Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-03-22 Parks & Recreation Agenda Packet
AGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting MARCH 22, 2016 AGENDA City Hall Chambers 250 Hamilton 7pm *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 January 5, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Retreat – Chair Lauing – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 23, 2016 Regular Meeting – Chair Lauing Action –– (5 min) ATTACHMENT 3. Update on the status of the Baylands Boardwalk feasibility study – Public Works Engineering - Discussion – (40 min) ATTACHMENT 4. Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan - Peter Jensen – Discussion – (120 min) • Revised policy definition ATTACHMENT • Revised policies (tracked changes version, clean version, matrix of changes made) • Draft Dog Park Policy – Staff Anderson – Discussion ATTACHMENT • Draft Park Restroom Policy for Parks – Staff Anderson – Discussion ATTACHMENT V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 26, 2016 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 ANNUAL RETREAT 8 February 5, 2016 9 Foothill Park, Interpretive Center 10 11729 Page Mill Road 11 12 13 Commissioners Present: Jim Cowie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed Lauing, David 14 Moss, Keith Reckdahl 15 Commissioners Absent: Anne Warner Cribbs 16 Others Present: Council Liaison Eric Filseth 17 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Kristen O’Kane 18 19 BUSINESS: 20 21 1. Review 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Accomplishments/Priorities 22 Vice chair Knopper handed out a list of the Commissions 2015 accomplishments. The 23 Commission reviewed the following. 24 • Parks, Open Space, Recreation and Facilities Master Plan 25 • New Pedestrian bridge over 101 26 • Conceptual Plans for new Junior Museum and Zoo 27 • Council recommendation for next steps 7.7 Acres-Hydrologic Study for Buckeye 28 Creek 29 • Organics Facilities information meeting 30 • Recommendation for Park Improvement Ordinance within the PASCO site to allow 31 pilot Batting Cages at Baylands Athletic Center 32 • Approval of Memo to Council on supporting funding for the implementation of the 33 Foothills Park Fire Master Plan 34 • Approval of recommendation to Council to adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for 35 improvements identified in the Byxbee Park Hills interim park concepts plan 36 • Avenidas capital project study session 37 • Informational report on sustaining trees during the drought within the City and Parks 38 a Public Works presentation 39 Draft Minutes 1 DRAFT • Discussion on new online procedure for Summer Camp registration. 40 • Community Garden Ad hoc update report and recommendation 41 • Review of the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements and Boardwalk Feasibility 42 Study 43 • Discussion on the share use Dog Park Pilot Program 44 45 2. Consider Potential Areas of Focus for 2016 46 Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services reviewed Council’s priorities for 2016. 47 Priorities are: 48 o Built environment: infrastructure, housing, parking, livability 49 o Mobility 50 o Healthy City, Healthy Community 51 o Completion of the Comprehensive Plan 2015-2030 Update 52 Director de Geus reminded the commission that the role of the commission should be 53 priorities and decisions related to policy recommendations. 54 Chair Lauing provided a list of 2016 projects and priorities. The Commissioners 55 reviewed each project and identified those that should be monitored and those that should 56 have a dedicated ad hoc group. 57 58 • Parks, Open Space, Recreation and Facilities Master Plan – Chair Lauing - an ad hoc 59 group exists for the Master Plan and should continue. 60 61 • Dog Parks - Chair Lauing - an ad hoc group exists for the Master Plan and should 62 continue. Gym & Fields / Field Use Policy – Commissioner Hetterly said the master 63 plan will address gyms and fields, but need to make sure the policy is reflected in the 64 master plan. Turf is an issue. Commissioner Lauing questioned if there is data that 65 says “we need more gyms”? All based on surveys. Commissioner Lauing would like 66 more data to justify decisions for things like more synthetic fields. 67 68 • Commissioner Hetterly stated that dog parks, fields, and community gardens need to 69 be considered together because they are all related to the same space. Commissioner 70 Knopper – there needs to be cohesive policy for field use. Chair Lauing suggested 71 that the ad hocs working on the priorities for gardens, dog parks, gym/field space 72 should continue working on them. Commissioner Moss commented that we should 73 make sure that all these big issues, dog owners, community gardens, gyms, etc. are 74 addressed in context so that it is a fair and equitable split of land use. Commissioner 75 Reckdahl commented that we should keep moving on things like dog parks, where we 76 have enough data to show that we are too short. Gyms are something we don’t know 77 about, and maybe can wait. 78 79 • 7.7 Acres at Foothill Park – Staff Anderson stated that the RFP is out for the 80 hydrologic study. 81 82 Draft Minutes 2 DRAFT • Land bank – 10.5 acres adjacent to Baylands Athletic Center. Commissioner Lauing 83 noted that it is important to build the proper facility there. Need to consider traffic 84 congestion. Staff Anderson stated that Master Plan should identify use of this area. 85 Commissioner Lauing recommended a new name – Baylands Athletic and Recreation 86 Complex. 87 88 • Arastradero Preserve – Staff Anderson updated the Commission that Director de 89 Geus is open to park benches and opening of the overflow parking lot. The parking 90 lot would need regrading, base rock, drainage. Needs to be mowed to use it now. 91 Should also look at ingress/egress. Commissioner Lauing asked if it could be used 92 during the summer. Staff Anderson will look into it. Commissioner Lauing – 93 Confirmed with staff Anderson that it does not need to go back to council. Create an 94 ad hoc. 95 96 • Website – Commissioner Hetterly – limited by staff capacity and city standards. 97 Missing agendas and missing some key links to studies. Hoping to wrap up in the 98 next few months. Commissioner Knopper stated that it would be helpful to be able to 99 cross-reference material on the website. 100 101 • CIP Input – Commission to continue providing input. 102 103 • Cubberley – Commission will continue to monitor progress. 104 105 • Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC) follow-up re: TOC/Bond Rollout – 106 Remove from Parks and Recreation Commission’s priority list for 2016. 107 108 • Project Safety Net – There have been no “asks” from the Commission. Commissioner 109 was asked to QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) Training. Commissioner Cowie asked 110 what is being done for parents? CSD could offer classes and programs for parents. 111 Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services stated that Project Safety 112 Net has hired a new Executive Director, Mary Gloner. Ms. Gloner will be attending 113 the February 23rd Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to provide and update 114 on Project Safety Net. 115 116 • Sterling Canal Opportunities - Remove from Parks and Recreation Commission’s 117 priority list for 2016. This should continue to be considered for space. Staff 118 Anderson will be the lead and will continue to monitor and keep Commission 119 informed. 120 121 • Lucy Evans Interpretive Center – Commissioner will continue to monitor. 122 123 • Byxbee Park Hills Design - Remove from Parks and Recreation Commission’s 124 priority list for 2016. Create a new ad hoc for the Baylands Comprehensive 125 Conservation Plan. 126 127 Draft Minutes 3 DRAFT • Baylands Satellite Parking - The shuttle idea was abandoned; but there may be 128 interest in adding parking on Embarcadero Road and reducing a lane. This would be 129 from 101 to the Baylands, with parking on both sides. Remove from Parks and 130 Recreation Commission’s priority list for 2016. 131 132 • 101 / Adobe Creek Bridge – Commission will continue to monitor. Commissioner 133 Knopper noted that the concern is the connection to the Baylands and potential 134 impacts to wildlife. 135 136 • Lefkowitz Tunnel - Commission will continue to monitor. 137 138 • Golf course – Chair Lauing suggested the commission advocate for a new club house 139 and parking lot. The commission discussed how this would be done (prioritize a CIP, 140 or private public partnership). Commission will continue to monitor. 141 142 • Matadero Creek Trail – Commissioner Reckdahl would like to keep working on 143 Matadero Creek Underpass. Create an ad hoc. 144 145 • Junior Museum and Zoo Reconstruction – Staff O’Kane reported that JMZ will be 146 coming to a future Commission meeting for an update. Chair Lauing stated this does 147 not need an ad hoc. 148 149 150 151 The Commission discussed possible new initiatives for 2016: 152 • Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) / Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) 153 Dialogue – Chair Lauing will reach out to Council member Dubois to discuss shared use 154 facilities. 155 156 • Water Conservation – Commissioner Hetterly asked if there is a role for advocating for 157 additional recycled water in parks. Is staff invested in this? Request to agendize this for 158 a future Commission meeting. 159 160 • Facilities Rental – Commissioner Reckdahl clarified this is related to upgrades and 161 vacancies. Director de Geus asked what the policy question is. Has there been a policy 162 question from Council? Director de Geus stated that the purpose is not to generate 163 revenue and many of the uses are provided at no cost. Commissioner Reckdahl is 164 interested in vacancy rate of facilities. Director de Geus provided estimates of revenues 165 from the three community centers. 166 167 • Improved activation with Friends groups – Commissioner Hetterly stated that the Master 168 Plan is a good opportunity to involve the Friends group. Commissioners Reckdahl and 169 Moss added increase in park canopy to the list of possible new initiatives. 170 Draft Minutes 4 DRAFT 171 3. Review Commission Ad hoc Committees and Liaison assignments 172 The Commission agreed to create new ad hoc committees and assigned Commissioners to the 173 ad hocs. 174 • Matadero Creek Underpass project – Commissioners Reckdahl and Moss 175 • Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) - Commissioners Moss and 176 Hetterly 177 • Baylands Athletic and Recreation Complex -- Commissioners Reckdahl and Cowie 178 • PAUSD/PRC dialog – Commissioner Lauing 179 • Parks tree canopy - Commissioners Reckdahl and Moss 180 181 The Commissioner agreed to continue the following ad hoc committees and assignments 182 • Parks Master Plan – Commissioners Hetterly, Lauing, and Reckdahl 183 • Dog parks – Commissioners Hetterly and Knopper 184 • Community Gardens – Commissioner Knopper 185 • Capital Improvement Projects – Commissioners Reckdahl and Lauing 186 187 4. Other discussion if time allows: 188 • Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan – Commissioners 189 were asked to state their three priority issues for the Master Plan. 190 191 • Commission Knopper: Dog parks, sustainability, ordinance for developers, water 192 strategy, and new experiences, and purchase new land, health and welfare 193 194 • Commissioner Cowie: Restrooms in Parks, BCCP, and more gyms 195 196 • Commissioner Hetterly; Comprehensive Conservation Plans, even distribution, dogs 197 parks, Cubberley replacement 198 199 • Commissioner Lauing: more parkland, more dog parks, selective park restroom 200 additions 201 202 • Commissioner Reckdahl: dog parks, park restrooms, evaluate additional gyms or 203 swim pools 204 205 • Commissioner Moss: Partnerships, special events and new uses, habitat improvement 206 207 • Chair Lauing suggested there be a best practices section in the Master Plan to address 208 standards for every park facility. Chair Lauing and Commissioner Hetterly discussed 209 that the policies need to be finalized before project/program prioritization can occur. 210 211 • Dog Parks - Daren Anderson, Division Manager, Open Space, Parks, and Golf, 212 provided an update on recent efforts of the ad hoc group. It was recognized that the 213 Draft Minutes 5 DRAFT Parks Master Plan will address dog parks, but the Commission should also provide 214 input. Staff Anderson asked for Commission discussion on the following: 215 216 1. Is the shared-use concept right for Palo Alto? If it is, should it be shared with 217 athletic fields or only non-athletic field areas? 218 2. Is the unfenced shared-use concept (City of Mountain View model) right for 219 Palo Alto? 220 3. Should we conduct a comprehensive dog park analysis initiated by staff and the 221 ad hoc; and then brought to the Commission (referenced above)? 222 223 The Commission agreed that the scope of the ad hoc should be expanded. Staff will 224 continue to assess El Camino Park as a potential location for a new dog park and 225 Mitchell Park to expand the existing dog park. 226 227 228 V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 229 230 None 231 232 VI. ADJOURNMENT 233 234 Meeting adjourned at 1:15pm. 235 Draft Minutes 6 DRAFT 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING 7 February 23, 2016 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed Lauing, David Moss, Keith 13 Reckdahl 14 Commissioners Absent: Jim Cowie, Anne Cribbs 15 Others Present: Eric Filseth 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen, Kristen 17 O'Kane 18 I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19 20 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21 22 Chair Lauing: Are there any agenda changes, requests, deletions, batting orders, anything 23 like that? 24 25 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 26 27 Chair Lauing: Oral communications, where the public can address this body on any issue 28 not necessarily related to the agenda. So far I have one speaker card. David Carnahan. 29 30 David Carnahan: Thank you, Chair Lauing and Commissioners. As you know, when 31 you see me here, it means the City is conducting a recruitment for Boards and 32 Commissions. This spring, we're looking to fill Commission roles on three different 33 Commissions. These are great opportunities for members of the community to give back 34 and give their expertise, to share and make Palo Alto an even better place than it already 35 is. Right now, we're looking to fill two positions on the Human Relations Commission, 36 two positions on the Library Advisory Commission, and three on the Utilities Advisory 37 Commission. All of these are three-year terms that will end on May 31, 2019. 38 Draft Minutes 1 DRAFT Applications are due March 18th at 5:00 p.m. to the City Clerk's office, or they can be 1 emailed to me. We have flyers and applications in the Chambers. There's a couple of 2 specific membership requirements on the different Commissions. For the Human 3 Relations Commission, you just need to be a Palo Alto resident; Library Advisory 4 Commission, a Palo Alto resident and you must show a demonstrated interest in public 5 library matters. Don't really know what that means, but I would anticipate that applying 6 to serve on the Commission almost would fill that role. The Utilities Advisory 7 Commissioners, six of them must be Palo Alto residents, and all of them must be either 8 Utilities customers or authorized representatives of a Utilities customer. The reason I 9 come and speak at Board and Commission meetings is because Commissioners and 10 members of the public that attend, you all are so much more deeply connected to the 11 community than the Clerk's office. We really hope that you can spread the word through 12 the community to people you know that would be good for these roles. Again, it's two 13 terms on the Human Relations Commission, two on the Library Advisory Commission, 14 and three on the Utilities Advisory Commission. Thank you very much. 15 16 Chair Lauing: Thank you, David. 17 18 IV. BUSINESS: 19 20 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the January 26, 2016 Parks and Recreation 21 Commission meeting. 22 23 The draft January 26, 2016 Minutes as amended were approved unanimously. 