
distributed is a little bit more production that may not be worth it. 943
944
Chair Reckdahl: I don't know, but my personal opinion is that as long as the raw data is 945
there, then I guess it's okay. It's not as clear as I would like, but it's good enough. 946
947
Commissioner Crommie: Can I just ask about the bullet point on page 22? I don't 948
understand it. 949
950
Mr. Mottau: Okay. 951
952
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 23
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: There's a group of four bullet points on page 22, and it's the 953
fourth one in the group of four. You have percent of classes full or waitlisted, and then 954
you give how you calculate that. It seems to me that you should be saying percent of 955
classes full and waitlisted. I'm a little bit confused about the use of "or" there. Is it "or" 956
or "and?" They mean two different things. 957
958 Mr. Mottau: It's not "and," because there are classes that are full but not waitlisted. It 959
would be "or," because it would need to be inclusive but also allow for either option. 960
961
Commissioner Crommie: Right. Some of them are both? 962
963
Mr. Mottau: Some of them are both. 964
965
Commissioner Crommie: And some of them are not? 966
967
Mr. Mottau: Some of them are both; some of them are just full; some of them are neither. 968
There are none that are waitlisted without being full as far as I saw, and that shouldn't 969
happen unless it was a coding error. Yes, there are some that are both and some that are 970
not and some that are one. 971
972
Commissioner Crommie: I personally found that confusing, and I would like to see it 973
parsed out. Again, you may need the whole Commission to weigh in on it. 974
975
Mr. Mottau: Okay. If we're all clear on why that is what it is, I'm happy to field your 976
comment. I understand where you're coming from; I really do. I don't want to hang up 977 this conversation on that point for now. 978 979 Commissioner Hetterly: While we're on that point, can I just ask another question about 980
one of the charts on page 28? 981
982
Mr. Mottau: Sure. 983
984
Commissioner Hetterly: Table 7 of day camps, you have number of full classes taught, 985
the number of classes with a waitlist. For debate and freshman leadership and possibly 986
some other, the number of full classes is smaller than the number of waitlist classes. Is 987
there (crosstalk). 988
989
Mr. Mottau: You're proving me wrong there. No, that's an interesting point. I will look 990
into that. Like I said, it could either be a coding error or it could be that they were for 991
some reason creating waitlists intentionally for classes that were not indicated full. I will 992
clarify that with the program staff. That is Table 7. Can you note that for me? Thank 993
you. Sharp eyes. 994
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 24
DRAFT
995
Commissioner Ashlund: The example on Table 8 on the top of page 29 for basketball. If 996
there's 12 classes, 4 are full, 3 are waitlisted, and yet 0 are under the minimum. It doesn't 997
add up for me. 998
999
Mr. Mottau: That's a good clarifying point. Thank you. There is a difference between 1000 meeting the minimum and being full. Does that make sense? If you ... 1001
1002
Commissioner Ashlund: Can you walk through one of those lines and explain? 1003
1004
Mr. Mottau: Sure. Basketball, we're all on Table 8 on page 29. Basketball has 12 1005
sessions offered. The number of participants registered are 288, which makes the 1006
average participants per class 24. There were 0 classes canceled in that program area. 1007
None of those 12 classes that were originally offered were cancelled, so there's a 0 1008
percent canceled out in the classes that were scheduled. None of those classes were 1009
under the minimum and not canceled. That would mean that we didn't meet our 1010
enrollment minimum, but we continued to offer it anyway. We were close or we decided 1011
to offer it for one reason or another. That's an important number, because those are the 1012
marginal or the rule breaker programs. They're right outside of the envelope that we're 1013
supposed to be in. The envelope would have been essentially if it was under the 1014
minimum, it got canceled. The number of full classes, there is a field of registration date 1015
that indicates, "This class is now full. We're done." There is also a waitlist number, and 1016
we counted how many classes had a waitlist. Again just clarifying, not the number of 1017
people on that waitlist. There were 4 full classes out of those 12 basketball classes; 1018
presumably 3 of the classes that were full have a waitlist, so 58 percent of the overall 1019 classes, 7 out of 12, were full or waitlisted overall. It gives a little bit of that double 1020 count. We've talked about that a little bit, but that's the breakdown across one of those 1021 rows. 1022
1023
Mr. de Geus: Just on the question. I would have to look at the detail behind this to 1024
understand it. With some of these academic classes, what can happen is parents can sign 1025
up their kids for a program and then, after the first day of class, the kid doesn't want to go 1026
anymore, not going back to that. We had waitlists already, so you can end up having a 1027
class that ends up not being full in the final analysis of the data, but does have a waitlist. 1028
I don't know if that happened here, but that happens more often in the academic classes 1029
than some of the other ones. 1030
1031
Chair Reckdahl: They don't get billed? 1032
1033
Mr. de Geus: They don't, because the class has already begun and we don't prorate. 1034
More importantly, parents need to organize their summer way in advance, so when it 1035
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 25
DRAFT
comes time to that child not coming back to that camp, it's too late. The parent that was 1036
on the waitlist now is (inaudible). 1037
1038
Mr. Mottau: Where we've taken a year out of data and said this is what the most recent 1039
year looks like, the problem with snapshotting something that is that flexible is that you 1040
run into a lot of those things. One of the things that was clarified for us, and I want to 1041 bring up real quick even though it's not one of our highlighted lines, is adult aquatics, a 1042
very small program as you can see from the numbers in the summary. On top of that, the 1043
instructor who is responsible for a lot of the classes had a medical issue that essentially 1044
prevented the person from offering those classes. This was an outlier year out of a small 1045
program. We decided ultimately we weren't going to try to adjust numbers or rule it out 1046
or anything, because it's such a small item in the grand scheme of things. We did get that 1047
clarification from our aquatics section director. He offered that suggestion, and I believe 1048
that I had clarified that in the bullets in the document. Just really quickly, I want to run 1049
through the columns here that are particularly interesting. What we're touching on right 1050
now is the critical one, which is the capacity of booking. In the data needs summary that 1051
was handed out this evening, if you're looking at that table for day camps and you look at 1052
the number, this will dictate essentially are we over or are we at or are we below our 1053
capacity overall. The numbers on that, I think I touched on. If it's below capacity, more 1054
than 33 percent of the class (video break) they're getting canceled. We're canceling a 1055
third of the classes that we're offering. We have capacity in that program obviously. 1056
These, by the way, are based on natural breaks in the data that we were observing. As we 1057
went through, we break these out into categories pretty well. At capacity, we were saying 1058
"It's less than a third of the classes not meeting minimums that actually end up jumping 1059
up." 1060 1061 Commissioner Crommie: Where are you? 1062 1063
Mr. Mottau: I'm looking at the criteria on the data needs summary document. 1064
1065
Ms. Schmitt: Row 36 and then on day camps, Column F. This is why day camps is over 1066
because ... 1067
1068
Mr. Mottau: Because they had more than 33 percent of their classes full or waitlisted and 1069
less than 10 percent of their classes were canceled. We gave a little bit of credit for the 1070
fact that sometimes things get canceled for reasons that are beyond anybody's control. 1071
Usually you can't get to 100 percent utilization in any venue. You look at room 1072
bookings, you look at real estate, you look at whatever, you're going to have some 1073
capacity left. We're not going to get to 100 percent, but we said less than 10 percent and 1074
that we were seeing a third of our classes go over that waitlist or full criteria. That's a 1075
really important one as you look through these. Overall there were several that were 1076
definitely over. Day camps was one of them. Interestingly, day camps, as you move 1077
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 26
DRAFT
through these, the expressed need was very low. We did not hear much at all about day 1078
camps. We know from the program data and from the professional opinions of the staff 1079
and the overall enrollment, these are actually a very critical and a huge part of the effort 1080
of what the recreation group is working on. As we pulled those two things together, we 1081
definitely see the demand for that has the potential to increase, but also that there is a 1082
high need for that evolving variety. It's like there is going to be an ongoing need for day 1083 camps. 1084
1085
Commissioner Crommie: When you said you didn't hear an expressed need, what are 1086
you referring to? 1087
1088
Mr. Mottau: The expressed need, again back in the data needs summary, it talks about 1089
did we hear about this as an area that needed to be expanded across multiple different 1090
inputs. 1091
1092
Commissioner Crommie: From who? 1093
1094
Mr. Mottau: From the community, from the community. 1095
1096
Commissioner Crommie: How? How? 1097
1098
Mr. Mottau: We have half a dozen or more public involvement efforts that we resolved 1099
over that. Each of the sources is listed across the top of the matrix. We looked at did we 1100
hear about it in the intercepts? Okay, that's one. Did we hear about it in the workshops? 1101
That's another one. Did we hear about it in Mapita? Did we hear about it in the survey? 1102 As we started racking those up, if we were hearing a consistent message across multiple 1103 areas, that's where it got to be high. 1104 1105
Ms. Schmitt: In the case of day camps, it really just didn't come up. It really didn't come 1106
up. It may be that at the beginning the people (crosstalk). 1107
1108
Mr. Mottau: Just think it's going really well. 1109
1110
Ms. Schmitt: So it just didn't come up. There weren't write-in comments whereas many 1111
other things people would bring it up, they would write in comments. We just didn't hear 1112
a lot about it. I think what Ryan is trying to illustrate is just because we didn't hear a lot 1113
about it doesn't mean that people don't want it. They're clearly signing up for the many, 1114
many camps that are offered. 1115
1116
Mr. Mottau: The one other piece that I want to bring your attention to is the additional 1117
meetings log. The additional data that we provided here is the key points from a variety 1118
of meetings we've been holding with your professional staff as well as stakeholders that 1119
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 27
DRAFT
are related to particular topics. This is an effort that we've been doing partly in response 1120
to your question, partly at the suggestion of your staff, and partly because it just needed 1121
to be happening to clarify individual details. We didn't provide great depth of detail. 1122
What we were really looking for was what were some of the key points that we heard 1123
from each of these groups. This is referenced in several places under Source 17. It's one 1124
of the updates that you'll be receiving regularly. I just wanted to note that in the 1125 programming area, there were a couple of groups that were really relevant here. The 1126
aquatics group which was users, coaches, as well as your aquatics staff. There was the 1127
sports field users and there were Cubberley Community Center tenants. We also had 1128
middle school athletics. We had a group that was the middle school athletic directors, the 1129
programming directors. We had a conversation with the Boost program, both the staff 1130
and the folks that are participating in that class and some of the instructors. Each of those 1131
pieces is really fleshed out. Some of our inputs, we're not taking that like, "It was said 1132
once in this meeting. That's absolutely the gospel." We see these people that we invited 1133
to these conversations as being experts in the area that they are talking about. We wanted 1134
to make sure that their opinions and everything else got documented with some 1135
credibility across this process. Thank you all. 1136
1137
Ms. Schmitt: With day camps, as I mentioned, this really highlights the extensive use of 1138
existing programs, even though it's not being mentioned a lot by the public. When we 1139
look in Column I at demographic needs, you've got again a pretty stable youth 1140
population. We're not looking for a spike in the youth population, so we see the demand 1141
that you have is probably going to continue at about the same level. Barriers to 1142
participation seem to be low. Looking at Source 5, you're offering programs in a lot of 1143
locations at a lot of times. When you just look at the list of them, the staff really provides 1144 many offerings tailored to a lot of different interests. There's something for just about 1145 anyone at a location that they can get to, so low on that one. Projected demand, because 1146 these things are selling out and because of the interest in this community in making sure 1147
youth have positive activities, there's going to continue to be a strong demand for the 1148
level of programming that you have now. Therefore, our summary statement is that 1149
there's going to be solid demand and there's going to continue to be a need to evolve 1150
those day camps, because the same static set is not going to continue to meet the interests 1151
of that youth population. I think Rob illustrated it with the "my parents signing me up for 1152
something that I hate" example. That is very illustrative of the youth population. Any 1153
thoughts on that one? We thought that was really pretty interesting. 1154
1155
Commissioner Markevitch: Yeah, let your kids pick the camps. 1156
1157
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah. 1158
1159
Ms. Fiore: Part of this process is going to be a gut check of whether the Summary of 1160
Needs sounds right to you based on your experience. That adds another data layer, if you 1161
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 28
DRAFT
will, of what you hear from people who know that you're on the Parks and Rec 1162
Commission, what you hear anecdotally day-to-day, your lives as parents and residents of 1163
Palo Alto. That's not necessarily reflected here, but that's why we wanted to walk 1164
through this. Is the process based again on the information we have here that we describe 1165
as a Summary of Need. From there, does that sound right? Does that sound absolutely 1166
wrong? If it sounds wrong, we have this paper trail that we can dig back into. That's 1167 why we have this enormous binder ourselves. Maybe we did it wrong or maybe it's just a 1168
difference of opinion that showed up. I worked out (inaudible) day camps. Overall 1169
questions, concerns, comments at this point? 1170
1171
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a question about the youth and team sports. I'm trying to 1172
find it in the program analysis Part 2. 1173
1174
Ms. Schmitt: Youth and team sports are ... 1175
1176
Commissioner Hetterly: For both adult sports and youth sports. For example, page 25, 1177
Table 5 is adult sports, and you list the number of classes for basketball (inaudible). Are 1178
these classes to learn how to play the sport or are these teams? 1179
1180
Mr. de Geus: They're teams. 1181
1182
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) bunch of teams. 1183
1184
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, adult sports leagues. 1185
1186 Commissioner Hetterly: Soccer, obviously we have, oh, they're leagues as opposed to 1187 teams? 1188 1189
Mr. de Geus: No, these are teams. It's not participant. We run adult sports leagues and 1190
people sign up by team. 1191
1192
Commissioner Hetterly: This is different from the passive soccer? 1193
1194
Mr. de Geus: Yes. 1195
1196
Commissioner Hetterly: That is different. I didn't even know that the City had a soccer 1197
team. 1198
1199
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, it's just one. It's a bit of an outlier, that one. I think we did one, and 1200
this isn't an ongoing one. This must have been pulled from a specific season, maybe last 1201
fall, where staff tried to (crosstalk). 1202
1203
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 29
DRAFT
Ms. Schmitt: That is an important clarification. All of the programs in the program 1204
section are the programs that are offered by the City of Palo Alto. When we jump back 1205
to recreation facilities and we talk about your sports fields, there's a lot of other user 1206
groups and leagues who can buy programming, who are booking time on those particular 1207
facilities. In the programs, it's specific programs that Rob's staff is offering, advertising 1208
and people can go on your website and sign up. 1209 1210
Commissioner Hetterly: On page 30, Table 11, youth and team sports. Are those also 1211
teams then and not classes? 1212
1213
Mr. de Geus: Let me take a look here. 1214
1215
Ms. Schmitt: Really what we think of in a class and that's (crosstalk). 1216
1217
Mr. de Geus: Is this Table 10? 1218
1219
Commissioner Hetterly: Table 11. For basketball, soccer and tennis, I guess. Are those 1220
teams? We have 80 tennis teams? Tennis is lessons, right? I need some clarification. 1221
1222
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, these are classes. 1223
1224
Commissioner Hetterly: All of them are? 1225
1226
Mr. de Geus: Yes, they are. 1227
1228 Commissioner Hetterly: Including basketball and soccer? 1229 1230 Mr. de Geus: Yes. 1231
1232
Commissioner Hetterly: They're different from the summer camps? 1233
1234
Mr. de Geus: They are. 1235
1236
Chair Reckdahl: Different from the middle school? 1237
1238
Mr. de Geus: Not middle school athletics either. These are special interest classes 1239
related to sports for youth. 1240
1241
Commissioner Hetterly: I'd just like a little bit more clarification in the document for 1242
both of those (crosstalk). 1243
1244
Mr. de Geus: Some of these tables have a description underneath them. 1245
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 30
DRAFT
1246
Commissioner Hetterly: Another question I had on that same document is on the adult 1247
special interest classes. Did you have a separate break out for senior classes? I don't 1248
remember. My question is, are the items listed primarily offered through Avenidas, the 1249
ones that are available to seniors or do we have a separate list of programs that the City 1250
does for seniors as opposed to what Avenidas does with whatever grant they get from the 1251 City? 1252
1253
Mr. de Geus: It's separate. There isn't anything in these tables that is run by Avenidas. 1254
1255
Commissioner Hetterly: We don't yet have any data in any place of what Avenidas is 1256
doing? 1257
1258
Mr. de Geus: There should be, because we met with them (crosstalk). 1259
1260
Ms. Schmitt: Actually in the thing that Ryan referenced ... 1261
1262
Commissioner Hetterly: It's (crosstalk) the list, but it's not in any of the data sources. 1263
1264
Ms. Schmitt: It's actually referenced in the table in a few places. When we get to 1265
facilities, Avenidas reported about what the demand they see for the programs that they 1266
offer and for the use of their facilities. In the additional meeting log, there is some 1267
findings from that meeting that start to present information about their programs and 1268
what they find with their user base. We learn also quite a bit about the percentage of 1269
programs, where their focuses are, because they have certain focus areas. What is more 1270 drop in and what is more of a day-to-day program. 1271 1272 Commissioner Hetterly: That's reflected in the conclusions in the matrix. 1273
1274
Ms. Schmitt: Not for senior programs, because those are City of Palo Alto programs. 1275
1276
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah, not in the capacity (crosstalk). 1277
1278
Ms. Schmitt: In the facilities, yeah. 1279
1280
Commissioner Hetterly: In this big chart. 1281
1282
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah. In the facilities in particular, yes. 1283
1284
Mr. de Geus: I understand what you're saying. Let's assume that's there a need for low 1285
impact aerobics for seniors. Where does that get drawn out? It gets drawn out from a 1286
conversation with our major senior provider, Avenidas, we talked about earlier. Where 1287
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 31
DRAFT
does that percolate to so that it can be represented as a need? It's not in this stuff, in what 1288
we're looking at right now, because this is just looking at City programs and it's not 1289
looking at senior programs. I think it's a fair question. I know we have it, because we've 1290
had these focus group meetings. We've gotten from Avenidas where they see the trends 1291
going for programming for senior services. It's a really interesting conversation. Where 1292
is that in the binder? 1293 1294
Ms. Schmitt: It'll be on Source 17. For example, on page 4 of that additional meeting 1295
log, the top column is the meeting with Avenidas which Rob and I both attended. They 1296
had quite a bit of data about the need for a second senior center on the south side of Palo 1297
Alto. They have data on where their participants are coming from. They know the way 1298
people use space and know at their current center there's a need for social gathering space 1299
and that would be needed in the new center. 1300
1301
Commissioner Hetterly: Have they shared any of that data with you or have they only 1302
shared their conclusions based on their data? 1303
1304
Mr. de Geus: We asked them for the data. They do a, I want to say it's a biennial survey 1305
that has hundreds of seniors participate. They sent us the most recent survey that they 1306
did. It talked about programs and services and other things. Yeah, we have it. They sent 1307
it to us. 1308
1309
Commissioner Hetterly: What about data on capacity? Can I just back up for a second? 1310
1311
Mr. de Geus: They took a lot of our capacity. They're trying to rebuild Avenidas. 1312 Actually it's a City building that they lease, and we have a long-term contract with them. 1313 They want to fund a $15 million capital improvement primarily for increased program 1314 space for that particular age group, because it's growing so much and it's expected to 1315
grow over the next 20 years. 1316
1317
Commissioner Hetterly: Can you just take a second to explain to us what is the 1318
relationship between the City and Avenidas? It's my understanding that the City 1319
provided most of its funding that's targeted towards seniors to Avenidas to provide the 1320
services. Is that correct? 1321
1322
Mr. de Geus: It is correct. There's a long history with Avenidas. Many years ago the 1323
City ran programs for senior services, but this was like in the early '70s. I want to say it 1324
was 1977, somewhere around there, where we entered into an agreement and established 1325
a nonprofit called Avenidas to run senior programs and services for the community. We 1326
provided the initial seed money to get them started. We've done that ever since. 1327
1328
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 32
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: What is the advantage of having a separate nonprofit as opposed to the 1329
City? 1330
1331
Mr. de Geus: There's a number of advantages. Not the least of which is a nonprofit can 1332
raise money whereas a city really can't. They're more nimble because they can make 1333
decisions maybe a little quicker and adapt a little bit quicker than a city can. At that time, 1334 the thought was they would provide a better set of services than the City could with the 1335
same amount of money. We've been funding Avenidas throughout those years, and I'm 1336
sure it's gone up over those years. At this point, I think we're paying, I want to say 1337
something like $0.5 million to Avenidas annually. It may be a little more than that. 1338
What they do is leverage that $0.5 million, and now they have a $4-plus million program 1339
that they run. 1340
1341
Chair Reckdahl: Do you just give them a chunk of money or do you give them so much 1342
per class or so much per person? 1343
1344
Mr. de Geus: We give them the funding and then our Office of Human Services, Minka 1345
van der Zwaag and staff, work closely with their executive director. There's some 1346
evaluation process of the programming and services they provide. The evaluation 1347
determines how satisfied Avenidas participants are. Within the contract, there is that 1348
evaluation process that happens. They've been able to leverage the City funding 1349
significantly to the point where now in terms of the program, the City funding is maybe 1350
10 or 15 percent of their actual program. Did that help? 1351
1352
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that helps. The thing I keep struggling with is they are 1353 our primary service provider to seniors, and the capacity bookings is unknown on our 1354 chart. We don't know how their services break out in terms of adult aquatics, adult 1355 fitness, adult special interest classes, all these things we have broken out from City-1356
offered services. We don't know what role Avenidas plays in meeting that need. When 1357
we look at the need on this chart, that's just based on what we offer. If what we offer is 1358
over-subscribed, we're going to have a high need indicated here. We don't have a bigger 1359
picture across the community whether seniors' needs are being met. 1360
1361
Ms. Schmitt: In some cases in the Summary of Needs, seniors would be a good place to 1362
maybe consider doing something like. When there are either a number of other providers 1363
like in the health and fitness realm or where there's one really heavy hitter, we're noting 1364
their existence. It's something to think about when you get to the next step, about how 1365
you prioritize things. I think that's a really, really good point, because you may decide, 1366
like you did in the past, you're actually more effective if you work through them. I will 1367
say their focus is not recreation. They were pretty clear on that. They offer some 1368
recreation programs. They have the drop-in seniors who are more mobile and who may 1369
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 33
DRAFT
come for a personal finance class. Then they have the people that are there every day for 1370
food programs who are much less mobile and really need more social support. 1371
1372
Mr. de Geus: It's bridge that's the big player. 1373
1374
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, that was another one, the bridge program. 1375 1376
Commissioner Crommie: In relationship to that, where are the conditioning classes for 1377
seniors? I know my own family members are taking conditioning classes at Cubberley. 1378
Once you get to be old, you want to work with weights and condition your body. That's 1379
really important, but I didn't see it reflected into these tables. Is that because Avenidas is 1380
covering body conditioning classes? Am I missing them? 1381
1382
Mr. de Geus: There are others like Avenidas who are providing those programs too. The 1383
JCC has a whole series of recreational programs targeted to senior services. So does Palo 1384
Alto Family Y; they have lots of programming targeted for seniors in that area. 1385
1386
Commissioner Crommie: It seems confusing to me. If you're a senior in this community 1387
and you need a conditioning class to keep your muscles strong and let's say your primary 1388
care doctor says, "Your muscle tone is getting low. I'd like you to go to a conditioning 1389
class." It's a very common experience of people hitting their 70s. Where do they go to 1390
find a conditioning class? If they're a Palo Alto resident, they might go first of all to our 1391
recreation handouts. 1392
1393
Mr. de Geus: Then we would send them to Avenidas most likely. Avenidas really does 1394 understand the needs of seniors and have relationships with a lot of these partner 1395 organizations like the JCC. 1396 1397
Commissioner Crommie: If they go to the schedules that you publish for Palo Alto 1398
classes, are you going to list all the Avenidas classes within that? 1399
1400
Mr. de Geus: We do list in the catalog our partner organizations. We don't list all of 1401
their classes, because it's a lot and the catalog would be large. 1402
1403
Ms. Schmitt: It would be difficult. 1404
1405
Mr. de Geus: We list their organization and a web link and a phone number. 1406
1407
Commissioner Crommie: It comes down to envisioning where we want to put our 1408
resources as a City. Right now those are almost contracted out. The concept is we 1409
contract it out. I just didn't see basic muscle conditioning classes listed in our charts here. 1410
1411
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 34
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. We wouldn't be the primary provider of that. If someone calls us, 1412
we would talk to that resident, tell them about Avenidas, that they're the repository for all 1413
senior services. Not that they do them all, but they have a relationship with the Y, they 1414
have a relationship with the JCC. They do things with the City that we do together. That 1415
would be the first place to start for someone who would be interested. 1416
1417 Ms. Schmitt: To your point, Deirdre, again as we move into that next stage, is that the 1418
right role for the City? Is the City ... 1419
1420
Commissioner Crommie: A broker. 1421
1422
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah. A referral service. Bringing it down to the reality of as an 1423
individual what do you experience? It's an issue that you see in a lot of places. It makes 1424
so much sense when we do it this way and that way. When you're just a resident out 1425
there, it's like, "Where do I go?" There is actually a pretty robust way of connecting 1426
people to Avenidas, but you may decide as a Parks and Recreation Commission you want 1427
to take that further or you want to go in a different direction. 1428
1429
Commissioner Crommie: I would want good data. If we have our average residents who 1430
are in their 70s, is it at their fingertips that they know where to go for conditioning 1431
classes? If we just polled people in their 70s, do they know how to hook in already? Is it 1432
just a done deal for them? Or is there a gap there in our aging population? They don't 1433
know where to go. That's all I'm concerned about. In some ways I don't really care who's 1434
providing it. I just want to make sure that when someone hits their 70s, they go to their 1435
primary care doctor, they're told "Go find a conditioning class. Your muscles are getting 1436 weak." They know how to do it. 1437 1438 Mr. de Geus: I think there's an answer to that, Deirdre. They'll be working with Pam, for 1439
instance, and with Lucille at Stanford Hospital, with primary care physicians so that 1440
actually when they want to prescribe exercise, they actually hand out material to 1441
Avenidas, to the JCC, and to some extent to the City of Palo Alto for programs that we 1442
provide. There is that link. To this point, which may be a bigger question, it might be 1443
helpful to have the executive director of Avenidas come to a Commission meeting and do 1444
a little 10-15 minute presentation on all they do. 1445
1446
Chair Reckdahl: That would be good to have. We're a little off topic here, because this 1447
doesn't directly apply to (crosstalk). 1448
1449
Mr. de Geus: I think it's a good topic because ... 1450
1451
Commissioner Crommie: I looked for it; I just didn't see it, so that's the origin of my 1452
question. I didn't see it in our charts here. Like what Commissioner Hetterly might have 1453
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 35
DRAFT
been getting at. That was my question. I don't see these types of conditioning exercise 1454
classes for seniors that I hear through my own family members. I think they're hooking 1455
in with them. 1456
1457
Mr. de Geus: Is that the gap? If we have some resources, do we focus it there? That's 1458
what I (inaudible) with senior programs. I don't know if we have all the answers here. 1459 As we look at the City's recreation programs and the City's park system, what is it that we 1460
should focus on for filling a need there? Recognizing that Avenidas does some part, JCC 1461
does. Where is that gap? We're trying to get some of that with these focus group 1462
meetings. 1463
1464
Vice Chair Markevitch: He's got to change the tape. 1465
1466
Chair Reckdahl: Change the tape. 1467
1468
Mr. de Geus: ... now reflecting on some of the conversations we had with Avenidas. 1469
There was a strong interest in not having senior programs be called senior programs. 1470
Their interest was having adult programs generally more accessible to people ages (video 1471
break) age span. That was really an important take away. 1472
1473
Commissioner Ashlund: The JCC no longer calls them seniors; they call them adults 1474
again. Can I ask what the six highlighted ones indicate? 1475
1476
Ms. Fiore: Those are the ones we're walking you through. (crosstalk) 1477
1478 Ms. Schmitt: As you can see when Ryan was on the un-highlighted one, you lose track 1479 as you're going across if you're not keeping your fingers there. 1480 1481
Commissioner Ashlund: Those are examples as opposed to the topics? 1482
1483
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, exactly. 1484
1485
Chair Reckdahl: I have one comment that I want to get in before we move on. On page 1486
20, on the bottom. 1487
1488
Commissioner Hetterly: Of what? 1489
1490
Chair Reckdahl: Of the new handout, new materials for (inaudible) session. I'm sorry. 1491
This is the Part 2 of the recreation and programming analysis. On page 20 there's a 1492
comment that is just left there. I think there's a lot of meat there from a planning 1493
standpoint. It says, "Youth and adult sports programs are not easily expanded regardless 1494
of popularity due to facility and instruction/coach constraints." Then it refers us to the 1495
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 36
DRAFT
tables. The tables don't talk anything about the constraints at all. They just talk about the 1496
demand. Knowing what constraints are preventing us from fully meeting the demand is a 1497
very important topic. 1498
1499
Ms. Schmitt: And it's a great segue to recreation facilities. One of the highlighted ones 1500
we wanted to talk about was sports field needs. 1501 1502
Chair Reckdahl: Also you mentioned coaches too. It would be very good to have it 1503
expand that topic. If it's just a coach issue, then we have options. We can go out and hire 1504
third parties to come in and act as coaches. Whereas, facilities we have less leeway. 1505
1506
Ms. Fiore: I agree that that was a key finding. In the data and needs highlight that you 1507
received tonight, we did flag that as an issue that was impacting capacity. (crosstalk) 1508
1509
Commissioner Crommie: When you get on this topic, can you frame it for regional need 1510
versus resident need? That plays in hugely (crosstalk). 1511
1512
Ms. Schmitt: Before you got here, Deirdre, that's one of the framing pieces. Because of 1513
your past policy directions and because of the pretty clear direction from Palo Altans 1514
through the survey, this is really looking at the need generated by Palo Alto residents, not 1515
the regional need. We understand and recognize that your residents may be going to Los 1516
Altos to play on a field and their residents may be coming to yours and that balances out. 1517
We're not looking to capture the entire Santa Clara County thing with a magnet facility, 1518
because you could build the biggest thing in the world and probably fill it up from around 1519
the region. This is really targeted at the need generated by your residents, trying to match 1520 that, and then realize it'll balance out across the region if everybody carried their share. 1521 1522 Chair Reckdahl: For time, we have 1 hour left and we have 30 minutes that we're 1523
allocating towards facilities and then 30 minutes towards the framework of policy 1524
questions. Is that still your ... 1525
1526
Ms. Schmitt: We were told we had until 8:30 with you, and that you had a few points of 1527
business you needed to take care of. 1528
1529
Chair Reckdahl: With them? 1530
1531
Ms. Schmitt: Yes. 1532
1533
Vice Chair Markevitch: (crosstalk) the rest of the agenda. 1534
1535
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 37
DRAFT
Ms. Fiore: Our plan of attack as of right now is to spend about 20 minutes on the 1536
recreation facilities and then 10 minutes on wrap-up and just touch real quickly on what 1537
we'd identified there as the introduction to the framework and policy questions. 1538
1539
Ms. Schmitt: Then we discuss next steps. 1540
1541 Ms. Fiore: Then set the stage for next month's meeting and what we hope to accomplish 1542
there. Does that sound okay? 1543
1544
Commissioner Hetterly: Can I ask you a question before we go on? 1545
1546
Ms. Fiore: Yes. 1547
1548
Commissioner Hetterly: I do have some comments on the stuff that was in the packet. 1549
Should I hold those until next week or should I email them to staff? 1550
1551
Ms. Fiore: If you could get those to Peter, and he will communicate those to us. Thank 1552
you. 1553
1554
Commissioner Lauing: It looks like you did some additional analysis on (inaudible) and 1555
(crosstalk). 1556
1557
Ms. Fiore: We did. Another memo you received was the survey follow-up based on 1558
(crosstalk). 1559
1560 Commissioner Lauing: Can you tell us tonight how many you went out to and the 1561 process for it? 1562 1563
Ms. Fiore: We did not do additional survey work. We did initial number crunching on 1564
the survey data we had before. I don't think we have room in our agenda tonight to talk 1565
about that, but you can talk about it next time. It is reflected in this matrix. It has been 1566
rolled up into that or we could talk about it in May if there's specific questions. 1567
1568
Ms. Schmitt: Looking at recreation facilities, the two we wanted to highlight were 1569
diamond sports fields and rectangular sports fields, because I think they're an interesting 1570
counterpoint. We also wanted to walk through special purpose buildings and parks. 1571
Those are things like we talked about earlier, the Baylands Interpretive Center, the 1572
Foothills Nature Interpretive Center. Let's start off with diamond sports fields. When we 1573
look in Column C. your inventory is 19 total and that includes the school district facilities 1574
that you program. One of the important things around sports fields is you as a 1575
Commission worked with staff to develop a policy that has some pretty clear priorities 1576
about how you allocate the field space that you have, given that it's a limited resource and 1577
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 38
DRAFT
how you balance the use of that. You're booking the time that you have. As we move 1578
across this, we'll see that. Your level of control is high, because you either own your 1579
fields or you have an agreement with the school district that allows you to use the fields 1580
that you use. When we look at the geographic analysis, these are concentrated at 1581
particular sites. There's a particular map around that. There's also a map around sites 1582
where there's flat graphs that you're doing practices and things on and that people can 1583 also drop in at. In terms of capacity and bookings, you're at capacity. The reason you're 1584
at capacity is because of the policy that you developed to allocate that field use. If you 1585