24 25 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 5, 2016 Special Retreat 26 Meeting. 27 28 After discussion, this item was continued to the March 2016 meeting. 29 30 3. Introduction of new Executive Director of Project Safety Net, Mary Gloner 31 32 Chair Lauing: The next item on the meeting, Kristen is going to introduce the new 33 Executive Director of Project Safety Net. 34 35 Kristen O'Kane: Actually, it's Rob that's going to introduce Ms. Gloner. 36 37 Chair Lauing: Rob, congratulations. 38 39 Rob de Geus: Yeah. You're going to sit right here, Mary, so come on up. It's my 40 pleasure to introduce Mary Gloner, right here, as the new PSN, Project Safety Net, 41 Executive Director. She's been here a month. Is that right? About a month. We did an 42 Draft Minutes 2 DRAFT extensive search, and we had interviews with many community members, with Dr. Max 1 McGee, City Manager Jim Keene, alumni students and current students. We really put 2 her through quite the process, and she emerged as the candidate. I have to say, I'm just 3 thrilled. It's such an important topic and collaborative. We need someone of Mary's 4 caliber. We're thrilled to have her. She has a Master's Degree in health education, and 5 she has an MBA as well. She's super organized, and she has a great sense of humor, but 6 she's also tenacious and wants to really make a difference in the world. Just thrilled to 7 have her here. She's going to do a short little presentation and give you a sense of what's 8 going to happen with Project Safety Net this year. 9 10 Mary Gloner: Thank you, Rob. Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners, for having 11 me here. Hopefully you're quite familiar with Project Safety Net already, and this will be 12 your opportunity to see if I learned really well this past month. Just to get us all on the 13 same page, it's always a good reminder to know what our mission is. As you all know, 14 this was first launched in response to the first clusters of youth suicides back in 2009. If 15 you want to learn more of what has happened since then, there's our website. I know 16 Kristen will be able to share these slides with the Commission. It's to develop and 17 implement an effective, comprehensive, community-based mental health plan for overall 18 youth well-being in Palo Alto. Frankly, that's been happening. It's just the people who 19 have been—what I've learned and I've seen as I was preparing to embark in this position 20 and what I've discovered in the past month, it's happening on the ground. It's just where 21 we are is wanting to do a better role in coordinating that and so forth. I'll share a little bit. 22 As I have shared with the members, people I've talked to, the youth and so forth, even 23 though youth suicide is not one of the number one health issues in our community, 24 because it's so emotionally charged, just one death is just too much. What I hope to do in 25 my time with you, I don't think it'll take the full 30 minutes. Probably most of it will be 26 your questions or any comments. It's just a month in review, kind of remind all of us 27 what our focus—I say ours, the collaborative's focus for the first year. Do a Collective 28 Impact 101, because the work that we need to do has to be within a framework and focus 29 to really help us kind of reach our mission. Then just some closing. A lot of my past 30 month has been, like all of us who transition to new roles, is about learning, networking 31 and acting. In the learning role, I'm getting in part of that new employment orientation 32 that Palo Alto has launched. I think it's a nice model that other government organizations 33 would hopefully implement. Most importantly, orientation from Rob and Minka van der 34 Zwaag who were really key to keeping the momentum of the collaborative during the 35 transition of executive directors. Also, doing some training. I had my first formal 36 training actually just an hour ago with the QPR, question, persuading, and refer. I found 37 it a nice, accessible training for the community at large. It doesn't matter your expertise 38 and mental health, just to get really comfort with the topic and just being able to access 39 the language. Then Project Safety Net leadership team, even though there have been 40 team members, leadership has been a transition out. I will continue to network, and that's 41 the second part. What they've been primarily sharing with me is a lot of the institutional 42 Draft Minutes 3 DRAFT knowledge, sort of their hopes and aspirations from their specific expertise, and really 1 sharing not only the rewards but the challenges, which is being part of a small, tight-knit 2 community like Palo Alto. I kind of use the analogy of a family. There's no room for 3 hiding which is important for this issue. As I've shared with Rob, I said if there's silence 4 or complacency, that's where I would worry. Discourse I always feel is very important in 5 this type of work, especially working with youth. Networking. This is part of this also. I 6 pretty much have been meeting, like I said, community members who have been part of 7 youth suicide prevention as well as youth well-being and just also starting to explore with 8 the other City departments. We're fortunate that we're all kind of like in the same 9 department, Community Services, so it makes collaboration easier about how do we 10 engage youth and services so that the youth feel that there's not redundancy, but they're 11 actually being heard. Finally, what you probably saw a lot in the media is acting. One 12 big thing is the Epi-Aid investigation and really partnering closely with the Santa Clara 13 County Public Health Department. Really it's with the School District. It's with the City 14 of Palo Alto. It's with leadership who also include some of the community members and 15 making sure that this Epi-Aid investigation is our investigation. It's really helping us to 16 really understand better why is youth suicide, the cluster issue happening here. Really it's 17 about strengthening our programs and really focusing on how I see it as being a leader for 18 other cities and communities that may not have the capacity or resources or just such 19 engagement. 20 21 Commissioner Reckdahl: What is Epi –Aid? 22 23 Ms. Gloner: Epi-Aid. Thank you, that's good. The Centers for Disease Control and 24 Prevention have come to our community through our invitation. After the second cluster 25 of youth suicides occurred in 2014-15 and when the School District and City of Palo Alto 26 Project Safety Net leaders had a discussion and discovered when the CDC went to 27 Fairfax County, Virginia, to do a study there to understand their youth suicides, they 28 thought it would be a wonderful opportunity to do it here as well. That call went out in 29 March, and then around winter, around the same time I was being interviewed, it was part 30 of the conversation. The planning had started. In January, we were all working on 31 coordinating. The CDC along with the Substance Abuse Mental Health Service 32 Administration—it's another arm in our Federal government that focuses on that issue. 33 There's five members who are here reviewing data that's collected through the County as 34 well as through the School District. In the evening as well as the weekends, they are 35 having community meetings with various key individuals and organizations that 36 intimately work with youth suicide prevention or youth well-being or know it firsthand. 37 These community meetings have been organized with City of Palo Alto, with the School 38 District, the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Department as well as Project Safety 39 Net. There's been a lot of press on that. That was one way to just throw me in. 40 41 Mr. de Geus: We sure did. 42 Draft Minutes 4 DRAFT 1 Ms. Gloner: I feel like, again, the work that I've done in other communities and so forth 2 really I felt prepared me for this, like I keep saying. It just might seem like cheesy 3 (inaudible), but I do feel at home. I'm blessed and honored that I was selected. I just 4 want to continue to do that work for the community. Second is administration, working 5 with personnel, budget, all that. We're also going to have a new center, so dealing—it's 6 about maybe this size. It will be our actual physical home. As a side commentary, 7 having been in nonprofit for like 20 years, I feel such a luxury and blessed with all these 8 resources that really help us do our important mission work. As you know, if you serve 9 also on nonprofit boards, sometimes resources get in the way of getting into doing that. 10 More importantly is the year one work plan development. I'll go into that. Any questions 11 about the month in review? 12 13 Mr. de Geus: I'll just add, Mary, the Epi-Aid epidemiology study the CDC is doing with 14 the County is really important. It's really important work that's happening. What we 15 hope we'll get from that is a report with recommendations that will affirm, support or 16 give us sharper focus on the prevention or intervention that we're doing as a community, 17 as a City and as a school and as parents. They're fairly in-depth studies and have 18 significant outcomes that we hope will help with our work. There will be an initial report 19 that we'll get a couple of months after they leave and then a more extensive report 20 approximately a year later or within a year. 21 22 Vice Chair Knopper: How long are they here? 23 24 Mr. de Geus: They're here for two weeks, and this is the second week. They have, as 25 Mary said, eight different—I think it's eight—community meetings with people that are 26 working in the field. They have a meeting with mental health professionals, meeting with 27 School District staff, City representatives and a variety of others. 28 29 Ms. Gloner: Any more questions? There will still be a lot more time if you want to 30 backtrack. Here's five primary focus for this next year. There's already a leadership, but 31 it's really to establish it more formally. That's all part of looking at really the 32 infrastructure and strengthening it. As I had shared when I was being interviewed and in 33 conversations, the Project Safety Net came in response and in reaction, but then they 34 realized that youth well-being is a lifelong process and that this is something maybe we 35 need to continue as a collaborative. In light of how there continues to be—as the work 36 continued, there was the clear understanding that this is something that needs to be sort of 37 having, like I said, bricks and mortar, meaning really having it more established and 38 structured. That was something that the collaborative as a whole all agreed upon. I'm 39 really coming in and helping facilitate and forward a vision that the various leaders and 40 community members had demanded as well as advised on. The third one, this is a primer 41 for us in community health education. We always say start with the community. It's not 42 Draft Minutes 5 DRAFT the community geographically. In this case, the community would be the youth. Yes, 1 many of the leaders and organizations are wonderful proxies; their heart is in a good 2 place. It can never take the place of really understanding and listening and engaging the 3 youth to be part of the solution. They've been actively involved, but I think this is also an 4 opportunity when you go through a change in management to really practice what you 5 preach. As I mentioned, a fourth component is really after a year developing some 6 recommendations, really evaluating Project Safety Net, what does it take to be its own 7 standalone nonprofit or is it going to be best suited for the community to be nested in 8 another organization. How to do that is really through this Collective Impact model 9 which I will share a little bit more. It's really developing that roadmap. Whether you call 10 it a roadmap, strategic plan, or logic model, it's really helping guide us. As I had shared 11 with Rob and others, it's like all the planning activities that's been done, it's there and 12 maybe it just required having a fresh set of eyes to help move it forward. I was really 13 impressed of all the sort of visionary and what kind of structure and how to mobilize all 14 the different work. Yes, there's still gaps, but by using the Collective Impact model, it 15 can sort of end hopefully with the CDC Epi-Aid report, can really give us some tools to 16 make it really clear what are we doing and what needs to be available for the community 17 at the individual level, at the group level which is whether it's the family or one's peer, at 18 the community level or even at policy. That's really what I also said I hoped to bring in is 19 bring in that public health perspective. Even though it's like looking at mental health, any 20 critical health issue, in order to be sustainable, successful and really to address it for the 21 long term, you need to look at multiple levels with multiple partners and disciplines. Any 22 questions about the focus? 23 24 Chair Lauing: Yeah, I've got a question. 25 26 Ms. Gloner: Yes, sir. 27 28 Chair Lauing: On the first on there, in terms of establishing the executive board, what 29 work is there to be done at this point? Additions or deletions or ... 30 31 Mr. de Geus: I'm going to add a little bit here. Mary's still really new, so we're still 32 working on some stuff. The Council's heard about this, because we've talked about this at 33 Council meetings and Policy and Services. The idea is to have a higher-level executive 34 board of some of the really senior staff, even CEO-level staff, from Lucile Packard 35 Children's Hospital, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, the School District, the City, maybe 36 even Sutter Health and a couple of others, to support the Project Safety Net work and be 37 sort of a guiding voice. Not that they would meet monthly, but they would meet a couple 38 of times a year and give direction on sort of the high-level vision and initiatives that we're 39 pursuing. In addition to that, the hope is that they would also contribute to supporting the 40 collaborative. Up until now, the City of Palo Alto has been really the backbone agency 41 that's provided the financial support to have someone like Mary to work with the 42 Draft Minutes 6 DRAFT collaborative partners to keep them together and collaborating, which is a lot of work. 1 That doesn't happen on its own. We think and we hope those bigger institutions will 2 believe in what we're doing and will want to contribute and support it. It's another level 3 of leadership in addition to the leadership team that's sort of more on the ground 4 supporting the work. 5 6 Ms. Gloner: The analogy would be like a typical nonprofit. You have your board of 7 directors who deal with governance and pretty much are the fundraisers for that 8 organization. Then you have your secondary which can sometimes be advisory and so 9 forth. The name or the title can be switched, but it's really moving towards a structure 10 that kind of models a typical nonprofit of how they run and effectually sustain. I think 11 the way that the Collective Impact, I believe, will actually make it more participatory 12 especially in a small community like Palo Alto an opportunity for anyone to engage at 13 different levels. 14 15 Commissioner Reckdahl: I have a question about the youth voice. How active are the 16 youth in Project Safety Net? Quite often peers have more influence on teenagers than 17 adults do. 18 19 Ms. Gloner: Rob can share a little bit more history, but in the last month, I mean the 20 whole process, they were engaged in actually recruiting. They were part of the interview 21 panel. They were actually at the end, which is nice because it's sort of like—the way I 22 saw it and the way that you guys presented it, they are the final endorsement. That's a lot 23 of symbolism there. 24 25 Commissioner Reckdahl: They're helping drive what the Project Safety Net does? 26 27 Ms. Gloner: At this time, I'm still researching it to see how much engagement and 28 involvement. I do know in my experience so far, they were at the collaborative meetings. 