authored more field use and more field space, you provide more space and it would get 1586
filled up. Right now, because your policies are set to balance the use of what you have, 1587
you're at capacity. It's not showing as over, because you're taking all the time and you're 1588
dividing it out based on the availability that you have. I think that's a really important 1589
one when it comes to your diamond sports fields. If you look above that at rectangular, 1590
you're actually over in the case of that one, because you're getting more requests from 1591
additional groups than the time you have available. Even though you set the policies, 1592
you're sharing time, there's documented more requests. 1593
1594
Chair Reckdahl: I don't understand. You said we're at capacity, because we have not ... 1595
1596
Ms. Schmitt: Because you've developed a policy that says, "We've got a certain amount 1597
of field time. Here's how we're going to prioritize assigning out that field time." 1598
1599
Commissioner Lauing: You've allocated everything (crosstalk). 1600
1601
Chair Reckdahl: You said if we had more fields, we would fill those fields. 1602 1603 Commissioner Lauing: Because of insatiable demand. 1604 1605
Commissioner Hetterly: Only if we changed our policy. 1606
1607
Ms. Schmitt: Only if you changed your policy, yeah. If you were going to allow regional 1608
demand or you were going to allow 40 percent Palo Alto residents rather than ... 1609
1610
Commissioner Crommie: It's always this calendar, the use is always a biggie. Is it in the 1611
season or out of the season, pre-season, post-season? 1612
1613
Ms. Schmitt: It's in the season. 1614
1615
Commissioner Crommie: Right. We're basing it on in-season use. 1616
1617
Ms. Schmitt: In-season use, yes. 1618
1619
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 39
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: Can we achieve policy and allow more non-residents? 1620
1621
Commissioner Hetterly: No, allow more practice days a week for example for a change. 1622
Instead of having them holding practice twice a week, if we let them practice 5 days a 1623
week, we would be well over capacity because many teams would prefer to practice more 1624
than twice a week at that (crosstalk). 1625 1626
Ms. Schmitt: Exactly. In the case of diamond fields, you have effectively managed 1627
demand for those. You're meeting it based on the policies you set out. The perception of 1628
quality is medium. People have mixed opinions. It's pretty good, but certain things could 1629
be better. There's data from several sources around that. If you look to Source 13, there's 1630
one in particular that we pulled out. Then you get to expressed need. In Source 14, that 1631
is the survey results, you see that reported as a high. Again this is different from being at 1632
capacity. This is about "We'd like to practice five times," or "We'd like to have a couple 1633
of games a week." That is reflecting the expressed need, but it is not showing up as being 1634
over capacity because of how you're managing demand through your policies. When you 1635
look at demographic trends, we are predicting a decline because nationwide you see a 1636
decline in diamond sports. (video break) debate that, but as a professional I would say 1637
that we're not going to see an increase in that. Really there's a downward trend. 1638
1639
Chair Reckdahl: If you look in the past 5 years, we're serving more baseball and softball 1640
players now than we did 5 years ago. Whether you're looking 10 years in the future, 1641
that's another story. The trend certainly is up. 1642
1643
Ms. Schmitt: The overall trend though nationally in terms of baseball participation is on 1644 a downward trend, in softball as well. 1645 1646 Vice Chair Markevitch: But we're still just looking at Palo Alto. It's pretty high demand. 1647
They would build the space if we had more. 1648
1649
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, your thoughts on that are that's it either stable or increasing. 1650
1651
Chair Reckdahl: If you look at the past 5 years, it has been increasing. 1652
1653
Ms. Schmitt: A question I would ask you, because we see this in some communities. 1654
What you see is a small percentage of people who want to play more and more and more 1655
leagues, so I think that's also an important part of teasing apart that trend. 1656
1657
Commissioner Hetterly: Part of that, Keith, also in the past 5 to 10 years, elementary 1658
enrollment has been increasing. As we look forward, we expect it to decline. 1659
1660
Chair Reckdahl: Yes, that is true. 1661
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 40
DRAFT
1662
Commissioner Hetterly: That will affect the usage trend as well. 1663
1664
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, because then all of those team sports, the 13 and under, is where you 1665
have your peaks and then it drops off because you either continue playing in high school 1666
or you stop. Barriers to participation, medium from Sources 8 and 9. That's about where 1667 the fields are located and the existing conditions, the configurations. 1668
1669
Commissioner Crommie: Just on the baseball diamonds, we do have the Babe Ruth 1670
League that uses our fields. Like you're saying, it can fall off, but then we have this 1671
specialized club structure within our City that has some regional draw. Did you put that 1672
in your analysis? We have a whole diamond dedicated to that, the Babe Ruth. 1673
1674
Ms. Schmitt: We did not do some kind of Babe Ruth specific demand. What we're 1675
looking at is the overall bookings using your system, how does that work. 1676
1677
Commissioner Crommie: Is that system that you analyzed outside of the Babe Ruth 1678
system or does it include it? I just need a point of clarification there. The data you ... 1679
1680
Ms. Schmitt: No, in the diamond sports fields, it's anybody that's booking your time. It's 1681
outside leagues, it's tournaments. You have real specific guidance about how much each 1682
of the user groups can do in terms of turning ... 1683
1684
Vice Chair Markevitch: Can I re-ask that question? 1685
1686 Ms. Schmitt: Yes. 1687 1688 Vice Chair Markevitch: The 19 total diamond fields, does that include the Babe Ruth 1689
field? 1690
1691
Ms. Schmitt: I'll look on the inventory. 1692
1693
Mr. de Geus: It should, yeah. 1694
1695
Vice Chair Markevitch: I think that might get to your question. 1696
1697
Commissioner Crommie: They're rolled into this analysis? 1698
1699
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah. Yeah. The fields that are counted will be right on this inventory 1700
sheet. 1701
1702
Commissioner Crommie: They're self-contained. They have their own dedicated space. 1703
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 41
DRAFT
1704
Commissioner Lauing: High schools are included in this number as well. Generally 1705
those are not available for use. That's what it says. 1706
1707
Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah, they're currently not available for use. 1708
1709 Commissioner Lauing: That overstates it, but ... 1710
1711
Mr. de Geus: I'm not sure that's exactly right. The high schools use those fields. The 1712
high schools themselves rent out those fields. They don't use the City of Palo Alto's 1713
program process to make them available to the public. 1714
1715
Vice Chair Markevitch: They keep the money. 1716
1717
Mr. de Geus: They make it available along the same criteria. 1718
1719
Vice Chair Markevitch: They also don't rent (crosstalk). 1720
1721
Commissioner Hetterly: They don't prioritize residents. 1722
1723
Mr. de Geus: They don't. 1724
1725
Vice Chair Markevitch: They don't. They rent to outside teams. 1726
1727
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't think we can count that as ours. 1728 1729 Ms. Schmitt: If you look on the physical inventory, the baseball and softball fields, you 1730 can see the school inventory is there. Yes, Palo Alto High School, those fields are 1731
included. Do they count in the inventory, that would be a really good feedback point that 1732
they shouldn't count. 1733
1734
Commissioner Crommie: I've always felt that they should be folded in. They're a 1735
resource. I don't understand why they can generate all this revenue on their property 1736
when there's this whole relationship between the City and schools. 1737
1738
Vice Chair Markevitch: They're not in the original agreement of the shared-use spaces. 1739
1740
Commissioner Crommie: I would question whether we should evaluate that as a 1741
Commission. (crosstalk) 1742
1743
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's not in our purview. That's school district property. It's 1744
not us. We can't. 1745
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 42
DRAFT
1746
Commissioner Crommie: Whereas, the middle schools are different. 1747
1748
Vice Chair Markevitch: No, the middle schools have a brokered system with an 1749
agreement with the City. The high schools do not. 1750
1751 Commissioner Crommie: I'm saying can the City ever formulate an agreement if 1752
necessary with the high schools? 1753
1754
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) hope they would. 1755
1756
Chair Reckdahl: Yes. 1757
1758
Mr. de Geus: If the school district wanted to do that. We're in a contract with the school 1759
district to maintain the elementary schools and the middle schools. In exchange for this 1760
relationship, we get to broker those spaces outside of school hours. 1761
1762
Commissioner Crommie: We benefit. 1763
1764
Mr. de Geus: The public benefits. The school district has not been interested in doing 1765
the same thing for high schools, largely because they have a very robust athletic program 1766
and the athletic directors at the high schools really want to have the ownership of those 1767
fields and who gets on those fields. Do they rent them out themselves and they generate 1768
revenue? They do. I don't know enough about that to speak to who actually gets on 1769
those fields and what criteria they use. I'd like to know more about it. I'd love to have 1770 more access, because we certainly have the need for fields. 1771 1772 Commissioner Crommie: How do we learn more about it? 1773
1774
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's not related to this though. We're getting into the weeds 1775
again. 1776
1777
Ms. Schmitt: We'll flag that as an issue. I think it brings up a point. You can use the 1778
plan as a tool. You as the Commission could say, "We should have a recommendation in 1779
here that we should seek enhanced access at the high schools, because there is a need in 1780
the community. The community doesn't see a difference. We have this data, and we 1781
would like to see those brought into the system." You can't make the school district do it, 1782
but you can say, "We'd like that to happen, and we would like Council's buyoff of that as 1783
a direction." The plan can be a tool to try to move in those directions, keeping in mind 1784
you can't control what they do. Yeah, I think it's a great point. 1785
1786
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 43
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: I would argue strongly for removing the school district deals 1787
from this particular representation, because I think it is a misrepresentation of what's 1788
available to (crosstalk). 1789
1790
Ms. Schmitt: Mm-hmm. Because they're different from the elementary sites. 1791
1792 Vice Chair Markevitch: You can even footnote it saying high schools not listed. 1793
1794
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, they're there, but we can't (crosstalk). 1795
1796
Commissioner Crommie: It's good to have an inventory, but you might have to separate 1797
it out. I think visibility is good though to see what the inventory is. 1798
1799
Ms. Schmitt: I think it would be good to footnote perhaps which ones are subject to the 1800
agreement or it may be just because it's the two high schools that are outside of that, to 1801
footnote that those are outside of the agreement and you don't book time on those. 1802
1803
Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah. 1804
1805
Ms. Schmitt: Make sure that's reflected in the discussion. Okay. 1806
1807
Vice Chair Markevitch: I actually had a comment. It was Column E. You have off-1808
leash dog areas and then right below it community gardens. In community gardens, you 1809
have them all clustered in the north end. I'd like to see that same thing in the off-leash 1810
dog areas as all clustered in the south end. It spells it out more and it's consistent. 1811 1812 Ms. Schmitt: That's a good point, because that was specific feedback from the Palo Alto 1813 dog owners group, that they're all clustered, we really need them spread out. 1814
1815
Ms. Fiore: Lauren, do you want to make a couple more points about diamond versus 1816
rectangular fields (crosstalk). 1817
1818
Ms. Schmitt: There are some of the same patterns, some of the same issues around the 1819
sports fields. We should make that same footnote and consider taking the high schools 1820
fields out of the inventory. What we did hear from multiple sources on trends is the 1821
increase in rectangular sports, so there's some higher demand there because there's more 1822
sports that are playing on rectangular fields for more parts of the year. On that one, 1823
there's a higher need, however, that can be accommodated in a number of ways, whether 1824
it's by increasing playable time on your own fields, getting access to other fields. I think 1825
it's important to look at both rectangular and diamond fields and also understand the 1826
seasons of the year where those are played which this does not capture that as much. 1827
Because we're getting really close, I'd like to move on quickly to the special purpose 1828
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 44
DRAFT
buildings. That came up right at the beginning. This is the Baylands Nature Center, 1829
Foothills, Arastradero. Those special purpose buildings for which the City has a high 1830
level of control in Column D. When we look at those, they're really located at the 1831
preserves. There's a few other special purpose buildings, but the most significant ones 1832
are those centers that are on the preserves. We don't have any data on capacity and 1833
bookings. There is a perception that the quality of those is low and they're difficult to 1834 program as they are now, just because of their configuration and their age. There is a 1835
medium expressed need. Again some of this is through those follow up meetings, 1836
because there's a desire to do outdoor programming and interpretive classes, yet not 1837
really the space to do it because the spaces aren't suitable. There isn't really data on the 1838
demographic trends, because those programs aren't really offered, so we don't know 1839
who's participating in them. In terms of the barriers to participation, because the ... 1840
1841
Commissioner Ashlund: Are you talking about the buildings themselves or the 1842
programming in the buildings or both? 1843
1844
Mr. de Geus: The buildings. 1845
1846
Ms. Schmitt: The buildings because they're a place for programming. They only exist 1847
because you want to do something with them. Otherwise, they'd be like a storage facility 1848
or something like that. 1849
1850
Commissioner Crommie: I want to know that I can get the (inaudible) that you're citing 1851
on additional need and see that data. When I go to your additional meeting log, I don't 1852
see anything on these centers. Where is (crosstalk)? 1853 1854 Ms. Schmitt: The meeting with John Aiken on page 3. You know him well from his role 1855 at the Junior Museum and Zoo. He's been a wonderful source in a variety of areas. One 1856
of them is around the outdoor programming. We met with him specifically about these 1857
special purpose buildings. On page 3, there's key points that are summarized from that 1858
discussion. He has a vision for how they would program, using some of the educational 1859
initiatives and curriculum that they have in place. As an example with Baylands, there's 1860
two classrooms. Neither of them works really well for the types of classes that they 1861
would offer. It doesn't really work well for their needs, but it also doesn't really function 1862
as a museum space. He sees a need at all of these sites for his volunteer programs staging 1863
areas which these buildings could potentially function as. People need a place to have 1864
lunch, to get oriented in the morning, to have tool storage, have a place to use the 1865
restroom. One of the things that he also brought up is there's a lot of things you could 1866
interpret at any of these sites. Really thinking about what you wanted to interpret and 1867
how you wanted to interpret it rather than being scatter shot would be pretty important to 1868
determining the facility configurations because it would have an implication there. He 1869
was a really great source on that and has thought a lot about how can he do more to meet 1870
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 45
DRAFT
the demand that he's seeing, because he said, "I can fill programs. I just don't have 1871
basically a platform from which I can do it using these buildings." 1872
1873
Commissioner Ashlund: Are the interpretive centers reserveable by the public? 1874
1875
Mr. de Geus: Yes. The gateway facility at Arastradero I don't think is, but the meeting 1876 room at Foothills Park is and the Baylands Interpretive Center, the main room. 1877
1878
Commissioner Ashlund: It says n/a for capacity. We don't have any information? If 1879
they're bookable, we should have that information somewhere. 1880
1881
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, they're bookable. That's online; you can make a reservation. It's in 1882
the list of fee schedule. 1883
1884
Council Member Filseth: The Baylands Interpretive Center is closed, isn't it? 1885
1886
Mr. de Geus: It's open 3 days a week, minimal hours. 1887
1888
Commissioner Markevitch: Not during high tide. 1889
1890
Mr. de Geus: We have a lot of classes that go there, and we program that space with 1891
John through the Junior Museum and Zoo. There isn't enough staff and resources to keep 1892
it open on a regular basis. It is closed a lot. 1893
1894
Commissioner Ashlund: That booking data information is available? We can get it into 1895 the matrix? 1896 1897 Ms. Schmitt: Yes and no, because there's the class booking times which would appear in 1898
class data. Then you walk in and you do a ... 1899
1900
Commissioner Ashlund: Facility space. 1901
1902
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, the facility space. I'm Audubon and I want to rent this facility. We 1903
can inquire about that, but ... 1904
1905
Commissioner Crommie: I just think in your table you should reflect that John Aiken 1906
was talking about those facilities. They're not even listed on the table. Just to make it 1907
(crosstalk). 1908
1909
Ms. Schmitt: Okay. Rather that it ... 1910
1911
Commissioner Crommie: He is the (inaudible) information. 1912
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 46
DRAFT
1913
Ms. Schmitt: I think that's a really good clarification. He wears a lot of hats, and it's tied 1914
to the Junior Museum and Zoo, but in this case he was (crosstalk). 1915
1916
Commissioner Crommie: His focus is really the Junior Museum and the Zoo. I don't 1917
think he has a strong focus at the Baylands. 1918 1919
Mr. de Geus: No, he doesn't. 1920
1921
Ms. Schmitt: He doesn't. 1922
1923
Mr. de Geus: His focus really is the Junior Museum and Zoo. 1924
1925
Commissioner Crommie: It's about need, and we don't have anyone who's really focused 1926
there. 1927
1928
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, you're right. Ideally we would have a naturalist on staff and has 1929
their office there (crosstalk). 1930
1931
Commissioner Crommie: That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you don't have the staff, 1932
you start to not have the time. The facility is no longer open. The need falls off. 1933
1934
Commissioner Ashlund: There was an extra category besides facilities and 1935
programming. When the Interpretive Center was open, if it was a hot sunny day or you 1936
needed a drink of water or a bathroom, or you wanted to look at the exhibits and talk to a 1937 naturalist, you could do that. It wasn't programming and it wasn't reserveable space. It 1938 was accessed by the public. 1939 1940
Mr. de Geus: Prior to 2008, we did have that staffing and the Interpretive Center was 1941
open a lot more. 1942
1943
Ms. Schmitt: That's actually one of the reasons for high barriers to participation. It's not 1944
open very much. When a class is in session, it might be open, but not necessarily when 1945
you happen to be there and maybe needed to get a drink. 1946
1947
Commissioner Ashlund: Barriers are high. 1948
1949
Commissioner Crommie: That's why this projected demand thing, though I don't quite 1950
understand that. 1951
1952
Ms. Schmitt: This would be a point of discussion. 1953
1954
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 47
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: How did you come up with that? 1955
1956
Ms. Schmitt: We came up with that because we were thinking about these buildings. If 1957
they were achieving what they're supposed to do as what they are, you don't need more of 1958
them. If you look at the findings, there's no need for additional facilities. You wouldn't 1959
build four more of these things. However, the facilities that you have are not meeting 1960 expectations, and we see a real need for them to meet expectations, because people really 1961
want to connect to nature and they want to have preservation of nature. If you look up at 1962
Rows 11 and 12 there's a high need for both of those. There's the rub. 1963
1964
Commissioner Crommie: You have two bullet points. One says no need for additional 1965
facilities. The other one, need exists for facilities. Then you came up with a low. Is that 1966
based on buildings? I think you already talked about this maybe. What is the category of 1967
projected demand based on? Is it facilities or programming? 1968
1969
Ms. Schmitt: When we get to facilities, it's both. There are factors of both for certain 1970
facilities. The projected demand, the reason we put a low is because of the criteria here. 1971
This is debatable. You may make a different judgment. We don't see you capturing new 1972
user groups; however, we don't think those buildings are functioning as they should and 1973
that they need investment. You could make an argument that you would capture an 1974
expanded use. It's slicing it fine. We just don't ... 1975
1976
Commissioner Crommie: Can you point me to where the criteria is written out? I'm 1977
sorry. I lost it. 1978
1979 Ms. Schmitt: Absolutely. Page 9 of the data and needs summary for projected demand. 1980 1981 Commissioner Crommie: That's the one you handed out today? 1982
1983
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah. It's an updated version of the one that you received before. 1984
1985
Commissioner Crommie: If you have it in the criteria, I'm sorry to confuse that. 1986
1987
Ms. Fiore: That's a good place to stop, not because we're almost out of time but because 1988
we want to talk about what we're going to do next. Overall as an exercise, I'm going to 1989
start to answer some of your questions. Do you feel like you're getting a little more 1990
confidence in how the needs are based on the data that we have available to us? 1991
1992
Chair Reckdahl: I feel much better. I told Rob I feel much better now than I did a month 1993
ago. 1994
1995
Ms. Fiore: Great. 1996
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 48
DRAFT
1997
Ms. Schmitt: Good, that's what we were looking for. We're trying for that. 1998
1999
Ms. Fiore: What we want to propose to move forward is to give you all more time to 2000
digest this. Obviously there's questions. There's things you want to dig into and look up 2001
probably to varying degrees. We were going to suggest, as a small homework 2002 assignment, between now and two weeks from now, if you would take your top three 2003
areas of interest, things that jumped out at you, pick three rows from this matrix, spend a 2004
little time going through it, do that gut check, see if it makes sense, see if it seems 2005
accurate to you, and then see if the Summary of Need makes sense. If not, flag that for 2006
us. What questions does that trigger for you? What would you like to do about what 2007
we've found here? That's going to lead us into the next step of the planning process, 2008
which is developing these actions and criteria and priorities and recommendations and the 2009
policy questions that you all need to answer in order to come up with those 2010
recommendations. 2011
2012
Commissioner Lauing: You're saying top three off of this (inaudible)? 2013
2014
Ms. Fiore: Top three off of the matrix. 2015
2016
Ms. Schmitt: Top three rows. If you want to do more, that's fine. We'll provide you a 2017
way to give your feedback to Peter electronically so it's just consistent. We can pull all 2018
of that together and have for you what you all have to say about your top three, so you get 2019
it in your packet for your next meeting. At the next meeting, we can talk about that and 2020
see where we get and if we're ready ... 2021 2022 Commissioner Lauing: This is on a policy basis. We're not going to say we want more 2023 bowling classes. 2024
2025
Ms. Schmitt: No, no. 2026
2027
Commissioner Lauing: We're going to keep it as a need here. You said high demand 2028
(inaudible). 2029
2030
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah, based on the data that you're seeing here, that I track back to these 2031
threads. I disagree here. I found this statement from this other thing and I really think it's 2032
this direction. Even a comment, this doesn't jive with what I heard from either meetings 2033
at the PRC or in the community of people who I interact with in Palo Alto. 2034
2035
Mr. de Geus: Can I just add? 2036
2037
Ms. Schmitt: Yes. 2038
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 49
DRAFT
2039
Mr. de Geus: The most important thing though is to focus on the needs summary in the 2040
far right, and not focus on any one particular data source and cell, if you think maybe you 2041
have a different opinion on how to read the data. What we want to do is move in this 2042
direction to seek the need you describe and to set a truth test. Is there enough information 2043
here and data that supports that need? There's a couple of things that are surprising to me 2044 a little bit, that I would want to look into more closely. Most of it seems about right from 2045
what I’m hearing from the public. I would encourage you to look at those or those areas 2046
that you're particularly interested in, a topic, and dig deeper to see if it makes sense. As 2047
you come back next month, we have seven Commissioners each looking at three, we'll 2048
capture a lot of the questions that you may have. Hopefully we can start to shift to what 2049
is really a lot of work. That is the prioritization of needs, because what you see here, it's 2050
something that jumped out at me which is not surprising either. There are a lot more 2051
needs than there are resources that we can apply to these needs. People love their parks 2052
and their recreation in our community. The fact that most of these are high and medium, 2053
mostly high, is not surprising. The next and much harder job is then how do all of these 2054
needs as described stack up with one another in a prioritized fashion. We've got to apply 2055
resources and a timeline to do that. That's going to be tricky. The other piece to it is, this 2056
is a description of needs, but it doesn't really describe how we address those needs. 2057
Deirdre brought up the point about nature and experiencing nature. There are a lot of 2058
different ways you can do that, and some of them are more effective than others. That's 2059
the real meat of the Plan itself, because that's going to define how we're going to work on 2060
our park system in the future and the choices we make about how we design them. We 2061
need to get past the description of needs. 2062
2063 Ms. Schmitt: Also there's a lot to ponder here. When you're looking at these sites, you 2064 can start to see if you move one piece, in some cases you also move some of the other 2065 pieces. To pick off that experience nature, there's a number of ways you can do that. In 2066
trying to meet that need, you might pick off some other needs. As we talk about that 2067
prioritization as a Commission, thinking about the criteria you want to use, how we 2068
prioritize things is going to be important. You may decide a lot of different things are 2069
important. We may try out different sets of criteria and see how things shake out. 2070
Multiple benefit in some communities is an important criteria in deciding what to do first. 2071
It's the start of a lot of work, but it is the place where we all want to go. What are we 2072
going to do? 2073
2074
Commissioner Ashlund: Can I ask two quick clarification questions before our 2075
homework? 2076
2077
Ms. Schmitt: Mm-hmm. 2078
2079
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 50
DRAFT
Commissioner Ashlund: The first question. On line 38, open space and outdoor rec, it's 2080
under programs. That's with regard to open space and outdoor recreation as opposed to 2081
the experience nature up on line 11. 2082
2083
Ms. Schmitt: Exactly. 2084
2085 Commissioner Ashlund: This is programming. 2086
2087
Ms. Schmitt: This is a program area that ... 2088
2089
Commissioner Ashlund: The other question is under the geographic analysis, Column E, 2090
it points out difficult to access on foot or bike, yet the barriers is considered medium. 2091
Would that change its status? The other ones don't talk about their difficulty or 2092
accessibility in that column. 2093
2094
Ms. Fiore: My guess would be that accessing the spaces is difficult by foot or bike. 2095
Because these are structured programs, there is some transportation support. We could 2096
dig deeper into it. 2097
2098
Ms. Schmitt: Because they're being offered at the preserves or locations like that, not 2099
dispersed or in central Palo Alto, that might be why there's that comment. If you feel like 2100
that comment is off mark, that's a really good piece of feedback, that it's not consistent. 2101
2102
Commissioner Ashlund: Is public transit in that category of access along with foot or 2103
bike? 2104 2105 Ms. Fiore: Public transportation is normally included. I'm not sure (crosstalk). 2106 2107
Ms. Schmitt: There certainly is not at this point an analysis of is there a transit stop by 2108
the park. That's certainly something that could be looked at in the future. I would 2109
recommend it as a data point now. If you wanted to go in certain directions, you could 2110
say, "Is there transit there? If there's not, we should focus this type of thing at sites with 2111
transit or work on getting it there." 2112
2113
Commissioner Ashlund: Okay, great. My last real quick one was on Number 26. Row 2114
26 is called recreation centers. Lucie Stern and Cubberley, I always hear them referred to 2115
as community centers. When I think rec center, I think there's like a racquetball court and 2116
fitness centers. We don't have any of that. I mean we do have some of that access at 2117
Cubberley, but I just don't hear it referred to that way in our community. 2118
2119
Ms. Schmitt: Okay, so a title change there. 2120
2121
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 51
DRAFT
Commissioner Ashlund: Those are not my three points. Those are prior to my three 2122
points. 2123
2124
Commissioner Crommie: We're going to do this homework. Do we have any data 2125
source on how many people are using the Baylands in our City? 2126
2127 Ms. Schmitt: No, there's not counts. 2128
2129
Mr. de Geus: Lauren? 2130
2131
Ms. Schmitt: Yeah. 2132
2133
Daren Anderson: The ranger staff in the last year or so have monitored the counting 2134
devices at several entrances to the Baylands. We're getting increasingly accurate 2135
numbers for visitation in the Baylands. 2136
2137
Ms. Schmitt: But we don't have past data on those, that's been reflected in any of this 2138
material. 2139
2140
Mr. Anderson: We have past data too. It's not contiguous. There is a break in time, but 2141
we've got data going back a ways. It's evolving as we're getting better and better at it. 2142
When we used to track it, it was one entrance to a preserve that has ten, so it's flawed 2143
data. It was the best we could do at the time, and now we've gotten better. We're getting 2144
more and more accurate data. I guess you're right; it's not apples to apples if you were to 2145
compare our 2000 to this new data. We do have for Foothills very clean numbers. 2146 2147 Commissioner Crommie: It would be interesting to see it. 2148 2149
Ms. Schmitt: You can look in Mapita and some of the survey data. People are self-2150
reporting which sites they're going to, and you can extrapolate from that also. 2151
2152
Chair Reckdahl: I have two comments here. Some of these are nice and crisp and I 2153
understand what went on. Some of them are not presentable. The demographic trends, 2154
for example, it's stable for gathering together, but it's increasing for picnic shelters. I 2155
don't quite understand exactly why. The source is citing growing population. It has 2156
nothing to do with the shelters. Some of these growth things are just very arbitrary. The 2157
other thing is Column K, the projected demand, that's a pretty important column. It 2158
would be worthwhile to, when you get to the end, have a paragraph on each one. Some 2159
of this is professional judgment. Some it's not numbers. It would be good to have an 2160
explanation of why is that an H. Granted that's going to be a few pages of writing, but 2161
that would be very useful for us. That's one of the columns we're going to be really 2162
looking at, projecting forward and looking at the demand going forward. 2163
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 52
DRAFT
2164
Ms. Schmitt: That's a nice piece of feedback. If there's one place to put more verbiage, 2165
focusing it there makes a lot of sense. 2166
2167
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you very much. We appreciate the work. 2168
2169 Ms. Fiore: Thank you. 2170
2171
Ms. Schmitt: We really appreciate the excellent discussion tonight. 2172
2173
4. Recommendation for a Park Improvement Ordinance for Pilot Batting Cages 2174 within the Former PASCO Site at the Baylands Athletic Center. 2175 2176
Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson with Open Space, Parks and Golf. I'm 2177
here tonight with an action item seeking your recommendation to Council to adopt the 2178
Park Improvement Ordinance authorizing the addition of two batting cages and 2179
converting one standard parking stall to a handicap-accessible parking stall within the 2180
former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center. Staff has brought this project to the 2181
Commission on February 24th, and the Commission generally supported the project, but 2182
suggested there should be a public meeting. On March 23rd, we held a public meeting at 2183
the Baylands Athletic Center and discussed the project. Six members of the public and 2184
two Commissioners attended the meeting. All members of the public supported the 2185
project. There was a request to include a gate on the west end of the site to allow more 2186
efficient access to the batting cages. After a little further examination, there is an existing 2187
gate there that will provide the requested access. I don't have a lot to add since the 2188 previous presentation covered the bulk of the project and there weren't a lot of 2189 outstanding questions. If there are any questions for me, I'm glad to answer them. 2190 2191
Commissioner Lauing: What was the public comment? 2192
2193
Mr. Anderson: The public comment was that on the west end, over here, if we had a gate 2194
that would allow for easier access from the other field. 2195
2196
Commissioner Lauing: I got that. Was there anything else? 2197
2198
Mr. Anderson: We support the project. It was nothing but support. It was largely 2199
athletic field supporter proponents, Babe Ruth, little leagues. Maybe the Commissioners 2200
who attended that would like to chime in if you have any thoughts on how that public 2201
meeting went from your perspective. 2202
2203
Chair Reckdahl: It was fairly non-eventful. The people there were all baseball people, 2204
and they supported the batting cages. Do you have any comments about it? 2205
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 53
DRAFT
2206
Commissioner Hetterly: That's right. It was all baseball people, and they were all very 2207
supportive, from all the different venues of baseball. I understand, Daren, you also sent 2208
an email notice about the public meeting to all the stakeholders including all the 2209
environmental groups. No one came or submitted comments. 2210
2211 Mr. Anderson: Correct. 2212
2213
MOTION: Commissioner Hetterly moved, seconded by Vice Chair Markevitch that the 2214
Commission recommend to the Council approval of the Park Improvement Ordinance. 2215
2216
Chair Reckdahl: Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote. 2217
2218
MOTION APPROVED: 7-0 2219
2220
5. Staff Update on Drought Response for Parks, Open Space and Golf. 2221
2222
Daren Anderson: Thank you so much. Bear with me just a moment. We're pulling up a 2223
PowerPoint. I'm here to give you an update on our drought situation and how it's 2224
affecting the City and what kind of things we'll be facing in the near future. As you 2225
probably already know, California is facing one of the most severe droughts on record. 2226
Governor Brown declared a drought state of emergency in January and directed State 2227
officials to take all necessary actions to prepare for water shortages. This drought is 2228
going to have profound effects on open space to some degree. We have a few irrigated 2229
areas that will be impacted. Parks, to a great degree and the golf course to a great degree. 2230 We'll have to change the way we do business to address these demands and restrictions 2231 that will be coming our way. This next slide gives some of the numbers. You've 2232 probably seen a number of these different percentages on the news. Which ones pertain 2233
to us? The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, this is our water provider, has on 2234
the books, and hasn't changed it, a 10 percent voluntary reduction. That's still in place. 2235
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is calling for 30 percent; although, we do not get 2236
our water from Santa Clara Valley Water District. Statewide, the Governor has issued a 2237
call for 25 percent water reduction. This is potable water, not recycled water. Though 2238
the Governor's is 25 percent, it is on a sliding scale per community. The State Water 2239
Board looks at each community and allocates water reductions. Some were low; some 2240
were in the 20s; some were higher in the 30 range. Ours is for the moment at 24 percent. 2241
That's the bucket we've been allocated for now. It does seem that things are in flux and 2242
can change and have been changing. I don't know exactly what it will be. It's draft form 2243
right now, and everything I can tell you is we're in this moment in time and subject to 2244
change. We hope to know more soon. We'll be back in May to give you an update. On 2245
May 11th, the Utilities Department is going to bring a report to City Council on the 2246
drought and discuss the City's water shortage contingency plan. This plan will discuss 2247
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 54
DRAFT
the 24 percent reduction and what that means for the City and where we'll be making 2248
some of the restrictions to conserve that much water, how much we've made in previous 2249
years and what we have left to do. There's also other restrictions. This is just a small 2250
snapshot of some of them coming our way. Using potable water to wash sidewalks and 2251
driveways. That does have implications for the parks department. In the past and in our 2252
maintenance contract with Gachina, as a best management practice we cleaned tennis 2253 courts with a water broom. It gets deeper cleaning of the tennis courts and prolongs the 2254
life of the court itself as opposed to using a blower or a broom or anything. That's just 2255
not a best management practice in the drought. We've discontinued that for some time 2256
now, and we'll continue to discontinue that as well as other places. The runoff when 2257
you're getting potable water. This is one we get a lot of complaints unfortunately. We 2258
have a lot of citizens keeping their eye out for this, which is great. It doesn't take much. 2259
when you have hundreds of thousands of sprinkler heads scattered throughout the City, 2260
for one sprinkler head to be either kicked, clogged, or broken off by somebody and then 2261
water pours down onto the sidewalk. You'll see that. Unfortunately, it gives us a black 2262
eye, as if we're not monitoring it closely. It just can happen so quickly. It's really 2263
incumbent upon my team to be on it, to be looking at it, to be really responsive when we 2264
get those complaints and fix it the same day. Oftentimes we get it within the hour. 2265
We've got a really responsive manager in charge of irrigation, comes in on his days off 2266
and on the weekends to shut off valves and fix things like that. We're doing the best we 2267
can. Using potable water in decorative water features that do not have a recirculating 2268
function. Just for the record, Lytton Plaza has that fountain that is recirculating, so we 2269
have continued that practice. We're probably going to add some signage that explains 2270
we're cognizant of the drought, this is a recirculating fountain, that's why we're allowing 2271
it to continue. The Cal Ave fountain will also be recirculating. It's not up and running 2272 yet, but that will be recirculating which is permissible under these restrictions. Outdoor 2273 irrigation during 48 hours following measurable precipitation. This is another one of 2274 those restrictions that will require us to be very cautious. Sometimes you'll see maybe in 2275
the news, agencies making mistakes. It rained yesterday, and they come out and test the 2276
irrigation. Can't do that anymore. We'll have to be careful on ensuring that we're 2277
compliant with these. As I mentioned, this is going to heavily impact my division 2278
especially, the Open Space, Parks and Golf areas. We're going to have to bear a lot of the 2279
burden, because we're such a big user of the outside irrigation in the City of Palo Alto. 2280
We need to help achieve that City goal of 24 percent, possibly more. We don't know at 2281
this point. We've been working on a plan that's going to reduce significant amounts of 2282
irrigation. I want to share with you the methodology of the initial thinking that's behind 2283
this initial draft. We put a lot of work into it, and it's been evolving. We're still 2284
massaging it into place, so bear with me when I show you what I'm about to and 2285
understand it's in the preliminary phases. What we're doing is a park-by-park analysis, 2286
looking at all the irrigation that goes there. We're identifying the ornamental sections or 2287
aesthetic pieces of turf and recommending them for elimination. That would mean 2288
stopping irrigation wholeheartedly there and cover it with wood chips, let it go 2289
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 55
DRAFT
completely brown, maybe come back and plant some drought-resistant plants in some 2290
cases. One of those three options. At this particular site, the Baylands Athletic Center, 2291
you can see we've got a couple of different colors. Forgive me if you can't quite make 2292
out the colors. We've outlined them. You can see orange is to reduce irrigation to two 2293
times per month. There's a little sliver of the park where we have got turf, and it's got 2294
trees in it. We'd like to eliminate irrigation but not entirely, because we don’t want to kill 2295 the trees. They're still dependent on it. We're having this back-and-forth with our tree 2296
department to say, "Are these trees the type that you think would make it?" If they say, 2297
"No. They need supplemental irrigation, because that's how they've been sustaining 2298
themselves because they're turf trees." then we're going to continue to irrigate, but very 2299
minimally. Two times per month is more than enough to sustain those trees. The turf 2300
will die, and it will look different. Another area you'll see is outlined in green. That's 2301
eliminate entirely. That's not without any impact. There's an aesthetic impact. As you 2302
drive into this major athletic facility, we have these three strips of turf there, closest to the 2303
parking lot. While not used for active play, they have been used for warm-up, certainly a 2304
place where some people congregate. If we don't make these changes, we don't believe 2305
we're going to be able to realize that 24 percent reduction. We've got to make hard 2306
choices like this. What we've done in this initial pass is to say, "These areas, we're going 2307
to have to cut back." What you'll see is the larger section, the actual playing fields 2308
identified in yellow, we're going to need to irrigate them a little bit more. It's one we 2309
can't quite let go. It's an athletic field. It's highly brokered. It's highly used. There's a 2310
safety component. If you were to let it dry up, what would happen to it? That's a 2311
question we've been getting asked quite frequently. What's that going to look like if you 2312
went to two days a week or one day a week? It's really difficult to answer, because every 2313
site is different. There's micro differences in the soil makeup, the irrigation system itself, 2314 the history of the field on how much it's used and brokered. This particular site, our 2315 hunch is it's not going to exceed five days. We will probably dial it back, and that's going 2316 to put some constraints on it. We think we can keep it safe. We can still grow grass on it 2317
at five days a week, which will allow us to save some water. We would still be a little bit 2318
more than some other parks like this one, Cameron Park. This park we've outlined 2319
completely in light blue, which is to irrigate no more than two days a week. Basically 2320
we'll irrigate that entire park just two times a week That would result in changes. It's a 2321
big cutback. I can't say lots of questions have come up. How often do you typically 2322
irrigate it? It fluctuates with the season. During the winter, we're irrigating maybe not at 2323
all. If we have a dry winter, it's a couple of days. In the peak of summer, it could be six 2324
to seven days a week. In the peak of summer, that would turn mostly brown. In some 2325
areas we'll probably lose turf, is my guess. Little spots here and there where the turf will 2326
die away. The ability to grow grass is possible irrigating two days a week. A site like 2327
this, if we implement a two-day-a-week restriction or something like that, what you could 2328
expect in the long term is some dead patches, lots of brown areas during the summer, and 2329
with luck it would come back each year. We'd do our best to make it look as good as we 2330
can, make it safe for people to play on. That's the ideas of what we're doing. Every 2331
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 56
DRAFT
single site in the City where we irrigate, we're starting this. We started with the parks and 2332
preserves. There's not a lot in the open space preserves. Mostly it's native landscaping 2333
which is irrigated to establish and then it's pretty much left on its own. The next steps 2334
again. I mentioned that there's going to be a staff report going to the Council on May 2335
11th. After that we hope to know more. We'll get some feedback from Council, get 2336
some direction, and continue working on our site-by-site analysis. Hopefully we'll get a 2337 more firmed up figure of what our cut is going to be, and then we can use some of this 2338
analysis to say, "Okay, we can eliminate so many square feet of turf. How much water is 2339
that going to save us? Will we realize a 24 percent reduction based off the 2013 2340
baseline?" Again, I hadn't mentioned that before, but that's our baseline year, 2013, for 2341
my first slide that talked about those different percentages. They're all predicated on the 2342
2013 baseline. 2343
2344
Chair Reckdahl: Are you also doing this for the golf course? 2345
2346
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 2347
2348
Chair Reckdahl: There will be some areas of the golf course that don't get watered as 2349
much. 2350
2351
Mr. Anderson: Correct. Mainly the outer rough. We have got a great relationship with 2352
Valley Crest. The Superintendant there, Brian Daum, is working closely with us. We 2353
really have a good plan at the golf course. I feel confident. It'll be good to make great 2354
strides there. We've got a 70/30 blend right now, 70 percent recycled/30 percent potable. 2355
The same is true for Greer Park and Baylands Athletic Center. Long term there'll be 2356 hopefully more parks coming online as the recycled water line gets extended. I don't 2357 have a lot of information on that right now. I hope to have more for you soon. 2358 2359
Rob de Geus: The idea is to extend it all the way down Middlefield to south Palo Alto. 2360
In fact, the new Mitchell Park Community Center is all plumbed to accept recycled water. 2361
Installed accelerated networks would be a good strategy, because that's money spent now 2362
for the current drought but it's ongoing. 2363
2364
Vice Chair Markevitch: Long term, that recycled water, does it hurt the plants or does 2365
not have any impact to them? 2366
2367
Mr. Anderson: In the site-by-site analysis, it really depends on the soil profile. If we 2368
look at a park like Greer where it's been irrigated with recycled water for some time, I 2369
hear mixed opinions on whether it impacts certain trees differently, less salt tolerant 2370
because the recycled water has a little higher salt content. Ours is getting better and 2371
better. By ours, I mean our City provider said the water has dropped its TDS or total 2372
dissolved solvents significantly in the last couple of years. It's getting closer and closer 2373
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 57
DRAFT
to the point where we feel that turf and plants can almost take 100 percent recycled water 2374
and do okay. We've pushed the limits periodically, both at the golf course and at the 2375
Baylands, and ran it for periods of time at 100 percent. At the golf course, eventually we 2376
see accumulation of salts rising up, and it starts to distress and kill grass. I don't know 2377
that that will transfer to every other site necessarily. 2378
2379 Female: It's also the closest to the Bay. 2380
2381
Mr. Anderson: That's right. With a very shallow water table right there with salt water. 2382
2383
Commissioner Knopper: What's the expectation as to when as a City we will be at the 24 2384
percent reduction with regard to a date, timeline? 2385
2386
Mr. Anderson: I believe we're going to be required to start the process June 1st, is my 2387
understanding. 2388
2389
Commissioner Knopper: Have you noticed in the preserves where we don't irrigate, do 2390
the native plantings and trees, have you guys started to notice changes? 2391
2392
Mr. Anderson: We do. We've got indicator species like Buckeye trees, for example, that 2393
will turn the quickest during drought years. This isn't too new, because these are all un-2394
irrigated areas. In the past, we'll see those indicator trees that turn the fastest, like the 2395
Buckeye, and others will dry out a little faster. It'll probably have implications for us for 2396
an extended fire season. Luckily we've made good strides with our wild land fire 2397
protection plan and made some improvements that protect us there. Still my expectation 2398 is that we'll have definitely drier habitat. 2399 2400 Commissioner Crommie: What set of guiding principles are you using when you decide 2401
which parks to cut back on or not? 2402
2403
Mr. Anderson: That's an excellent question. We've been under the gun to move quickly, 2404
because of the amount of parks to go through. Every single one of those we had to pour 2405
through and say, "Is this on a continuous irrigation zone or valve where I could turn all 2406
this in one shot or do we have to reconfigure things?" There was a lot of analysis in 2407
every park. We followed the basic criteria of is it a heavily brokered or used piece of 2408
turf. I'll give you an example. The area I showed you was the Baylands Athletic Center 2409
where we had athletic fields, and it was highly used, highly brokered. We selected that as 2410
a criteria that we continue to water a little bit more. We used the aesthetic ornamental 2411
turf as the areas where we say either let go or did it lend itself to be isolated easily. Did it 2412
have trees on it that we have to do something different with? If I leave the irrigation 2413
system off for a very long time, the cost of getting it back running again is expensive. 2414
We're trying to be as judicious and intelligent as we select these areas. The main criteria 2415
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 58
DRAFT
is, is it ornamental and aesthetic? Then we have flexibility in either eliminating or 2416
reducing. Is it highly brokered and is there a safety component to it like an athletic field 2417
or a highly brokered area? For example, the internal courtyard at Lucie Stern where we 2418
have weddings. A lot of the special events or rentals are predicated on having an internal 2419
courtyard where there's grass to recreate and use. It's almost part of the rental in many 2420
ways. There are a few areas like that. Basically, is it highly used? Is it highly brokered? 2421 Does it usually lend itself to, in our criteria, extending the irrigation to a little less water 2422
use? 2423
2424
Commissioner Crommie: You're not using a criterion that has to do with amount of 2425
resource in dollars that are lost through death. 2426
2427
Mr. Anderson: Death of turf, you mean? 2428
2429
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. Well, death of trees, plants. 2430
2431
Mr. Anderson: We're not going to let the trees go. We haven't identified any areas yet. 2432
2433
Commissioner Crommie: You'd already established that you will not let trees die. 2434
2435
Mr. Anderson: That was one of our criteria for tree areas. This was the good example. 2436
In the turf area that did have trees, we changed it to a different color, that orange color 2437
you saw, and said two times per month. 2438
2439
Commissioner Crommie: You're going to present on this on May 11th. 2440 2441 Mr. Anderson: I won't. The Utilities Department will be bringing the staff report to the 2442 Council. 2443
2444
Commissioner Crommie: Is that the same report you're going to give back to us? I'm just 2445
wondering how we coordinate with Council. Often on a topic like this, we would hear it 2446
before it goes to Council. Then they might want to look at our feedback. This seems a 2447
little backwards to me. 2448
2449
Mr. Anderson: I think that May 11th won't be getting to the degree of detail that you see 2450
here. This is very much a draft. Council won't be seeing this. This is just the staff 2451
document to let us know where we are in our capability to reach a 24 percent reduction. 2452
Because we are such a big water user, I can't arbitrarily say, "I think I can get rid of most 2453
of my aesthetic turf to meet that 24 percent." I need to be reassured, because the 2454
penalties are stiff and the need to meet it is huge. I believe we're one of the dominant 2455
water users. It's incumbent upon us to be confident of whatever percent we're saving 2456
with the belief that we can meet it. This is the only way I know how. 2457
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 59
DRAFT
2458
Commissioner Knopper: From a percentage perspective, of the 24 percent, you may not 2459
know and this might just be way into the weeds, what percentage of the 24 percent do 2460
you think Parks and Rec will have to reduce versus other City agencies? 2461
2462
Mr. Anderson: We don't have that. 2463 2464
Mr. de Geus: That data is still being analyzed. 2465
2466
Commissioner Knopper: I would imagine it would be hard for Daren to go through this 2467
exercise (glitch). 2468
2469
Mr. de Geus: This is a lot of sites too. There may be additional executive orders from 2470
the Governor and other things for further restrictions. Actually, we expect that in the 2471
next couple of months. There's going to have to be even more work. To your point, the 2472
24 percent is the goal for our City, but our parks division and our parks system is going to 2473
have to take a greater load, carry a heavier load. We've heard as much as 35 percent that 2474
we're actually going to have to do. With some of the buildings and indoor uses, there's 2475
only so much you can do to get to 24 or 25 percent. 2476
2477
Commissioner Knopper: Of that 24 percent though, is any of that being kicked to the 2478
residents? 2479
2480
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, the whole City has to come with the 24 percent total. 2481
2482 Commissioner Knopper: When the City's going through this exercise, are you ... 2483 2484 Mr. de Geus: City and community. Not just City or community. 2485
2486
Commissioner Knopper: They're going to come in for the residents. I went for a walk 2487
the other day. Gorgeous rose gardens and beautiful green, luscious lawns. I wanted to 2488
knock on the door and bop the homeowner on the head. Like, hello, beautiful garden, but 2489
what's going on here, people? The cost to the City has to be spread through everyone, the 2490
residents as well as the City and commercial people. That's why Daren's going through 2491
this horrific exercise of what can I let die. As Deirdre just said, what death are we 2492
allowing to happen without residents taking some responsibility? 2493
2494
Mr. de Geus: Everyone in the community, residents, businesses, the public, we all have 2495
to take ... 2496
2497
Commissioner Knopper: This is going to be an edict from ... 2498
2499
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 60
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 2500
2501
Commissioner Crommie: Who's leading the public education on this? Who's in charge 2502
of that? 2503
2504
Mr. de Geus: (crosstalk) Utilities Department. If you're interested in this topic, the May 2505 11th meeting will be an important one. The staff report itself will be an interesting read. 2506
2507
Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a quick question. The water feature at Mitchell Park, 2508
is that recirculating? 2509
2510
Mr. Anderson: It is not. 2511
2512
Mr. de Geus: That will be turned off. 2513
2514
Commissioner Hetterly: It will be turned off this summer. 2515
2516
Chair Reckdahl: What was the time span it took before grass and trees are damaged by 2517
100 percent recycled water? 2518
2519
Mr. Anderson: It depends on the site. At the golf course, I couldn't give you an accurate 2520
estimation. We ran it for probably a month on 100 percent recycled. 2521
2522
Chair Reckdahl: We can't make it to rainy season. You couldn't just go all summer and 2523
be all right with 100 percent recycled? 2524 2525 Mr. Anderson: No. 2526 2527
Mr. de Geus: It's interesting you ask. The new golf course, should we get underway one 2528
day, has a turf variety that can withstand 100 percent recycled water. We did a lot of 2529
research (crosstalk) on that topic. 2530
2531
Commissioner Crommie: I have an educational point to make. I think it was last 2532
weekend I went on a native gardens tour in Los Altos. It was very educational and 2533
inspirational to try to make those kinds of changes within our own property. Do you 2534
know if someone is running that in the City of Palo Alto? 2535
2536
Mr. Anderson: Do you mean conversion of lawn to ... 2537
2538
Commissioner Crommie: Where people put their gardens on display for educational 2539
purposes. Do we have an annual tour in the City of Palo Alto? 2540
2541
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 61
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: I don't know if there's a tour. I know there's some of those gardens. We 2542
could bring it up. 2543
2544
Commissioner Crommie: I know they do one in Los Altos. That's the one I normally go 2545
to. I haven't seen it noticed in the City of Palo Alto. 2546
2547 Mr. Anderson: Gamble Gardens is our go-to. They're heavily involved in that. 2548
2549
Commissioner Crommie: I mean residents. 2550
2551
Mr. Anderson: I know. They are part of that tour of resident gardens. 2552
2553
Peter Jensen: I would like to preface that the renovation of a turf area to native landscape 2554
does not mean in the first two years that you save water. In fact, you would probably use 2555
more water to establish that plant material. The plant material is based on drought 2556
tolerance because of the size of the root system that grows. To develop that root system 2557
takes water. It's not like an area where you can just convert your grass to native 2558
landscape and you're reducing water. It's a transition idea. That part probably needs to 2559
be provided in the education to residents. What that conversion is and the amount of 2560
water you could expect to use. In that process where people do renovate their yards to 2561
drought tolerant, they are quite surprised in the first year that they're probably using a 2562
little bit more water than they were. They were watering established plant material, even 2563
if it was grass. Most old grass is not actually a lot of grass anymore, but it's a mixture of 2564
weeds that are usually a lot tougher than the grass we have. Just another point of view to 2565
think about. 2566 2567 Mr. de Geus: I'm glad you mentioned that. That's another criteria that we're looking 2568 through as we do this exercise, particularly for those high demand athletic fields. If we 2569
let them die, the cost of bringing them back, in terms of money and water ... 2570
2571
Commissioner Crommie: That's what I was getting at. 2572
2573
Mr. de Geus: ... to reseed a field. You could end up using more water to bring it back 2574
than to cut down to three days a week or whatever we can do to keep it alive. 2575
2576
Commissioner Crommie: That would be in your criteria, right? The cost to reestablish 2577
what you kill. 2578
2579
Mr. de Geus: Right. 2580
2581
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, Daren. 2582
2583
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 62
DRAFT
6. Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 2584
2585
Chair Reckdahl: Are there any ad hoc committees that want to report in? 2586
2587
Commissioner Hetterly: I have an update that I received notice (crosstalk) putting 2588
together a resolution for Council about the fire management budgeting. 2589 2590
Commissioner Lauing: I was going to read that. 2591
2592
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) back on the radar. 2593
2594
Chair Reckdahl: They asked (inaudible). 2595
2596
Commissioner Lauing: I was going to raise that, as a matter of fact, for the agenda for 2597
next month. 2598
2599
Chair Reckdahl: The agenda's not (inaudible) for next month. 2600
2601
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 2602
2603
Chair Reckdahl: Rob, do you have any? 2604
2605
Rob de Geus: The May Fete Parade is this Saturday, the 93rd. The theme is no space to 2606
alienate. Last year's Mayor said the theme is to be about anti-bullying. I'm like, "How do 2607
we make that fun?" What we try and do is have a topic that is fun and interesting but also 2608 is something that teachers, in elementary schools in particular, as they build their floats 2609 can have a conversation about youth development. No space to alienate is also space 2610 focused but also not alienating your friends. Really fun. It's this Saturday, 10:00. The 2611
parade and fair starts at Heritage Park. It runs through the afternoon. Lots of music. It's 2612
going to be great. It's one of the best events we do. Kids can participate. Most children 2613
participate one way or another as part of their school. If a child wants to participate, if 2614
they want to walk in the parade, they can. We have kids with pets. Just come, bring your 2615
pet on a leash. Kids on wheels, come and we'll get you into the parade. It's really going 2616
to be a fun event. I think there's 78 groups in the parade. In fact this year, Mayor 2617
Holman's very interested in the parade and has been supporting some of the planning. 2618
She's been meeting with us. Her recommendation was to extend the parade route, so we 2619
did that. We can go by Lytton Gardens and Channing House. We shortened it partly 2620
because it was so long and there was no one on the sides to watch the parade. 2621
2622
Chair Reckdahl: Channing House always had a lot of people, right? 2623
2624
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 63
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, they did. We're having a block party, but we're organizing for them 2625
and with them right in front of Channing House and Lytton Gardens. Avenidas is 2626
participating with people at Stevenson House. That's a nice addition. It should be really 2627
fun. 2628
2629
Chair Reckdahl: What time does it start? 2630 2631
Mr. de Geus: 10:00 is when the parade gets started. The fair at Heritage Park starts at 2632
the same time, so you can go there as well and wait. 2633
2634
Chair Reckdahl: The Commission's marching in it? 2635
2636
Mr. de Geus: Yep. I'll be there at the corner of University and Emerson. 2637
2638
Vice Chair Markevitch: Do we ever invite the other commissions? I don't see too many 2639
of them. 2640
2641
Mr. de Geus: Usually we get some Community Relations Commissioners. 2642
2643
Chair Reckdahl: There's a better showing from Park and Rec. 2644
2645
Vice Chair Markevitch: Always. 2646
2647
Mr. de Geus: The other thing I want to say is we're going through budget season right 2648
now. Our budget goes through the hearing process which is through the Finance 2649 Committee. Eric, are you on the Finance Committee? I can't remember if you are. 2650 2651 Council Member Filseth: Yes. 2652
2653
Mr. de Geus: There's four Council Members on the Finance Committee. Vice Mayor 2654
Schmidt is the Chair, is that correct? The Community Services budget goes to the 2655
Finance Committee on May 5th. They meet several times this month and take two or 2656
three departments at a time and look through the budget for fiscal year '16 and the 2657
requests being asked and the rationale for those requests and a discussion. They have the 2658
opportunity to recommend changes and tweaks to that budget. After May, it goes to the 2659
full Council for adoption. Next Tuesday, May 5th, is when the Community Services 2660
budget goes forward. Council got their taste last night when Jim Keene, our City 2661
Manager, gave an initial preview of the capital budget plus the operating budget to the 2662
Council. It's a lot of information. They spoke for maybe half an hour or 40 minutes, and 2663
then the books were handed out. 2664
2665
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 64
DRAFT
Council Member Filseth: Three of us are real green-eyeshade guys, so watch out 2666
(crosstalk). 2667
2668
Commissioner Lauing: Are you pretty much through the book already since last night? 2669
2670
Council Member Filseth: Sorry. 2671 2672
Commissioner Lauing: Did you get through the book yet? 2673
2674
Council Member Filseth: I got through it about 11:00 last night. It's like two or three of 2675
these things. 2676
2677
Peter Jensen: I'd also like to add that Rob was presented a key to the Magical Bridge two 2678
weekends ago that opened up the playground. If you haven't been by it to see the 2679
playground, it's a lot more powerful than I thought it was going to be. 2680
2681
Commissioner Lauing: You designed it. 2682
2683
Mr. Jensen: Yeah. 2684
2685
Mr. de Geus: Peter Jensen, our Landscape Architect, deserves a lot of credit as well as 2686
the members of the public who made that happen, Olenka and team. The City donated 2687
some land, of course, and some seed money, $300,000. They raised $4 million. They 2688
never came back to ask for more money which is amazing. I saw several of you at the 2689
opening. What a remarkable playground it is. 2690 2691 Commissioner Lauing: It was astonishing. I agree with Peter that the design was as good 2692 or better than anything we've been looking at. It's just phenomenal, completely 2693
heartwarming. Everywhere you look, the message is just absolutely great. 2694
2695
Mr. de Geus: One of the goals of the founders of the Magical Bridge Playground is to 2696
start a national conversation about inclusive play. They're really doing that. This is a 2697
national story, this playground. 2698
2699
Commissioner Lauing: It did get national publicity. 2700
2701
Commissioner Crommie: Can you plan to report back to the Parks and Rec Commission 2702
in a year or so about the durability of the components. That will come into play when 2703
people want to integrate those into other parks. It'll be really important to hear what 2704
lasted, what had trouble, that kind of thing. Is that already in your plans? 2705
2706
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 65
DRAFT
Mr. Jensen: Not right now to come back to give an update. We observe the playground 2707
every day to make sure that it's holding up. I'm happy to say that it's doing very, very 2708
well for the amount of traffic that it's getting. 2709
2710
Commissioner Crommie: It's a magnet, yeah. 2711
2712 Commissioner Lauing: I was going to ask anyway about any news on the golf course, 2713
with or without water impacts either way. Is it still in abeyance or moving to Plan B? 2714
2715
Mr. de Geus: There isn't a lot of information. At this point, we're not going to be able to 2716
start construction before the end of the calendar year. The earliest we could seek permits 2717
at this point would be after summer or at the very end of summer. It wouldn't be a good 2718
sensible time to start the construction. The earliest is January or February time period. 2719
The real question is how are we doing in the permitting application process. There's 2720
constantly movement in the right direction. It's just agonizingly slow. From the golf 2721
course perspective, we are waiting for the levee project to get through their issues with 2722
the Corps, and with the Marine Fisheries and the Water Board. We need a permit from 2723
all those, because they're telling us, "Wait. We want to first be sure that we're satisfied 2724
with the levee project and then we'll issue a permit for the golf course." You see the issue 2725
there. If there's concerns about the levee project, that they think in some way that 2726
project's going to change, that may impact the design for the golf course. That's why they 2727
don't want to do that. The Joint Powers Authority is making progress. They've made 2728
significant progress with the Water Board and have their permit from them. They're now 2729
working with the Corps and Marine Fisheries. I understand that's going well, that they've 2730
made progress. Not a permit in hand at this point. 2731 2732 Commissioner Knopper: On the schedule, the City Council/Commission joint meeting 2733 on the 27th of next month. It says 9:00 to 10:00 P.M. Then like 75 emails came in; 9:00 2734
to 10:00, no. What time is it? 2735
2736
Mr. de Geus: Agenda planning is next on the agenda, so we'll get into it there. 2737
2738
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR May 26, 2015 MEETING 2739 2740
Chair Reckdahl: Agenda planning, we'll save that to the end. We had this resolution on 2741
the fire mitigation in Foothills Park. Byxbee Park, the PIO may come back. We were 2742
thinking about having it this month, but Daren's been swamped with other work as you 2743
can see. That one got bumped to next month. We have a couple of ad hocs that we've 2744
penciled in, the website and community gardens. They have a couple of weeks to figure 2745
out if there's anything they want to present, if you're on those ad hocs. Then the joint 2746
study session with Council. Do you want to talk about that? 2747
2748
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 66
DRAFT
Rob de Geus: I'm not sure if everyone's responded to Catherine on availability for that 2749
evening. The Council has a lot on their agenda over the next few months. The idea here 2750
was to pool some of these study sessions on separate nights to get through them. That's 2751
why that's happening. The 27th was identified as a night for this Commission as well as 2752
the Public Art Commission and the Palo Alto Youth Council. Three of them, one after 2753
the other. The latest count, I thought, was that we may not have enough Commissioners. 2754 I think two or three said they couldn't attend. I was talking to Catherine about that. My 2755
view is if three can't attend a study session, we shouldn't do it. We should try and find 2756
another time when more Commissioners can be there. If it's later in the year, I think it's 2757
probably fine, unless the Commission needs to ... 2758
2759
Commissioner Hetterly: I think it's much preferable to have it much later in the year. I 2760
don't think we have much to report to them frankly. 2761
2762
Commissioner Lauing: On top of which we would have to plan it in the next 30 minutes. 2763
2764
Mr. de Geus: Keith and I talked about that. 2765
2766
Commissioner Lauing: It comes a few hours after our next meeting, so we would have to 2767
plan it right now. 2768
2769
Chair Reckdahl: If you look at the last six months, the bulk of our time has been on the 2770
Master Plan. That still is a work in progress. We certainly could give them an update on 2771
where we stand, but I don't know. 2772
2773 Vice Chair Markevitch: Can't we just send them a memo? Send them the matrix, this is 2774 what we're working on. Eric likes it. 2775 2776
Commissioner Lauing: It's not a big problem from the Council's perspective. Just 2777
pushing it a few months later would be highly preferable for us. 2778
2779
Commissioner Hetterly: After the summer break. 2780
2781
Mr. de Geus: That's my sense. I don't know, Council Member Filseth, if you have any 2782
thoughts. You're pretty new to this. 2783
2784
Council Member Filseth: Do it when it makes sense. Don't try to rush it because we've 2785
got a time slot here. We have lots of stuff to do. You guys have lots of stuff to do. Do it 2786
when there's useful material. 2787
2788
Mr. de Geus: That makes a lot of sense. We'll report back to ... 2789
2790
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 67
DRAFT
Catherine Bourquin: Beth was okay with that. 2791
2792
Chair Reckdahl: This should have been back at the comments. This park, have we 2793
started construction on that? 2794
2795
Mr. de Geus: Oh, yeah. It's under construction. It's leveled. A bocce ball court's going 2796 in. 2797
2798
Chair: I really wanted bocce. How about ... 2799
2800
Commissioner Knopper: It doesn't take water bocce. 2801
2802
Mr. de Geus: El Camino Park is underway. It's still currently on schedule. It does 2803
represent another policy question. Did Daren leave? 2804
2805
Ms. Bourquin: Yes. 2806
2807
Mr. de Geus: The northern field is a synthetic turf field. The southern, large field is a 2808
turf field. It's going to require a lot of water to grow that in. I think we're planning to use 2809
sod. Still that's going to be a lot of water to make sure that that turf is ready for play. It's 2810
another question that'll come up as a policy matter for our community, the Council. Not 2811
just for community parks, but all of our parks and our renovation plans. Do we need to 2812
rethink some of the decision about how we're bringing them online? We don't have a 2813
recommendation about that. 2814
2815 Vice Chair Markevitch: That one field is literally sitting on top of 3 million gallons of 2816 water. Can't we tap some of that? It's a valid question. 2817 2818
Chair Reckdahl: Did we consider going with artificial turf or doing just a dirt outfield? 2819
2820
Mr. de Geus: What we need to do for every park site, as I've discussed with Daren, is 2821
think critically about every one and have a good sense of the criteria that we're using and 2822
some consistency about using that criteria. Some of them are unique, like bringing on a 2823
new field like that. That's really large; it's a couple of acres. That's a lot of water to grow 2824
that in. To at least pause and think through whether this makes sense given what we're 2825
facing with regard to the drought. 2826
2827
Vice Chair Markevitch: How about if we open half of it? The artificial turf gets opened 2828
and they're playing it. 2829
2830
Mr. de Geus: There's a number of different ways we could work it. That's what we are 2831
doing now. 2832
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 68
DRAFT
2833
Chair Reckdahl: In what timeframe do we have to make a decision on that baseball field? 2834
2835
Mr. de Geus: It will be ready to lay turf there at the end of summer. 2836
2837
Chair Reckdahl: We still have a couple of months. 2838 2839
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. Our hope is to open that field by the end of the calendar year, both 2840
of those fields. Of course, you know the community has been waiting for those fields to 2841
come online for a couple of years now, because we've fallen behind on that. That's 2842
another factor to consider. One might say, "You haven't had them for so long, maybe not 2843
bringing it online is the smart thing to do." That saves more. On the other hand, the 2844
community hasn't had that field, and it's going to be a great park. As you know, you've 2845
spent a lot of time on it. It's fantastic; a really, really nice park. The community wants to 2846
use it; they want to have access to it. Some of those tough policy decisions I expect the 2847
Commission will have to weigh in on and ultimately Council. 2848
2849
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Is that it? 2850
2851
Vice Chair Markevitch: Mm-hmm. 2852
2853
Commissioner Lauing: On this resolution, I did want to check with Eric to see if we're 2854
still in okay shape on timing. This is the resolution around the fire that was a CIP, now 2855
going into the annual budget. We want to get Finance Committee support. If this is far 2856
along, then you might have missed the deadline. 2857 2858 Council Member Filseth: I don't have a good answer for that. The schedule is being set 2859 by the staff and (inaudible) check with those guys. (crosstalk) whatever their deadline is, 2860
is about the only answer I can give. 2861
2862
Mr. de Geus: It's in the fire management plan moved into CIP, the capital budget to the 2863
operating budget. The operating budget is being looked at by the Finance Committee 2864
next week on Tuesday. It includes the fire management plan which is in three different 2865
departments though. Community Services has a piece of it. We'll be discussed next 2866
week. Council Member Filseth is on the committee, so he can relay the strong interest of 2867
this Commission on that particular line item to the extent you understand. That's one 2868
way, or we could have a Commissioner come and speak. It's a public meeting, and 2869
there'll be time to speak. The Commission and management support staff can give a 2870
recommendation. 2871
2872
Commissioner Lauing: Even after it gets out of the Committee, we can also still do a 2873
resolution as opposed to Council. 2874
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 69
DRAFT
2875
Mr. de Geus: You can. Typically that is the way. The Commission is advisory to the 2876
City Council, not advisory to the Finance Committee. 2877
2878
Commissioner Lauing: That sounds like we can leave it on the agenda for next month, 2879
Keith. Then you can be our liaison. 2880 2881
Council Member Filseth: I encourage you to show up at the Finance Committee sessions. 2882
They're public sessions and there's time for public comment. The one thing I would say 2883
is I haven't been through this personally before. I'm going to find out how it works the 2884
same as you guys are. I expect that probably the Council isn't going to make too many 2885
changes to what comes from the Finance Committee. For what that's worth. 2886
2887
VII. ADJOURNMENT 2888
2889
Meeting adjourned on motion by Vice Chair Markevitch and second by Commissioner 2890
Hetterly at 9:58p.m. 7-0 2891
Draft Minutes April 28, 2015 70
Memorandum
DATE: April 28, 2015
TO: Finance Committee FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission
REGARDING: Support for Funding to Implement the Foothills Fire Management Plan.