29 In regards to the CDC Epi-Aid, we're all working to try to engage youth and making sure 30 their input is given, but not in a way that's redundant, where they could say, "We've 31 shared that." We're going to be working with them as well. I do know they work very 32 closely more in the frontline in really addressing and raising awareness about mental 33 health issues, how to promote peer. That gets filtered up. If you're asking if like shaping 34 strategic direction and vision, that's something I still need to research on. How many of 35 you have heard about the Collective Impact 101 outside of the City of Palo Alto or 36 Project Safety Net or have you? Just a little bit of history. It was first reported by a 37 couple of individuals from FSG. That group is a consulting group based in Boston, 38 Massachusetts. It stands for Foundation Strategy Group. Actually one of the individuals 39 was a leader in philanthropy. The other one was a leader in management consulting, 40 being at Harvard. These two authors were the leaders within FSG, because FSG was 41 founded like in 2000, so that's almost 16 years ago. Now, they're in international 42 Draft Minutes 7 DRAFT consulting, but really looking at social capacity building, really how to—I think they 1 support a lot of early days like philanthropy and driving foundation initiatives. In 2011, 2 Kania and Kramer identified what makes a collaborative or a partnership successful. 3 Since then this model, Collective Impact, has been used rallying around issues such as 4 poverty, homelessness, but also like diabetes and obesity and so forth. There are five 5 core areas. It does seems very intuitive. One is having a common agenda. As you know, 6 every individual organization have different agendas or backgrounds. It's important to 7 have a shared understanding. Everything is about shared. Not only understanding 8 agenda, but how to solve the issues that are identified and coming to an agreement. It 9 takes time especially when issues are so emotionally charged like suicide. It's not 10 patience. If people put their eye out on the long term, then this is really valuable in 11 capacity building. Sometimes what I've seen in the nonprofit world, if you've also served 12 on boards or volunteered, it's like we get so caught up in the reactionary and then the 13 same issues keep happening and challenges. I think that's one core component. The 14 second one is about shared measurements. It's not just simply we should all just put our 15 data together in some repository. It's really agreeing on what kind of data do we need to 16 collect and who's collecting in a way that's helping define what kind of alignment is with 17 the mission, but also that it keeps people accountable to one another. I always looked and 18 I learned that data is empowering rather than punitive. I think it's just messaging 19 especially when it's participatory. It doesn't seem there's like an upper echelon that only 20 if you have a PhD or you're a biostatistician. In the work I've done, it's like taking that 21 information to the community so that they feel powered and be able to articulate and use 22 it. Next one is about mutually reinforcing activities, kind of similar. It's like how do we 23 (inaudible) individual level, interventions that might focus on the youth or maybe the 24 parent or how about interventions that look at the family or peer groups or at the 25 community with looking at schools or outside of school services and even looking at the 26 policies that maybe the School Board or the City of Palo Alto or the funders. This one 27 also is challenging too because it's like there's so many activities that can be done. I think 28 the key with the Collective Impact is not about having a whole inventory, but being very 29 strategic in identifying those core buckets. Continuous communication, another word 30 would be like transparency, especially in a sensitive issue. Make sure that it doesn't seem 31 that one group or organization or individual has more information than the other. It's 32 really the other part of continuous communication is having that power that can be frank 33 and have candor and have space to voice. I think this is where raising youth voice will be 34 critical. Finally, thanks to City of Palo Alto, because they believed that this issue was so 35 important that they said they're going to invest. As you know, this is a multi-sector issue, 36 and there really needs to be investment in all parts. It's kind of like if you took a training 37 class, even though it's free, but if you give $1, you sort of feel committed to take that 38 class because you invested in it and you don't take it for granted. The backbone support 39 is really making sure you have staff and specific skills so that the work that the 40 collaborative is doing is supportive towards that vision. As you know being on a 41 Commission, you guys are all volunteer. Without the administrative staff, can you 42 Draft Minutes 8 DRAFT imagine you all have to take the minutes and try to coordinate everyone. Sometimes we 1 take that for granted, but that helps you to effectively use your time to make that high-2 powered decisions. Any questions about Collective Impact 101? 3 4 Commissioner Reckdahl: One of the things that strikes me about this is there's a lot of 5 agreement. Almost every bullet has something about collaboration or agreement. I can 6 see that this is very good in that if you can't agree on the basics, you're not going to agree 7 on the actions. The first thing you have to do before you can talk about actions is get the 8 ground rules set. This looks good. 9 10 Ms. Cloner: I've always learned that it's important to have that framework. I like to learn 11 too. I will be frank. I had not heard about Collective Impact, but again I was more on the 12 frontline. I realized whether you call it Collective Impact, community organizing, health 13 belief model, they all have similar components, and it's all about achieving towards that 14 vision. What's nice about this one, because it's really about focusing. It's about inter-15 relations and achieving your mission and goal. Any other comments? For closing, thank 16 you for planning a place for us. The public health person in me too says that if there isn't 17 a place that people can feel safe to walk and exercise, then that's also a challenge and an 18 impact to health. If you ever want to kind of broaden horizons and want to learn more 19 about Project Safety Net, we do have monthly collaborative meetings. Our next one is 20 actually tomorrow, right before the State of the City. If you plan to be there, if you want 21 to come a little bit early, you can jump in, be a little bit intimate. That's your opportunity 22 to kind of see some of the—what we want to do is highlight some of the youth programs, 23 highlight some of the partners who are doing this work, get a little bit of update of what 24 we're doing collaboratively. There will be the CDC Epi-Aid. There will be someone 25 from Santa Clara County Public Health Department, and just networking. If you ever 26 have the opportunity, it's in Mitchell Park which is one of the—I believe you guys 27 approved that. Thank you for that. I remember when I was a little kid, when we'd go to 28 Mitchell Park, I was like, "Wow, this place is so beautiful" (inaudible) understanding 29 Commissions myself, your real focus is on policies and setting and advising the City 30 Council. One of my asks and hope is that when you are looking at your Master Plans or 31 when any other policy issue comes, if you could think about how this will benefit the 32 youth in addressing their youth well-being. You may not realize it directly, like how is 33 this suicide prevention. The focus is happy youth, happy family, happy adult. It just 34 can't help but have a positive outcome. That was a sign that says your time is over. I do 35 want to acknowledge, which is important, Rob and Brenda. Just so you can understand a 36 little bit about the Project Safety Net, certainly there's the leadership. Rob representing 37 the City of Palo Alto because they're a key partner, and then Brenda Carrillo who's with 38 the Palo Alto Unified School District are Co-Chairs. Also, there's Tanya Schornack 39 who's our specialist and myself. You can see how small, but that's because most of the 40 work is with the community. Minka, even though she's transitioning out so she can 41 address other important issues like homelessness and child daycare and so forth, she's my 42 Draft Minutes 9 DRAFT informal advisor. She's helped me with the transition because she knows this intimately. 1 Then of course Kristen helped me get all organized with office space and time to educate 2 you on Project Safety Net and to learn a little bit about me. That's it. 3 4 Mr. de Geus: Very good. Thank you, Mary. 5 6 Chair Lauing: Thank you, Mary. 7 8 Ms. Gloner: That's my contact information too, but you'll get that later on. 9 10 Mr. de Geus: Questions? 11 12 Commissioner Moss: I see then that we're going to be able to help you most in some of 13 the mutual reinforced activities and also some of the backbone support. As far as 14 engaging youth in healthy ways, in the parks you have the sports and you have the 15 afterschool programs and you have the summer camps, and you're having the 16 community/family events. I'd love to see more of those. You have open space and 17 nature which kids should be using more. If there's any way that we can help to expand 18 those programs or at least don't let them deteriorate, because there are more kids and 19 more people than ever before in the City. We have to make sure that what we have will 20 not deteriorate. Is there anything else that you want us to focus on? 21 22 Ms. Gloner: I think just knowing and having that awareness. Really your role is to 23 advise the City Council. You're appointed by the Council to represent the constituents of 24 your respective districts in addressing this stuff. I see it's a partnership that through your 25 leadership to make—not to forget the other populations, but of course I'm here on behalf 26 of Project Safety Net. If you're mindful about how this will impact the youth and their 27 well-being in whatever decisions you make, and also sometimes if you're proactively 28 thinking about developing a new policy or if the community presents a policy, just having 29 youth well-being in your back, I feel that's an accomplishment in itself. 30 31 Chair Lauing: Thank you very much. You're going to be very. 32 33 Commissioner Reckdahl: I have one last question. I'm not sure if this is for Rob or for 34 you. The Teen Center and Project Safety Net, is there any interaction between those 35 two? 36 37 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. We often meet at Mitchell Park is one thing. We have a teen 38 advisory group that meets there and the Palo Alto Youth Council. They're involved in 39 Project Safety Net and help advise some of the direction of Project Safety Net. The Teen 40 Center is interesting because in the past it's always been occupied mostly by middle 41 school students. Now, we have a little additional funding, and we're doing more late 42 Draft Minutes 10 DRAFT evening activities just for high school students. We have Friday nights at the Drop, it's 1 called, and there's some Saturday time and Sunday time too. It's starting to get fomented, 2 so we get more and more teens participating which is really great. Lacee Kortsen runs 3 that community center. Amal Aziz is the Teen Coordinator. Mary is getting to know 4 those staff and the students that are there. We're building that program. We're a year in 5 right now. 6 7 Ms. Gloner: One of the priorities is to meet with Lacee and Amal to find out how we can 8 have more synergy. Because you already have a captured audience of engaged youth, my 9 understanding is like when the youth of this community says, "I want to go and 10 congregate somewhere," right away it's Mitchell Park Community Center. I believe it's 11 not only youth who go to the schools here, it's the youth who live here. They go to 12 schools other places as well. That's one I'm like really itching to do. I want to sit down 13 and see how we can support, because they're working already with that youth and just 14 finding a way to say that there's another opportunity for them. 15 16 Commissioner Hetterly: I had a quick comment about the youth voice. I think also that's 17 hugely important. I'm curious how the Project Safety Net manages the separation 18 between the youth leaders, the Teen Advisory Committee, the Youth Council, who are 19 really engaged and active, who maybe don't have relationships with the rest of the kids. 20 How can you help them bridge that gap in representing the voices of the whole student 21 community? I think that's something that's important to figure out. Maybe you've 22 already figured it out and you're doing it. 23 24 Ms. Gloner: You raising that point is very important. You're not the only one who has 25 identified that. I did see a model—I see hope; I always look at hope and possibilities. I 26 asked how they recruited for the student panel. They were actually alum as well, some of 27 the youth who were here during the clusters and who are still engaged. There were some 28 student leaders. I asked, "What brought you here at the table?" There were some who 29 said, "I heard there's going to be interviews, and I was just curious to find out who this 30 person was going to be." That shows me hope that there's people who want—they felt 31 safe or that they were like, "It's okay for me to show up." I think that was the individual 32 who got interviewed for that ... (inaudible) challenge with it. The article that just got 33 released. I don't know. Do you want to share a little bit more about how they were 34 recruited? 35 36 Mr. de Geus: Generally, just trying to hear youth voice. There's 4,000 high school 37 students or something, and that doesn't include the private schools. As we've talked 38 about it, is try and create as many opportunities in as many different ways for teens to be 39 able to speak their voice whether it's through the arts or through some of these teen 40 leadership groups or other club programs. Some of the programs at the school are really 41 interesting. One was called Sources of Strength which looks at teen leaders in different 42 Draft Minutes 11 DRAFT parts of the community on school campus, either the sports people, the dance people, all 1 the different. They have formed with the support of Dr. Joshi and others with Project 2 Safety Net a club called Sources of Strength, these bridge teens that then connect with 3 other teens. It's all about hope and resiliency and these types of things. The main answer 4 to that is, I think, we—we definitely do this at the Teen Center—is just create lots of 5 opportunity to bring teens in under different circumstances, under different interests and 6 create authentic relationships with those clubs. 7 8 Ms. Gloner: It's a challenge, but then I also say it's less of challenge if this was a bigger 9 geographic region. Like I said, it's like just finding a different avenue. You're right. 10 Most of the people who actively engage have no problem. It's the ones who don't have 11 socialized groups. It's also talking to them and not making suppositions. That's one of 12 the questions I want to learn more about how can we engage more directly from them, the 13 youth. 14 15 Mr. de Geus: One thing we've definitely learned is you can't try and create a group that's 16 representative of all the different interests. The kids don't want to go. The Teen Arts 17 Council, they want to be Teen Arts Council; they want to be at the theatre. We have to 18 go them, and we have to go to that place and talk to those kids. Whether (inaudible) kids 19 or the Palo Alto Youth Council, a whole different set of kids. We've tried that before, to 20 have a really diverse group of teens. It just doesn't work that. Realizing that is an 21 important thing. We've got to get out, and we do get out in many different ways. 22 23 Ms. Gloner: Through the collaborative, those organizations and individuals by proxy, 24 they're that connection to the youth too. It's not going to take the same as if we heard 25 from them directly. 