The Foothills Fire Management Plan was adopted by Council on May 18, 2009. The objectives of the plan are: life safety, structure and infrastructure protection, ignition prevention, fire
containment, and natural resource protection and enhancement. The plan was developed with
lesson learned from the Oakland Hills Fire and the associated loss of lives. Palo Alto’s foothills
have very similar conditions to the areas of the Oakland Hills, and the plan goals are designed to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards. The Plan identifies 51 areas (approximately 330 acres of City land) where treatments are to be conducted. These treatments are found within
Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and 12 miles of City roadways. The highest
priorities are the treatment of roadways which are evacuation routes and entrapment hazards
(citizens to evacuate and allow emergency personnel and equipment to access safety). Roadside treatments also helps protect city infrastructure (water reservoirs, electric and gas lines) which would be severely impacted by a foothills fire. The Plan identifies a five year cycle of treatments.
The five-year costs to implement the first cycle of recommended projects were estimated to be
approximately $700,000 in 2009. In FY12, Council approved a new CIP (PO-12003) Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program, which was funded for $200,000 for FY12. The project requires significant staff management. Fire, Police, Public Works, Emergency Services, and
Community Services Departments all lacked the available staff time to effectively manage the
project. In FY 2013, the City formed a partnership with the Santa Clara County Fire Safe
Council to secure their assistance in managing and implementing the project. Since forming the partnership with the Fire Safe Council the following Plan treatments have
been implemented:
1. Evacuation routes on:
a. Arastradero Road (30-ft on city owned land; 10-ft on private property)
b. Los Trancos Road (10-ft easement only)
c. Approximately 1-1/2 miles of Page Mill Road (north side only)
2. Vegetation clearing core sections of Foothills Park
a. Towle Camp (campground)
b. Wildhorse Valley road (evacuation route)
c. Oak Grove Picnic Area and restroom (100-ft defensible space)
d. Orchard Glen Picnic area and restroom
e. Foothills Park maintenance shop (100-ft defensible space)
f. Fire Station 8 (100-ft defensible space)
g. Corte Madera Water Tank (100-ft defensible space)
h. Corte Madera Pump Station (100-ft defensible space)
i. Boronda Water Tank (100-ft defensible space)
j. Boronda Pump Station (100-ft defensible space)
k. Park Water Tank (100-ft defensible space)
The remaining balance of the CIP (PO-12003) Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation Program is
$49,000. Staff anticipates the existing CIP funding will be exhausted by end of FY15.
The consultant who wrote the Foothills Fire Management Plan recently provided an updated
estimate of the funding required to achieve the goals of the Fire Plan. The total FY16 funding
needed for this project is $181,500; however, since the Fire Department already has $60,000
budgeted for this work, the total new annual funding requested for this project is $121,500.
The partnership with the Fire Safe Council will allow staff to fully utilize this funding. The funds
needed for subsequent years will vary. It is anticipated that FY17 will require less funding (CSD
will require approximately $48,000 in FY17), while some future years will cost more due to the
cycles of vegetation treatment.
The costs for funding the Fire Plan are divided between Community Services, Public Works, and
the Fire Departments.
Fire: $60,000. (Fire already has $60,000 in their on-going budget for this work, so there
will be no additional funding requested by the Fire Department) -Planned prescribed burns and/or risk assessment and training about wildland fire
behavior $56,000.
-1/3rd of project management consultant $4,000.
Public Works: $54,800 -Cost of treating roadsides totals $40,800.
-Cost for road side survey work $10,000
-1/3rd of project management consultant $4,000.
Community Services: $66,700 -Treatments inside City parklands are estimated to total $52,700
-Cost for in-park survey work $10,000
-1/3rd of project management consultant $4,000.
The Parks and Recreation Commission strongly supports fully funding this critical fire protection
program.
Date: May 26, 2015
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: PRC
Re: Memorandum to City Council recommending that funds for implementing the Foothills Fire
Management Plan be incorporated and approved annually as part of the fiscal year operating budget.
Summary:
Public safety for Palo Alto residents and visitors in all of our parks and open space is the highest priority
for PRC. The Foothills Fire Management Plan was adopted by Council on May 18, 2009. The
objectives of the plan are: life safety, structure and infrastructure protection, ignition
prevention, fire containment, and natural resource protection and enhancement. These
treatments are found within Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and 12 miles of City
roadways. The highest priorities are the treatment of roadways which are evacuation routes
and entrapment hazards (for citizens to evacuate and to allow emergency personnel and
equipment to access the areas).
In 2009 the five-year costs to implement the first cycle of recommended projects were
estimated to be approximately $700,000. In 2012 a $200,000 CIP to implement the Fire Plan
was approved. Staffing constraints precluded work until 2013 when interdepartmental
arrangement among Community Services, Public Works and the Fire Department did
substantial work and used $151,000 of this CIP leaving only $49,000, which will be spent by the
end of this fiscal year and is actually insufficient for the planned work.
Tonight the PRC passed the following motion: To insure that residents are protected from fire
risks in Foothills Par and Arastradero Preserve, PRC recommends that council approve
necessary maintenance for the Foothills Fire Management plan annually and routinely in the
respective departmental budgets rather than have this work be subject to prioritization, and
potential non-approval, of longer term CIP projects.
The joint department implementation plan and projected budget from CSD staff is attached for
your reference.
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT:COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: May 26, 2015
SUBJECT: BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council adopt
the Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) for the improvements identified in the
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts (Attachment B).
Background
In 1978, Council approved the Baylands Master Plan and adopted the Environmental Impact
Report, which included a principal element of converting the now closed Palo Alto Landfill to a
pastoral park after closure. In 1989, the Council approved the Byxbee Landfill Park Master Plan
and Phase I Park development.
The park has been developed and opened to the public in phases. Phase I contains 29 acres
located in the northeastern part of the Landfill, and it is currently developed as a passive park
with trails, restrooms, and art features. Phase IIA and IIB covers 46 acres immediately to the
south of Phase I and have been capped and opened to the public. Twenty-seven acres of the 51
acres in Phase IIC were opened to the public on April 18, 2015, in celebration of Earth Day.
Staff is completing the cap construction for the final 24 acres of Phase IIC to comply with
regulatory requirements and to safely open up all of Byxbee Park Hills to the public by the end
of 2015.
The initial landscape design for Byxbee Park was completed by Hargreaves and Associates in
1991 to accompany the Amended Baylands Master Plan Summary Report (1991). The
Hargreaves design was implemented in Phase I and included trail design, habitat mounds
(hillocks), public art (wind wave, chevrons, and pole field), and other park amenities (signage,
parking, and restrooms). In 2008 the landfill’s engineered closure plans were reviewed by
Hargreaves and Associates for conformance with the 1991 Master Plan which was then
subsequently slightly revised, incorporating minor grading revisions into the final Baylands
Master Plan.
Council approved the final landfill closure plans on June 10, 2013 (Council Staff Report #3768),
which included the use of an evapo-transpirative (ET) cap, a preliminary configuration for dual-
use trails (i.e. paths for landfill maintenance vehicles and park visitors), habitat island concepts,
1 | Page
and other park amenities. The Landfill is a closed Class III refuse disposal site with a permitted
footprint of 137 acres. The landfill began receiving waste in the early 1930s and operated as a
Class III solid waste landfill. Landfill closure and final land use were addressed in the Baylands
Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report. The Landfill has been capped in phases as
refuse disposal capacity was reached. Phases I, IIA and IIB of the Landfill have been completed
and were closed in accordance with permit requirements. Phase IIC is now being capped in
accordance with State regulations.
Discussion
The City entered into a contract with TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. (now MIG/TRA
Environmental Sciences, Inc.), in March 2014 to prepare an interim park plan for Byxbee Park
Hills. The purpose of the Interim Byxbee Park Hills Plan is to provide guidance on: improving
and managing the habitat, managing for burrowing owls, a trail system that allows safe public
access that doesn’t impact the wildlife, and ensure that the closed landfill can meet all of its
regulatory requirements. The Plan documents the existing park areas currently open to the
public, proposes an adaptive management maintenance regime, and identifies opportunities
for interpretive signage. The habitat islands identified in the Plan also employ adaptive
management techniques to identify the water and maintenance needs to provide the most
robust and sustainable habitat.
In addition to the habitat islands, the Plan designates three areas that can be designed to
enhance burrowing owl habitat. While the City believes that this habitat type will be beneficial
to the Park and the neighboring Baylands by providing valuable habitat for the Western
Burrowing Owl and other wildlife, CalRecycle has expressed concerns about the potential for
the burrows and the burrowing animals to damage the landfill cap. The City will only be able to
enhance these burrowing owl areas if permission is granted by all of the regulatory agencies
including CalRecycle. The City will continue to seek permission from CalRecycle to construct the
burrowing owl habitat areas.
The Plan also designates new trail configurations designed to improve the park-users’
experience, integrate the soon-to-be opened Phase IIC area, allow for landfill maintenance
(leachate and gas well monitoring), and protect habitat areas. Most of the trails have been
designed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (except a few small sections
of trail where the slope cannot be adjusted due to drainage requirements) while providing
connectivity throughout the Park through trail loops as well as to the larger trail system in the
Baylands. The Plan identifies locations for park benches, interpretive signs, and wayfinding
signs.
On July 10, 2014, staff met with a group of Baylands stakeholders representing general park
users, bicyclists, hikers, and environmentalists. Based on the feedback received, the initial trail
design was modified to reduce impacts to wildlife by eliminating some trail segments. The
stakeholders also expressed an interest in better signage connecting the regional trail system to
2 | Page
the proposed trails at Byxbee Park Hills. As a result of this feedback, additional wayfinding signs
were added to the design.
Stakeholders also noted that the Plan should include bench sites located at scenic lookouts,
which was incorporated into the design. Though some stakeholders advocated for a larger
parking lot, no changes have been recommended to modify the existing parking lot as a part of
this design. A larger parking lot would require a more substantial and lengthy environmental
and planning review, as well as exceed the allocated budget for this interim project. Parking,
final maintenance plans, and other structures like covered lookout areas, will be considered in a
future master planning effort for Byxbee Park Hills or incorporated into the Baylands
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which staff proposes as a future capital improvement
project slated for 2017.
Staff presented a draft of the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Concepts to the Parks and Recreation
Commission (Commission) on September 23, 2014, and to a Commission subcommittee on
October 7, 2014. The Architecture Review Board (ARB) reviewed and approved the Interim
Concepts on November 20, 2014. Staff has modified and clarified many aspects of the Interim
Concepts. Section 3.2.1 of the Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Plan and Narrative details the
modifications based on the comments from the meetings. Key modifications include:
• Adjusting the Mowing/ Weed Management regime
• Redefining Vegetation Planting and Management with vegetated islands, low-mowed
grassland, mid-mowed grassland, and untended grassland
• Delineating Management of Burrowing Owls and Squirrels areas
• Reducing the number of trails to protect larger habitat areas by 1,400 linear feet
• Minimizing habitat impact from maintenance vehicles
• Modifying the size of the rock swales on the map
• Improved recommendations for park signage to keep people on trails and away from
habitat areas
On March 9, 2015, the Commission Ad Hoc Committee recommended reducing the size of the
gathering node “compass rose” at the highest point of Byxbee Park Hills because it seemed too
large for the area. Staff reduced the size of the group gathering node from 50 feet in diameter
to 35-feet in diameter (Attachment C). Staff concurred that a 35’ diameter area is an adequate
size to accommodate the special events and volunteer groups who may use the area. The
gathering node has bench seating for 12 people with vistas of the entire South San Francisco
Bay.
The Ad Hoc Committee also noted that certain sections of trails near the group gathering node
would be better if they were narrower. The trail system on Byxbee Park Hills was designed to
serve as trails for bicyclists, hikers, and the occasional service vehicles that maintain the
methane gas lines, the leachate lines, and other maintenance requirements. The trails are ten
3 | Page
feet wide to accommodate the vehicles. Narrowing the trails would result in heavy vehicles
leaving deep ruts during wet times of the year. Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee agreed that the
trails could be narrowed by allowing vegetation to grow in on the edge of the trail, which can
narrow the look of the trail by one to two feet on each side.
Resource Impact
The interim plan and the implementation of the plan will be funded from the existing Byxbee
Park CIP (PE 13020)
Timeline
27 acres of Phase IIC opened to the public April 2015
Council Approval of Byxbee Park Hills Interim Concepts
July 2015
Final 24 acres of Phase IIC. Park area opened to the public
January 2016
Complete Construction on Interim Concept Features Summer 2016
Policy Implications
This project is consistent with the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan 2008 and the 2013 landfill
closure plan.
Environmental Review
This plan is component of the Palo Alto Landfill closure activities covered by a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse number 2013082019) issued on September 11, 2013.
Attachments
Attachment A: Park Improvement Ordinance
Attachment B: Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Plan and Narrative
Attachment C: 35-foot Diameter Group Gathering Node Schematic
4 | Page
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and
Adopting a Plan of Improvement for Byxbee Park Hills
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction
or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City
for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and
adopt a plan therefor.
(b) Byxbee Park Hills is dedicated to park purposes.
(c) The City intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements within
Byxbee Park Hills, as shown at Exhibit “A”. The improvements include, without limitation, the
following:
(1) Construction of new trails;
(2) Construction of native habitat islands;
(3) Construction of pedestrian bridge;
(4) Construction of group gathering node;
(5) Installation of new park benches;
(6) Installation of new interpretive and way-finding signs; and
(7) Construction of burrowing owl habitat areas (pending regulatory
approval)
(d) The improvements do not require removing any trees.
(e) The improvements described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit
"A" are consistent with park and conservation purposes.
(f) The Council desires to approve the project’s improvements described above and as
more specifically described at Exhibit "A”.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the plan for construction of improvements
within the Byxbee Park Hills and hereby adopts the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts,
attached hereto at Exhibit "A" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements
within Byxbee Park Hills.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the plan for construction improvements identified
in the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts is categorically exempt from environmental
1
150511 jb 00710621
NOT YET APPROVED
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
150511 jb 00710621
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
L-1
SITE AMENITIES AND SIGNAGE LAYOUT
1
3
5
6
8
9
MAYFIELD SLOUGH
RWQCP
7
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
56
6
7
7
7
7
9
3
ACCESSIBLE TRAIL
MAINTENANCE PATH
EXISTING BAYSHORE TRAIL GROUP GATHERING NODE
PROPOSED BRIDGE BENCH(ES) LOCATION
PROPOSED VEGETATIVE ISLAND(S) POSSIBLE FUTURE VEGETATIVE ISLANDS (PENDING PILOT EVALUATION)
POTENTIAL BURROWING OWL HABITAT LOCATION
ROCK-LINED DRAINAGE SWALES
MEASURE E AREA (+/- 10 ACRES)
EXISTING BRIDGE TO REMAIN15
6
7
8
9
4
3
2
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SCALE: 1”= 300’
0 150’ 300’ 600’
1
A
C
C
C
C
D
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
A SIGN TYPE, REFER TO SHEET L-3 FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
L-2
VIGNETTE SKETCHES AND PHOTOS OF AMENITIES
10’ WIDE PATHWAY WITH
MAINTENANCE CLEARANCE ON BOTH SIDES
SMALLER VEGETATIVE ISLAND,
3’ MAX. ABOVE GRADE, TO
PRESERVE BAY VIEWS
LARGE VEGETATIVE
ISLAND, 3’-8’ ABOVE
ADJACENT GRADE
NOTE: REFER TO “REVEGETATION PROPOSAL”
BY JEAN LUM HOY (9/2013) FOR ADDITIONAL
VEGETATION ISLAND UNDERLAYMENT
REQUIREMENTS
VIEWING PLATFORM
WITH SEGMENTAL
SEATWALL BENCH
VIEWING PLATFORM
WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH
EXISTING COBBLE
DRAINAGE BED
VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
A
A
VEGETATIVE ISLAND,
TYP.VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL
SEATWALL BENCH
COBBLE DRAINAGE SWALE
PROPOSED TRAIL BRIDGE
STACKED SEGMENTAL BLOCK WALLS WITH DRAINAGE CULVERTS AND ROCK RIP-RAP
PROPOSED BENCHWOODEN SLATS ON CURVED STEEL FRAME, WITH OPTIONAL DEDICATION PLAQUE
PLAN ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING WITH VIEWING AREA
PLAN ‘B’: GROUP GATHERING NODE
SECTION ‘A’: THROUGH VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING AND VIEWING PLATFORM
PERSPECTIVE ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING
SEGMENTAL SEATWALL
BENCH
VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
COMPASS ROSE FORMED WITH STEEL
HEADER AND D.G.
(CONTRASTING
COLOR)
WOODEN BENCHES
SITUATED AROUND
OUTER EDGE
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
A PARK ENTRY SIGNAGE B PARK INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE
C TRAIL MARKER SIGN D PARK REGULATION SIGN
TO BE USED AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL TO INTERPRET UNIQUE NATURAL, CULTURAL, HISTORIC FEATURES, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR PARK VISITORS.
INDICATES WHERE USER IS LOCATED AT ON AN ILLUSTRATIVE SITE MAP. SHOWS ALL TRAILS AND THEIR DISTANCES, AND SITE AMENITIES. INDICATES IMPORTANT PARK-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS.
VEGETATIVE ISLANDS PLANT LIST
SPECIES COMMON NAME Artemesia californica CaIifornia SagebrushArctostaphylos ‘Pacific Mist’ Pacific Mist ManzanitaArctostaphylos ‘Pumila’ Dune ManzanitaAtriplex lentiformis brewerii Coastal QuailbushBaccharis pilul. ‘Pigeon Point’ Coyote BushCeanothus maritimus Bluff LilacCeanothus thrysifIorus Blue Blossom LilacEriogonum fasciculatum CaIifornia BuckwheatEriogonum nudum Naked BuckwheatEriophylIum staechadifoium Yellow YarrowLimonium perezii Sea LavenderLeymus cond. ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild RyeLupinus chamaissonis Coastal Silver LupineMimulus aurantiacus StIcky Monkey Flower Muhlenbergia rigens Deer GrassPinus contorta v. contorta Shore PineSalvia mellifera Black Sage
A
B
C D E
F G H
I J K
L M N
O P Q
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
L-3
PARK SIGNAGE DETAILS AND PROPOSED VEGETATION ISLAND PLANT MATERIAL
Palo Alto Baylands Preserve
Byxbee Park Hills
Conceptual Landscape Plan and Narrative
February 2015
City of Palo Alto Public Services Department, Open Space Division
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department
Palo Alto Baylands Preserve
Byxbee Park Hills
Interim Park Concepts Narrative
February 2015
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto Public Services Department, Open Space Division
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department
Oasis Associates Landscape Architects
MIG|TRA Environmental Sciences
Palo Alto Baylands Preserve
Byxbee Park Hills
Interim Park Concepts Narrative
Table of Contents
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
1.0 Summary and Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Physical and Biological Setting ............................................................................................... 3
3.0 How the Park Concepts were Developed ............................................................................... 5
3.1 Site History .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Public Participation in the Interim Park Concepts Plan ....................................................... 5
3.2.1 Specific Comments and Responses ............................................................................. 6
3.3 Existing Park Facilities and Activities ................................................................................ 11
3.3.1 Park Amenities ............................................................................................................ 11
3.3.2 Hours of Operation and Typical Park Use .................................................................. 11
3.4 Current Landfill Monitoring and Maintenance .................................................................... 11
3.5 Existing Park Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................ 12
4. Proposed Interim Park Concepts ............................................................................................ 14
4.1 Park Amenities .................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Burrowing Owl Management Plan ..................................................................................... 15
4.3 Park Operation and Maintenance Activities and Best Management Practices .................. 19
4.4 Interim Park Plan Evaluation Schedule and Future Planning ............................................ 21
5.0 Compliance with Baylands Master Plan Goals ..................................................................... 21
Appendix A: Figures .................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix B: Regulatory Information ........................................................................................... 36
Appendix C: Burrowing Owl Management Plan .......................................................................... 40
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 1
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Palo Alto Baylands Preserve
Byxbee Park Hills
Interim Park Concepts Narrative
1.0 Summary and Introduction
The Palo Alto Landfill is owned, monitored and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. It is located
in the 1,940-acre Baylands Nature Preserve, which is part of the Baylands Planning Area (see
Figure 1 in Appendix A). The landfill operated from the 1930’s to 2011 and is now in the
closure/post-closure phase. The landfill was built in phases. Phases I, IIA and IIB were
completed and closed and are currently open for park use. Phase IIC is anticipated to be
completed and closed in 2015, then the interim park concepts plan will be implemented over the
entire landfill except for the Measure E area1.
By law, the City is required to monitor the landfill for a minimum of 30 years to assure it does not
pose a safety hazard resulting from refuse settlement, the release of landfill gas, or the
creation/release of leachate, which is liquid that has come into contact with the buried refuse.
The integrity of the landfill is monitored by the Palo Alto Public Works Department, using a
system of groundwater, leachate and gas monitoring wells. The post-closure activities, including
those that are related to the end use as a park, are approved and overseen by state agencies,
including CalRecycle and its Local Enforcement Agency (Santa Clara County), the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The long-planned end use of the landfill is parkland. It is part of the Byxbee Park Master Plan,
and portions of it have already been closed and developed for park use. In accordance with the
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan the landfill will eventually be converted to park use (with
the possible exception of the Measure E area), and is called the Byxbee Park Hills. Byxbee Park
activities and maintenance, including the Byxbee Park Hills, are under the supervision of the
Open Space Division of the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department. The park is used
predominantly by pedestrians, but also dog-walkers, and bicyclists2.
The park design concepts described in this narrative and shown in the attached drawings
(Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A) will be tested before a final park plan is developed. The
concepts address trail locations, vegetation types and management methods, irrigation,
benches and signs, and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugeae) nesting and forage
habitat. The existing art features will be left in place. Ongoing maintenance of the closed landfill
by Public Works and of the park landscape and amenities by Community Services will be
necessary after the site is converted to park use. Public Works may need to periodically close
portions of the park for landfill maintenance or repair.
1 Measure E was passed by the electorate to study the use of a portion of the closed landfill for a waste-
to-energy facility. That study is in process, and the Measure allows 10 years for the study to be
completed. The earliest the area will be available for park use is 2021, depending on the outcome of the
study. The Measure E area is shown on the plans as a square on the landfill near the wastewater
treatment plant.
2 A recent survey of 117 Byxbee Park Hills patrons indicate that 57 percent were pedestrians, 24 percent
were cyclists, and 19 percent were dog walkers (R. Bicknell, pers. Comm.)
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 2
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
The concepts reflect a balance among many factors: providing high-quality wildlife habitat,
protection of special-status wildlife species, public safety and compliance with the state and
federal regulations that govern the landfill, and public desires for park amenities. The concepts
for each amenity are summarized as follows:
Trails: trails have been designed with three primary considerations: 1) combining trails and
landfill maintenance access roads; 2) providing loops; and 3) providing Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) access. Based on past management experience at this park, installing
dead end or destination trails has resulted in the creation of undesirable “renegade” or
“volunteer” trails. Renegade trails adversely impact aesthetics and wildlife habitat, and increase
park maintenance costs. Thus, dead end/destination trails have been avoided in favor of loop
trails with nodes for viewing wildlife and the surrounding area.
Benches: The design includes simple wooden slat benches on a curved steel frame. Benches
are placed to take advantage of surrounding views and provide opportunities to stop and view
wildlife. Seating is also proposed at the vegetative island groupings (up to 5 locations) and the
group gathering node (up to 2 locations). There are currently 15 benches along the bayshore
trail and 2 benches on higher slopes. The concepts plan proposes 4 benches in the Phase I
area, 4 in the Phase IIA area, 2 in the Phase IIB area, and 4 in the Phase IIC area in addition to
the seating associated with the islands and nodes. All bench locations provide a view of the
surrounding environment.
Signs: the interim park concepts plan includes three types of signs. In addition to the entrance
sign, the plan includes wayfinding and interpretive signs to help park users understand where
they are and what is special about the preserve. The signs have been designed and placed to
minimize visual intrusion and maintenance costs, and to adhere to the Baylands Site Design
Guidelines.
Vegetation: revegetation of a landfill is limited to plants that do not have deep roots. Plants with
deep roots can compromise the final cover of the landfill and create routes for water to enter the
buried waste or for gas from the buried waste to escape. The regulatory agencies are sensitive
to these issues and tend to restrict the use of shrubs or trees that have deeper roots than
annual grasses and wildflowers. Erosion control is also necessary. Because of these concerns,
the park vegetation is dominated by grassland species, which provide erosion control and do
not penetrate the one-foot clay cap. If approved by the agencies, vegetation also could include
shallow-rooted shrub species that have been documented as compatible with landfill covers.
This may be more feasible on the evapotranspirative cover in the Phase IIC area, which is four
feet deep. The interim park concepts plan also includes vegetation islands in order to provide
more variety in vegetation types and heights for both wildlife value and aesthetics (see next
paragraph). In addition, the proposed maintenance plan incorporates mowing practices that will
result in different vegetation heights across the open areas of the park. This will promote a
diverse vegetative structure of low and medium height that will benefit wildlife with a variety of
cover and forage opportunities. The landfill lacked vegetation while it was active, and the Interim
Park Plan proposes plantings that are compatible with landfill regulatory requirements and
wildlife needs.
Due to the public’s desire for more variation in vegetation in the park for aesthetic interest,
shade, and habitat value, the park concepts include islands of shrub-sized vegetation in the
previously closed areas. These islands will be built above the landfill cover, and are lined to
prevent root penetration into the landfill cover. As a result of being lined, these islands cannot
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 3
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
support the root system required for shade trees. Furthermore, shade trees are not natural to
the baylands environment and are not encouraged for ecological reasons. Raptors (e.g., hawks)
use trees to hunt. Introducing shade trees could adversely impact species native to the
baylands, including special status species such as the salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgeway
(California clapper) rail, black rail, and western burrowing owl. The interim park concepts plan
includes eight locations for vegetative islands. A pilot project of one to three islands will be
installed first to assure they are successful, and to prepare any design changes before funds
are spent on all eight islands.
Burrowing Owl: The interim park concepts plan includes areas set aside for potential burrowing
owl nesting habitat, a scarce resource for this special-status species. The nesting habitat is
delineated from human use by a low berm and would be located in areas of the landfill where
the cover will be deep enough to allow burrow activity without compromising the integrity of the
landfill cover. The nesting habitat will include artificial burrows and will be seeded with grasses
to create the type of habitat conducive to burrowing owl nesting. The installation of this habitat,
however, will require approval from the landfill regulatory agencies. Agency staff may not
approve this concept because it involves burrows.
The remainder of the landfill and the surrounding area will provide forage for burrowing owl. In
order to enhance forage opportunities for the owl across the landfill, some of the areas of the
landfill will mowed to a different height, or left unmowed, and rock piles and mulch mounds will
be installed to create habitat for insects. The tentative locations of these are shown in Figure 2.
The Burrowing Owl Management Plan is attached as Appendix C.
2.0 Physical and Biological Setting
Landfilling started in the salt marsh adjacent to San Francisco Bay in the 1930’s before the
ecological value of the salt marsh wetland and the potentially hazardous nature of landfills were
recognized. The landfill now consists of a hilly area rising to a maximum of 60 feet in elevation
above sea level in an area that was historically flat. Its height is reflected in its name as the
Byxbee Park Hills.
The area surrounding the Byxbee Park Hills contains fresh and saltwater wetlands, the
wastewater treatment plant, the Palo Alto airport, office buildings, the golf course, the duck
pond, the Environmental Volunteers center and the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center.
The Palo Alto Baylands provides habitat for a wide variety of common birds, including both
aquatic and upland species such as ducks, herons, sparrows, and blackbirds. Common
mammal species include mice (Mus sp.; Peromyscus sp.), vole (Microtus sp.), ground squirrel
(Spermophilus beecheyi), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), black-tailed hare (Lepus
californicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), among others.
All of these species are expected to occur in the Byxbee Park Hills. Special status species are
discussed below.
The Baylands Preserve historically and currently provides habitat for special-status species
associated with salt marsh habitat (Table 1); species known to occur in the vicinity of the
Byxbee Park Hills, include the salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgeway (California clapper) rail,
snowy egret, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and western burrowing owl.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 4
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Table 1. Special-status species
Common Name Scientific Name
Plants
Point Reyes bird’s-beak Cordylanthus maritimus
Akali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener
Hoover’s button celery Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri
California seablite Suaeda californica
Congdon’s tarplant Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii
Animals
Longfin smelt Spirinchus thaleicthyus
California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus
California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. coturniculus
Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinuss nivosus
Snowy egret Egretta thula
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
California least tern Sternula antillarum
Northern harrier Circus cyanus
American peregrine falcon Falco peregrine anatus
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus
Burrowing owl Anthene cunicularia hypugeae
Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula
Saltmarsh common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
Saltmarsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris
Changes in the baylands habitat occurred over time as the salt marsh was gradually filled and
upland vegetation became established. As a result the Baylands now also provides habitat for
the western burrowing owl, a species of special concern, and roosting habitat for herons,
protected by California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
When the Palo Alto Baylands was a saltmarsh3 it did not provide burrow habitat for the western
burrowing owl, however, because of the gradual loss of its grassland habitat in areas located
between the bay wetlands and the forested foothills, and the gradual increase in filled areas in
the baylands that now contain grassland and ground squirrels this species has found refuge in
these areas, including at landfills, airports, and golf courses. Because this owl species is likely
to be extirpated in the south bay region due to the significant reduction in its habitat, passive
park uses around the south bay have been identified in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Conservation Plan as particularly important for protecting this species.
The vegetation in the baylands includes species tolerant of salt-water, salt in the soil, and salt in
the wind that blows from the bay. As a result, the native vegetation is typically low-growing
except for a few shrub species. The creeks that led to the bay provided freshwater habitat for
trees, but native California trees do not tolerate salt water, and were not historically present in
the baylands. Tree species currently found in the area are predominantly eucalyptus species.
Wildlife uses open space for food and cover, and wildlife habits are adapted to the physical
features in the environment. The animals that use the baylands are adapted to an environment
3 About 100 years ago the saltmarshes around San Francisco Bay were much more extensive. In this
area the marsh extended to US 101.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 5
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
that does not include trees. A significant change in vegetative structure would affect the
dynamics, and potentially harm protected species. For example, trees introduced into the
baylands may provide an opportunity for predators (e.g., raptors such as hawks, owls) to
establish hunting territories they could not have established before. That opportunity could
significantly affect the special-status species that both provide a food source (i.e., salt marsh
harvest mouse, Ridgeway [California clapper] rail, Western burrowing owl) and that are
impacted by the competition for a food source (i.e., Western burrowing owl).
3.0 How the Park Concepts were Developed
The Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts were developed with input from the City of Palo
Alto Public Works Department regarding the landfill, the City of Palo Alto Community Services
Department regarding park use and maintenance, and the public. The project team looked at
the site history, the regulatory requirements, current features and uses, and the biological
resources, particularly burrowing owl. All of the information collected from these sources was
used to develop the concepts that are presented in Figure 2.
3.1 Site History
The landfill began receiving waste in the early 1930s and operated as a Class III non-hazardous
waste landfill. In 1978 the Palo Alto City Council approved the Baylands Master Plan and
adopted the Environmental Impact Report, which included a principal element of converting the
landfill to a pastoral park after closure. In 1989, the Council approved the Byxbee Landfill Park
Master Plan and Phase I Park development.
The park has been developed and opened to the public in several phases. Phase I contains 29
acres located in the northeastern part of the Landfill, and it is currently developed as a passive
park with trails, restrooms, and art features. Phase IIA and IIB covers 46 acres immediately to
the south of Phase I and have been capped and opened to the public. Phase IIC (51 acres) will
be ready for park development in 2015. A Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan for
each phased closure of Phases IIA, IIB and IIC were approved by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now called CalRecycle),
and the Local Enforcement Agency (the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health). A final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan was approved in January 2014.
The landfill reached refuse capacity in late July 2011 and is now in the process of closure, which
is expected to be completed in 2015.
3.2 Public Participation in the Interim Park Concepts Plan
On July 10, 2014, City staff met with a group of Baylands stakeholders at the site, including
community members in support of parks and representatives from Canopy, Acterra, and the
Audubon Society. The draft concepts for Byxbee Park Hills were presented for discussion. The
primary concerns raised by stakeholders during the meeting related to impacts to wildlife,
regional connections, trail surfaces, and signage. The plan was subsequently modified to
reduce the number of trails to the minimum necessary for landfill maintenance and safety.
On September 23, 2014, City staff presented the revised plan to the Parks and Recreation
Commission at a regular hearing. Comments received at that time included concerns about the
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 6
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
trail surface being easy to navigate (smaller rock), avoiding the use of roundup and mowing,
providing connectivity between the habitat islands for wildlife, using smaller vehicles in the park
if possible, having less art at the park, adding shade but not necessarily adding trees, providing
a variety of vegetation heights, providing a trail connection to Faber Place, including stairs for
runners to use as a fitness tool, and adding dead-end trails for wildlife viewing. These
comments are addressed below.
3.2.1 Specific Comments and Responses
The following issues were raised by the Parks and Recreation Commission, various
stakeholders, and by members of the public who attended the Parks and Recreation
Commission hearing.
Mowing/Roundup/Weed Management. Additional details were requested regarding where
mowing will occur, and how it will impact wildlife and their habitat.
Mowing has two functions: weed control and habitat enhancement for burrowing owls. Because
optimal nesting habitat for burrowing owls consists of grasses less than about six inches in
height around the nest burrow, the “burrow habitat” shown on Figure 8 of the Management Plan
for the Western Burrowing Owl Byxbee Park Hills (Appendix C) will be mowed at a frequency to
maintain grass height at six inches or less, except when there are active nests. Optimal foraging
habitat for burrowing owls consists of a mosaic of different vegetation heights along with
features such as rock, brush and mulch piles that provide habitat for a variety of prey species
including invertebrates (earwigs and Jerusalem crickets) and small mammals (field mice, voles).
Mowing in areas of the landfill that are not set aside for burrow habitat will occur at a frequency
sufficient to suppress invasive weeds, and will provide “forage habitat” (see Figures 8 and 9 of
the Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl Byxbee Park Hills).
Generally speaking, the areas that are mowed to a height of 6 inches or less provide less
vegetative cover for small mammals, so these species will be expected to forage and breed at a
higher frequency in the forage habitat than in the burrow habitat. Similarly, invertebrate and
small mammal species are expected to be more numerous in forage habitat areas where mulch,
brush and rock piles have been added and where less frequent mowing will allow dense
vegetative cover to develop. Portions of the graded landfill cover with 25 percent or greater
slope will be left largely natural, unless vegetation management is absolutely necessary due to
fire safety or other regulations.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach used to minimize risk to people and the
environment during pest control activities. It focuses on long-term solutions that prevent new
pest species from being introduced, careful tailoring or pest management to determine the most
effective strategy, and combining management techniques to maximize effectiveness. Staff will
explore all other reasonable efforts to control pests and weeds before using pesticides, in
accordance with City’s IPM policy. Techniques attempted thus far have included hand pulling
weeds, solarization, flaming, and applying natural herbicides such as apple cider vinegar. While
these techniques have met with some success, in limited situations herbicide is the only way to
address the weed issue. For example, herbicide has been the only effective technique for
removing weeds from trails in the Byxbee Park Hills.
Vegetation Planting and Management. Various parties were concerned about what plant
species could be included in the habitat island areas as well as throughout the rest of the park.
Specific concerns raised include protection of the landfill cap and leachate management, shade,
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 7
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
aesthetics, public access to vegetation islands, connectivity between vegetation islands, and
connectivity between the park and other natural habitat areas.
Phases I, IIA, and IIB have a compacted clay cap that is one foot deep in some areas with a
topsoil dressing of an inch or two for planting erosion control grasses. Landfill regulations
addressing the integrity of the cap restrict the type of vegetation that can be planted on closed
landfills to plants that are shallow rooted and provide erosion control, typically grasses and
forbs. The Interim Park Concepts includes vegetation islands that have an additional three to
five feet of cover so that plants with roots up to five feet deep can be grown. This will benefit
both wildlife by providing more diverse habitat and also park users by adding aesthetic elements
to the park. Plant species identified in the Interim Park Concepts were chosen on the basis of
root depth. Because most shade trees have deep roots, smaller trees and shrubs such as shore
pine, buckeye and manzanita, which provide less shade, were selected. Plants with roots
deeper than one foot cannot be allowed to grow outside of the vegetation islands with the
exception of Phase IIC, which will have a three-foot evapo-transpirative cap that allows for
plants with deeper roots, such as shrubs. Thus, while shallow rooted perennials that invade
landfill areas outside of the vegetated islands and the Phase IIC area may be left in place,
shrubs and trees with deeper root systems will be removed to maintain the integrity of the
landfill cover. Grasses and forbs can and will be planted anywhere throughout the landfill
because their root systems are shallow.
The Interim Park Concepts Plan includes a palette of plant species and management methods
that will create habitat diversity for wildlife. It includes vegetated islands, low-mowed grassland,
mid-mowed grassland, and untended grassland. All of the common wildlife species that are
expected to occur at Byxbee Park Hills will take advantage of these habitats. Park users will
benefit by having aesthetically pleasing plantings in the park; it is not expected that park users
will enter the vegetated islands, due to poor access and dense vegetation.
The vegetated islands are connected by grassland areas. The common wildlife in the Palo Alto
Baylands area actively move between habitat types, and the vegetated islands are close
enough to each other to be accessible to wildlife. They will be part of a mosaic of natural habitat
in the Baylands Preserve locally, and around the edges of the south bay in a regional sense.
None of the amenities proposed in the Interim Park Concepts present a barrier to wildlife
movement.
Management of Burrowing Owls and Squirrels. Stakeholders raised various concerns about how
to best manage both burrowing owls and ground squirrels. Specific topics include how squirrel
management will impact the ecosystem, artificial burrow and burrow habitat maintenance, how
close trails should be to burrow habitat to minimize impacts on burrowing owl behavior, and if
burrow habitat could be fenced.
Ground squirrels occur in the lands immediately surrounding the landfill, so if squirrels are
managed inside the park, their predators (primarily hawks, but also foxes) can find ground
squirrel prey in the Baylands Preserve around Byxbee Park Hills. Rodent predators typically
have a hunting range of several miles, and have not depended on the landfill for prey, with the
exception of seagulls, because the landfill to date has provide limited habitat for small mammal
prey species. The predators will likely still forage inside the park in the absence of squirrels
because they also feed on other small mammals and reptiles that will forage and breed in the
park once the vegetation is established.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 8
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Ground squirrels primarily consume plant material while they are feeding, and in doing so,
account for a significant amount of natural weed suppression. The weed suppression will not
occur in areas where squirrels are removed, but a mowing plan is in place for weed control. In
the absence of ground squirrels, it will also be necessary to construct artificial nest burrows for
burrowing owls. Park staff would have to regularly clean accumulated debris from the artificial
burrows in order to mimic the task that is performed by squirrels. In the absence of any
maintenance, burrows will fall into disrepair, the entrances will be blocked, and the burrow will
not be used by burrowing owls. Human clearing of owl burrows is not as desirable as ground
squirrel clearing because there may be subtleties associated with ground squirrel co-habitation
that cannot be mimicked by human management, it adds expense, and it could disturb resident
owls. However, if the regulatory agencies prohibit ground squirrel use in portions of the landfill
where burrowing owl nesting habitat is installed, the next best approach is for humans to keep
the burrow entrances clear.
Other maintenance activities for owls include mowing and clearing of burrow habitat. Shrubs
can be left in the forage habitat, but should be removed in the burrow habitat. Burrowing owls
prefer open foraging areas, so fewer shrubs are optimal habitat. Shrubs also provide cover and
perching sites for burrowing owl predators such as feral cats and raptors, so are not beneficial
to areas set aside as burrow habitat.
The Interim Byxbee Park Hills Concepts Plan will establish wildlife in an area where almost
none exists at the moment. Flushing distances are meaningful in situations where extremely
sensitive wildlife are already established and where a new disturbing activity is being
undertaken. At Byxbee Park Hills a baseline of human activity has been established, and wildlife
that can function within that baseline level will colonize the area, while disturbance-sensitive
species may not. Shoreline Park is an excellent example that burrowing owls will become
established in areas with the level of activity that can be expected at Byxbee Hills Park.
Adaptive management strategies, including the addition of perimeter mounds or fencing to
decrease disturbance to wildlife, can be undertaken if it becomes obvious that they are needed.
Other Wildlife. Stakeholders asked what wildlife could be expected to occur in the park if
burrowing animals are disallowed. Audubon requested that the City build nests or nesting areas
for swallows.
In the absence of squirrels, and potentially burrowing owls, once grasslands and other
vegetation become established, the typical grassland suite of species will quickly begin to
appear. These include invertebrates, field mice, deer mice and voles, gopher snakes and
western fence lizards, song birds such as black phoebe, sparrows, California towhee, various
flycatchers and aerial insectivores such as swallows, and raptors. At night the park will be used
by opossum, raccoon, and owls that occur in the vicinity.
Swallows generally nest on wood, concrete and stucco structures. Due to the issue of
subsidence, it is not possible to construct this type of structure on the landfill. Currently the
landfill does not support nesting habitat for swallows. Conversion of the landfill to a park does
not result in any negative impacts to swallow nesting and foraging habitat, and should increase
in foraging habitat area and quality.
Trails and Stairs. Many questions and concerns were raised about trails including the number
needed, appropriate trail substrate, off-road travel by maintenance personnel and hikers in their
absence, and trail “etiquette”. The commission also asked if stairs could be added for runners.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 9
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Landfill gas and leachate systems maintenance and monitoring are required by State and
Federal regulations. Landfill Staff need adequate pathways to service the hundreds of gas wells,
leachate wells, condensate sumps, valves and sampling ports. Staff needs to monitor and
perform maintenance on these components on a daily basis. Access is especially limited during
the wet season where the ground gets muddy and travel is restricted. Leachate well/pump
maintenance requires staff to bring tools, pumps, piping and fittings to the actual well location.
Staff needs to be able to drive up to these wells in many cases.
There will be 1,850 feet fewer trails in Phase I than in the original Byxbee Park development. As
a result of comments from the stakeholders meeting, staff reviewed the draft interim park
concepts and eliminated 1,100 feet of trails in Phases IIA and IIB compared to the first draft, and
also removed 150 feet of trails on Phase IIC. After the ad hoc committee meeting, an additional
500 feet of trail was removed. Staff has reviewed the options and has included the least
intrusive and minimum number of pathways to service the landfill maintenance systems. These
systems are monitored using a low impact vehicle. Ranger vehicles are only driven on
sanctioned roads, and Open Space staff does not typically need to drive off the roads and trails.
Exceptions are when there is a compelling reason to drive off road, such as a fire or medical
emergency, or when the work requires being off-road, such as mowing.
The off-road traffic is not expected to impact wildlife as long as trips are kept to a minimum,
access routes are reused for the trip in and out, low driving speed are maintained, and care is
taken to maintain a safe distance from wildlife occupying the area. These are in keeping with
current practices. In addition, renegade trails created by hikers will be scarified to discourage
usage and re-seeded with native seed mix to restore habitat. Signage will be added to indicate
sensitive habitat areas.
Trails will be graded and maintained so that they provide a smooth walking surface. They will be
made with Class II aggregate baserock to be stable and not rocky.
Stairs cannot be added to the site at this time because of issues related to landfill subsidence,
maintenance and repair, and liability concerns.
Park Utility Vehicles. Commenters voiced concerns about the use of large off-road equipment
and its impacts on habitat.
The City’s primary responsibility is to comply with the legally mandated post-closure plan. As a
result, there may be times that heavy equipment is required to be used on the closed
landfill/Byxbee Park Hills to repair the landfill cover and protect air and water quality. The
required post-closure duties include: (1) maintain the structural integrity and effectiveness of all
containment structures, and maintain the final cover as necessary to correct the effects of
settlement or other adverse factors; (2) continue to operate the leachate collection and removal
system as long as leachate is generated and detected; (3) maintain monitoring systems and
monitor the ground water, surface water, and the unsaturated zone in accordance with
applicable requirements of Article 1, Subchapter 3, Chapter 3, Subdivision 1 (section 20380 et
seq.); (4) prevent erosion and related damage of the final cover due to drainage; and, (5) protect
and maintain surveyed monuments [installed under section 20950(d)]
Monitoring activities can be completed with a low impact vehicle. The City purchased a
lightweight turf vehicle, to minimize impacts on the trails. The utility vehicle (Kubota brand) is
used for monitoring and inspections of the landfill’s environmental control systems as well as
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 10
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
performing inspections of the landfill as required by Title 27, Section 21090 (C). It is used for
maintenance to the extent possible, based on maintenance needs.
Rock Swale. The Parks and Recreation Commission stated that the rock swale was
unattractive. Other commenters asked if the size of the swales shown on the plan maps is
correct.
The swales are water quality protection features. They are designed to reduce scouring and
erosion and to slow storm water flows off of the landfill and into the bay. The design minimizes
adverse impacts to water quality, and the rock swales are an important water quality compliance
feature. The size of the swales shown on the plan maps was checked and the correct sizes are
shown on the updated plans.
Public Art. Commenters expressed a desire for fewer public art features.
No additional public art is proposed as part of the interim concepts.
Signage. The Commission felt that signage restricting access to maintenance pathways may be
bypassed and ignored by the public, that signs for sensitive habitat and “trail etiquette” are
necessary, and interpretive signs for nature and art are desirable. Some like the signage
presented in the Interim Park Concepts, and others did not.
The Architectural Review Board reviewed the plans and gave staff guidance on the Byxbee
Park Hills destination sign.
The proposed signs for the Byxbee Park Hills were reviewed by staff in response to comments.
Please see the current plan set for proposed signs, which meet the Baylands Design
Guidelines.
Graphical Presentation of Plan. A commission member commented that contour lines were
incorrect on maps of the Park, and that it was not clear why certain areas are restricted to trail
development.
The contour lines provided on the map are correct. The maps have been revised to clarify
elevations and slopes, and the plans include a different line type so the contours are easier to
read. The trail map was developed by a landscape architect with trail expertise, and with
sensitivity to City staff concerns about trail design and maintenance. City Public Works and
Open Space staff have collaborated to develop the minimum necessary trail network.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 11
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
3.3 Existing Park Facilities and Activities
3.3.1 Park Amenities
Trails. The Byxbee Park Hills currently contains trails that connect to other portions of the
Baylands Preserve and to Shoreline Park in Mountain View. The trail system is currently limited
to the portions of the landfill that are opened as parkland (phases I, IIA and IIB)
Public Art. Public art in the Byxbee Hills Park includes several features installed around 1990.
These features include a k-rail chevron, a pole field, and a wind wave structure.
Habitat. The park currently provides ruderal grassland habitat for wildlife, including the
burrowing owl. It does not provide habitat for the special-status species that occur in the salt
marsh, except possibly where the upland habitat exists immediately adjacent to salt marsh. In
those areas it is feasible that salt marsh harvest mouse could travel a short distance into the
upland habitat, particularly if there is a high tide and it needs to move out of the pickleweed
marsh.
Park Signs. There are two metal signs in the Byxbee Park Hills, including the original aluminum
sign in the parking lot, and a general Baylands Nature Preserve sign about rules. Elsewhere in
the Baylands Preserve there are wooden signs in the Design Science (Carl Rohr) style.
Furniture. The park currently contains two wooden benches on the top and 15 wooden benches
located along the Bayshore Trail on the perimeter of Byxbee Park Hills.
3.3.2 Hours of Operation and Typical Park Use
The hours of operation are 8 a.m. to sunset. Typical park use is passive, including
walking/hiking/running, bird/nature watching, mountain biking, and dog-walking. A recent poll of
117 park users found 57 percent of the users were pedestrians, 24 percent were bicyclists, and
19 percent were walking dogs.
3.4 Current Landfill Monitoring and Maintenance
California regulations mandate that the landfill be managed and maintained throughout a
minimum 30-year post-closure period based on an approved post-closure maintenance plan.
The primary purpose is to protect the integrity of the landfill cover, and monitor and to minimize
impacts to air and water quality by managing landfill gas and leachate. The City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department is responsible for landfill maintenance and management throughout
the 30 year post-closure period. Activities include importing soil and re-grading to correct areas
where the surface of the landfill has settled so that water does not pond, seep into the refuse
and create leachate, maintenance and repair of gas wells, pipes, and sumps, and leachate wells
and pipelines, and monitoring of leachate and gas extraction wells and piezometers. Emergency
repairs to these facilities may also be necessary. The laws that govern the landfill operation and
maintenance are described in Appendix B.
The landfill gas and leachate collection/monitoring facilities are largely concentrated in the
central areas of the landfill, with the perimeters having fewer areas that will require regular
access for maintenance. There is an unavoidable need for earth moving equipment, utility
vehicles and personnel to be able to access all areas of the landfill and park. Vehicles will
remain on maintenance roads as much as possible.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 12
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
The landfill is comprised of several layers, including the waste layers, a cover layer or “cap” and
a vegetation layer. The cap is designed to minimize the release of landfill gas and leachate, and
to prevent infiltration of surface water. The landfill has been developed and closed in phases.
Phase I, Phase IIA and Phase IIB are capped with a 12-inch thick clay cover. Phase IIC will be
capped with a 4-foot deep evapotranspirative (ET) soil cover in 2015.
Landfill leachate is monitored with 17 piezometers placed within the four phases of the landfill.
Leachate is pumped from the landfill through a network of 23 existing extraction wells equipped
with pneumatic pumps. The leachate is pumped to the City’s sanitary sewer for treatment. A
perimeter groundwater monitoring well system is used to monitor the surrounding groundwater
in case there is a release of contaminants, from the buried waste. The groundwater monitoring
system consists of 13 existing wells and sampling points located around the facility perimeter. A
perimeter drainage control system collects surface runoff as part of the landfill drainage and
erosion control system. Runoff is collected in v-ditches that discharge to catch basins that
discharge to surrounding water bodies. Runoff is also collected on the top deck of the landfill
using berms and buried storm water inlets and pipes
Five gas monitoring probes to monitor potential landfill gas migration are spaced at 300 to 500
foot intervals along the property boundary shared with the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (PARWQCP). Several structures on the landfill and several structures at the
PARWQCP are monitored for the presence of landfill gas as a safety measure. Gas extraction
on the landfill is accomplished through a system of 109 wells distributed throughout the landfill.
The gas is pumped to a sewage sludge incinerator or an adjacent flare at PARWQCP via a
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) network.
Burrowing animals, including primarily the ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), are
managed in landfill areas to insure that their burrowing does not damage the clay or
evapotranspirative caps. Damage to the cap can allow surface water infiltration and lead to
excessive load on the leachate extraction system; it also can result in the release of landfill gas,
compromise both leachate and landfill gas extraction systems by damaging piping, and lead to
violation of permit conditions.
Ground squirrels are controlled throughout the landfill with a Pressurized Exhaust Rodent
Control (PERC) system. The PERC system consists of a trailer-mounted combustion engine
that exhausts to a pressurized tank. A mixture of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is
delivered from the tank to the ground squirrel burrow, via a hose with a probe that is inserted
into the burrow entrance for a minimum of three minutes. Once treated, the entrance to the
burrow is sealed. Active burrows are identified for treatment by the presence of entering or
exiting squirrels and the presence of fresh mounds of dirt or evidence of new burrow excavation.
No treatment is applied where there are signs of burrowing owl occupation, including feathers,
pellets or other visual indicators of owl presence.
3.5 Existing Park Operation and Maintenance
This section describes existing park operation and maintenance activities. The proposed new
maintenance practices are described in Section 4.3, below.
Byxbee Park Hills is a passive use open space area with walking trails located on closed
portions of the landfill. Capped and contoured slopes of the landfill have been covered with a
layer of topsoil and hydroseeded with native grasses and forbs. The site is not irrigated, but the
Phase I, Phase IIA and Phase IIB portions of the landfill that are open to park use have been
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 13
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
revegetated with a combination of annual grasses and forbs. Phase IIC is in the process of
being capped and hydroseeded. In December 2014 approximately 18 acres was hydroseeded.
The remaining 33 acres is under construction.
The Palo Alto Community Services Department – Open Space, Parks and Golf Division is
responsible for the maintenance of the Byxbee Park Hills facility, apart from the landfill
maintenance activities that are implemented by Public Works. The City has assigned these
maintenance activities to a contractor. For the purposes of maintenance, the park is divided up
into three areas color coded as green, yellow and red (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). Areas color
coded in green are maintained each year unless repair to the landfill cap is ongoing. Areas
coded in yellow are still being capped. Areas coded in red were maintained beginning in 2014.
Maintenance requirements include vegetation management, trail repair, and repair of park
amenities. Maintenance activities include mowing, trail grading and filling, revegetation, coyote
brush removal, maintenance of signs and benches, and application of herbicide. The current
maintenance practices are described below.
Mowing. Currently mowing is conducted in May as a weed maintenance measure and to provide
sunlight to native perennials. All hydroseeded areas are mowed to a height of four to six inches,
with mowing repeated as necessary to meet these height specifications. Mowing is conducted
with a wheeled tractor fitted with a flail or rotary mower. A modified mowing regime to increase
the prey base for burrowing owl (and other raptors) is proposed (see Section 4.3, below).
Trail Maintenance. Six to 12-foot wide pedestrian and cycling trails were originally constructed
using an oyster shell, and baserock, but these have been replaced with ten to 12-foot paths
consisting of Class II aggregate baserock. Current maintenance methods used to maintain
unobstructed access along these pathways include spot treating weeds with herbicide.
“Renegade paths” created by cyclists and hikers who stray from established routes are rototilled
and seeded on an as-needed basis. Seeding occurs in winter months. Trails are repaired by
regrading and filling potholes or low spots as needed.
Revegetation. Two general methods of reseeding can occur at the Byxbee Park Hills –
mechanical and hydro-seeding. Prior to reseeding the soil will be loosened either by discing,
chiseling, or rototilling to a depth of six to eight inches. For mechanical seeding the seed and
fertilizer will be broadcasted then harrowed and ring-rolled. For hydroseeding, a balanced
fertilizer is first applied to the loosened soil at a rate of 50 pounds per acres, and two inches of
compost are tilled into the soil. Next, seed mixture is hydroseeded over the prepared area. The
current hydroseed mixture4 includes the following species:
California brome (Bromus carinatus)
Blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus)
Small fescue (Vulpia microstachys)
Native clammy clover (Trifolium obtusiflorum)
Coyote Brush Removal. Under current maintenance activities coyote brush is regularly removed
from the park to prevent coyote brush roots from penetrating the landfill cap. Coyote brush is
removed concurrently with annual mowing.
4 Seed mixtures will be selected based on area-specific needs (erosion control, ecotype, etc.). Additional
seed mixes could include species approved in the Final Closure and Post-Closure Monitoring Plan
(December 2013), or from the list of seeds in the “Proposed Hydroseed Species” list on drawing L-1 –
Interim Construction Plan.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 14
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Application of Herbicide. Herbicides are not a preferred means of vegetation control, and are
used with written permission of the Supervising Ranger and in accordance with state and local
regulations. Staff follows the City’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policies and tries other
methods to remove weeds before using herbicides. Herbicides are only applied in designated
areas and time frames. As noted above, weeds on trails are spot treated with herbicides.
Herbicides may also be used to control noxious and/or highly invasive weeds that form dense
stands and reduce wildlife habitat quality if other methods are determined to be ineffective.
4. Proposed Interim Park Concepts
4.1 Park Amenities
Trails. The trails and maintenance paths are proposed to be ten feet wide. The trails will be
composed of Class II aggregate base rock. Redundant or unnecessary trails have been
removed, and trail alignments have been modified in a few areas to improve the park
experience. The existing bayshore trail which connects Byxbee Park Hills to Baylands trails to
the north and south will remain in its existing alignment.
The trail system is composed of accessible trails most of which are less than 5 percent grade
while the maintenance roads (dual-use trails) can be up to 8 percent grade. Accessible routes
include both destination and loop trails that start at the parking lot.
Benches. The park concepts plan provides for up to 15 benches placed to take advantage of
surrounding views and provide opportunities to view wildlife, particularly birds (Figures 2, 3, and
4) in addition to benches provided at the vegetative island groupings and the group gathering
node (see Figure 2, Sheet L-2, and Figure 3, Sheet L-3.1). The proposed bench design is
wooden slats on a curved steel frame, with the option for a dedication plaque. Benches in the
vegetative island groupings would consist of a segmental seatwall bench, and seating in the
group gathering node will include benches that face outward to take advantage of the views.
Signs. Signs proposed in the interim park concepts include park entry signage (1), park
interpretive signs (5), trail marker signs (4), and park regulation signs (4). See Figure 2, Sheet
L-3 for sign designs and Figure 2 for conceptual locations. All signs comply with the Palo Alto
Baylands Design Guidelines.
The proposed park entry sign is a second tier sign in accordance with the Baylands Design
Guidelines and approved by the City’s Architectural Review Board.
The park interpretive signs are intended as an educational tool to interpret unique natural,
cultural and historic features, as well as management activities for park visitors. These signs are
placed at trail nodes and overlooks, and a total of five signs are shown in the concept plan.
They are composed of a 42-inch PVC/MDO panel printed with informational graphics
surrounded by a two-inch frame on a 16-inch square wood base. They are four feet high.
The five trail markers are placed where users enter the park and at the group node. Each
indicates where the user is located on an illustrative map, and shows all of the trails and their
distances as well as park amenities. They have the same design as the park interpretive sign.
Up to four park regulation signs are sited in the park, at park entrances and at one vegetative
island grouping near the parking lot. These signs indicate important park-specific regulations.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 15
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
They are two feet wide and four feet tall with 4x4 square redwood top and bottom rails, an R7
aluminum sign panel (18x24 inches), and two 4x4 square redwood posts.
Vegetation. Most of the Byxbee Park Hills will be planted with grassland in order to maintain the
integrity of the landfill cover, which could be compromised by deeper rooted plants. Steeper
sloped areas will not be mowed as often as the flatter areas on the hilltops, so there will be a
variation in vegetation height. In order to provide some visual relief and wildlife habitat, the
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts plan includes up to eight vegetated islands (Figure 2,
and Figure3, Sheet L-2.1). A limited number of islands will be constructed on a pilot basis before
all of the islands are installed. These are areas designed as mounds above the landfill cover,
with an HDPE liner underneath to protect the landfill cap. The additional protection allows for
planting shrubs and perennials, including sage, manzanita, coyote bush, California lilac,
buckwheat, lupine, and native grasses. Please see Figure 2, Sheet L-3 for a list of proposed
species. These will be installed on a pilot basis, so that their success and technology can be
tested.
Rock-lined Swales; Bridges. The finished landfill slopes include five swales which will be lined
with rock by Public Works to prevent erosion of the landfill cover (Figures 2 and 3, Sheet L-1.1).
Bridges are necessary in some areas for trails crossing these swales. The bridge design
consists of stacked segmental block walls with drainage culverts. The locations and an example
picture are shown in Figure 2, sheets L-1 and L-2. There are two existing bridges that will
remain, and there is one proposed bridge in the concept plan (see Figure 2, Sheet L-1 and
Figure 3, Sheet L-1.1).
4.2 Burrowing Owl Management Plan
Management actions for the burrowing owl take into account both landfill regulatory
requirements and the ecological needs of the owl. These actions will only be implemented if the
Burrowing Owl Management Plan is approved by the regulatory agencies. Long term
maintenance and management of the landfill includes monitoring of and repairs to landfill control
systems and the landfill cover. Large-scale repair to areas where landfill subsidence occurs is
also anticipated. While the schedule of some of this work can be planned for the non-breeding
season for burrowing owls, emergency repairs may also be necessary. Management actions
addressed in the Burrowing Owl Management Plan (attached in Appendix C) include ground
squirrel control, public use and access, vegetation management, creation and maintenance of
artificial burrow sites, feral cat (Felis silvestris catus) control, and long-term monitoring. These
are summarized in Table 2. The measures that are included in the Burrowing Owl Management
Plan will benefit other grassland wildlife species as well, including small mammals, raptors, song
birds, reptiles, and invertebrates.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 16
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Table 2 Summary of Burrowing Owl Management Activities
Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions
Install artificial owl burrows September to
February
Area 1: construct 1 nest burrow, 3 satellite burrows according to
plans in Barclay 2008.
Area 2: construct 2 nest burrows, 3 satellite burrows.
Area 3: construct 1 nest burrow, 2 satellite burrows.
Burrow construction is predicated on approval by landfill
regulatory agencies, which may impose additional
requirements.
Install habitat features such as rock
piles and mulch piles
September to
February
Install these features where rodents and insects
are infrequently observed and/or vegetation has
not yet become established.
Create a minimum of 5 rock piles and 20 brush/mulch piles up to a
maximum of 50 habitat features for owl prey species throughout both
nesting and foraging areas. To make rock piles, stack 15 to 17 6-
inch minus-sized rocks, rip rap or similar. Mulch piles will consist of
chipped wood, scattered to a depth of approximately 3-4” over a 100
ft2 area. Brush piles Will consist of piles of sticks or twigs, or grasses
piled approximately 2 to 3 feet high by about four feet wide. See
attached for possible locations and example photos. Maintenance,
such as weeding of the habitat features is not required.
Tentative locations may be subject to approval by landfill
regulatory agencies.
Install instructional signage As soon as feasible
after approval of
the Interim Park
Plan.
Along the edge of pathways bordering nesting habitat, install
signage stating “Sensitive Wildlife Area. Please Stay Out”. Consider
adding signage which says, “Sensitive Wildlife Area. Do not dump or
feed cats” and “Please no dog walking in this area. Keep dogs on a
leash at all times”.
Keep signage vague to discourage vandalism of burrows or
harassment of nesting owls.
Mowing of forage habitat Twice Yearly - April
and May
Mow at the minimum frequency necessary for fire and weed control.
The goal is to create foraging habitat with sufficient cover for small
rodents and insects. Slopes with a grade steeper than 25% will be
mowed at a decreased frequency to help create a mosaic of different
vegetation heights throughout the forage habitat. Where weeds form
dense, single-species stands in the forage habitat, mowing
frequency can be increased. Mowing may also be combined with
other methods of weed control in these areas.
Where vegetation cover is sparse consider adding mulch or brush
piles.
Avoid mowing at dawn or dusk when owls are normally
active.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 17
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions
Mowing of burrow habitat Twice Yearly –
February and
November if owls
are present.
Feb, May, August
and November if
owls are not
present.