26 27 Mr. de Geus: I think that's an important point, though, Mary. When we do meet, they are 28 adults, but they're adults that are working directly with youth. We have the leaders of 29 Adolescent Counseling Services that are on campus, that are talking to teens all the time. 30 They're informing the rest of us on what they're hearing. That helps us do better at the 31 Teen Center or it helps the Y do better. The Y has this mentoring program for at-risk 32 youth. That individual is part of the Project Safety Net work, and he comes with the 33 perspective that he's directly from the youth. I don't think we can just rely on that and not 34 also just have the teens there. That is an important part of understanding what's 35 happening with teens. Mary, one of the first things she sort of instituted was—what was 36 it called or what did we call it? Youth in Action. It's not adults sharing what teens are 37 doing, but it's teens actually up there presenting. What was the one they did last month? 38 It was decrease the stigma around ... 39 40 Ms. Gloner: It was something like—I can't remember. It was like just being more 41 comfortable talking about mental health. 42 Draft Minutes 12 DRAFT 1 Mr. de Geus: Be the change. They did a really good job. We can send you some links to 2 the Epi-Aid study, because we have a page on the Project Safety Net website, so you can 3 read about that and Collective Impact if you're interested in more about that particular 4 model. 5 6 Ms. Gloner: Go to that website. If you can't find it, then you'll have my contact 7 information. 8 9 Chair Lauing: Thank you. 10 11 Ms. Gloner: Thank you so much. 12 13 4. Update on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master 14 Plan 15 16 Chair Lauing: The next item on our agenda is an update on Parks, Trails, Open Space 17 and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. I think Peter is going to lead that with a lot of 18 collaboration from others. 19 20 Rob de Geus: That's a huge collaborative effort. We had a fantastic PowerPoint 21 prepared for you all, and then all of a sudden it stopped working. We might have to look 22 at the paperwork. Just a thank you to the staff, Kristen, Peter, and Daren, continuing to 23 move us along. Kristen is going to lead the presentation today. I know we had a couple 24 of community meetings, the community stakeholder meeting. 25 26 Chair Lauing: I was going to ask for a commentary on that. Can that come in first? 27 28 Kristen O'Kane: Sure. We had two meetings this month. One was a community meeting 29 on February 11th. The purpose of that meeting was to go through a process. [The 30 Commission took a break.] I'm going to give just a brief summary of the two meetings 31 we had. The first was February 11th. That was a community meeting, and the purpose of 32 that was to go through the same process that the prioritization challenge went through 33 online, the challenge survey. I have to admit that we did not have a large turnout. We 34 had five people from the community attend. We think that's probably a result of the 35 people that were going to do the survey already did it. We did get over 700 respondents 36 to the survey, people who filled out the survey in its entirety. We still went through and, 37 I think, had a really good discussion and went through a ranking process. We did have a 38 second meeting on last Thursday, February 18th, and that's a stakeholder meeting. We 39 had a really good turnout for the stakeholder meeting, a really good discussion. They 40 received a presentation similar to the one you're receiving tonight. We received some 41 Draft Minutes 13 DRAFT really good feedback. I also want to thank Commissioners Moss and Reckdahl for 1 attending that meeting as well. 2 3 Chair Lauing: About how many people were at that one? 4 5 Ms. O'Kane: Would you say 16? 6 7 Peter Jensen: I think sixteen came. 8 9 Ms. O'Kane: Sixteen. 10 11 Mr. Jensen: The stakeholder group is 22 people. I emailed about 40 people. It's usually 12 two or three people that represent each group. Most of the groups were represented at the 13 meeting which, for our stakeholder group, has been the norm for the two meetings before. 14 They're definitely really engaged in the process and do provide a lot of good feedback in 15 that respect. I would say too that the community meeting was interesting. Even though 16 there was five people there, it was a microcosm of our conversations for the Parks Master 17 Plan. There was a sports field representative there, a dog park representative there. We 18 discussed restrooms. We discussed community gardens. We hit all the key topics that 19 we've discussed pretty much every time with this. It was an interesting conversation. 20 Because the reps of those were there, they got to hear each other's pros and cons against 21 the other ones, which I thought was good for the fields and the dog use, to have the 22 conversation and hear what the other ones had to say. Even though it was a low turnout, I 23 think it was a constructive conversation. I do wish there was more there. We did send it 24 out. I would say a minimum of 15,000 people got the notice of the meeting. I know 25 when it goes out to our CSD list that it's a list of 12,000. I also sent it to every 26 neighborhood association rep to send out as well as the stakeholders to send out. I can't 27 judge on how many they send out, but I'm sure it was another few thousand people 28 probably. We did get 730 responses which was very good. The interesting part about the 29 responses in that respect is that it appears that when someone started to do the survey that 30 they actually went from the beginning to the end. There was very few that they just 31 started and did like the first section and then stopped. Most of the 731 responses were all 32 full responses, and then there were 100 or so that had started and didn't get to the end. 33 Everyone pretty much that did start to do it did the whole thing. That was promising. 34 We do have a lot to discuss tonight, so we will get into that. Because of the conversation, 35 there are a few things to discuss. Going through our normal slides, we always look at this 36 one just for the Plan purpose. That's to guide decision making for future development of 37 the parks, trails, natural open spaces, and recreation system. That's why we're trying to 38 put the Master Plan together. We're going to first look at defining the project terminology 39 and look at definitions, coming to that hierarchy of the Master Plan itself, and have a 40 discussion about that. We're going to review the proposed draft goals. There's been 41 some revisions to that. We're going to have a discussion and talk about some key policy 42 Draft Minutes 14 DRAFT questions that are still unresolved and go through those. We can also talk about other 1 policies as we go through that. The list of policies though is fairly long. In terms of 2 timing, we want to focus on the ones that we have, and then we can have a further 3 discussion on that. I would say that for the policies and the goals that we do want to 4 continue the discussion. We're not here to decide on what they are tonight. We're here to 5 continue the discussion of what those are and continue to build and revise as necessary. 6 If we have some time permitting, we will look at some concept maps which I did pass out 7 earlier, that we started to pass out. The survey, preliminary results of the actual online 8 survey which are really preliminary because it just closed a few days ago. These are just 9 the raw data numbers of how many people and then starting to rank which ones came out 10 higher and which ones lower. Hopefully we'll get to that point. To start our conversation 11 off tonight, you do have a printout of this. If it's hard to see up there, hopefully it's a little 12 bit easier to see on the paper that was handed out. It is the definitions of the principles, 13 goals, policies, projects and programs. I think there was a request by the ad hoc and 14 members of the Commission to better define these terms so we all have a better 15 understanding and grasp of what they mean. The project team has started to put some of 16 those together. I believe the policy definition was in your package as far as the 17 Attachment B goes. I went through the policies, but the principles, goals, project or 18 programs are new. We're kind of revealing these definitions tonight and hopefully taking 19 some comment and questions about them. Of course, when we start with the framework 20 itself, we start with the principles. The definition attached to that is the fundamental 21 basis that describes a desire to state a preferred direction. Collectively the principles 22 articulate Palo Alto community's vision for future parks, trails, natural open space and 23 recreation system. The second one of the goals is a broad statement of direction 24 describing the desire in state. Those are qualitative in nature and collectively should 25 achieve the system envisioned by the principles. That leads us then to the policies which 26 we're working on, which is a course of action that provides clear guidance regarding 27 recreation program provisions, park maintenance and operations or future renovations 28 and capital improvement needs for parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities. The 29 definition for projects is the capital improvement or study related to future capital 30 improvements and the programs and action or initiative related to service provision. We 31 set that up tonight to have the conversation about that, so we're all on the same page of 32 what these areas mean, so we have a clear understanding as we go forward and build the 33 framework of this Master Plan. We can open that up to discussion. I don't know, Rob, if 34 you have any (inaudible). 35 36 Mr. de Geus: I think it's important. I think it probably still could be tweaked a little 37 further. I'm curious and interested to hear the Commission's feedback. I think it goes 38 from sort of the highest level to more and more specific, is the basic concept. Let's just 39 pause here (inaudible). 40 41 Draft Minutes 15 DRAFT Chair Lauing: I just want to make kind of an overall sort of direction with what I think 1 the ad hoc has commented on, that's three of the five here tonight, bring on the other two 2 and sort of what we would like to get out of it with respect to the policy discussion. First, 3 as was stated by Rob at the beginning of the retreat and Mary about four times tonight, so 4 she's well trained, Our job here is to advise Council on policy. You said that at the 5 retreat. It's all about policy. That's the crucial thing. Therefore, I think we want to leave 6 here with a pretty clear understanding as you're starting here with what's a policy. What 7 is that? As we're doing any kind of work, we know what's kind of in-bounds and out-of-8 bounds. Secondly, keep in mind the reason that we requested this, I guess, to be a little 9 bit accelerated from when you were going to work on it was because we felt pretty 10 strongly that that's essential to being able to do prioritization, scoring, whatever you want 11 to call it, of all the projects, because the policies are going to drive that pretty materially. 12 At some point we have to get at least two lists; one of existing policies, if that can be 13 pulled together, so we know what's already here. As we think about going forward from 14 your perspective and have a debate on those new policies, maybe there's even a third list 15 of things that you want to look at to become policies but need more work. I don't know. 16 Just some way to come away with a concrete definition that ultimately goes to Council 17 with our recommendations and yours and says, "Here are the new policies that we think 18 you should put on top of the old policies to really get the right direction on the Master 19 Plan." I'm stating this on behalf of the Commission but also for debate. At some point, I 20 think you guys have all said not necessarily tonight but at some point, we should just take 21 each of these potential policy statements one-by-one and have a good debate about them, 22 whether that's restrooms in all parks or dogs are off-leash or whatever. We should just 23 get all those issues on the table and maybe come up collectively with what we think 24 should be recommended. That may not be tonight, but if we can get to any of that, we 25 can do that tonight. Structurally, other Commissioners, does that seem to be on-target? 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. 28 29 Chair Lauing: In terms of commenting on this first slide here, people just want to jump 30 in on the definitions that are up there? Again, I would really like to focus on the policy 31 definition rather the other ones right now, if that makes sense. 32 33 Commissioner Reckdahl: To me, that's the most uncertainty, so we should chew on that, 34 I think. 35 36 Female: (inaudible). 37 38 Chair Lauing: She's going to do that afterwards. I asked the speaker, and she's going to 39 speak afterwards. I won't go first on that. Did you want to ... 40 41 Draft Minutes 16 DRAFT Commissioner Reckdahl: In the ad hoc, we had discussed about the importance of 1 policies just because the policies drive a lot of the projects and shapes the projects. For 2 example, if you limit parking in the parks, that will have one issue as opposed to if you 3 have huge parking lots, that will change some of the actions that we take. We just want 4 to make sure that the big policies that are going to shape the actions we have are decided 5 upfront so we don't have to iterate. 6 7 Mr. de Geus: Do you think the definition is the policy? I think this is the standard 8 definition of a policy. Is it acceptable? 9 10 Vice Chair Knopper: The one thing that I find missing is acquisition. I know that's 11 something, future acquisition of parkland. Is that a goal of our policy? 12 13 Chair Lauing: That could be one of the policies. 14 15 Vice Chair Knopper: Because we have the laundry list in the definition of program 16 provision, park maintenance, operations, future renovations, capital improvement. 17 18 Mr. de Geus: I think that makes sense. 19 20 Vice Chair Knopper: Would acquisition be? I don't know. That's a question. 21 22 Commissioner Hetterly: I think that would be an appropriate type of policy. 23 24 Commissioner Reckdahl: Right now we say guidance. To me, I think guidance is more 25 nebulous. I think policies is more ... 26 27 Vice Chair Knopper: Directed. 28 29 Commissioner Reckdahl: ... this is the letter of the law. This is our direction as opposed 30 to guidance. 31 32 Vice Chair Knopper: Funny you said that. I wrote a clearer directive. 33 34 Commissioner Moss: I would think one of the programs would be acquire new parkland. 35 I wouldn't put it into policy necessarily. 36 37 Vice Chair Knopper: You would not? 38 39 Chair Lauing: I think right now we're just trying to decide if that's the right definition of 40 policy. Is that what we're on? 41 42 Draft Minutes 17 DRAFT Ms. O'Kane: Right. 1 2 Commissioner Moss: To spell out that we should be acquiring new land? 3 4 Chair Lauing: No. We're just focusing on what are the words—we're kind of 5 wordsmithing the definition. 6 7 Commissioner Moss: I think the words in the policy is fine. 8 9 Commissioner Hetterly: I think the real challenge with policies is figuring out what is the 10 right level of specificity. You want to keep policies at a fairly high level because you 11 want them to be able to support a variety of programs and projects that change over time. 12 You don't want it, I don't think, to be very specific and tightly directive. You want it to 13 be somewhat general. I think it's tricky. Looking through this list of policies here, there 14 were several that I thought maybe were more program, less policy, but I think it's a very 15 gray area. It's difficult to provide a definition and have everyone understand it the same 16 way or have it apply the same way to every item you want to consider. For me, I think 17 the key point for the policy is do your best to keep it at a high level. For example, if the 18 thing you're recommending is that the City do this specific thing to some specific other 19 thing, that would be a program. If you want them to consider doing those kinds of things 20 or a variety of those kinds of things to meet that end, that would be a policy. 