Mowing in the
vicinity of active
burrows may be
done under the
guidance of a
qualified biologist
and must follow the
guidelines of the
CDFW Staff Report
(2012).
Mow to keep vegetation at a height of
approximately 5 inches or less.
Conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting owls prior to
undertaking mowing between February and August. If an active owl
nest burrow is found, an avoidance buffer of 250 feet should be
established. No mowing should occur inside that buffer. In
consultation with a qualified biologist, an impact assessment can be
conducted and if appropriate, buffer sizes may be reduced in
accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (2012). Do not string trim breeding habitat areas. Mow
only.
No mowing should occur within 250 feet of any active
burrowing owl nest burrow unless a qualified biologist has
conducted an impact assessment and established
alternative buffer distances in accordance with the
guidelines established in the CDFW Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012)
Artificial burrow maintenance Annually in early
spring. February is
suggested.
Debris accumulated at the burrow entrance. Conduct a survey for overwintering burrowing owls prior to clearing.
Do not conduct maintenance on occupied burrows.
Clear the PVC tubing that makes up the burrow entrance of any
obstructions along its entire length using a plumbing snake such as
a General Pipe Cleaners D-25-2 Handy Drain Auger.
Do not conduct maintenance on burrows occupied by
burrowing owls.
Feral cat control. As needed Cats are observed in the Park. Live trap and transport to Palo Alto Animal Care and Control. The non-native red fox (Vulpes vulpes) may also occur at
Byxbee Park Hills and is known to prey on ground-nesting
birds. Contact United States Department of Agriculture for
guidance on fox control should they be observed.
Landfill maintenance activities As needed Emergency or routine landfill maintenance is
needed.
Conduct a survey for burrowing owls prior to conducting any landfill
maintenance activities. Burrowing owls could potentially occupy a
variety of natural and man-made features throughout the area, so
surveys should be conducted to ensure that maintenance activities
do not impact owls. If owls are found to be present within 250 feet of
work in the breeding season or within 170 feet of work in the non-
breeding season, contact CDFW for guidance.
If owls are detected during the breeding season, a 75-meter
(~250 feet) avoidance buffer should be maintained around
any occupied burrow until young have fledged. If owls are
detected during the non-breeding season a 50-meter (~170
feet) avoidance buffer should be established for the duration
of the activity or until owls are no longer present.
In the event landfill compliance emergencies require
immediate relocation of owls, owls should be passively
relocated by a trained biologist in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 18
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions
Vegetation survey for grass height and
weed control
Late January, April,
July and October.
Monitoring burrowing owl use 3 times spaced
apart during the
breeding season
(suggest March,
June, August);
CNDDB report
once per year
Survey each burrow habitat area for signs of owl
use at the burrow entrances; document which
burrows are in use. Observe burrow and forage
areas for owl activity at dawn and at dusk. Report
burrow survey results to landfill and park
maintenance staff so that avoidance measures can
be implemented if necessary. Report sightings to
the California Natural Diversity Database annually
(https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitti
ng_data_to_cnddb.asp). If burrowing owls are not
observed, the Supervising Ranger should consider
measures to improve habitat conditions such as by
altering the mowing regime, changing mowing
heights, or increasing the number of prey habitat
features (e.g., rock, brush, mulch piles).
Monitoring burrowing owl habitat
quality.
3 times spaced
apart during the
breeding season
(suggest March,
June, September)
Maintain overall vegetation cover at approximately
70%, and no less than 50%. No more than 50% of
all areas of the park intended to be vegetated
either with hydroseed or other planting, should
remain bare ground. If 70% vegetative cover is not
achieved, staff will review remediation measures to
increase the vegetative cover, such as re-seeding
with a revised seed mixture.
Survey rock, mulch and brush piles for presence of small mammals
and insects. Conduct a visual inspection of the rock piles for small
mammals, and/or signs of mammal use such as droppings, flattened
grasses. Inspect brush piles by lifting material with a shovel or
similar to see if rodents, insects or other prey species move out of
the pile when disturbed. Report results to the Supervising Ranger.
If prey species are not present, the Supervising Ranger should
consider decreasing the mowing frequency, repeating hydroseed
application, and/or adding more habitat features such as rock, mulch
and brush piles.
If vegetation is too sparse, burrowing owl prey species are
unlikely to be present, and burrowing owl habitat would be
considered of low quality.
If vegetation is too tall in dense stands, burrowing owls will
not be able to access the habitat to forage or breed.
Dense monotypic stands of invasive weed species should
be controlled using methods known to control the particular
species. This may include mowing at a particular time of
year, hand pulling, applying herbicide, or a combination of
methods. Refer to the Maintenance Plan for a more detailed
description of weed control techniques.
This page intentionally left blank.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 19
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
4.3 Park Operation and Maintenance Activities and Best Management Practices
The proposed park maintenance activities are described below, and an estimated schedule is
presented in Table 3.
Trail Maintenance. Trails will be inspected routinely by Open Space staff for disrepair, and a trail
maintenance request will be provided to the Supervising Ranger. Trails will be re-graded, filled
and re-compacted during the dry season. This may include grading/filling low spots/eroded
areas with trail material and compacting the material to assure water does not pond on the
trails, water runoff does not cause erosion, and safety hazards are repaired. Repairs will be
completed annually or according to a schedule approved by the Supervising Ranger, and will be
done during the dry season.
Vegetation will be removed from the trails on a regular basis either by hand (with tools) or with
herbicide as approved by the Supervising Ranger. The schedule will be determined by the
Supervising Ranger and may be combined with other vegetation management schedules and
contracts, and may be completed by a contractor or by a City employee as deemed appropriate
by the Supervising Ranger.
Maintenance of Signs, Benches, Site Furnishings. Signs, benches and other site furnishings will
be inspected routinely by Open Space staff for disrepair, and a maintenance request will be
provided to the Supervising Ranger. Maintenance may include repair to posts/legs to insure
they are plumb and the footing(s) are adequately covered and compacted, removal of graffiti or
repair of other vandalism, and repainting or replacement as needed and included in the Parks
budget.
Mowing Steep Slopes. Woody plants outside of the vegetation islands that are allowed to grow
in areas where they will not compromise the landfill cover will be trimmed by hand as necessary
to remove dead material, and will not be mowed. Grassland slopes will be mowed as specified
in the Burrowing Owl Management Plan (see below) if necessary. See the weed management
program for treatment of invasive/noxious weeds; in some cases heavy infestations require a
different method of treatment that does not include mowing.
Mowing Slopes Less Than 25%. These areas are subject to the same treatment specifications
as the steep slopes. The slopes are called out because different equipment may be necessary
on steep slopes.
Mowing Western Burrowing Owl Breeding and Foraging Habitat. Grasses and weeds will be
maintained at a height of less than five inches in the nesting burrow habitat areas to allow an
unrestricted view of the surrounding habitat from the burrow. Vegetation that is allowed to grow
too tall will discourage owls from colonizing the site and may cause them to abandon a site in
which they have overwintered in preference for an area with lower vegetation. A survey for
burrowing owls should be conducted in advance of mowing by Open Space staff. Mowing will be
conducted in owl breeding areas in February and November if owls are documented to be using
the burrows, and in February, May, August, and November if owls are not using the burrows
(i.e., avoid mowing when owls are nesting). No mowing should occur within 150 feet of any
active nest burrow. Because string trimming is a slower method of weed control, it requires a
much more invasive human presence. Mowing will be the principal method of weed
management in these areas and string trimmers will not be used when owls are present.
Optimal owl foraging habitat consists of grasslands with a healthy population of small rodents
and insects, so mowing of grassland foraging habitat will be conducted yearly in April and May,
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 20
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
and for the remainder of the year it will be done only at a frequency necessary for fire
suppression.
Weed Management in the Vegetative Island. Noxious weeds and invasive plant species, as
defined by the California Invasive Plant Council or Open Space staff, will be removed from the
vegetation islands by hand or with hand tools four times per year, or more frequently if approved
by the Supervising Ranger.
The irrigation system to the vegetation islands will be inspected at least monthly for 3 years after
installation to insure the plants are established, and then the inspection period can be reduced
as determined appropriate by the Supervising Ranger.
Plants that die in the vegetation islands in the first year will be replaced as recommended
through adaptive management practices.
Weed Management in the Hydroseed Areas. Noxious weeds and invasive plant species, as
defined by the California Invasive Plant Council or Open Space staff, will be hand pulled,
mechanically removed or sprayed with herbicide subject to the approval of the Supervising
Ranger. Treatment methods for heavy infestations of noxious weeds and invasive plant species
shall be informed by “Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States” published by
the University of California Weed Research and Information Center. Weed management will
occur four times per year, or more frequently if approved by the Supervising Ranger.
Maintenance of Landscape Art Features. Open Space staff will report any art features
maintenance needs to the Community Services Manager responsible for public art.
Maintenance of Swales/Drainage Systems. Rock-lined swales, culverts and other drainage
systems will be cleaned of debris and muck once per year, or as determined necessary by the
Supervising Ranger. Hand methods are recommended to maintain the integrity of the drainage
systems. Erosion damage will be repaired once per year, or as determined necessary by the
Supervising Ranger. This work may be done by a contractor or Open Space staff.
General Maintenance Notes. Perform a quarterly check of all areas of the landfill to ensure no
sinking or low spots. Re-grade, fill and compact areas where necessary to prevent water
accumulation or further ground disturbance. Areas of the final landfill cover that are not
successfully vegetated after hydroseeding will be re-seeded to provide erosion control, as
determined by Public Works.
Feral cat feeding stations that are found within the park will be removed and whenever they are
observed in the park, feral cats will be live trapped and transported to Palo Alto Animal
Services.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 21
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Table 3. Estimated Maintenance
Schedule
JA
N
U
A
R
Y
FE
B
R
U
A
R
Y
MA
R
C
H
AP
R
I
L
MA
Y
JU
N
E
JU
L
Y
AU
G
U
S
T
SE
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
OC
T
O
B
E
R
NO
V
E
M
B
E
R
DE
C
E
M
B
E
R
TRAIL MAINTENANCE X X X X X
MOW OWL NESTING BURROW
HABITAT–Owls Absent
X X X X
MOW OWL NESTING BURROW
HABITAT–Owls Present
X X
MOW HYDROSEEDED AREAS X X X X
NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEED
MANAGEMENT
X X X X
BENCHES/SITE FURNISHINGS* X
RE-SEED (WEATHER
DEPENDENT)
X X
IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE X X X X X X X X X
SWALES/DRAINAGE
STRUCTURES*
X
LANDSCAPE ART FEATURES
INSPECTION*
X
*Annually, timing to be determined by the Supervising Ranger; a suggested month is shown in the table.
4.4 Interim Park Plan Evaluation Schedule and Future Planning
Open Space staff will establish permanent photo-monitoring locations once the park has been
developed, and will take photos at these specific locations in at least two seasons during the
year. The reason is to document the progression of vegetation growth that benefits park users
and wildlife. The photo-monitoring stations need to include burrowing owl burrow habitat, forage
habitat in the rest of Byxbee Park Hills, habitat islands, and a landscape overview. The results
will be reviewed annually by the Supervising Ranger and if changes are necessary to the
maintenance and operation activities to improve vegetation results, the Supervising Ranger will
provide recommendations to the head of the Open Space Division and to the Public Works
landfill department.
In addition to the photo-monitoring, Open Space staff will keep a log of the monitoring activities
conducted under the Burrowing Owl Management Plan, if implementation of the plan is
approved by the regulatory agencies.
5.0 Compliance with Baylands Master Plan Goals
Master Plan Goals:
The overall goal of the master plan was to convert the landfill into a rolling pastoral park that
would be an environmental asset and a continuation of open space.
In addition, the master plan established the following goals:
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 22
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Preserve and expand marshes
Protect wildlife and restore upland diversity of plants and animals
Control access to environmentally sensitive areas
Expand pedestrian and bicycle activities
Reduce vehicle traffic in the Baylands
Restrict storage and parking of vehicles
Prevent additional urban intrusion
Ensure the landfill area becomes a continuation of natural green space
Integrate art with the park landscape
Eliminate telephone and electric wires and poles
Additional goals include the following:
Create habitat for burrowing owl populations to attempt to bring back historic burrowing
owl populations
Control and remove invasive weeds
Create a hill and valley effect in the park
Provide panoramic views of the marsh
Create an area within the Baylands that provides passive recreational opportunities that
are compatible with the goal of conserving and protecting the natural environment
The Byxbee Park Hills Interim Concepts Plan addresses the Baylands Master Plan goals in the
following ways:
The park design is pastoral
The park offers numerous biking and pedestrian trails that provide access to the entire
park and numerous viewing opportunities.
The trail system in the park provides pathways to keep pedestrians and bicyclists from
entering environmentally sensitive areas. The interim plan also incorporates trail marker
and park regulations signs to keep pedestrians and bicyclists on the trails and out of
environmentally sensitive areas.
No motorized vehicles except authorized vehicles (i.e., those used by Open Space
and/or Public Works staff or their contractors in the course of their duties, or emergency
vehicles such as police, fire, medical).
The park is designed so that it incorporates upland open space and passive recreational
activities.
The park provides panoramic views of the marsh.
The park provides three locations to create burrowing owl habitat.
The park design incorporates planting of native grassland and shrub vegetation
Invasive species and weed management is incorporated into the maintenance plan for
the park
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 23
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Landscape Plan Site Amenities and Layout (3 Sheets)
Figure 3. Byxbee Park Hills Conceptual Plan Construction Documents (6 sheets)
Figure 4. Byxbee Park Hills Maintenance Areas
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\Figure
1
SiteMap.mxd
9/16/2014
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Figure 1 Regional and Site VicinityTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Byxbee Park Hills Limits and Closure Phases
9
8
8
092
17
280
2 3 7
85
8
7
84
84
Santa Clara
San Mateo
Alameda
Santa Cruz
Phase I
Phase IIA
Phase IIB
Phase IIC
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
L-1
SITE AMENITIES AND SIGNAGE LAYOUT
1
3
5
6
8
9
MAYFIELD SLOUGH
RWQCP
7
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
56
6
7
7
7
7
9
3
ACCESSIBLE TRAIL
MAINTENANCE PATH
EXISTING BAYSHORE TRAIL GROUP GATHERING NODE
PROPOSED BRIDGE BENCH(ES) LOCATION
PROPOSED VEGETATIVE ISLAND(S) POSSIBLE FUTURE VEGETATIVE ISLANDS (PENDING PILOT EVALUATION)
POTENTIAL BURROWING OWL HABITAT LOCATION
ROCK-LINED DRAINAGE SWALES
MEASURE E AREA (+/- 10 ACRES)
EXISTING BRIDGE TO REMAIN15
6
7
8
9
4
3
2
KEYNOTE LEGEND
SCALE: 1”= 300’
0 150’ 300’ 600’
1
A
C
C
C
C
D
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
A SIGN TYPE, REFER TO SHEET L-3 FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
L-2
VIGNETTE SKETCHES AND PHOTOS OF AMENITIES
10’ WIDE PATHWAY WITH
MAINTENANCE CLEARANCE ON BOTH SIDES
SMALLER VEGETATIVE ISLAND,
3’ MAX. ABOVE GRADE, TO
PRESERVE BAY VIEWS
LARGE VEGETATIVE
ISLAND, 3’-8’ ABOVE
ADJACENT GRADE
NOTE: REFER TO “REVEGETATION PROPOSAL”
BY JEAN LUM HOY (9/2013) FOR ADDITIONAL
VEGETATION ISLAND UNDERLAYMENT
REQUIREMENTS
VIEWING PLATFORM
WITH SEGMENTAL
SEATWALL BENCH
VIEWING PLATFORM
WITH SEGMENTAL SEATWALL BENCH
EXISTING COBBLE
DRAINAGE BED
VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
A
A
VEGETATIVE ISLAND,
TYP.VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
VIEWING PLATFORM WITH SEGMENTAL
SEATWALL BENCH
COBBLE DRAINAGE SWALE
PROPOSED TRAIL BRIDGE
STACKED SEGMENTAL BLOCK WALLS WITH DRAINAGE CULVERTS AND ROCK RIP-RAP
PROPOSED BENCHWOODEN SLATS ON CURVED STEEL FRAME, WITH OPTIONAL DEDICATION PLAQUE
PLAN ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING WITH VIEWING AREA
PLAN ‘B’: GROUP GATHERING NODE
SECTION ‘A’: THROUGH VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING AND VIEWING PLATFORM
PERSPECTIVE ‘A’: VEGETATIVE ISLAND GROUPING
SEGMENTAL SEATWALL
BENCH
VEGETATIVE ISLAND, TYP.
COMPASS ROSE FORMED WITH STEEL
HEADER AND D.G.
(CONTRASTING
COLOR)
WOODEN BENCHES
SITUATED AROUND
OUTER EDGE
BYXBEE PARK HILLS INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 18, 2015
A PARK ENTRY SIGNAGE B PARK INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE
C TRAIL MARKER SIGN D PARK REGULATION SIGN
TO BE USED AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL TO INTERPRET UNIQUE NATURAL, CULTURAL, HISTORIC FEATURES, AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES FOR PARK VISITORS.
INDICATES WHERE USER IS LOCATED AT ON AN ILLUSTRATIVE SITE MAP. SHOWS ALL TRAILS AND THEIR DISTANCES, AND SITE AMENITIES. INDICATES IMPORTANT PARK-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS.
VEGETATIVE ISLANDS PLANT LIST
SPECIES COMMON NAME Artemesia californica CaIifornia SagebrushArctostaphylos ‘Pacific Mist’ Pacific Mist ManzanitaArctostaphylos ‘Pumila’ Dune ManzanitaAtriplex lentiformis brewerii Coastal QuailbushBaccharis pilul. ‘Pigeon Point’ Coyote BushCeanothus maritimus Bluff LilacCeanothus thrysifIorus Blue Blossom LilacEriogonum fasciculatum CaIifornia BuckwheatEriogonum nudum Naked BuckwheatEriophylIum staechadifoium Yellow YarrowLimonium perezii Sea LavenderLeymus cond. ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild RyeLupinus chamaissonis Coastal Silver LupineMimulus aurantiacus StIcky Monkey Flower Muhlenbergia rigens Deer GrassPinus contorta v. contorta Shore PineSalvia mellifera Black Sage
A
B
C D E
F G H
I J K
L M N
O P Q
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
L-3
PARK SIGNAGE DETAILS AND PROPOSED VEGETATION ISLAND PLANT MATERIAL
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\LandfillMaintenanceAreas.mxd
9/16/2014
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Figure 6 Mowing and Maintenance AreasTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Mowing
Mowed Yearly Beginning 2015
Mowed Yearly
Side Slopes Mowed Less Frequently
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 36
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Appendix B: Regulatory Information
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 37
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Laws Related to Landfill Monitoring and Maintenance
Federal Clean Air Act
The Palo Alto Landfill is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), an
area of non-attainment for national and state ozone, state particulate matter (PM10), and
national and state fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standards. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating
emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The City of Palo Alto operates
the Palo Alto Landfill in accordance with the requirements and conditions set forth in its Permit
to Operate issued to the City by the BAAQMD in June 2012. The Palo Alto Landfill has a landfill
gas recovery system that consists of pipelines, condensate sumps and landfill gas extraction
wells. This system must be maintained and kept operational in order for the City to remain in
compliance with the Permit to Operate issued by the BAAQMD. In addition to the gas recovery
system the City is required to maintain and monitor the integrity of the landfill cover to minimize
uncontrolled releases of landfill gas. Burrowing animals are controlled in areas where the landfill
cover can be compromised by burrows which can potentially facilitate the process of gas
migration out of the landfill.
Federal Clean Water Act and State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set effluent limitations
and guidelines for landfill operations including landfill leachate and gas collection condensate.
The EPA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S, and the
California State Water Resources Control Board enforces section 401. The State Water
Resources Control Board sets statewide policy related to water quality, coordinates and
supports regional water quality control boards, and reviews petitions that contest regional board
actions. The RWQCB sets water quality standards, waste discharge requirements for its region,
determines compliance with those standards, and takes enforcement action. Leachate is “liquid
that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or
miscible materials removed from such waste”. Condensate is liquid which has condensed in a
gas collection system during the extraction of gas from the landfill and typically consists of
methane and carbon dioxide, the by-products of microbial breakdown of landfill waste. These
are volatile gasses that need to be removed to control hazardous conditions.
At PALF, the landfill leachate is monitored via piezometers and pumped from the landfill through
extraction wells to the City’s sanitary sewer for treatment. Leachate movement through the
bottom of the landfill or out of landfill waste is monitored via sampling points located around the
facility perimeter. As part of the landfill drainage and erosion control system, runoff is collected
in v-ditches that discharge to catch basins that in turn, discharge to surrounding water bodies.
All of these systems must be maintained to comply with Waste Discharge Requirements issued
by the RWQCB. The integrity of the landfill cover is also required to be maintained to minimize
the infiltration of storm water into the waste. This includes re-grading areas that have subsided
and where water can pond, fixing erosion, cracks or other openings in the landfill cover, and
discouraging burrowing animals where burrows can potentially facilitate the process of
infiltration of surface water.
California Title 14 and CalRecycle
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) oversees the
state’s recycling and waste management programs that are implemented according to Title 28
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 38
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
of the California Code of Regulations. It relies on a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) to monitor
landfill activities. Santa Clara County is the LEA for the PALF.
The Engineering Support Branch of CalRecycle reviews and approves solid waste facility
closure/post-closure maintenance plans to identify how state standards will be met, then the
LEA inspects each site on a regular basis to insure that the standards are met. The state
standards concern the integrity of the landfill, so that the landfill does not attract unwanted
vectors (rats, flies), does not release landfill gases (methane), and does not impact ground or
surface water as a result of storm or irrigation water percolating though the refuse (leachate).
Burrowing animals are generally controlled at landfills in order to avoid non-compliance with
state standards. As a result, the burrowing owl management plan needs to incorporate burrow
designs that do not threaten the integrity of the landfill cover, and that are approved by
CalRecycle and monitored by the LEA.
Laws Related to Biological Resources
Federal
Endangered Species Act
A 1998 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandated that the USFWS
identify a list of nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions are likely to become
candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The goal of this list,
Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USFWS 2008), was to identify birds not yet listed under
the ESA but that represented the highest conservation priorities, and to promote study and
conservation of habitats and ecosystems important to these species. The burrowing owl is not
listed under the ESA, but is included on the Shortgrass Prairie list of Birds of Conservation
Concern.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The burrowing owl is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Sections
703 to 711). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements various treaties and conventions
between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of
migratory birds. Unless permitted by regulations, the MBTA provides that it is unlawful to
pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter,
purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received
any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Under the MBTA it is illegal
to remove vegetation containing nests that are in active use, since this could result in killing a
bird or destroying an egg. This would also be a violation of the California Fish and Game Code
(see section 1.5.7, below).
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 39
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
State
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) establishes
the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered
species and their habitats. CESA mandates that State agencies shall not approve projects that
would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable
and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. The burrowing owl is not
currently listed as a species protected by CESA.
California Fish and Game Code
Burrowing owls are protected by California Fish and Game Code section 3503, which reads, “It
is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as
otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, under
Fish and Game Code section 3503.5, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the
orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or
eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted
pursuant thereto”. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of
fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest
abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The burrowing owl is in the order Strigiformes and is
protected under both sections of Fish and Game Code.
Local
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Communities Conservation Plan
(Plan) was adopted by the County of Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and the cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San
Jose to streamline the permitting process for development, infrastructure and maintenance
activities. The Plan, which was approved in January 2013, is intended as a comprehensive
approach to evaluate impacts to natural resources and mitigation requirements instead of
separately permitting and mitigating projects on an individual basis. It includes a fee-based
conservation strategy to compensate for impacts to covered species and their habitats in a
specified Plan Area (Figure 4). Jurisdictions, projects and activities outside of the Plan Area are
not covered by the Plan. Because Palo Alto and the PALF are not within the Plan Area,
activities at the PALF are not governed by the Plan. However, because most of the south bay
burrowing owl habitat is not within the Plan Area, the Plan has a provision for mitigating future
impacts to owls by creating habitat reserves in a designated region outside of the Valley Plan
Area. The PALF is located in that designated region. If a developer wished to mitigate for
burrowing owl impacts caused by a project in the Plan Area by funding a reserve at the PALF
this would need to be coordinated with the City of Palo Alto and involve the Plan Implementing
Entity.
Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Narrative Page 40
MIG | TRA February 17, 2015
Appendix C: Burrowing Owl Management Plan
Management Plan for the
Western Burrowing Owl
Byxbee Park Hills
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Community Services Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-329-2151
February 2015
Management Plan for the
Western Burrowing Owl
Byxbee Park Hills
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Community Services Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-329-2151
Prepared by:
MIG|TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc.
545 Middlefield Road
Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 327-0429
February 2015
Table of Contents Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................................................................... 1
2.0 WESTERN BURROWING OWL DESCRIPTION AND ECOLOGY ............................................. 2
2.1 DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 LIFE CYCLE ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 HABITAT ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.4 HOME RANGE .................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF WESTERN BURROWING OWL .................................................... 3
4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................... 5
4.1 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT ...................................................................................... 5
4.2 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ........................................................................................... 5
4.3 CLEAN AIR ACT ............................................................................................................... 5
4.5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) .................................................. 7
4.6 CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ...................................................................... 7
4.7 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE ............................................................................... 7
4.8 SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ................................................. 7
5.0 MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ................................................................................................ 8
5.1 CDFW CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA ................ 8
5.2 CALIFORNIA BURROWING OWL CONSORTIUM GUIDELINES ........................................... 8
5.3 CDFW STAFF REPORT ON BURROWING OWL MITIGATION .......................................... 8
6.0 LANDFILL MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT................................................................... 9
7.0 CURRENT BYXBEE PARK HILLS MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ACTIVITIES ................ 10
7.1 MOWING ........................................................................................................................ 11
7.2 TRAIL MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................... 11
7.3 REVEGETATION ............................................................................................................. 11
7.4 COYOTE BRUSH REMOVAL ........................................................................................... 11
7.5 MAINTENANCE OF MOUNDS AND OTHER ARTISTIC FEATURES.................................... 11
7.6 APPLICATION OF HERBICIDE ......................................................................................... 11
8.0 PROPOSED BURROWING OWL MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............................................. 12
8.1 SET ASIDE BURROW HABITAT AREAS AND MANAGE REMAINING AREAS FOR FORAGE 1
8.2 GROUND SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT ................................................................................. 1
8.3 INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ARTIFICIAL BURROWS, MOUNDS, PERCHES AND
OTHER HABITAT FEATURES ........................................................................................................ 1
8.4 PUBLIC ACCESS FOR HIKING AND DOG WALKING AND INSTRUCTIONAL SIGNAGE........ 2
8.5 HYDROSEEDING, MOWING AND WEED MANAGEMENT ................................................... 3
8.6 FERAL CAT CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 3
8.7 MONITORING, REPORTING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ............................................. 4
9.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 5
10.0 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................. 6
Table of Contents Page ii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional and Site Vicinity Location .......................................................................... A-1
Figure 2 CNDDB Occurrences of Burrowing Owls .................................................................. A-2
Figure 3 Byxbee Park Hills Overwintering Owl Locations ........................................................ A-3
Figure 4 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Expanded Study and Permit Area ........................... A-4
Figure 5 PALF Existing Environmental Control Systems ........................................................ A-5
Figure 6 Byxbee Park Hills Maintenance Areas ...................................................................... A-6
Figure 7 Artificial Burrow Design ............................................................................................ A-7
Figure 8 Nesting and Foraging Habitat with Artificial Nest and Sattelite Burrow Locations ..... A-8
Figure 9 Tentative Habitat Feature Locations .......................................................................... A-9
List of Appendices
Appendix A Figures ................................................................................................................. A-1
List of Acronyms
CDFW – California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
CESA – California Endangered Species Act
CNDDB – California Natural Diversity Database
ESA – Endangered Species Act
ET – Evapotranspirative
HDPE – High density polyethylene
MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act
PALF – City of Palo Alto Landfill
PARWQCP – Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
PERC – Pressurized Exhaust Rodent Control system
USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 1
MIG|TRA February 2015
SUMMARY
This plan describes ways to manage the local burrowing owl population at the Palo Alto landfill
as the landfill is closed and converted to an open space park known as Byxbee Park Hills. The
implementation of this plan is contingent upon approval from the landfill regulatory agencies,
including the Local Enforcement Agency, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The plan describes the landfill regulations that
require compliance with current air and water quality standards, and park maintenance and use
requirements, as well as management recommendations for the owl, such as predator and
vegetation control, guidelines for human use of and access to proposed park facilities, control of
ground squirrels, and opportunities for enhancement of the site for burrowing owls.
1.0 Introduction and Purpose
The Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto, and is located in
the Palo Alto Baylands (Figure 1). The landfill is part of the Byxbee Park Master Plan, and
portions of it have been closed and developed for park use. The entire landfill will eventually be
converted to park use, and an interim park plan will be implemented before a final park plan is
proposed. The interim plan offers an opportunity to test park design, vegetation, and
management methods. Ongoing maintenance of the closed landfill and the park will be
necessary after the site is converted to park use. Landfill maintenance is required by law and is
paramount to public safety, thus landfill maintenance has priority over other activities at the site.
All of these issues affect the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), a California
Species of Special Concern which occurs in the area and has overwintered in burrows on the
site.
This Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl provides guidelines for the management
of burrowing owls and their habitat on the landfill and park lands in a manner that is consistent
with landfill regulations and the on-going need for maintenance of the closed landfill, as well as
park maintenance and public access and use. Federal, state and local wildlife regulations, and
the recommendations and guidelines of state agencies and local burrowing owl working groups
are also considered. The plan recommends development of overwintering, foraging and
breeding habitat for burrowing owls wherever possible, in consideration of other management,
maintenance and monitoring requirements. This plan will be used to inform the overall
maintenance plans for the landfill and park. This management plan has the following
organization:
Description and Ecology – This section describes the owl, its habitat requirements, and
range.
Local Distribution – Current population status and trends of the burrowing owl in the
Santa Clara Valley and in the area surrounding the Byxbee Park Hills.
Regulatory Framework – Federal, state and local regulations pertaining to the burrowing
owl and to the landfill that were the framework of the plan.
Burrowing Owl Management Guidelines – Existing goals and conservations guidelines
for burrowing owls.
Landfill Maintenance and Management – PALF management and maintenance activities
mandated during the 30 year post-closure period.
Management Measures – Management and maintenance activities that will be
undertaken to optimize breeding and foraging habitat for owls, and to encourage
colonization of the site by owls, and to stabilize and increase the local population
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 2
MIG|TRA February 2015
2.0 Western Burrowing Owl Description and Ecology
2.1 Description
The western burrowing owl is a mottled brownish and sand colored, dove-sized raptor, with
large yellow eyes, a rounded head lacking ear tufts, white eyebrows, and long legs compared to
other owl species. It spends a great deal of time standing on dirt mounds at the entrance to a
burrow, or perched on a fence post or other low perch from which it hunts for prey. It frequently
hunts by hovering in place above the ground and dropping on prey from above. Burrowing owls
feed primarily on insects such as grasshoppers, June beetles, and moths, but will also eat small
rodents, birds, and reptiles. This owl species is active during the day and night, primarily active
in the early morning and early evening hours.
2.2 Life Cycle
The breeding season for the burrowing owl is February 1 through August 31. Up to eleven, but
typically seven to nine, eggs are laid in a burrow, abandoned pipe, or other subterranean hollow
where incubation is completed by the female in 28-30 days and the young hatch. Young
burrowing owls emerge from their burrow to await delivery of food by the parents at
approximately 2 weeks of age (Johnsgard 1988). Parents feed the young until they fledge at
about 44 days of age (Landry 1979). Young remain in the vicinity of the natal burrow, using
satellite burrows for refuge for about two months after hatching. Young reach sexual maturity at
one year of age, but some females may not breed their first year (Lutz and Plumpton 1999).
2.3 Habitat
The western burrowing owl is a ground dwelling owl, typically found nesting in arid prairies,
fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground. It is heavily dependent
upon the presence of mammal burrows (commonly ground squirrel and American badger) in its
habitat to provide shelter from predators or inclement weather, and to provide a nesting place.
Foraging habitat tends to be made up of grassland areas with a slightly taller average
vegetation height than nesting habitat, so the presence of a mosaic of short and medium height
vegetation is important to the survival of this species (Clayton and Schmutz 1999). Space
between burrows occupied by burrowing owls is dependent on the species of animal that
excavated the burrow and the local density of burrowing owls. Where burrows were clustered
closely, such as in prairie dog colonies, occupied owl burrows were clustered more closely
(Johnson, et al. 2010).