21 22 Chair Lauing: It clearly has to be differentiated from the other words that are up there, 23 goals and principles and stuff. I just did a little wordsmithing on my own, and I used 24 words like standard and direction and value-based framework just to get some thoughts in 25 there. I have a value-based framework providing a clear standard and direction on an 26 issue by which actions can be measured. Maybe measured is going too far; I don't know. 27 28 Commissioner Reckdahl: Also, policies are more strategic. For example, if the Council 29 comes and says, "We don't want to maintain the X number of square feet per person for 30 park space," that changes what our tactical actions are going to be to maintain the park 31 quality. Then, we have to make do with what we have. If the Council comes and says, 32 "No, we want to enforce this. Every time we gain 1,000 more people we should be 33 gaining more parkland to compensate for that," then that changes how we'll use parkland 34 because we will have an expanding park system as the City expands. It's kind of ground 35 rules. I view the policies as ground rules that we follow when we manage the parks. 36 37 Mr. de Geus: I agree 38 39 Council Member Filseth: I agree with Chair Lauing. I think this group certainly is the 40 advisory group to the Council … 41 42 Draft Minutes 18 DRAFT Chair Lauing: Rob. 1 2 Mr. de Geus: Maybe this is sort of supportive of Commissioner Hetterly's comments. 3 Not all policies are the same. Some do lend themselves to be more specific and more 4 directive and can be measured. Others, it doesn't make sense to do that because there's a 5 changing dynamic or something. I do worry if we try and define what a policy is too 6 specifically, then we create the potential of conflict between policies, which we don't 7 want. I would support sort of a little more broader language. I like some of the 8 comments that Chair Lauing had about standards and strategy and including that in there 9 somewhere. That makes some sense. 10 11 Chair Lauing: Do you think measured goes too far? 12 13 Mr. de Geus: Maybe, yeah. 14 15 Chair Lauing: Some of those can be very clear, like the quantitative ones that you just 16 mentioned. For example, our number of parks per people, it's pretty easy to measure 17 against that policy to see if it's working. 18 19 Mr. de Geus: I think it really works for some. I'm just not sure it works for all policies. 20 21 Chair Lauing: Standards and directions by which you get your guidance and your action 22 probably does work. That's why I threw in the word framework. Ground rules is another 23 one. I didn't want to put just rules or laws. I was just trying to fiddle with the words 24 apart from putting in the specifics about parks, like just what would a City policy be. 25 Then it has to be applied to all these things and more that are in the document that you 26 folks prepared. 27 28 Commissioner Reckdahl: It's hard, because if the policy is too nebulous, then it's just 29 going to apple pie and motherhood. 30 31 Chair Lauing: Correct, totally agree. 32 33 Commissioner Reckdahl: That's where having something that's quantitative, that you can 34 actually evaluate. Take maintain the quality of the parks, yes, we want to do that and that 35 is a policy, but for purposes here I don't think that's useful because there's no way to 36 measure that or it's difficult to measure. 37 38 Chair Lauing: Are we saying that we're kind of coalescing around a decent definition 39 with some of these words? Not that we've written it out exactly. 40 41 Draft Minutes 19 DRAFT Commissioner Moss: I like his definition maybe with the word, something by which 1 projects and programs can be measured or a course of action by which projects and 2 programs can be measured that provides clear guidance regarding recreation programs, 3 etc. 4 5 Chair Lauing: I'm a little worried about the word guidance, because that just sounds like 6 a suggestion. 7 8 Vice Chair Knopper: I don't like that word (crosstalk). 9 10 Chair Lauing: Whereas, standards ... 11 12 Vice Chair Knopper: Directives, standard, whatever words. 13 14 Chair Lauing: ... I think works better. I just worked a little bit to try to get kind of 15 community values into it to show that it was infused by that, not just legislation. I think 16 all these suggestions and the definition breaks it out from the other top two, the principles 17 and goals. There was some debate in the ad hoc about do we need five different 18 categories, but that's another discussion. 19 20 Commissioner Hetterly: The way I think about it is principles are sort of concepts we 21 like. Health, fun, playful. 22 23 Commissioner Reckdahl: Playfulness. 24 25 Commissioner Hetterly: That whole list of principles. The goals are what we want our 26 park system to look like. We want it to be integrated, innovative, evolving, our parks and 27 rec system. The principles are what are the priorities we should consider in trying to 28 make it be a great park system. That's X, Y and Z. 29 30 Commissioner Reckdahl: Policies. 31 32 Commissioner Hetterly: That's the policies. The programs and projects are the nitty-33 gritty how do we get there. 34 35 Chair Lauing: Could you repeat your policy one again? I thought it was a little bit 36 different than what I heard last time. 37 38 Commissioner Hetterly: What are the priorities we should consider in trying to achieve 39 the goals? 40 41 Chair Lauing: I don't think that's right. 42 Draft Minutes 20 DRAFT 1 Commissioner Hetterly: Why? 2 3 Chair Lauing: Because the priorities are the next step after we have the policies in place 4 that are going to help direct that, maybe even put some boundaries around that. It's the 5 prioritization process that takes place after we have the policies and all that other stuff 6 above it. 7 8 Commissioner Hetterly: I think the policies are the priorities, and the programs are the 9 implementation of the priorities. 10 11 Chair Lauing: A policy to have bathrooms everywhere. I'm not sure how that—there 12 aren't any priorities there because it's everywhere. 13 14 Mr. de Geus: I think it's both. I think it's both policies and projects that implement the 15 goal. We've talked about some of the policies reading sort of a little bit more like best 16 practices or something, but that still can be considered a policy. Are we going to follow 17 this standard to achieve this goal? I don't think they have to all sort of exactly (crosstalk). 18 I think you use both to effectively implement the goal. 19 20 Council Member Filseth: It's like if you have a policy to have bathrooms in parks. A 21 program would be we've got this much money; we're going to build one in this park, this 22 park, this park (inaudible). That's a program. A policy is we should have them. What 23 does that mean? That means we don't have a policy to not have them. There's people 24 that think you shouldn't have bathrooms in parks because of (inaudible). A policy says 25 we should have them. I do think it sort of seems like a higher level (inaudible). 26 27 Chair Lauing; I agree with that. I think that's well articulated. Take dogs. If we make a 28 policy that we want off-leash dogs, that's the policy. 29 30 Council Member Filseth: That's a policy, right. 31 32 Chair Lauing: How it's implemented, if we prioritized the north versus the south versus 33 shared-use versus non-shared-use, that starts to get into the prioritization of a policy. I 34 think that's the hierarchy. 35 36 Council Member Filseth: What it means (inaudible) course of action, it sort of depends 37 on what you mean by that course of action. It's almost like a guidance for how courses of 38 action should ... 39 40 Chair Lauing: That's right. I also thought that was a little bit too specific because it was 41 going to the action already as opposed to the policy around the standards. 42 Draft Minutes 21 DRAFT 1 Council Member Filseth: (crosstalk) course of action. Yes, (crosstalk). 2 3 Commissioner Reckdahl: They way I think about it is the goals are the strategic goals 4 that we want, The policies are the ground rules that we have to fit our actions into. The 5 projects and the programs are the tactical actions that we take to fulfill the goals, to fulfill 6 those strategic goals. 7 8 Council Member Filseth: It seems like a test of the policy should be is there a logical 9 anti-policy (inaudible) can't find an anti-policy if the policy doesn't make sense. Do we 10 have dogs off-leash or do we have dogs on-leash? We have dogs off-leash in parks or we 11 don't have dogs off-leash in parks. (crosstalk) anti-action (inaudible). 12 13 Chair Lauing: Maybe with this sort of tweaked or evolved definition of policies, we 14 should just take on a couple here as test cases just to see what works. If you just went to 15 one on draft policies ... 16 17 Commissioner Reckdahl: We have some in the back, when we get to later in the 18 package. 19 20 Chair Lauing: I was just going to use this as an example, and then they can take back 21 over here. "1.B" is just exactly what you said, it's so specific. Retain a 5-acre standard 22 parkland per 1,000 residents. If that becomes the policy, that's very clear. It's a 23 statement; there's ways to implement that. We could still prioritize north versus south or 24 small parks versus large parks. Less clear to me about "1.A." 25 26 Mr. de Geus: The next part of the presentation is we've called out a few policies we think 27 require more discussion. It's not really clear given all the public feedback what the policy 28 direction should be. We have a few of those in (crosstalk). 29 30 Chair Lauing: That's what Keith was saying. I just wanted to kind of point back to the 31 other issue before we got to those, which I think are good. As I went through here a few 32 times, some of these things obviously by the definition of policy here and as we've 33 tweaked it, to me, fit. Others are sort of too fuzzy or a little bit too apple pie and not 34 standards of performance kind of thing. 35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: "1.A" I think is ... 37 38 Chair Lauing: "1.A" is emphasize equity and affordability in providing programs and 39 services. 40 41 Draft Minutes 22 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: I think it would be helpful to get all of the Commissioners' feedback on the 1 46. There's 46, right? There's a lot. We'd take a lot of time if we took them one at a 2 time. We take the big ones where we know there's a lot of discussion to have and there's 3 significant policy choices one way or the other. We take the time to do that this evening, 4 and then ... 5 6 Chair Lauing: Right. What I'm still doing is I'm still on the earlier issue of defining what 7 a policy should look like when it's written up. The question I'm putting is now that we 8 have a better definition and a working, more accepted definition of policy—I just picked 9 "1" because it's "1." The second thing to me is a very clear definition of a policy, I'm not 10 sure that the first one fits as a definition of a policy. 11 12 Mr. de Geus: I think there's a few in there like that, maybe more than a few. We will 13 need to go back and rewrite. I think the discussion about policy definition is a really 14 good one, and it needs to start with something like it is a standard value-based framework 15 that guides a course of action, that kind of thing. It started to make a little more sense to 16 me as I was just listening to you all. We'll rework that and also go through the policies 17 again with another cut and see if some of them really are more programs or is it really 18 written as a best practice or a policy, and then come back with a version next month. I'm 19 sort of curious about some of these difficult policy decisions. We've picked three or four, 20 and there may be a couple of others that you've identified as also needing some 21 substantive discussion as a Commission. 22 23 Chair Lauing: I think that's going to be very good. I just wanted to make the point that 24 I'm not sure, now that we've got a better definition of policies, that these are actually all 25 policies. Instead of going through all 46 collectively, maybe you guys do another draft. I 26 would totally agree. Other Commissioners? 27 28 Commissioner Hetterly: I suspect if we went through the whole list, we would not agree 29 on which of these were policies and which weren't among (inaudible). It does make 30 sense that (inaudible). 31 32 Mr. de Geus: To that point, Commissioner Hetterly, if we could get—I don't know what 33 the right date would be—enough time that we could then collectively look at all of your 34 feedback and look where there's sort of alignment and where this is difference, then we 35 can hone in on those for next month's discussion. I mean, there may be a number of 36 places where you're pretty aligned. We want to get that information. You've already 37 gone through this, I think, in a pretty detailed way. Maybe you could go even more, but 38 looked like you went through each one and gave a comment that I have an issue. 39 40 Commissioner Hetterly: Not whether it's a program or policy so much. 41 42 Draft Minutes 23 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: Maybe go back and do that as well. Take the next two weeks or something 1 to do that exercise. That'll really help staff to bring back a more meaningful document as 2 well. 3 4 Chair Lauing: Would you give us the new draft first, that take out things that looked 5 more like programs and non-policies? 6 7 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 8 9 Chair Lauing: That would be more efficient for the Commissioners, I think. 10 11 Mr. de Geus: Let me think about it. I want to be careful about that because you may not 12 agree. I think we're better off leaving it in there. If there's consensus—I mean you could 13 just say not a policy or whatever, keep it simple. If we see that is an inconsistent opinion, 14 maybe it's already our opinion too, but at least we affirm it (inaudible) from you all. I 15 know it's a little more work to do it that way, but otherwise I fear we will remove 16 something that you may not want removed or one of you or a couple of you. 17 18 Chair Lauing: It raises the spectrum of the last 546 projects that we had to comment on 19 in the last document. 20 21 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, don't do that again. 22 23 Chair Lauing: The specter, excuse me. 24 25 Commissioner Hetterly: Much smaller (inaudible). 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: Some of these could be policies. They're kind of on the fringe 28 of being a policy, like "1.H," encourage walking and biking as a preferred method to 29 getting to and from parks. If you're saying we just want that, then I don't think that's 30 really a policy. If you say limit the number of parking spaces to half of what it is right 31 now, then that becomes a policy. Does that make sense? Just saying we want people to 32 bike and walk to parks, I don't think that's a policy by itself. Now if we're saying 33 concrete steps we're going to do, then it becomes a policy. 34 35 Commissioner Hetterly: I'd say limiting the parking spots would be the program that 36 falls under that policy. 37 38 Council Member Filseth: I would have said the opposite too. Policy is walking and 39 biking are the preferred methods for getting to and from parks, and we're going to 40 discourage the use of cars. (crosstalk) 41 42 Draft Minutes 24 DRAFT Commissioner Hetterly: The programs are how. 1 2 Council Member Filseth: (crosstalk) programs are what he just said. 3 4 Commissioner Reckdahl: For me, one of the things, like when we were at the 5 Sustainability Summit or, I guess, the out brief of that at the Council, I think if we tried to 6 limit parking spaces at parks or reduce the number of parking spaces, there will be some 7 feedback. I think that's kind of a big step to take. I would want clear direction from the 8 Council on that big step. That's why I think it isn't so much that—agree, it is a tactical 9 step, but it's a controversial tactical step. 10 11 Commissioner Hetterly: That's why you don't stop at the policy level; you continue on to 12 the programs and (crosstalk). 13 14 Council Member Filseth: (crosstalk) there are policy implications there. Reduce parking, 15 we're going to avoid having (inaudible) we're going to limit parking spaces. We're going 16 to get rid of the parking spaces generally. That is sort of policy. I mean, there's policies 17 (inaudible). 