2.4 Home Range
The burrowing owl is a migratory species in portions of its range, which includes western North
America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas and Louisiana. Burrowing owl populations
in California are more often sedentary or locally migratory. In the Santa Clara Valley, paired
owls remain sedentary year round unless some external factors such as loss of foraging habitat
or disturbance of their breeding habitat forces them to relocate. Unmated owls, which are often
owls dispersing from their natal burrow, range more widely in search of a mate. Harman and
Barclay (2007) reported the longest recorded movement of a banded burrowing owl in the south
Bay Area to be 7.5 miles (12 km) from the San José International Airport to Moffett Federal
Airfield.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 3
MIG|TRA February 2015
The western burrowing owl has disappeared from a significant portion of its range in the last 15
years. Nearly 60% of the breeding groups of owls known to have existed in California during the
1980s had disappeared by the early 1990s (Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993). The conversion
of grassland habitat has been a significant factor in the reduction of the local population.
Because burrowing owls depend on other animals to dig their burrows, eradication of ground
squirrels has also contributed to their decreased numbers (Haug et al. 1993).
3.0 Local Distribution of Western Burrowing Owl
Between 1988 and 2002, 66% of sites occupied by the burrowing owl in the Santa Clara Valley
were lost to development. At present, approximately 50 pairs of owls remain in the entire county
(Trulio 2014). For owls to remain in Santa Clara, open grassland habitats of sufficient size and
with a healthy population of ground squirrels must remain available. On lands that owls do not
occupy, but where they are present nearby, owls can potentially become reestablished. Trulio
(2004) observed that sites that have the greatest potential to attract burrowing owls have the
following characteristics:
Are within 300 meters of occupied habitat
Were recently occupied by nesting owls
Are relatively large (in excess of 30 acres)
Are un-fragmented by roads, paths or other habitat features
Are relatively flat and of low elevation
Possess optimal habitat characteristics (grasses of suitable height, ground squirrel
population)
Byxbee Park Hills is located within a region of the south bay known to support burrowing owl.
Owls have been recorded north, northeast, south and southeast of the landfill, and the landfill
may be part of a corridor of open space that allows movement between breeding populations. A
search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2014) that includes all burrowing
owls recorded within five miles of Byxbee Park Hills provided the following information, which is
also shown by occurrence number and year on Figure 2.
Occurrence 21 – A colony located at Byxbee Park Hills, “just east of the city dump and
west of Mayfield Slough” was monitored sporadically between 1911 and 2008. The most
recent report of owls at this location was in January 2008, when one wintering adult was
observed at a burrow.
Occurrence 27 – In 1983, one individual owl was observed at a burrow entrance at the
Palo Alto Municipal Airport on a levee parallel to and northeast of the runway opposite
the control tower.
Occurrence 25 – This colony was monitored between 1998 and 2005. The most recent
observation was in May 2008, when one adult pair and one juvenile were observed. The
colony is located on the Shoreline Golf Links, west of Mountain View Slough.
Occurrence 215 – In 1983 four pairs and an unknown number of juveniles were recorded
at Long Point, just north of Shoreline Park and northwest of Moffett Federal Airfield.
Occurrence 1031 – This site was monitored between 1998 and 2003. The most recent
occurrence is in 2003 when two burrows were observed. The burrows are located at
Shoreline Golf Links east of Mountain View Slough.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 4
MIG|TRA February 2015
Occurrence 1235 – A single active nest burrow was observed in 2004 between the salt
pond levee and the northeast golf course at Shoreline Park.
Occurrence 1032 – This colony was monitored sporadically between 1998 and 2004.
The most recent occurrence is from 2004 when four nests were reported. The colony is
located at Shoreline at Mountain View Park, in the field northeast of the Amphitheater.
Occurrence 1033 – This burrow was monitored between 1999 and 2004, and was last
documented as occupied in 2004. It is located east of Stevens Creek, 0.42 miles
northwest of the intersection of Parsons and Arnold Avenues at Moffett Federal Airfield.
Occurrence 1035 – A single occupied burrow was documented at Moffett Federal Airfield
in the field northwest of the tower in 1998.
Occurrence 22 – An “active colony” was reported in 1983, 0.75 miles west near the
intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Highway 237.
Occurrence 23 – Nine burrow sites were observed between 1999 and 2004,
approximately 1.5 miles north of the intersection of U.S. 101 and Matilda Avenue.
Occurrence 26 – This colony was monitored between 1998 and 2009. The most recent
observation was made in July 2009, when “43 owls were trapped at 14 nests”. This
colony is located at the north end and east side of the flight line at Moffett Federal
Airfield and includes the golf course at Moffett Federal Airfield.
Occurrence 24 – This colony is considered inactive or extirpated, and the date of owls
last being observed is unknown. The colony was situated southeast of the confluence of
Coyote Creek and Alviso Slough.
Occurrence 784 – This colony was monitored between 1998 and 2009. The most recent
observation was in 2009, when four adults and one juvenile were trapped at two nests.
This colony is located at the southwest end of Moffett Federal Airfield.
Occurrence 51 – This colony is considered extirpated. It was situated southeast of the
confluence of Coyote Creek and Alviso Slough, north of Sunnyvale and has no record
date.
Occurrence 18 – This colony is considered possibly extirpated. It was situated northwest
of the intersection of Jarvis Road and Thornton Avenue at the east end of the
Dumbarton Bridge. The last observation of burrowing owls at this location was 1979.
The CNDDB does not include the most current information on the population of western
burrowing owl at Shoreline Park, which consists of two breeding pairs of owls as of June 2014.
In 2014, one pair produced four chicks and the second pair produced two chicks. Shoreline Park
averages approximately six breeding pairs of owls during the breeding season, with the
population increasing temporarily during the non-breeding season as un-banded overwintering
owls occupy the site (Phillip Higgins City of Mountain View Wildlife Preservation Biologist,
personal communication). Shoreline Park is situated within 2 miles of Byxbee Park Hills, so
dispersing offspring of this population of owls provide one of the best opportunities for
recruitment of foraging and overwintering owls for Byxbee Park Hills. Owls may also disperse
from Moffett Federal Airfield, situated approximately 2.5 to 3 miles from Byxbee Park Hills. At
present (July 2014) Moffett Federal Airfield has 11 active nest burrows with four breeding pairs
of owls (Christopher Alderete, personal communication).
The City of Palo Alto has monitored known occupied burrows at the Palo Alto Baylands,
including Byxbee Park Hills, but does not have a formal burrowing owl monitoring or
management program. Overwintering owls have been observed in the PALF Phase I closure
(Figure 1) area just west of Mayfield Slough as recently as March 3rd 2014, but breeding activity
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 5
MIG|TRA February 2015
has not been observed at that location. Two active burrow locations occupied by a single owl
were observed in a topsoil stockpile between PALF Phase IIB and Phase IIC closure areas
(Figure 1) in January 2014, and eight additional burrows, occupied by two owls, were observed
in Phase I between November 2013 and March 2014 (Figure 3). No owls are known to currently
occupy Byxbee Park Hills or the landfill as of the publication of this plan.
In an area where very few opportunities exist to increase burrowing owl habitat, the PALF and
park present a unique opportunity to establish and enhance up to 130 acres of open space for
burrowing owls. At present, Byxbee Park Hills has limited breeding and foraging habitat for
burrowing owls. The PALF Phase I closure area contains approximately 8 acres of breeding and
foraging habitat (Figure 1). This area contains ground squirrel burrows that are potential nesting
habitat and mowed annual grasses that could be used for foraging. Ground squirrel and other
burrowing mammal populations have been managed throughout the park wherever there is a
concern for the landfill cap being compromised, which currently limits the amount of natural
burrow nesting and refuge habitat. Vegetative cover is also sparse. Two artificial nest burrows
were created in the Phase IIB closure area of the landfill, but the surrounding area on the landfill
does not currently have enough vegetative cover to support prey species for burrowing owl
forage. To date, burrowing owls have not been observed at either artificial nest burrow, so the
burrows will either be relocated or abandoned in place.
4.0 Regulatory Framework
4.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The burrowing owl is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Sections
703 to 711). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements various treaties and conventions
between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of
migratory birds. Unless permitted by regulations, the MBTA provides that it is unlawful to
pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter,
purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received
any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Under the MBTA it is illegal
to remove vegetation containing nests that are in active use, since this could result in killing a
bird or destroying an egg. This would also be a violation of the California Fish and Game Code
(see section 1.5.7, below).
4.2 Endangered Species Act
A 1998 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandated that the USFWS
identify a list of nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions are likely to become
candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The goal of this list,
Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USFWS 2008), was to identify birds not yet listed under
the ESA but that represented the highest conservation priorities, and to promote study and
conservation of habitats and ecosystems important to these species. The burrowing owl is not
listed under the ESA, but is included on the Shortgrass Prairie list of Birds of Conservation
Concern.
4.3 Clean Air Act
The Palo Alto Landfill is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), an
area of non-attainment for national and state ozone, state particulate matter (PM10), and
national and state fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standards. The Bay Area Air Quality
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 6
MIG|TRA February 2015
Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating
emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The City of Palo Alto operates
the Palo Alto Landfill in accordance with the requirements and conditions set forth in its Permit
to Operate issued to the City by the BAAQMD in June 2012. The Palo Alto Landfill has a landfill
gas recovery system that consists of pipelines, condensate sumps and landfill gas extraction
wells. This system must be maintained and kept operational in order for the City to remain in
compliance with the Permit to Operate issued by the BAAQMD. In addition to the gas recovery
system the City is required to maintain and monitor the integrity of the landfill cover to minimize
uncontrolled releases of landfill gas. Burrowing animals are controlled in areas where the landfill
cover can be compromised by burrows which can potentially facilitate the process of gas
migration out of the landfill.
4.4 Water Quality
Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set effluent limitations
and guidelines for landfill operations including landfill leachate and gas collection condensate.
The EPA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S, and the
California State Water Resources Control Board enforces section 401. The State Water
Resources Control Board sets statewide policy related to water quality, coordinates and
supports regional water quality control boards, and reviews petitions that contest regional board
actions. The RWQCB sets water quality standards, waste discharge requirements for its region,
determines compliance with those standards, and takes enforcement action. Leachate is “liquid
that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or
miscible materials removed from such waste”. Condensate is liquid which has condensed in a
gas collection system during the extraction of gas from the landfill and typically consists of
methane and carbon dioxide, the by-products of microbial breakdown of landfill waste. These
are volatile gasses that need to be removed to control hazardous conditions.
At PALF, the landfill leachate is monitored via piezometers and pumped from the landfill through
extraction wells to the City’s sanitary sewer for treatment. Leachate movement through the
bottom of the landfill or out of landfill waste is monitored via sampling points located around the
facility perimeter. As part of the landfill drainage and erosion control system, runoff is collected
in v-ditches that discharge to catch basins that in turn, discharge to surrounding water bodies.
All of these systems must be maintained to comply with Waste Discharge Requirements issued
by the RWQCB. The integrity of the landfill cover is also required to be maintained to minimize
the infiltration of storm water into the waste. This includes re-grading areas that have subsided
and where water can pond, fixing erosion, cracks or other openings in the landfill cover, and
discouraging burrowing animals where burrows can potentially facilitate the process of
infiltration of surface water.
4.4 California Title 14 and CalRecycle
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) oversees the
state’s recycling and waste management programs that are implemented according to Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations. It relies on a Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) to monitor
landfill activities. Santa Clara County is the LEA for the PALF.
The Engineering Support Branch of CalRecycle reviews and approves solid waste facility
closure/post-closure maintenance plans to identify how state standards will be met, then the
LEA inspects each site on a regular basis to insure that the standards are met. The state
standards concern the integrity of the landfill, so that the landfill does not attract unwanted
vectors (rats, flies), does not release landfill gases (methane), and does not impact ground or
surface water as a result of storm or irrigation water percolating though the refuse (leachate).
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 7
MIG|TRA February 2015
Burrowing animals are generally controlled at landfills in order to avoid non-compliance with
state standards. As a result, the burrowing owl management plan needs to incorporate burrow
designs that do not threaten the integrity of the landfill cover, and that are approved by
CalRecycle and monitored by the LEA.
4.5 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15380 defines
endangered, threatened, and rare species for purposes of CEQA and clarifies that CEQA review
extends to other species that are not formally listed under the state or federal endangered
species acts but that meet specified criteria. Under CEQA, a mandatory finding of significance is
required if impacts to threatened or endangered species are likely to occur. Also, under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15065 a mandatory finding of significance is required if a project has the
potential to substantially degrade or reduce the habitat of or restrict the range of an endangered
species. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has listed the burrowing owl as a
Species of Special Concern. Impacts to burrowing owl need to be considered under CEQA, but
there is not a mandatory finding of significance because the burrowing owl is not listed as
threatened or endangered.
4.6 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) establishes
the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered
species and their habitats. CESA mandates that State agencies shall not approve projects that
would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable
and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. The burrowing owl is not
currently listed as a species protected by CESA.
4.7 California Fish and Game Code
Burrowing owls are protected by California Fish and Game Code section 3503, which reads, “It
is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as
otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, under
Fish and Game Code section 3503.5, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the
orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or
eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted
pursuant thereto”. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of
fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest
abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The burrowing owl is in the order Strigiformes and is
protected under both sections of Fish and Game Code.
4.8 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Communities Conservation Plan
(Plan) was adopted by the County of Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and the cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San
Jose to streamline the permitting process for development, infrastructure and maintenance
activities. The Plan, which was approved in January 2013, is intended as a comprehensive
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 8
MIG|TRA February 2015
approach to evaluate impacts to natural resources and mitigation requirements instead of
separately permitting and mitigating projects on an individual basis. It includes a fee-based
conservation strategy to compensate for impacts to covered species and their habitats in a
specified Plan Area (Figure 4). Jurisdictions, projects and activities outside of the Plan Area are
not covered by the Plan. Because Palo Alto and the PALF are not within the Plan Area,
activities at the PALF are not governed by the Plan. However, because most of the south bay
burrowing owl habitat is not within the Plan Area, the Plan has a provision for mitigating future
impacts to owls by creating habitat reserves in a designated region outside of the Valley Plan
Area. The PALF is located in that designated region. If a developer wished to mitigate for
burrowing owl impacts caused by a project in the Plan Area by funding a reserve at the PALF
this would need to be coordinated with the City of Palo Alto and involve the Plan Implementing
Entity.
5.0 Management Guidelines
5.1 CDFW Conservation Goals for the Burrowing Owl in California
In 2008 CDFW developed a set of conservation goals for burrowing owls in California (CDFW
2008). Those goals include the following:
Maintain the size and distribution of extant burrowing owl populations.
Where possible, increase geographic distribution of burrowing owls into formerly
occupied historic range where suitable habitat still exists or can be created or
enhanced.
Increase the size of existing burrowing owl populations where possible and
appropriate.
Protect and restore self-sustaining ecosystems or natural communities which do
or could potentially support burrowing owls at a landscape scale, and which will
require minimal long-term management by humans.
Remove or ameliorate unnatural causes of burrowing owl population declines,
including control of rodent hosts and prey.
Recover populations of burrowing owls and their natural dynamics including
movement and genetic exchange among populations.
Engage stakeholders in burrowing owl protection and habitat management.
5.2 California Burrowing Owl Consortium Guidelines
The California Burrowing Owl Consortium is a group of wildlife professionals, agencies and
advocates whose mission is to enhance the conservation of burrowing owls by providing a
forum for the exchange of information about research, status, and policy and by developing
management guidelines. In 1993 the Consortium developed the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines which provide a decision making process to be implemented
whenever a project may impact burrowing owls or their habitat.
5.3 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
In 1995 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife developed a comprehensive conservation
and mitigation strategy for burrowing owls, which was updated in 2012 to reflect the continued
decline of this species (CDFW 2012). The report provides rigorous methods for burrowing owl
surveys, impacts assessments, avoidance and minimization measures, and mitigation
measures. The staff report defines activities with the potential to take or impact burrowing owls,
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 9
MIG|TRA February 2015
including burrow blockage, crushing burrow tunnels, and mowing among others. It defines the
required qualifications for biologists who may conduct burrowing owl habitat assessments,
surveys, and impact assessments, including:
1. Familiarity with the species and its local ecology;
2. Experience conducting habitat assessments and non-breeding and breeding season
surveys, or experience with these surveys conducted under the direction of an
experienced surveyor;
3. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to burrowing owls,
scientific research, and conservation;
4. Experience with analyzing impact of development on burrowing owls and their habitat.”
Also included are recommended setback buffers which are based on the level of disturbance as
identified in the impact assessment. Buffers are as small as 50 meters for low-level
disturbances in the non-breeding season, to as large as 500 meters for high-level disturbances
in the vicinity of active nest burrows during the breeding season.
6.0 Landfill Maintenance and Management
California regulations mandate that the landfill be managed and maintained throughout a 30
year post-closure period in accordance with an approved post-closure maintenance plan. The
primary purpose is to protect the integrity of the landfill cover, and monitor and manage landfill
gas and leachate to minimize impacts to air and water quality. The City of Palo Alto Public
Works Department is responsible for landfill maintenance and management throughout the 30
year post-closure period. Activities include grading to correct areas where the contours of the
landfill have settled so that water does not pond, seep into the refuse and create leachate,
maintenance and repair of gas pipes and mains, sumps, and leachate lines, and occasional
monitoring of leachate and gas extraction wells and piezometers. Emergency repairs to these
facilities may also be necessary. The laws that govern the landfill operation and maintenance
are described in section 4.0, above.
The landfill gas and leachate collection/monitoring facilities are largely concentrated in the
central areas of the landfill, with the perimeters having fewer areas that will require regular
access for maintenance (Figure 5). The need for earth moving equipment, utility vehicles and
personnel to be working within the maintenance and emergency repair areas is anticipated and
unavoidable. Access to areas that require maintenance will be via existing and proposed new
roads.
The PALF is a Class III disposal site comprised of several layers, including the waste layers, a
cover layer or “cap” and a vegetation layer. The cap is designed to minimize the release of
landfill gas and leachate, and to prevent infiltration of surface water. The landfill has been
developed and closed in phases. Phase I, Phase IIA and Phase IIB are capped with a clay
cover. Phase IIC will be capped with an evapotranspirative (ET) cover.
Landfill leachate is monitored with 17 existing piezometers within the four phases of the landfill.
Leachate is pumped from the landfill through a network of 23 existing extraction wells equipped
with a pneumatic pump. The leachate is pumped to the City’s sanitary sewer for treatment. A
groundwater monitoring program is used to monitor leachate movement through the bottom of
the landfill or out of landfill waste. The groundwater monitoring system consists of 13 existing
wells and sampling points located around the facility perimeter. A perimeter drainage control
system collects surface runoff as part of the landfill drainage and erosion control system. Runoff
is collected in v-ditches that discharge to catch basins that discharge to surrounding water
bodies.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 10
MIG|TRA February 2015
Five gas monitoring probes to monitor landfill gas are spaced at 300 to 500 foot intervals along
the property boundary shared with the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(PARWQCP). Landfill gas monitoring is currently conducted via seven structures, but during the
post closure phase will be monitored from four locations, one in Byxbee Park Hills, and three
adjacent to PARWQCP. Gas extraction is accomplished through a system of 109 wells
distributed throughout the landfill. The gas is pumped to a sewage sludge incinerator or an
adjacent flare at PARWQCP via a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) network.
Burrowing animals, including primarily the ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), are
controlled in landfill areas to insure that their burrowing does not damage the clay or
evapotranspirative caps. Damage to the cap can allow surface water infiltration and lead to
excessive load on the leachate extraction system, it can also result in the release of landfill gas,
can compromise both leachate and landfill gas extraction systems by damaging piping, and it
can lead to violation of permit conditions.
Ground squirrels are controlled throughout the landfill with a Pressurized Exhaust Rodent
Control (PERC) system. This practice was recently suspended pending further study and
discussion. The PERC system consists of a trailer-mounted combustion engine that exhausts to
a pressurized tank. A mixture of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is delivered from the tank
to the ground squirrel burrow, via a hose with a probe that is inserted into the burrow entrance
for a minimum of three minutes. Once treated, the entrance to the burrow is sealed. Active
burrows are identified for treatment by the presence of entering or exiting squirrels and the
presence of fresh mounds of dirt or evidence of new burrow excavation. No treatment is applied
where there are signs of burrowing owl occupation, including feathers, pellets or other visual
indicators of owl presence.
7.0 Current Byxbee Park Hills Maintenance Requirements Activities
Byxbee Park Hills is a passive use open space area with walking trails located on closed
portions of the PALF. Capped and contoured slopes of the landfill have been covered with a
layer of topsoil and hydroseeded with native grasses and forbs. The site is not irrigated, but the
Phase I, Phase II and Phase IIA portions of the landfill that are open to park use have been
revegetated with a combination of annual grasses and forbs that support a colony of ground
squirrels. Phase IIC is in the process of being capped, covered with topsoil and hydroseeded. In
April 2014, vegetation was not yet well established throughout much of the Phase IIC area, with
many areas of bare ground or where weedy species such as cheeseweed (Malva parviflora),
Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and mustard (Brassica sp.) had become established.
Ground squirrels and other fossorial mammals are controlled throughout Phase IIC, so they are
largely absent.
The Palo Alto Community Services Department – Open Space, Parks and Golf Division is
responsible for the maintenance of the Byxbee Park Hills facility, apart from the landfill
maintenance activities that are implemented by Public Works. The City has assigned these
maintenance activities to a contractor. For the purposes of maintenance, the park is divided up
into three areas color coded as green, yellow and red (Figure 6). Areas color coded in green are
maintained each year unless repair to the landfill cap is ongoing. Areas coded in yellow are still
being capped. Areas coded in red were maintained beginning in 2014. Maintenance
requirements include vegetation management, trail repair, and repair of park appurtenances.
Maintenance activities include mowing, trail grading and filling, revegetation, coyote brush
removal, maintenance of signs and benches, and application of herbicide. The current
maintenance practices are described below. This plan recommends that some of the current
maintenance practices be modified to benefit burrowing owl, and that some activities be added.
The modifications and additions are described in section 8.0 of this report.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 11
MIG|TRA February 2015
7.1 Mowing
Currently mowing is conducted in May as a weed maintenance measure and to provide sunlight
to native perennials. All hydroseeded areas are mowed to a height of four to six inches, with
mowing repeated as necessary to meet these height specifications. Mowing is conducted with a
wheeled tractor fitted with a flail or rotary mower. A modified mowing regime to increase the
prey base for burrowing owl (and other raptors) is recommended in section 8.5.
7.2 Trail Maintenance
Six to 12-foot wide pedestrian and cycling trails were constructed using an oyster shell, base
rock and decomposed granite bed. Current maintenance methods used to maintain
unobstructed access along these pathways include spot treating weeds with herbicide. .
“Renegade paths” created by cyclists and hikers who stray from established routes are rototilled
and seeded on an as-needed basis. Seeding occurs in winter months. Trails are repaired by
regrading and filling potholes or low spots as needed.
7.3 Revegetation
Areas of the park slated for revegetation are prepared in advance for seeding by chiseling and
rototilling to a depth of six to eight inches, then harrowing and ring-rolling to create an even bed.
A balanced fertilizer is then applied at a rate of 50 pounds per acre and two inches of compost
are tilled into the soil. Next, a hydroseed mix is applied. The current hydroseed mix includes the
following species:
California brome (Bromus carinatus)
Blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus)
California oatgrass (Danthonia californica)
Purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra)
Three weeks fescue (Festuca microstachys)
California melic (Melica californica)
Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis)
Tufted hair grass (Deschamsia cespitosa)
Creeping rye (Leymus triticoides)
7.4 Coyote Brush Removal
Under current maintenance activities coyote brush is regularly removed from the park to prevent
coyote brush roots from penetrating the landfill cap. Coyote brush is removed concurrently with
annual mowing.
7.5 Maintenance of Mounds and Other Artistic Features
Under current maintenance activities string trimming is used around mounds, berms and other
artistic features to remove weeds and other tall vegetation and to maintain an artistic
appearance.
7.6 Application of Herbicide
Herbicides are not a preferred means of vegetation control, and are used with written
permission of the Supervising Ranger. Herbicides are only applied in designated areas and time
frames. As noted above weeds on trails are spot treated with herbicides. Herbicides may also
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 12
MIG|TRA February 2015
be used to control noxious and/or highly invasive weeds that form dense stands and reduce
wildlife habitat quality.
8.0 Proposed Burrowing Owl Management Measures
Management actions for the burrowing owl take into account both landfill regulatory
requirements and the ecological needs of the owl. Long term maintenance and management of
the landfill includes monitoring of and repairs to landfill control systems and the landfill cover.
Large-scale repair to areas where landfill subsidence occurs is also anticipated. While the
schedule of some of this work can be planned for the non-breeding season for burrowing owls,
emergency repairs may also be necessary. Burrowing owl management actions include ground
squirrel control, public use and access, vegetation management, creation and maintenance of
artificial burrow sites, feral cat (Felis silvestris catus) control, and long-term monitoring. These
are summarized in Table 1 and described in more detail in the subsequent sections.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 13
MIG|TRA February 2015
Table 1 Summary of Burrowing Owl Management Activities
Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions
Install artificial owl burrows September to
February
Area 1: construct 1 nest burrow, 3 satellite burrows according to
plans in Barclay 2008.
Area 2: construct 2 nest burrows, 3 satellite burrows.
Area 3: construct 1 nest burrow, 2 satellite burrows. See Figures 7
and 8.
Burrow construction is predicated on approval by landfill
regulatory agencies, which may impose additional
requirements.
Install habitat features such as rock
piles and mulch piles (Figure 9).
September to
February
Install these features where rodents and insects
are infrequently observed and/or vegetation has
not yet become established.
Create a minimum of 5 rock piles and 20 brush/mulch piles up to a
maximum of 50 habitat features for owl prey species throughout both
nesting and foraging areas. To make rock piles, stack 15 to 17 6-
inch minus-sized rocks, rip rap or similar. Mulch piles will consist of
chipped wood, scattered to a depth of approximately 3-4” over a 100
ft2 area. Brush piles Will consist of piles of sticks or twigs, or grasses
piled approximately 2 to 3 feet high by about four feet wide. See
attached Figure 9 for possible locations and example photos.
Maintenance, such as weeding of the habitat features is not
required.
Tentative locations show in Figure 9 may be subject to
approval by landfill regulatory agencies.
Install instructional signage As soon as feasible
after approval of
the Interim Park
Plan.
Along the edge of pathways bordering nesting habitat, install
signage stating “Sensitive Wildlife Area. Please Stay Out”. Consider
adding signage which says, “Sensitive Wildlife Area. Do not dump or
feed cats” and “Please no dog walking in this area. Keep dogs on a
leash at all times”.
Keep signage vague to discourage vandalism of burrows or
harassment of nesting owls.
Mowing of forage habitat (Figure 8) Yearly - April and
May
Mow at the minimum frequency necessary for fire and weed control.
The goal is to create foraging habitat with sufficient cover for small
rodents and insects. Slopes with a grade steeper than 25% will be
mowed at a decreased frequency to help create a mosaic of different
vegetation heights throughout the forage habitat. Where weeds form
dense, single-species stands in the forage habitat, mowing
frequency can be increased. Mowing may also be combined with
other methods of weed control in these areas.
Where vegetation cover is sparse consider adding mulch or brush
piles.
Avoid mowing at dawn or dusk when owls are normally
active.
Mowing of burrow habitat (Figure 9) Yearly – February
and November if
owls are present.
Feb, May, August
and November if
owls are not
present.
Mowing in the
vicinity of active
burrows may be
done under the
guidance of a
qualified biologist
and must follow the
guidelines of the
CDFW Staff Report
(2012).
Mow to keep vegetation at a height of
approximately 5 inches or less.
Conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting owls prior to
undertaking mowing between February and August. If an active owl
nest burrow is found, an avoidance buffer of 250 feet should be
established. No mowing should occur inside that buffer. In
consultation with a qualified biologist, an impact assessment can be
conducted and if appropriate, buffer sizes may be reduced in
accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (2012). Do not string trim breeding habitat areas. Mow
only.
No mowing should occur within 250 feet of any active
burrowing owl nest burrow unless a qualified biologist has
conducted an impact assessment and established
alternative buffer distances in accordance with the
guidelines established in the CDFW Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012)
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 14
MIG|TRA February 2015
Activity Timing Condition Action Precautions
Artificial burrow maintenance Annually in early
spring. February is
suggested.
Debris accumulated at the burrow entrance. Conduct a survey for overwintering burrowing owls prior to clearing.
Do not conduct maintenance on occupied burrows.
Clear the PVC tubing that makes up the burrow entrance of any
obstructions along its entire length using a plumbing snake such as
a General Pipe Cleaners D-25-2 Handy Drain Auger.
Do not conduct maintenance on burrows occupied by
burrowing owls.
Feral cat control. As needed Cats are observed in the Park. Live trap and transport to Palo Alto Animal Care and Control. The non-native red fox (Vulpes vulpes) may also occur at
Byxbee Park Hills and is known to prey on ground-nesting
birds. Contact United States Department of Agriculture for
guidance on fox control should they be observed.
Landfill maintenance activities As needed Emergency or routine landfill maintenance is
needed.
Conduct a survey for burrowing owls prior to conducting any landfill
maintenance activities. Burrowing owls could potentially occupy a
variety of natural and man-made features throughout the area, so
surveys should be conducted to ensure that maintenance activities
do not impact owls. If owls are found to be present within 250 feet of
work in the breeding season or within 170 feet of work in the non-
breeding season, contact CDFW for guidance.
If owls are detected during the breeding season, a 75-meter
(~250 feet) avoidance buffer should be maintained around
any occupied burrow until young have fledged. If owls are
detected during the non-breeding season a 50-meter (~170
feet) avoidance buffer should be established for the duration
of the activity or until owls are no longer present.
Vegetation survey for grass height and
weed control
Late January, April,
July and October.
Monitoring burrowing owl use 3 times spaced
apart during the
breeding season
(suggest March,
June, August);
CNDDB report
once per year
Survey each burrow habitat area for signs of owl
use at the burrow entrances; document which
burrows are in use. Observe burrow and forage
areas for owl activity at dawn and at dusk. Report
burrow survey results to landfill and park
maintenance staff so that avoidance measures can
be implemented if necessary. Report sightings to
the California Natural Diversity Database annually
(https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitti
ng_data_to_cnddb.asp). If burrowing owls are not
observed, the Supervising Ranger should consider
measures to improve habitat conditions such as by
altering the mowing regime, changing mowing
heights, or increasing the number of prey habitat
features (e.g., rock, brush, mulch piles).
Monitoring burrowing owl habitat
quality.
3 times spaced
apart during the
breeding season
(suggest March,
June, September)
Maintain overall vegetation cover at approximately
70%, and no less than 50%. No more than 50% of
all areas of the park intended to be vegetated
either with hydroseed or other planting, should
remain bare ground. If 70% vegetative cover is not
achieved, staff will review remediation measures to
increase the vegetative cover, such as re-seeding
with a revised seed mixture.
Survey rock, mulch and brush piles for presence of small mammals
and insects. Conduct a visual inspection of the rock piles for small
mammals, and/or signs of mammal use such as droppings, flattened
grasses. Inspect brush piles by lifting material with a shovel or
similar to see if rodents, insects or other prey species move out of
the pile when disturbed. Report results to the Supervising Ranger.
If prey species are not present, the Supervising Ranger should
consider decreasing the mowing frequency, repeating hydroseed
application, and/or adding more habitat features such as rock, mulch
and brush piles.
If vegetation is too sparse, burrowing owl prey species are
unlikely to be present, and burrowing owl habitat would be
considered of low quality.
If vegetation is too tall in dense stands, burrowing owls will
not be able to access the habitat to forage or breed.
Dense monotypic stands of invasive weed species should
be controlled using methods known to control the particular
species. This may include mowing at a particular time of
year, hand pulling, applying herbicide, or a combination of
methods. Refer to the Maintenance Plan for a more detailed
description of weed control techniques.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 1
MIG|TRA February 2015
8.1 Set Aside Burrow Habitat Areas and Manage Remaining Areas for Forage
The City of Palo Alto has designated three areas on the landfill/park totaling 6.6 acres that will
be designed, protected, and maintained as burrowing owl nesting burrow habitat (Figure 8;
please also see Figure 2 of the Byxbee Park Hills Interim Park Concepts Plan Narrative for the
February 2015 proposed layout of the trail system) if approved by landfill regulatory agencies.
These areas are located a sufficient distance from control systems (e.g., condensate traps and
piezometers), maintenance roads, and from the new ET cover in Phase IIC to allow
maintenance activities to occur without disturbing owls or owl burrow habitat. These areas are
also located with public use and proximity to forage habitat in mind. Artificial burrows will be
installed in these areas (see section 8.3, below). Perimeter berms will be built around these
burrow areas so that they are clearly delineated for staff and the public. It is recommended that
signs be installed to restrict access to these areas. Maintenance activities, including both park
and landfill maintenance, are not excluded from these areas. In order to prevent ponding of
surface water, the landfill cover in these areas will be contoured to match existing landfill slopes.