18 19 Mr. de Geus: It is a program, and it's site specific. It may make sense for some to limit 20 parking, but it's very conditional based on where the location is, what parking is adjacent, 21 what other facilities. That's again why the policies, to me, would be better written sort of 22 at a more higher level than like this. 23 24 Chair Lauing: If there's no other comments on that, then we'll go with that game plan, 25 and then we can carry on with your slide show here. 26 27 Ms. O'Kane: I'm going to talk about the draft goals. I know we're here to talk mostly 28 about policies, but we did want to present our proposed goals. We have five goals that 29 were developed from consolidating the areas of focus and sort of grouping the areas of 30 focus into like goals. These are the same areas of focus that were used to guide the 31 community prioritization challenge. Then we added a sixth goal which focuses more on 32 how we're managing the system as a whole efficiently and effectively and sustainably. 33 Goal 1 is provide high quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive and 34 distributed equitably across Palo Alto. This is a consolidation of three areas of focus. It's 35 really focused on the accessibility, inclusiveness and also equal distribution of the 36 facilities across the City. I did want to mention that there is one area of focus in here that 37 I know the ad hoc committee had proposed combining with another area of focus. That 38 other area of focus is under a different goal, so that's why we did not combine those. I 39 can talk about that more when we get to that second goal; it's on the next slide. When we 40 do go to Goal 2, which is enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing 41 system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services, this is where we had 42 Draft Minutes 25 DRAFT the areas of focus related to sports fields and off-leash dogs. We did make a note in the 1 presentation that the ad hoc committee has proposed consolidating the sports field and the 2 off-leash dog areas of focus, and the proposed language is included there. We haven't 3 necessarily committed to one or the other, but I wanted to represent them both here. 4 5 Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a quick question. By presenting the areas of focus 6 under here, they are for our purposes to understand where those goals came from. Are 7 they then not going to be part of the organization of the Master Plan? The goals are 8 going to replace them? 9 10 Ms. O'Kane: Exactly. The areas of focus will still be in the Master Plan, because they 11 were ... 12 13 Commissioner Hetterly: As part of the process. 14 15 Ms. O'Kane: Right, a part of the process. They're not going to be in the entire hierarchy 16 of the Master Plan. It's going to go like the definitions were, and areas of focus will be 17 taken out. It's just for demonstration purposes here. Goal 3 is create environments that 18 encourage active and passive activities, support health, wellness and social connections. 19 This includes two areas of focus and is not only the physical health and well-being 20 associated with our parks, facilities and programs, but also some more of the sort of 21 mental wellness, community social connections. Goal 4 is to integrate nature, natural 22 systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. Goal 5 is develop innovative 23 programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. Goal 2 was focused more on 24 enhancing what we have existing. Goal 5 is focused on expanding the system that we 25 have. The two areas of focus that the ad hoc group had suggested consolidating fall 26 under Goal 1 and Goal 5. We did feel that those were two sort of different areas. We did 27 choose to keep those separate. We added a sixth goal which is manage Palo Alto's land 28 and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably. This might be a goal where some of 29 those best practices that we talk about—we're still trying to get our head around those 30 best practices and how they'll fit into the Master Plan. It's possible that they might fall 31 under this goal which is sort of how do we manage what we have effectively, efficiently 32 and sustainably. 33 34 Commissioner Reckdahl: That's interesting. You're saying that offering new recreation 35 programs, we'll say, would be expanding the system. When I think of expanding the 36 system, I think of buying new land. I guess if you're expanding the scope of recreation 37 programs, that is kind of the same thing. 38 39 Ms. O'Kane: Right. That's how we looked at it. It's the actual facilities and the land, and 40 then there's the programs. That represents the program side of it. 41 42 Draft Minutes 26 DRAFT Commissioner Reckdahl: Quite often we just think about parks. Recreation is sometimes 1 the stepchild. 2 3 Chair Lauing: Not to Rob. 4 5 Ms. O'Kane: We are asking for comments and feedback today and also discuss next 6 steps for the goals. If we need to revise some goals, we can take those away and come 7 back. If there's need for an ad hoc to resolve some of the goals, we can discuss that. 8 Comments? 9 10 Commissioner Hetterly: I think the goals are pretty good. I think Goal 2 also represents 11 the nature area of focus. When you're talking about the capacity and quality of our parks 12 and open space, the nature element has to come in there, I think. When I looked at the 13 policies, not to jump ahead, but there was basically nothing in there about open space. 14 We need to add more in that area. I think it could go in Goal 2 as well as Goal 4. Goal 4, 15 I think, should be not just integrate nature and natural systems and ecological principles, 16 but protect and integrate or preserve and integrate. I think we need more than just 17 integrate in that goal. That was really the big gap that I felt in the goals there was nothing 18 really recognizing the importance of our ecosystems. 19 20 Ms. O'Kane: I have a question to clarify your first comment on Goal 2. Do you mean to 21 add something that's related to the conservation of the open space? 22 23 Commissioner Hetterly: I would add that to the nature element as well. I would put it in 24 both places. Not just conservation, but when we're working on the Byxbee Park trails, 25 one of the issues that kept coming up was how the loop trail impedes habitat corridors. 26 Improving the quality and capacity of our open space, those loop trails expand the 27 capacity for people, but they don't expand the capacity for animals in some ways. I think 28 there's a place under that goal for that kind of consideration. It has to show up 29 somewhere. I don't feel very strongly which goal it falls under, but I do think we need a 30 lot more of that. 31 32 Ms. O'Kane: I'm just thinking about the comprehensive conservation plans that we'll be 33 doing in the future for all the open space areas, how that would tie in without being 34 redundant into those plans as well. 35 36 Commissioner Hetterly: I think we should incorporate that by reference in this Plan, for 37 example. That's exactly the kind of thing that I'm trying to get at, that should show up in 38 this Master Plan as a priority. 39 40 Draft Minutes 27 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: I think Goal 4, we could add some more language to that too. Rather than 1 trying to have it in two goals, it would make more sense to try and get Goal 4 the way 2 that it captures all those elements you mentioned, conservation, open space... 3 4 Ms. O'Kane: Right. Otherwise it's going to be difficult to put policies under goals if it 5 straddles two different goals. 6 7 Commissioner Hetterly: It's the area of focus that straddles the goal, not necessarily the 8 policy. I don't feel strongly about which goal it falls under. I just think it needs to be 9 somewhere. I'm just trying to think if we're going—I'll leave it there. Thanks. 10 11 Chair Lauing: Other comments on goals, Commissioner Hetterly? 12 13 Commissioner Hetterly: No. 14 15 Chair Lauing: Did you have anything, Abbie? 16 17 Vice Chair Knopper: No. 18 19 Chair Lauing: Good to go. I just thought that the last one seemed a little bit fuzzy. I'm 20 kind of into measurement now. Effectively and efficiently and sustainably, on the one 21 hand, I get where you're going there. You want to put a stake in the ground on that, but 22 it's sort of like ... 23 24 Ms. O'Kane: How do we know when we're there? 25 26 Chair Lauing: ... is that really effective or sort of effective. I don't have any good 27 suggestions for that. It seemed a little fuzzy to me. 28 29 Commissioner Moss: You do have this sustainability goal. Just like the discussion we 30 just had about nature, I think everything in Goal 2 is going to be affected by sustainability 31 and by integrating nature. I just summarized Goal 6 as sustainability. 32 33 Chair Lauing: They're trying to say more there than that, right? 34 35 Ms. O'Kane: You mean regarding sustainability? 36 37 Chair Lauing: More than sustainability. 38 39 Ms. O'Kane: Right, yeah. 40 41 Draft Minutes 28 DRAFT Commissioner Moss: What you're saying is that everything we do has to be efficient and 1 effective. That sort of seems like mom and apple pie. It seems like everything in 2 government should be effective and efficient. 3 4 Mr. de Geus: It should be. It isn't always. I actually think the point that you made there, 5 Chair Lauing, is a good one about that one. Maybe there is something we can add in 6 there that would improve it considerably, if we say something about data and 7 measurement. Do you know what I mean? 8 9 Chair Lauing: Yeah. 10 11 Mr. de Geus: We're trying to manage these programs and services and land effectively, 12 efficiently and sustainably in a way that uses data and measuring the work effectively. 13 14 Commissioner Moss: If you have ... 15 16 Mr. de Geus: I think that ... 17 18 Commissioner Moss: If you have greenhouse gas emissions for the City, does every tree 19 and every bush and every open space equal X amount of greenhouse gases absorbed that 20 you could offset cars on the street? I never thought about that, but isn't that essentially 21 what the sustainability goals are saying? We should count up all the trees ... 22 23 Mr. de Geus: We have counted up all the trees. 24 25 Chair Lauing: Yeah, we have. 26 27 Commissioner Moss: You have. (crosstalk) 28 29 Chair Lauing: You're saying that ... 30 31 Commissioner Moss: Acres of open space equals X number of cars you can have on the 32 street. 33 34 Commissioner Reckdahl: That's assuming that the trees are growing in the open space, 35 and they never die, in steady state. 36 37 Mr. de Geus: They're always changing. 38 39 Commissioner Reckdahl: They're always dying and decomposing. 40 41 Commissioner Moss: Plant a new one. 42 Draft Minutes 29 DRAFT 1 Chair Lauing: Rob's not talking here as the goal is not talking here just about 2 sustainability. It's also about even measuring services being performed effectively. 3 You're trying to put that all under that umbrella. 4 5 Vice Chair Knopper: All initiatives that you're doing. 6 7 Mr. de Geus: The goal specifically says we will use data and quantitative and qualitative 8 measures. 9 10 Chair Lauing: Measured against objectives and, where possible, outside data standards. 11 12 Vice Chair Knopper: Maybe that's what you just need to add, utilize quantitative and 13 qualitative ... 14 15 Commissioner Moss: Everything you're doing about cutting down the amount of water 16 you use, I mean that should be in there. 17 18 Commissioner Reckdahl: That's a good point. 19 20 Commissioner Hetterly: Wouldn't using qualitative and quantitative measures be a policy 21 under this goal? 22 23 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, could be. You could do it that way. 24 25 Vice Chair Knopper: I actually thought this was more of a policy that we're thinking 26 about. The policy is the top of the tree, and the goal is maybe a branch that comes down. 27 28 Commissioner Hetterly: The goal is above the policy. 29 30 Vice Chair Knopper: If your goal is to be sustainable and effective and efficient—right. 31 Oh my gosh, sorry. 32 33 Chair Lauing: Maybe you can just take a look at that and see if there's ways to talk in the 34 right way about measurement, measured against best practices or something like that, so 35 that there's not just we were efficient, we get an A. 36 37 Ms. O'Kane: We'll work on that one as well. 38 39 Commissioner Reckdahl: The one thing that did bother me also in Goal 2 is the calling 40 out of the sports fields and the dog parks. There's a lot of things that Parks and Rec do, 41 Draft Minutes 30 DRAFT and we're calling out two specific things. Do we want to go that detailed in the goal? 1 They are big players. 2 3 Chair Lauing: That's out now, right? That's not specifically mentioned. 4 5 Ms. O'Kane: Right, that's not going to be in the goal. It just areas of focus. 6 7 Vice Chair Knopper: Just something they've thought about. 8 9 Commissioner Hetterly: Just for our purposes to understand where it came from 10 (crosstalk). 11 12 Mr. de Geus: Where the goal, how the goal was (crosstalk). 13 14 Chair Lauing: The areas of focus aren't going to be tied to this when it's presented to 15 Council. That's my understanding. 16 17 Commissioner Moss: It's just today's hot button. Tomorrow it's (inaudible). 18 19 Commissioner Reckdahl: That makes sense then. I thought you were getting rid of the 20 name of the area of focus, but still we need to specify these goals. These sub-bullets 21 would always go with them. 22 23 Ms. O'Kane: No. 24 25 Chair Lauing: Draft policies, page 7. 26 27 Vice Chair Knopper: Which says draft polices. 28 29 Mr. Jensen: This is a conversation we're going to have about the policies and how we're 30 going to break this up. We have identified some of the policies that do merit some more 31 or further discussion to pinpoint those and understand those more about what actually the 32 policy is going to be. I started this by just putting up our definition that we talked about 33 previously and stating that in the packet that you received a total of 46 proposed policies 34 that support the six goals are there. What we really want to do is then focus tonight our 35 discussion on the following which will be synthetic turf, off-leash dog parks, restrooms, 36 service areas which we'll discuss. Of course, if there's other policies that any of the 37 Commissioners feel really strongly about or want to discuss further, we can discuss those 38 as well. Again, this goes back to the goals. What we're proposing is that the feedback we 39 receive here tonight on these specific ones that we review, that we will then redraft the 40 policy per our discussion and then bring that back next month for review again. Again, 41 with your comments on all of them and the comments on this, if at next meeting we don't 42 Draft Minutes 31 DRAFT come to a consensus about what the policy is going to be for these, then we can discuss 1 forming ad hoc committees for them to vet them out more and get our policies set 2 correctly of how the Commission feels they should be drafted. That's kind of going to be 3 our process, and you can discuss that a little bit too before we start this. It's basically us 4 taking your feedback tonight on these specific things, redrafting them, bringing them 5 back. If there's still conflict on them, if we want to proceed with forming an ad hoc to 6 flesh out the ones that we don't agree on or are not meshing with the group, then we can 7 do that. 8 9 Chair Lauing: Depending on how long we want to go tonight, there will be more than 10 those five bullet points. We can add some more tonight if we have time. If we don't, we 11 just have to be reasonable about the clock. We may just have to pick them up fresh at the 12 next meeting. 13 14 Mr. de Geus: In addition, though, what we would like is to get your feedback between 15 now and next meeting. If you have specific feedback around the policy, and you think it 16 ought to be this way or this is how you have understood the information we've heard 17 from the public that the policy should head in this direction, it would be good to get that 18 from the Commission. Like I said earlier, there may be more consensus there than we 19 know. If we (crosstalk). 20 21 Chair Lauing: You might get some of that tonight too. I was just saying that we might 22 not be able to debate fully every policy that we think needs to be debated just because of 23 time constraints. 24 25 Commissioner Hetterly: Can I make a suggestion? 26 27 Chair Lauing: Mm-hmm. 28 29 Commissioner Hetterly: I would suggest that we put all of the other policy questions or 30 issues on the table so we know which ones we're looking at, what emerges from the 31 policies that were suggested here. Rather than going one by one and debating each item 32 on the list, we try to do some triage and figure out—synthetic turf, for example, I don't 33 think most of us have a lot of expertise about the pros and cons on either side of adopting 34 a policy that's pro turf or anti-turf or what sort of turf. That would be one maybe where I 35 might ask for staff to come back with arguments for and against on this issue, rather than 36 debating it now and not knowing really what the full scope of the debate is. There may 37 be some that we can easily come to agreement on. There may be some that are really 38 hard to come to agreement on. If we could just triage where we need more info before 39 we can have a really useful discussion, that might be helpful. 40 41 Draft Minutes 32 DRAFT Commissioner Moss: You got feedback on February 18th. You've thought about it. 1 Evidently of the 46 these are the areas that you're having the most trouble with and need 2 the most input on. That's why you had the meeting last week, and that's why you have 3 this meeting. Are you asking us to specifically look at these because they're the ones that 4 are giving you the most trouble and the rest of them we'll deal with as time permits? 5 6 Mr. de Geus: Yes, essentially that's correct. These are the ones that have percolated to 7 the top from staff's perspective, that really require more discussion and (crosstalk). 8 9 Commissioner Moss: I don't want to waste time on all 46 if these are the five or six that 10 are giving you the most trouble. 11 12 Chair Lauing: It's not the 46. What Commissioner Hetterly is saying is that it's probably 13 more than five or less than 46, so we should just put all those on the table so we know 14 what the scope is. Correct? 15 16 Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. I'm saying if Commissioners, having read the list of 17 policies, if there were some that they said, "Wait a minute. I don't want to do that." 18 19 Commissioner Moss: Add them to the list. 20 21 Commissioner Hetterly: That's something you want to add to the list, so that we can 22 discuss it. 23 24 Commissioner Moss: Do we want to do that quickly then? 25 26 Chair Lauing: Yeah. My only other question on your suggestion is do you want to do 27 that before these five are considered? 28 29 Mr. de Geus: That's going to take another 45 minutes because there's a lot there. I would 30 prefer to have you all think about those things, what are the most important policy 31 concerns you have in the 46 and send that to staff. We'll look at all of them and see 32 where there is consensus around an issue and bring them back next month. These ones 33 here, that's a pretty big discussion right here, just to get through these four. 34 35 Commissioner Hetterly: You're looking for resolution. 36 37 Mr. de Geus: Not resolution but ... 38 39 Commissioner Moss: More feedback. 40 41 Draft Minutes 33 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: Feedback. Maybe there is resolution. Some, maybe we need information, 1 there's a gap. That's where I'm at. I don't ... 2 3 Ms. O'Kane: I think the intent was to look at each of these that could go either way as far 4 as a policy goes. Like it says, either hear feedback or there may be instances—for 5 example, we already have an ad hoc for the dog parks. It may be to focus the discussion 6 of the ad hoc on the questions we're presenting here. Similar to the turf, I think we agree 7 and Daren agrees that we do need data and we do need to look at both sides. I don't know 8 if an ad hoc is appropriate for that or if it's just having someone from the Commission 9 participate with staff as we develop that. Our intent wasn't to resolve them all here or 10 necessarily to get in a long heated debate about any of them, but just sort of present this is 11 where we are and what should our next step be in resolving that. 12 13 Commissioner Moss: All I know is that when I went to that meeting, there was a lot of 14 good input. I had some feedback, but I didn't want to give it in that meeting. I'd like to 15 give it sometime, if you want me to provide my comments. 16 17 Chair Lauing: We'll do Plan A, what we originally talked about doing. 18 19 Mr. de Geus: I think there's time and the Commission is interested in spending the time 20 here at this meeting, after we try a couple and go through them, to then go around and ask 21 for the highlights that you really want to discuss next month. If you want to do that, we 22 can still do that. 23 24 Commissioner Hetterly: Do you want to do public comment first or at the very end? 25 26 Chair Lauing: I was going to do this at the very end so they would have the benefit of all 27 this. Who's launching here? 28 29 Ms. O'Kane: Peter. 30 31 Mr. de Geus: We have this one on the turf first. 32 33 Mr. Jensen: The first one is discussing the synthetic turf policy. The policy as laid out is 34 up on the screen, which is to design and maintain high quality turf sports fields with 35 adequate time for resting to support maximum use in parks by multiple organized sports 36 (inaudible) with areas large enough for practice or play. The next part of that is invest in 37 tournament-quality high-wear sports field turf which is talking about using synthetic turf 38 as the designated sports field used for full-time sports where lighting is possible. This 39 one talks, I guess, using either natural turf or using synthetic turf as what the policy is 40 going to be going forward for our sports fields. The policy directions can have a variety 41 of directions you could go there, choices. You could expand the use of synthetic turf in 42 Draft Minutes 34 DRAFT selected locations and grandfather in existing synthetic turf fields but not add any new 1 synthetic turf fields, building all natural turf systems with enhanced drainage, irrigation 2 and turf grass that can support intensive play by organized sports. The final one is 3 consider on a case-by-case basis and not a solidified, specific stance now if we do want to 4 add synthetic sports fields in the future or not, or just use natural grass. Those are the 5 options of directions the policy can go in that we're looking for feedback on. 6 7 Vice Chair Knopper: Can I concur with what Jennifer said? I don't know enough about 8 turf, synthetic versus natural, why I should have an opinion one way or the other. Can 9 you give a quick sort of lesson in ... 10 11 Mr. de Geus: Daren's probably the best equipped to do that. 12 13 Vice Chair Knopper: ... turf? 14 15 Daren Anderson: I could, but it will not be comprehensive. Much like the dog 16 discussion, I think it warrants more lengthy investigation, more lengthy research and 17 more thoughtful debate once we've really delved into the pros and cons. The other one 18 concerning synthetic versus natural is it's in flux. That industry of synthetic turf is not 19 static. You started with an Astroturf that I think a lot of people think of in the earlier 20 days of the NFL. That's still in people's minds, and that's not what we have today. It's 21 continuing to evolve. It evolved over the last just couple of years, from what we've put in 22 at Stanford-Palo Alto originally to what we put in at El Camino Park. It's different in 23 terms of the infield, the blades, the structure, the heat it produces. It's dynamic and 24 changing, and that factors into this discussion to some degree. I can give you a nutshell 25 analysis between some of the pros and cons, but really I think it needs to be more robust. 26 27 Chair Lauing: This is an example of one that I would agree with Commissioner Hetterly 28 that it should be tabled until we have enough knowledge. 29 30 Mr. de Geus: I'm concerned that we're not going to have all the knowledge we want to 31 make some of these policy recommendations. I think this is a good example, because 32 there's so much that we're still learning about this fairly new product. Given that 33 information, what does that mean in terms of policy direction? 34 35 Chair Lauing: I would say that there's no change in policy because ... 36 37 Mr. de Geus: There is no policy. 38 39 Vice Chair Knopper: When you're thinking about policy with regard to sustainability and 40 protecting the environment, how does the turf—because that's a goal. How does 41 Draft Minutes 35 DRAFT choosing one turf over the other impact that? That's what I'm thinking about with regard 1 ... 2 3 Chair Lauing: It's not a one-issue subject. That's the problem. 4 5 Vice Chair Knopper: Right. That's where I ... 6 7 Chair Lauing: We can't make a policy around one issue. Just sustainability, I mean. 8 There's safety, there's cost, there's frequency of maintenance, all that stuff. 9 10 Commissioner Reckdahl: Users' preferences. 11 12 Chair Lauing: It seems to me that, because there are a few in there in my judgment that 13 are like that, we don't have enough data to make a new policy. We can't and, therefore, it 14 has to wait three months, six months, a year until we can make a policy. We can't just 15 invent something. That's okay because new policies in the future can affect new 16 decisions as parks are put together. Did you have a comment? 17 18 Council Member Filseth: I was going to say what your choices might be. We don't have 19 a policy on this at this time. 20 21 Commissioner Moss: In the meeting, we brought up that there are some ... 22 23 Chair Lauing: I'm sorry. What meeting is this? 24 25 Commissioner Moss: The one that the stakeholders gave. I was just like Abbie; I didn't 26 know much. A lot of things came out in that meeting, and mainly it was health concerns 27 and also environmental concerns. The little plastic balls that are in there, they're going to 28 go into the Bay, and fish are going to eat them. I didn't know anything about that. As far 29 as the health concerns, as Daren has pointed out, there has been so much flux, so much 30 change in the industry that the health concerns are getting less. They're not all gone, but 31 they're less. Having a policy that says we will never have synthetic turf, I think is not 32 going to happen because they are improving the synthetic turf to get rid of the health 33 issues. They know about the environmental issues. I think they're going to be working 34 on those. We have to work on those as well. The natural grass, you have to use organic 35 fertilizer, and you've got to use enough water but not too much water. Now they're 36 creating new kinds of grasses, like the bunch grass that kept coming up, that is easier to 37 water. If we had a policy that says no more synthetic turf or no more natural grass, I 38 don't think that that would be appropriate at this point because it's changing so much. If 39 you could come back and tell us that we are improving the synthetic turf that we use from 40 now on and we're improving the natural grass that we're using from now on and we 41 should on a case-by-case basis use one or the other, we could make a policy like that. 42 Draft Minutes 36 DRAFT What Abbie is saying is we don't know all the health risks. We don't know all the 1 changes in the industry for both natural and synthetic. 2 3 Chair Lauing: All five of us are in agreement on that point, so I think we can't do a 4 policy change on that. To the extent you want input then, I think Kristen said you could 5 have a person aligned with a staff member as you work on it or we can do an ad hoc or 6 you can come with a staff report. Lots of options. 7 8 Mr. de Geus: I just would (inaudible) there isn't a policy. It's not a policy change; there 9 is no policy on that. 10 11 Chair Lauing: Correct. 12 13 Mr. de Geus: I don't want to speak for the Council, but I've heard some Council 14 Members speak about this and also probably don't have enough information really to 15 understand it but nevertheless have an opinion that we should abolish all synthetic turf or 16 at least consider that. 17 18 Vice Chair Knopper: They're pro synthetic? 19 20 Commissioner Hetterly: No, they're anti. 21 22 Mr. de Geus: It seems to be silent on the topic. It would be ... 23 24 Chair Lauing: We can take it on as a project, but we can't take it on without more 25 knowledge. 26 27 Mr. de Geus: Then I think we ought to have that in the Master Plan, that says something 28 about what we ought to be doing to better understand and be educated about whether we 29 should or shouldn't use synthetic turf. Maybe that's as far as we can go in terms of a 30 policy statement or program (crosstalk). 31 32 Chair Lauing: What I had said at the top of hour is maybe there's a third list of policies 33 that have to be investigated for change or development but just aren't there yet. That 34 seems to be one to me. 35 36 Mr. Jensen: (crosstalk) too that's interesting in this one is that stemming from a policy 37 currently I guess the program that we use to decide if we're going to use synthetic turf is 38 that we set up a testing system for the synthetic turf that has to meet standards that are set 39 by the Federal or local government, that meet the environmental whatever for land and all 40 those kinds of things that we're testing for. You can start to get and develop, I guess, the 41 policy or the program that supports the policy to start stating that on a case-by-case basis 42 Draft Minutes 37 DRAFT if we do consider this that we do have these things in place that—instead of us trying to 1 figure out what is the best because, as we discussed, it is changing. The material is 2 changing. They're making it more environmentally friendly. Every time, they have to 3 show us these test results that it passes. 4 5 Vice Chair Knopper: Criteria for evaluation? 6 7 Mr. Jensen: Right. I think that's where the last one comes into play. It is kind of like the 8 out that we're basically making up. It's not a really definitive policy, but it is considered 9 on a case-by-case basis. Under that policy, it would have these steps of what you would 10 do to determine what the best scenario is for what you would do there. 11 12 Commissioner Reckdahl: How does this affect our actions? Obviously when you put a 13 soccer field in, it would change whether the surface is natural or synthetic. It wouldn't 14 change the number of fields we'd need, would it? Are we trying to say ... 15 16 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 17 18 Chair Lauing: It could over the long term. 19 20 Commissioner Reckdahl: Are we saying that if we don't have synthetic, we have to have 21 more soccer fields? 22 23 Commissioner Hetterly: I don't think we're saying that. 24 25 Mr. de Geus: There's significantly more hours of use on a synthetic field, so it's less ... 26 27 Commissioner Hetterly: By adopting a policy about whether we're pro or con synthetic 28 turf, that's not also adopting a policy that we want more soccer fields, therefore ... 29 30 Mr. de Geus: No, not necessarily. 31 32 Commissioner Reckdahl: If you want to maintain the same number of games per week 33 played on Palo Alto fields, then you would have to have more fields. 34 35 Mr. de Geus: There's less capacity. If you have no synthetic turf, just say as an example, 36 there's less capacity than ... 37 38 Commissioner Reckdahl: This is ... 39 40 Mr. de Geus: It has an impact. Next? 41 42 Draft Minutes 38 DRAFT Chair Lauing: No policy on that. 1 2 Mr. de Geus: I get a sense of what we might do there, what we might bring back. 3 4 Commissioner Hetterly: I have a question on that just really quick. This third bullet, 5 building an all natural turf system with enhanced drainage, irrigation and turf grass that 6 can support intensive play by organized sports, is there such a thing? 7 8 Mr. Anderson: Yeah. Every field aims for that. It's really about investing in it and 9 making it as robust as possible. If you are playing on a field with inadequate drainage, 10 for example, it will underperform, wear out more quickly and be less safe. If you were to 11 invest in it and put in the right drain system, a more modern irrigation system and 12 perhaps a more robust maintenance program, it would be enhanced and better, safer. 