Nesting habitat will be managed for owls, and will not include features that may be in other
areas of the park such as benches for seating or areas where people are encouraged to
congregate.
The remaining 120 acres of the capped and closed landfill will be revegetated with annual
grassland species, and can be managed in a way that enhances burrowing owl forage habitat.
Management measures include mowing, installing habitat features to support prey species the
owls eat, and monitoring. The specific management measures are described in Sections 8.2
through 8.7.
8.2 Ground squirrel management
While burrowing owls are known to occur in situations where ground squirrels are absent, they
are most likely to persist and thrive in an area with an active ground squirrel population. The
owls use the burrows for cover and also find insects there for food; the owls do not eat the
ground squirrels. The squirrels maintain the burrows and their food stores and excrement attract
the insects and small mammals that the owls can eat. At Shoreline Park, Phil Higgins found that
the most commonly consumed prey item of burrowing owls was earwigs (Forficula sp.). This
could be because of the burrow microclimate (Phil Higgins, personal communication) and the
vegetative material and excrement that attract earwigs (University of Lethbridge 2014).
The University of California Ground Squirrel Best Management Practices (University of
California 2014) states that “the average squirrel burrow is usually less than three feet deep”.
Two feet of cover is applied to the entire landfill cap in advance of hydroseeding. Five feet of
additional cover will be added to the three areas set aside for burrowing owl nest burrow habitat
to provide a total of seven feet of burrowing substrate. Ground squirrels will not be managed in
these three areas, and are expected to colonize and establish burrows which will provide natural
nesting habitat for burrowing owls as well as habitat for insects that provide food for the owls.
8.3 Installation and Maintenance of Artificial Burrows, Mounds, Perches and Other
Habitat Features
Artificial nest burrows have proven to be an effective alternative to natural ground squirrel
burrows, but they are most successful where a population of ground squirrels is present (Phil
Higgins, personal communication). The entrances to the artificial owl burrows installed at nearby
Shoreline Park in Mountain View accumulate dirt and debris except where ground squirrels are
present (Phil Higgins, personal communication). The ground squirrels apparently remove dirt
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 2
MIG|TRA February 2015
and debris from the entrances, and probably from the tunnels as well, as part of their normal
activities. Apparently the owls do not maintain the burrows. If necessary, artificial burrows can
be kept clear by maintenance personnel. Maintenance involves clearing out debris such as
dead and live vegetation, trash, and/or dirt that has accumulated at and is blocking the PVC
tubing that makes up the entrance to the burrow. Maintenance should be completed once in
early spring, in advance of burrowing owl nesting season and should be done with the use of a
plumbing snake such as a General Pipe Cleaners D-25-2 Handy Drain Auger, so that the entire
alignment of the burrow entrance can be cleared.
The burrow design proposed for use in Byxbee Park Hills will be based on the design in “A
Simple Artificial Burrow Design for Burrowing Owls” (Barclay 2008) (Figure 7). This design uses
unperforated plastic drain line as “burrows” leading to plastic irrigation valve boxes for nesting.
The four-inch plastic tubing in Barclay’s design will be substituted with a six-inch tube, with a
slot cut along its length that allows owls to walk along the natural substrate instead of on the
plastic tubing. The concrete block (labeled D in Figure 7) can also be eliminated from the burrow
design as burrowing predators have not been known to be a local problem (Phil Higgins
personal communication). This design has been used successfully at nearby Shoreline Park in
Mountain View. Artificial burrows created at grade rather than on a mound are easier to mow,
but do not provide the elevated perch that a typical natural squirrel mound does..
Each nesting burrow area can contain one primary burrows (with at least two entrances).
Satellite burrows have just one entrance. The exact spacing will be determined in the field at the
time of installation, however, artificial burrows should be spaced no closer than 110 meters
(approximately 360 feet) (Green and Anthony 1997). Nest and satellite burrows both use the
design shown in Figure 7, but nest burrows differ in the number of entrances. The areas set
aside for burrow nesting habitat and foraging habitat within Byxbee Park Hills and the
approximate number and locations of artificial nest burrows and satellite burrows are shown on
Figure 9.
Rock and brush piles placed throughout the nesting and foraging habitat will provide cover for
insect and small rodent prey species, and can serve as perches for burrowing owls. Piles of
mulch are also recommended because they provide habitat for both rodents and insects (Trulio
and Higgins 2012b) particularly in the interim period before vegetation cover becomes
established at the park. It is recommended that a minimum of five rock piles and 20 brush/mulch
piles be installed, and that a maximum of 50 habitat features for owl prey species be created
throughout the park, including both nesting and foraging areas. These features are described as
follows, and possible locations are shown in Figure 10.
Rock piles are small. Stack 15 to 17 6-inch-minus rocks, rip rap or similar into a pile.
Mulch piles consist of chipped wood, scattered to a depth of approximately 3-4” over a
100 ft2 area.
Brush piles will consist of piles of sticks or twigs, or grasses piled approximately 2 to 3
feet high by about four feet wide.
Maintenance of the rock and brush piles is not anticipated to be necessary. These features are
intended only as habitat features for burrowing owl prey species, and will continue to function
effectively if weed species become established.
8.4 Public Access for Hiking and Dog Walking and Instructional Signage
Public access to Byxbee Park Hills is available, but limited to hiking trails. Hikers and dog
walkers are allowed on all trails, but dogs must be kept on leash at all times. Dogs will be
excluded from the 6.6 acres set aside as nesting burrow habitat as well as from perimeter
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 3
MIG|TRA February 2015
berms that delineate these areas, but will be allowed on the adjacent trails. Signage will be
placed at regular intervals along the trails mandating that all activities, including hiking, dog
walking and bicycling be restricted to established trails.
8.5 Hydroseeding, Mowing and Weed Management
The finished landfill will be hydroseeded with grassland species. Purple needlegrass (Stipa
pulchra) and small fescue (Festuca microstachys) are included in the hydroseed mix throughout
the park. These native California species were present in the burrowing owl’s natural habitat
prior to the introduction of invasive non-native grass species and have the advantage of being
adapted to California’s naturally occurring periods of drought. Because of their naturally low-
growing morphology, they require less mowing to maintain optimal nesting habitat conditions for
burrowing owls. These two grass species should be preferentially applied on and within 50 feet
of the nest mounds. California sagebrush (Artemesia californica) and sticky monkey flower
(Mimulus aurantiacus), beach evening primrose (Camissoniopsis cheironthifolia), and American
dunegrass (Leymus mollis mollis) should be eliminated from the hydroseed mix for burrowing
owl nesting burrow areas.
Grasses and weeds must be managed for fire control and habitat quality. It is recommended
that the grassland vegetation in the nesting burrow habitat areas be maintained at a height of
less than five inches to allow an unrestricted view of the surrounding habitat from the burrow.
Vegetation that is allowed to grow too tall will discourage owls from colonizing the site and may
cause them to abandon a site in which they have overwintered in preference for an area with
lower vegetation. Mowing in owl nesting burrow habitat should be completed in February and
November if owls are present, and in February, May, August and November if owls are not
present. If it is necessary to mow when owls are present, a qualified biologist needs to evaluate
the impacts in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012, or
as updated by CDFW). No mowing should occur within 250 feet of any active nest burrow.
Because string trimming is a slower method of weed control, it requires a much more invasive
human presence, so string trimming should not be done in the nesting burrow habitat areas if
burrowing owls have been documented to occupy these areas.
Optimal owl foraging habitat consists of grasslands with a healthy population of small rodents
and insects, so it is recommended that the forage habitat only be mowed as necessary for fire
suppression, which will depend on rainfall.
Noxious and invasive weed species (as defined by the California Invasive Plant Council or the
Supervising Ranger) can establish dense patches that will not provide habitat for burrowing
owls. The treatment methods for these weeds are species-specific and may or may not include
mowing. Weed management should follow the guidelines of the Landscape Plan, and may also
consider professional guidance such as provided in “Weed Control in Natural Areas in the
Western United States” by the University of California Weed Research and Information Center.
The University of California Integrated Pest Management website should also be consulted for
specific weed management guidelines (http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/weeds_all.html). No
weed management will occur within 250feet of burrows occupied by burrowing owl . String
trimming will be avoided and only used where mowing is not possible.
8.6 Feral Cat Control
In April 2014 the Palo Alto City Council approved an ordinance that prohibits feeding wildlife and
feral animals in Palo Alto parks and other open-space areas. City staff has observed that
feeding stations for feral cats lure in other pests and predatory species including rats, skunks,
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 4
MIG|TRA February 2015
raccoons, opossum and nuisance birds such as gulls and crows. Feral cats that are fed
continue to hunt wildlife and are a particular threat to ground-nesting birds (City of Palo Alto
2013). Cats will also reduce the native rodent population as noted in a study at the East Bay
Regional Park District by the American Bird Conservancy (Winter and Wallace 2004), further
degrading the site suitability for burrowing owls.
While feral cats are limited in number at Byxbee Park Hills, the following measures are
recommended to minimize impacts on the burrowing owl. Any feeding stations that are found
within the park will be removed and whenever they are observed in the park, feral cats will be
live trapped and transport to Palo Alto Animal Services. The City of Palo Alto also has an
agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to capture predators of the
Federally Endangered Ridgeway rail (Rallus obsoletus) formerly known as the California
Clapper Rail. Predators of the rail include feral cat and non-native red fox (Vulpes vulpes), two
species which may also prey on burrowing owl. This agreement with the USDA benefits the
local burrowing owl population by expending the area in which their predators are controlled.
8.7 Monitoring, Reporting and Adaptive Management
An ongoing program that includes monitoring of the burrowing owl habitat, prey base, artificial
nest burrows, and nest success, is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of this program. It is
recommended that a qualified biologist familiar with the foraging and breeding habits of
burrowing owls train park personnel on how best to undertake a monitoring effort that answers
the following questions:
Are invasive weeds being managed effectively?
Is vegetation height within artificial nest burrow sites and foraging habitat maintained at a
height optimal for nesting and foraging success? For example, vegetation within 100 feet
of the burrows, and ideally throughout the burrow habitat should be mowed to a height of
five inches or less (Trulio and Higgins 2012b), but taller vegetation is desirable in forage
areas to support sufficient cover for rodents. Is there a mosaic of vegetation heights and
prey species habitat?
How much vegetation cover is there throughout the park? No more than 30% of all areas
of the park intended to be vegetated either with hydroseed or other planting should
remain bare ground in order to optimize habitat for burrowing owl prey species.
Are ground squirrels present in the park? Are there natural ground squirrel burrows
present or evidence that squirrels are occupying artificial burrows?
Are conditions on the site favorable to support burrowing owl prey species, or if not, are
they improving? To improve conditions for owl prey species, should the mowing regime
be changed, or should vegetation cover, rock, brush and mulch piles be increased?
Is there evidence of cat feeding stations, are cats present in the park?
Are owls present at Byxbee Park Hills? Are they foraging or breeding?
The following surveys are recommended:
A vegetation survey once in March and again in late June, with a final survey in early
August when annual grasses and forbs tend to go into a state of dormancy.
A survey every three months to assess burrowing owl prey species, ground squirrel,
feral cat, and burrowing owl populations.
A survey of artificial and natural burrows will be undertaken on a monthly basis during
the breeding season for burrowing owls, to determine if burrows are occupied by single
or mated burrowing owls. Note the presence and number of any burrowing owl chicks.
Any active owl burrows in Byxbee Park should be protected from impacts from landfill
maintenance projects to the greatest feasible extent, based on landfill post-closure
regulations. The California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines (1993) recommend
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 5
MIG|TRA February 2015
that an activity-specific plan to protect burrowing owls should be developed for each
project that occurs within 50 meters (170 feet) of an occupied burrow during the non-
breeding season (September 1 through January 31), and within 75 meters (250 feet)
during the breeding season (February 1-August 31). If owls are detected during the
breeding season, a 75-meter avoidance buffer should be maintained around any
occupied burrow until young have fledged. If owls are detected during the non-breeding
season a 50-meter avoidance buffer should be established for the duration of the activity
or until owls are no longer present. Report burrow survey results to landfill and park
maintenance staff so that avoidance measures can be implemented if necessary. Report
sightings to the California Natural Diversity Database annually
(https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/submitting_data_to_cnddb.asp).
The results of these surveys should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan and
determine if changes are needed to adapt the plan to changing needs of the burrowing owl
population or other species of concern.
9.0 CONCLUSION
This burrowing owl management plan uses a combination of ground squirrel and vegetation
management techniques to encourage owls that currently inhabit nearby areas (Shoreline Park,
Moffett Federal Airfield) to venture into Byxbee Park Hills to forage and perhaps breed. Artificial
nest burrows established in areas of the park protected from public use will provide refuge for
foraging owls and possibly nesting habitat so that the burrowing owl population in the south bay
could increase. While one of the goals of this plan is to establish Byxbee Park Hills as a
breeding area for burrowing owls, it is recognized that areas where ground squirrel populations
can remain and burrowing owls can nest undisturbed are restricted by the need for ongoing
maintenance of the landfill. Expanding foraging habitat for owls has a high chance of success
and will benefit a broad range of species. Creating and managing grasslands in Byxbee Park
Hills will improve the habitat for small mammals and birds, which will provide a food source for
large mammals and birds of prey that forage in the same habitat.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 6
MIG|TRA February 2015
10.0 LITERATURE CITED
Barclay, J. H. 2008. A simple artificial burrow design for burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor
Research 42(1): 53 – 57.
Bates, Christine. 2006. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). In The Draft Desert Bird
Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of desert-associated birds in California.
California Partners in Flight.
Berentsen, A. R., T. P. Salmon. 2001. The structure of California ground squirrel burrows:
Control implications. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 37:66-70.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation
guidelines.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB). CDFW Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Guidance for Burrowing Owl Conservation.
Habitat Conservation Branch, Wildlife Branch, Bay Delta Region, Sacrament, California.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission. 2013. Ordinance of the council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Section 22.04.270 by adding subsection 22.04.270(C) to prohibit the
feeding of wildlife and feral animals in Palo Alto parks and open space areas.
Clayton, K. M., J. K. Schmutz. 1999. Is the decline of burrowing owls (Speyotyto cunicularia) in
prairie Canada linked to changes in Great Plains ecosystems? Bird Conservation International
9:163 – 185.
Desmond, M. J. and J. A. Savidge. 1999. Satellite burrow use by burrowing owl chicks and its
influence on nest fate. Pages 128-130 in P.D. Vickery and J.R. Herckert, editors. Ecology and
conservation of grassland birds of the western hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2008. Palo Alto Baylands Comprehensive
Conservation Management Plan: Wildlife Management Element – Byxbee Park Hills and Future
Landfill Closure Area, Wildlife Habitat Assessment. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto.
Feeney, L. R. 1997. Burrowing owl site tenacity associated with relocation efforts. Pages 132 –
137 in J.L. Lincer and K. Steenhof (Editors). The burrowing owl, its biology and management
including the proceedings of the first international burrowing owl symposium. Journal of Raptor
Research Report 9.
Golder Associates, Inc. 2013. Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan, City of Palo
Alto Landfill. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto.
Green, G. A., and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Ecological considerations for management of breeding
burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin. Pages 117 – 121 in The Burrowing Owl, its biology and
management, including the proceedings of the First International Burrowing Owl Symposium
(J.L. Lincer, and K. Steenhof (Editors). Raptor Research Foundation.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 7
MIG|TRA February 2015
Harman, L. M. and J. H. Barclay. 2007. A summary of California burrowing owl banding records,
in Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, November 2003, edited by Barclay,
J. H., K. W. Hunting, J. L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, pp. 123 – 131. Bird
Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental,
Inc. Point Reyes Station, CA, vii + 197 pp.
Haug, E. A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. The burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia) in
The Birds of North America, No. 61, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia, PA: The
Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
ICF International. 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan: Appendix M Western burrowing
owl conservation strategy. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency.
Johnsgard, P. A. 1998. North American Owl: Biology and Natural History. Washington D.C.
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Johnson, D. H., D. C. Gillis, M.A. Gregg, J. L. Rebhotz, J. L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff. 2010.
Users Guide to Installation of Artificial Burrows for Burrowing Owls. Tree Top Inc., Sehal,
Washington. 34 pp.
Landry, R. E. 1979. Growth and development of the burrowing owl. M. S. thesis, California State
University, Long Beach, CA.
Lutz, R. S., D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry and nest site reuse by burrowing owls: Implications
for management. Journal of Raptor Research 33: 149 – 153.
Josselyn, M., A. Hatch, C. Strong, and F. Nichols. 2005. Synthesis for Issue 8: Impact of
invasive species and other nuisance species. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Science
Team.
Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L. Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield,
and T. S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western
Burrowing Owl in the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Technical Publication GWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington D.C.
Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 12: 178 – 180.
Trulio, L. and P. Higgins. 2012a Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan. City of Mountain
View Public Works and Community Service Departments.
Trulio, L. and P Higgins. 2012b. Bufferlands Interim Burrowing Owl Management Plan. San
Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant.
Trulio, L. 2014. Burrowing Owl Workshop. Elkhorn Slough Coastal Training.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States
Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management,
Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.
University of California. 2014. Ground Squirrel Best Management Practices: Identifying burrows.
http://ucanr.edu/sites/Ground_Squirrel_BMP/Biology/Identifying_Burrows/ (accessed June 7,
2014)
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 8
MIG|TRA February 2015
University of Lethbridge. 2014. Burrow system of Richardson’s ground squirrels (also known as
gophers). http://research.uleth.ca.rgs/burrow.cfm (accessed April 25, 2014).
Winter, L and G. E. Wallace. 2006. Impacts of feral and free-ranging cats on bird species of
conservation concern. A five-state review of New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and
Hawaii. American Bird Conservancy.
Burrowing Owl Management Plan – Byxbee Park Hills Page 9
MIG|TRA February 2015
BURROWING OWL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
BYXEBEE PARK FINAL INTERIM PARK PLAN
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
MIG|TRA Environmental Sciences
OASIS Associates
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\Figure
1
SiteMap.mxd
9/16/2014
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Figure 1 Regional and Site VicinityTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Byxbee Park Hills Limits and Closure Phases
9
8
8
092
17
280
2 3 7
85
8
7
84
84
Santa Clara
San Mateo
Alameda
Santa Cruz
Phase I
Phase IIA
Phase IIB
Phase IIC
Occ# 24 - Date Unknown
Occ# 26 - 2009
Occ# 51 - 1950
Occ# 215 - 1993
Occ# 25 - 2008
Occ# 784 - 2009
Occ# 1032 - 2004
Occ# 27 - 1983
Occ # 21 - 2008
Occ# 22 - 1983
Occ #23 - 2004
Occ# 18 - 1983
Occ# 1031 - 2003
Occ# 1033 - 2004
Occ# 1035 - 1998
Occ# 1235 - 2002
Fremont
Hayward
Palo Alto
San Mateo
San Jose
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\CNDDBMapBUOW.mxd
9/16/2014
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., California Natural Diversity Database, Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 1 20.5 Miles
Figure 2 Burrowing Owl Locations within 5 MilesTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Burrowing Owl CNDDB Occurrence # and Date (see text for descriptions)
Palo Alto Baylands Which Includes Byxbee Park Hills
Major Road
County Boundary
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\Figure
5
OverwinteringOwls.mxd
9/16/2014
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 0.06 0.120.03 Miles
Figure 3 Past Locations of Overwintering OwlsTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Burrow
Palo Alto Baylands Which Includes Byxbee Park Hills
Habitat PlanPermit Area
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\Figure
2
HabitatPlanMap+
BUOW.mxd
9/16/2014
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 6 123Miles
Figure 4 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Area Map with Expanded Burrowing Owl Study AreaTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Palo Alto Baylands Which Includes Byxbee Park Hills
Burrowing Owl Fee Zones
Habitat Plan Permit Area
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPPByxbeePark\Graphics\Figure
5
PALFExisting
EnvironmentalControls.mxd
9/16/2014
Byxbee Park Hills
Figure 5PALF ExistingEnvironmental Control Systems
TRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\LandfillMaintenanceAreas.mxd
9/16/2014
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc., Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Figure 6 Mowing and Maintenance AreasTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Mowing
Mowed Yearly Beginning 2015
Mowed Yearly
Side Slopes Mowed Less Frequently
Figure Number Enter Map
Figure 7 Artificial Burrow Design (Barclay 2008)
Byxbee Park Hills
Princeton
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\Figure
8
Artificial
Burrow
Locations.mxd
9/16/2014
Source: Oasis Associates, Inc., TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. , Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Figure 8 Burrowing Owl Burrow Habitat LocationsTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Nest Burrow (2 entrances)
Satellite Burrow (1 entrance)
Forage Habitat
Burrow Habitat
T:\CASE\Bio\BBPP
Byxbee
Park\BurrowingOwl\MXDs\Figure
9
HabitatFeature
Locations.mxd
9/17/2014
Source: Oasis Associates, Inc., TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc. , Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Byxbee Park Hills
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
Figure 9 Tentative Locations for Prey Species Habitat FeaturesTRAENVIRONMENTALSCINCESE,Inc.
Tentative Habitat Feature Locations
Forage Habitat
Burrow Habitat
Mulch Pile
Brush Pile
Rock Pile
INTERIM PARK CONCEPTS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO, CA
REVISED COMPASS ROSE
4/8/2015 ES
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS
DATE: MAY 26, 2015 SUBJECT: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
RECOMMENDATION
No action to be taken.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto has 37 parks and open space preserves covering approximately 4,165 acres of land, which includes Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and the
Baylands Nature Preserve. A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Open Space,
and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) was adopted by Council for the 2013 fiscal year.
The purpose of this project is to provide the necessary analysis and review of Palo Alto’s
parks and recreation system for the preparation of a Parks Master Plan. The Parks Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future renovations and capital
improvement projects aimed at meeting current and future demands on the city’s
recreational, programming, environmental, and maintenance needs, establishing a
prioritized schedule and budget of future park renovations, facility improvements and
expansion of recreational programs.
DISCUSSION
Discussion and review of the Parks Master Planning process will cover the following:
1. Review and respond to comments made by the commission concerning the Data
Summary Matrix as well as the Program Analysis that was distributed last month.
2. Introduce the transition from the Analysis Phase to the Recommendation Phase and discuss the next steps of developing criteria to be used as part of Recommendation
Phase.
3. Review project schedule status and possibilities for the next community meeting
date.
NEXT STEPS
Community/Stakeholder Priority Workshops (Spring 2015)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed CIP recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community
Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community
facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the
community.
ATTACHMENT
• Responses to Matrix Questions Summary
PREPARED BY
Peter Jensen
Landscape Architect
City of Palo Alto
To: Palo Alto Park and Recreation Commission, Peter Jensen, Elizabeth Ames
From: Ryan Mottau and Ellie Fiore, MIG
Re: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Summary of Needs Matrix:
Response to PRC comments
Date: May 20, 2015
At the April PRC Meeting commissioners reviewed the Summary of Needs
Matrix, which is a collection of the analysis and input of the Parks, Trails,
Open Space and Recreation planning process. During the discussion
commissioners asked a number of questions that resulted in clarifications
or changes to the matrix and supporting materials. These included:
• Updating the inventory file in the binder to include which parks
include which essential activity and adjust the number of sports
fields to reflect the lack of public access to high school facilities.
• Providing additional language in Column K (Projected Demand) to
clarify the ratings.
• Clarifying the rating scale for Column F (Capacity and Bookings) to
explain where capacity exists.
• Noting the geographic cluster of dog parks in south Palo Alto in
Column E.
The discussion also included some small clarifications to Part II of the
Program Analysis, a final version of which will be delivered at the May
meeting.
Following the meeting, four members of the PRC provided additional
comments and questions. This memo includes the commissioner’s
comments followed by the planning team’s responses. Changes made are
reflected in the updated Matrix which will be provided at the May meeting.
The changes are also noted below. The comments and responses are
organized by the rows of the data summary matrix.
Row 5. Walkability and Equity of Park and Preserve Access
Comment: “We have no current land for more parks! We are built up.
Therefore I think our level of control is L and our barrier to participation is
H.”
2
Response: The Matrix was edited to reflect the low level of control. The
barriers to participation rating was not changed. A medium barrier to
participation is justified because there is a high level of access to many of
Palo Alto’s park sites despite the high barriers to building more parks to
create greater equity of access.
Row 13. Trail Connections
Comment: Add need for shade and benches (see also, “relax & enjoy”)
Response: Change made. Added to Trail Connections, Summary of Need
column.
Comment: Must also reference importance of uninterrupted wildlife
corridors, especially in open space.
Response: Change made. Added to Preservation of Nature, Summary of
Need.
Row 16. Universal Accessibility
Comment: Please clarify what it means to make "continued & expanded
integration of accessibility" so we can assess how we're doing on that
goal.
Response: No change made. This will be clarified later in the process.
Row 18. Off-Leash Dog Areas
Comment: Should we call-out (shared use areas) in parenthesis in Column
B?
Response: No change made. This was discussed earlier with staff and
ultimately the decision was made to include existing inventory only.
Naming the experimental shared use areas might indicate that they are
permanent.
Row 22. Rectangular Sports Fields
Comment: This section should explicitly tie-in with adult sports, middle
school sports, and youth and teen sports. “see also …” would likely suffice.
Response: Change made. Added in the Summary of Need Column- “see
relevant needs in adult sports, middle school sports, and youth and teen
sports.
Comment: Give examples on line one "... can be accommodated in different
ways. For example, lighting more fields adds hours of usage per day
without additional space being consumed."
Response: Change made. Lighting added to line one as an example.
3
Comment: Last time I talked to staff in charge of fields there was NOT a
problem of insufficient fields.
Response: Change made. Capacity edited to “At.”
Comment: (In reference to the Perception of Quality) In fairness we should
state "varies" here. That was my experience as a little league manager and
a soccer dad.
Response: No change made. The “M” rating indicates mixed input about
the fields– some are good and some are bad.
Row 23. Diamond Sports Fields
Comment: The statement of need is a bit confusing. Do you mean
"additional backstops" or "improved backstops"?
Response: Change made. Clarified – “additional and improved.”
Comment: Column C should not include PAUSD or PA Little League fields
since those are not under City control.
Response: Change made to inventory and matrix.
Comment: Column F: PA Little League currently limits the number of its Fall
Ball teams because of insufficient field space. Source 5/Pg 25 only lists
softball demand, does not include baseball.
Response: No change made. Source 5 includes all City of Palo Alto
programmed sports and baseball is not one of them.
Comment: Column I: I asked Palo Alto LL about demographic trends.
National LL is seeing slow decline, but that is partially due to communities
not affiliating with national LL. Midwest has the largest decline, but sun-
belt LL is seeing strong growth. Palo Alto LL and Babe Ruth have both had
growth over the last 5 years.
Response: Change made. Edited Demographic Trends from decline to
stable.
Comment: Do not see any data that justifies "L" demand. (Reference to
projected demand)
Response: No change made. The Projected Demand column is intended to
capture new opportunities for activities or users not currently captured in
the data, rather than being a summary of the matrix.
Row 24. Gymnasiums
Comment: See revisions in “Rectangular Sports Fields” re: Cubberley.
Response: Change made. Added in the Summary of Need Column- “see
relevant needs in adult sports, middle school sports, and youth and teen
sports
4
Row 27. Special Purpose Buildings in Parks
Comment: "No need for additional facilities" could be confused for "No
need for facility work", which is not true. Something like "No need for
additional facilities, but current facilities need improvement"
Response: Change made. Summary of Need edited to reflect the need for
maintenance and improvements.
Comment: “Column E: Why do you mention "dedicated athletic facilities"?
None of the column C facilities are in athletic facilities.”
Response: Change made. Athletic facilities removed.
Comment: Columns G, H: Cannot find data in source 17
Response: Reference to Source 17, additional meetings includes the
conversations recorded in the Additional Meeting Log provided at the April
meeting. Conversations with staff responsible for programming these
facilities led to the notes in these columns. Very little other input has been
collected about these facilities. No Change Made
Comment: Column J: Cannot find data in source 10
Response: Source 10 is the geographic analysis, which shows the
walksheds of parks and facilities. Walkability is a factor in evaluating
barriers to access (Column J).
Comment: Column K: Do not understand justification for "L"
Response: Given the existing conditions and projected changes in trends
and population there is a low projected demand for additional special
purpose buildings in Palo Alto’s parks. Further elaboration to Column K
included in the new matrix.
Row 29. Picnic shelters (covered)
Comment: To me, a "picnic shelter (covered)" is something that can be
used when raining. IIRC, most/all of the sites you specify are covered with
arbors that provide some shade but no rain protection.
Response: the intent is to reflect the formally developed group picnic
areas. Rain protection is not considered a necessity.
Row 33: Adult fitness
Comment: “Need to serve underserved niche …. such as active, older
adults” – How do we know this niche is underserved by private providers?
Data suggests (F, G, H and J) that we’re currently meeting the need. Maybe
rephrase to emphasize anticipated growth due to demographic trends. Or
clarify why this need is “underserved.”
5
Response: Change made. Copy added to explain need is based on
demographic shifts.
Row 34. Adult Special Interest Classes
Comment: Continued need, but “potential to grow w/older segment.”
Survey Summary says this category as a whole is “well under capacity”
(Tab 5, page 24)
Response: Change made. The need will continue but it should be able to be
absorbed in existing capacity.
Row 35. Adult Sports
Comment: In addition to noting that this program is constrained by resident
and youth preference in field policy, it seems that there should be some
reference to the strong survey preference/demand to prioritize residents.
Response: Change made. Summary of Need now reads: “Need for this
program is constrained by resident and youth priority in sports field policy.”
Row 36. Day Camps
Comment: Programs Analysis shows very high percentages of
full/waitlisted camps for virtually ALL camps targeted to teens, no
cancelled classes and only one class (public speaking) that fell below the
minimum (Tab 5, p. 28). This demand should be reflected in the Matrix. In
particular, “Summer of Service” (81 kids, 175% full/waitlist) should be
called out in some way as the Survey indicated demand for greater
community service opportunities.
Response: Change made. Additional Summary of Need item added: “Need
additional camps/programming that provide community service
opportunities.”
Row 37: Middle School Athletics
Comment: Add Need for additional, high/consistent quality coaches and
Need for transportation assistance to away games.
Response: See below.
Comment: Add a 3rd bullet as follows: Expand staffing & training to make
these programs accessible & inclusive to youth with special needs. Make
these programs accessible & inclusive to youth with special needs.
Response: Change made: added bullet reading “Need to develop a larger
pool of coaches, supported with training”
Row 39. Youth and Teen Aquatics
Comment: Programs Analysis says cancelled classes reflect a shortage of
instructors (Tab 5, p.27). Add Need for additional instructors?
6
Comment: Change made. Added Need for additional instructors.
Comment: Add demand for additional diving classes? (tab 5, p. 27)
Response: While this is useful information for programming, it does not
reach the scale of a system-level need. No change made.
Comment: Seems that there should be some reference here to higher
need/demand among Asian American users and in South Palo Alto.
Response: No change made. Input and data about aquatics programming
does not specifically support youth and teen aquatics programs as noted.
This is covered in Row 25 in reference to pools.
Additional Comments
The comments below are valuable and will be taken into consideration in
the next phase of the planning process. l
Comment: Providing restrooms as a “standard feature” must balance high
demand at parks w/playing fields and popular playgrounds with localized
opposition and safety concerns. Need to drill down through prioritization
outreach whether appropriate for all, most, some. By size of park? Types
of users? Location?
Response: This is an important comment but asks for something more
detailed than the level of analysis in the Summary of Needs Matrix. This
will be included in actions/direction.
Comment: City staff &/or MIG should conduct an accessibility audit of
parks, playgrounds, and programs & plan for accommodations to be
budgeted & implemented. An example audit is here: http://bit.ly/1e7SkoA\
Response: Site by site audits of all accessibility issues are not part of the
scope of this project but could be included as a recommendation. No
change made.
Comment: Possible additional opportunities for (community garden)
programming to tie in to farmers markets and school programs if
additional volunteers or staff were provided?
Response: Noted.
Comment: Survey suggests strong opposition to more artificial turf. Didn’t
address lighting directly, but that raises conflicts with “Dark Skies” priority
for wildlife folks.
Response: Noted.
7
Comment: We need to qualify the 1/2 mile constraint (regarding walkability
and equity of Park and Preserve Access). Council has to decide if that is
the metric or not.
Response: We agree that this analysis point would need to be confirmed
as a policy before implementing. However, it is based on well established
research related to the amount of walking time/distance people prefer.