13 14 Mr. Jensen: Most of the turf fields that we have in the parks weren't really built for high-15 use sports activities. They were built for people to go out and casually play on. If we 16 wanted to increase the capacity of those, then we'd have to increase the amount of money 17 that we'd have to spend on those because we'd have to rebuild them again with the 18 framework of a sports field not just an area of grass so someone can go kick a ball 19 around, which would help to expand the usability of those as far as our sports fields go. 20 Of course, they could still be used as they were before, as passive play areas. On the 21 weekends when you wanted to have soccer games there, you could have them there. You 22 could have more. You could have them for longer periods of time, because your 23 infrastructure is built to hold that capacity. Right now, most of them aren't which puts a 24 lot of burden on Daren and his team because they're trying to maintain those fields at the 25 level that we want them to be, but it doesn't really have the infrastructure to really do that 26 stuff. 27 28 Commissioner Hetterly: That, it seems to me, is the most compelling reason why we 29 would want to consider these questions as why we would want to consider creating a 30 policy around these questions. If in fact the Commission were to come around and say 31 we all agree about Bullet Number 3 being the direction we should go, then we definitely 32 want a policy in the Master Plan that would help support funding for this investment 33 because it would be a significant investment. 34 35 Mr. Anderson: I should point out they're not mutually exclusive of course. You can 36 enhance your natural grass fields and still do whatever you want with the synthetic ones 37 and add more. They're not mutually exclusive. 38 39 Commissioner Hetterly: Maybe the question that we're dodging by focusing on the type 40 of turf is really do we want to expand our sports fields inventory and/or capacity. Do we 41 need to play longer on the fields that we have and do we need new fields? I think we 42 Draft Minutes 39 DRAFT keep always saying the data says we don't need new fields, and MIG keeps saying you 1 need new fields. 2 3 Mr. Jensen: I think too in terms of new fields that you're saying the new fields also 4 encompasses retrofitting the current fields that we have just to have the infrastructure that 5 will take more of a pounding. 6 7 Mr. Anderson: Part of this analysis that we're talking about with the synthetic versus 8 natural would naturally include the fact that we have inadequate rest periods for our 9 existing natural grass fields. We do that so we can increase capacity. The result of that is 10 poorer conditions. If you expand the rest periods, you have a better quality field. We see 11 that time and time again when we happen to get windows long enough to properly restore 12 and re-grow turf. When they're shrunk, we see the reverse. If you had more fields, you 13 could in theory sustain the same amount of play in better conditions with longer rest 14 periods. What I'm getting at is that would be one element of many in this discussion on 15 synthetic versus natural, and inform all of those policy discussions. 16 17 Chair Lauing: There is a separate policy on fields that there's a recommendation in here 18 on that as well, which would obviously impact that whole area even more significantly. 19 Can we move to dogs? 20 21 Mr. Jensen: Sure. This one already has—Jen may have ... 22 23 Commissioner Hetterly: Where does that leave us? What is our next step on the turf 24 question? 25 26 Chair Lauing: Staff has to decide ... 27 28 Mr. de Geus: What I heard—we have to think about this and discuss it—this idea of 29 building a more rigorous, robust turf management from the natural grass systems is 30 something that would be good. 31 32 Commissioner Reckdahl: You still can't get the same capacity as artificial turf. 33 34 Mr. de Geus: No. 35 36 Commissioner Reckdahl: If you wanted to get rid of our (inaudible) turf fields, you'd 37 need more soccer fields to keep the same capacity? 38 39 Mr. de Geus: Right. I'm not sure I would—say that last part again? 40 41 Draft Minutes 40 DRAFT Commissioner Reckdahl: If you converted artificial turf fields to natural turf, you would 1 need additional playing areas to keep the same capacity. 2 3 Mr. Anderson: That's right. 4 5 Mr. de Geus: What I also heard was we'd get a lot more information about synthetic turf 6 to have a specific policy that would guide whether we should add more synthetic turf or 7 get rid of some of the synthetic turf. 8 9 Commissioner Moss: I would like to see more synthetic turf that's environmentally 10 sensitive and that covers all the health concerns. 11 12 Mr. de Geus: If it can be done, right. 13 14 Commissioner Moss: I would see a healthy mix of natural and synthetic on a case-by-15 case basis. If you have two incredibly good alternatives, a really, really good synthetic 16 turf and a really, really good natural turf, that would be my policy. (crosstalk) 17 18 Chair Lauing: The answer is that you need to come back to us with a bit more 19 information. 20 21 Mr. de Geus: I think around synthetic turf, it's probably as someone said—I think it was 22 Peter—around some set of standards and criteria for what it means to have an 23 environmentally sustainable turf which (crosstalk) fully exist now. I know we're doing 24 some work on it, but there's still questions even about the best products that are out there. 25 26 Vice Chair Knopper: The criteria also would affect natural turf because you need a lot 27 more water to maintain natural, so that's a sustainability issue. That would fall under the 28 same kind of criteria. The only thing I'm thinking about too is this goes to your point 29 about do we need more fields. Like, is that a policy? They're linked. If you're changing 30 from synthetic to natural, they're completely linked, those two issues. Do you want more 31 passive play? Like, can a family go to a park on a Saturday and actually have a picnic 32 without getting a soccer ball kicked (crosstalk). 33 34 Mr. de Geus: I haven't seen any data that convinces me that we should aggressively go 35 out and be converting fields to synthetic turf. The user groups say they want more, and 36 they want lights too. They want to play five days a week or seven days a week or 37 whatever. 38 39 Vice Chair Knopper: There's other people that use parks for different reasons besides 40 organized sports. 41 42 Draft Minutes 41 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: That' where we are, and I think that's where the (inaudible) is. 1 2 Commissioner Reckdahl: We also need to talk to the users too. 3 4 Mr. de Geus: We have. 5 6 Commissioner Moss: They want four seasons. 7 8 Mr. de Geus: They want four seasons. 9 10 Commissioner Moss: They want to 10:00 p.m. 11 12 Vice Chair Knopper: The whole place would be a (crosstalk). 13 14 Chair Lauing: That's what I just said. There's a policy on that that we can review if we 15 want. The recommendation from staff is that we maintain the existing policy which 16 includes the limited, if we want to call that limited, non-seven days a week for practice 17 times as a way of controlling the capacity for fields. That's an existing policy. Can we 18 go to dogs? 19 20 Mr. Jensen: Yes. This one too I hope that Daren chimes in a lot. Of these that we're 21 going to review tonight, this one does have an ad hoc group that has been spending a lot 22 of time on it. Really when you get down to the policy itself, address the need for more 23 off-leash dog spaces throughout the City but continue to exclude off-leash dogs from 24 open space preserves, would be what to review. The directions you could go would be to 25 modify the City ordinance or park rules and regulations to exclude dogs leashed or 26 unleashed from park playgrounds but to allow off-leash dogs in designated off-leash 27 areas and maintaining the current policy of limiting dogs to enclosed, fenced areas but 28 funding additional and improved dog parks. Again, this is what, I think, the ad hoc 29 committee for this has been trying to tackle, but what one of these policies would be the 30 best. Of course, now we have that you have to have your dog on a leash and if it's not, it 31 has to be in a dog park, fenced area, is our current policy for that. Do we want to keep 32 and maintain that or do we want to expand it to having these off-leash dog areas? Or a 33 combination of them both. 34 35 Mr. Anderson: I'd be glad to chime in, Peter. Thanks for that. The ad hoc committee, as 36 you know, I think I've given you several updates on this. There's not a lot new from our 37 last update. A tremendous amount of work and research and analysis and thinking has 38 already gone into this, much like we are talking about doing for synthetic versus natural. 39 I think we're at a good stage. We're really close to being able to come back to the 40 Commission, I believe. We've got a meeting with the ad hoc tomorrow to talk it through. 41 We've got something I'm hoping to share with them. I haven't had their feedback yet, so 42 Draft Minutes 42 DRAFT it's not complete. I think it's the potential basis for something robust. You could say, I 1 think, this is a feasible plan that says here's a policy regarding dog parks. Let's go with 2 dedicated sites only. We have an equal and fair distribution across the City, and it'll 3 answer some of the questions on which way to go policy-wise, is my hope. I hope to 4 bring that back to you real soon pending our discussion tomorrow with the ad hoc. We'll 5 see where it goes from there. 6 7 Chair Lauing: Which seems like in the context of this Master Plan planning, we could 8 come up with a new policy or an existing policy, but new information. 9 10 Mr. de Geus: Daren, is it fair to say that it's basically the second bullet point here? It's 11 not to try and change the ordinance but to fund additional and improved dog parks across 12 the City. 13 14 Mr. Anderson: It would. The first bullet point is sort of independent from all this, that's 15 keeping the dogs out of playgrounds. That would kind of be its own park rule and 16 regulation. It's not affiliated necessarily with dog parks or off-leash areas. It's just 17 whether leashed or not dogs in playgrounds have been a problem, frequent complaints 18 from visitors. No specific rule. I think it's a very easy thing to amend in our park rules 19 and regulations. It's really separate from this, but a policy consideration for the 20 Commission to think about. Now is an opportune time to wrap it into our discussions, to 21 say does that sound right, should we be precluding them from playgrounds. I would 22 encourage that. It's been something I've received a lot of complaints about for many 23 years. I think it's a good idea for a number of reasons. Separate, again, from this 24 discussion on where you should have off-leash and whether it should be fenced or 25 unfenced. 26 27 Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly, you had a comment? 28 29 Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. I was just going to clarify that I don't think that the ad 30 hoc committee has really addressed in any full way whether or not we should modify the 31 leash law to allow off-leash dogs in unfenced areas anywhere. That's on here because 32 that's something that we really need to get a sense from the Commission as a whole 33 whether that's something worth pursuing. Is it a dead-on-arrival kind of idea? Is it a 34 great idea that we should figure out whether it can work here? They're doing it in 35 Mountain View. I think it takes—that would be a really hard and controversial choice to 36 go with that policy to change that leash law. It would require a lot of leg work to prepare. 37 I think it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of staff energy on it until we have even a straw 38 poll or a general idea from the Commission whether that's something we're interested in 39 or not interested in. Do you want to add to that? 40 41 Draft Minutes 43 DRAFT Vice Chair Knopper: No. I totally agree. The only other issue is policy direction. Open 1 space still excluded, that's not even on the table. 2 3 Chair Lauing: It's possible at the next meeting you would come back with a report and 4 we can sound off about that issue that you just raised? 5 6 Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. Maybe it makes sense to push the whole thing off, 7 because with that report we may all conclude that's good, we don't need to go further. 8 We may say ehh. 9 10 Mr. de Geus: I'm curious. Is there anyone on the Commission that thinks modifying the 11 leash law is a good idea? 12 13 Vice Chair Knopper: I do. 14 15 Commissioner Hetterly: I would love to have no leash law for my dog. I think it would 16 be a very challenging policy to promote in Palo Alto. 17 18 Mr. de Geus: I'm just curious where ... 19 20 Vice Chair Knopper: I don't think challenging should preclude you from (crosstalk). 21 22 Commissioner Hetterly: I agree. 23 24 Vice Chair Knopper: Anything worthwhile is usually hard. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a dodge. We're trying to get 27 out of providing enough dog parks, and this is just a way of dodging the responsibility. I 28 think we should just bite it off and put the dog parks and make them dog parks and have 29 people parks. 30 31 Vice Chair Knopper: (crosstalk) 32 33 Chair Lauing: We'll tackle that one again next month. 34 35 Mr. Jensen: The next one is restrooms. Again, I know that Daren has been working on 36 this as well. This is just on one slide because the policy direction is now just associated 37 in the verbiage of what is being recommended to address the need of restrooms 38 throughout the City except for alternatives in adjacent buildings or public facilities or site 39 is under 1 acre. This starts to look at the size of the park and giving criteria to where we 40 should have restroom facilities. Also, it looks at if other restroom facilities are around, 41 Draft Minutes 44 DRAFT then a park of 1-acre size can be precluded if there's already facilities in adjacent 1 (crosstalk). 2 3 Commissioner Reckdahl: How many parks do we have that are 1 acre or above? 4 5 Mr. Anderson: That's the process I just started, seeing where we've got parks, which ones 6 fit this criteria, how many would we need, and do they make sense. I just preliminarily 7 went through it last week. I want to do that in a more robust fashion. I think it would 8 behoove us to have a couple of Commissioners join me so I can walk them through that, 9 kind of run my thinking past them, because not all of them make sense to me. I think it 10 would be great to have a couple of Commissioners look at that with me. I think it would 11 be a short-term thing. I don't think this would be like the dog parks where it goes on such 12 a long time. I think we can knock this out in one or two meetings. 13 14 Mr. de Geus: A restroom subcommittee. 15 16 Chair Lauing: How come everybody's hand didn't go up? Just for our one new 17 Commissioner, I just want to point out that every time we've done an individual park 18 review in my six years, it has been very controversial when we wanted to put in 19 bathrooms where they weren't. Everybody except the people that live around there want 20 bathrooms. People that live around there don't want bathrooms. I just want to point out 21 this is not a noncontroversial issue that feedback comes back from the surveys and we do 22 gung-ho. I don't have a position on that; I'm just saying that's been the past feedback 23 we've gotten. 24 25 Commissioner Moss: Why did you limit this just to restrooms? In the discussion that 26 you had with the people at the stakeholders, they talked about every park having a loop 27 walking path or a bench or an open lawn or bunch grass or some kind of activity or some 28 shade. I was just wondering why—is that separate? 29 30 Mr. Jensen: It's separate. 31 32 Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't think you want to bite all those off at one time. 33 34 Commissioner Moss: Why did they bunch them altogether? 35 36 Mr. Jensen: I think it was mostly for the stakeholder conversation and so they could have 37 an understanding of—in the stakeholder thing it was referred to as park amenities or it 38 had another heading on there that you could consider all of these. It's a reference size. 39 For our discussion tonight and because of time constraints and because the restroom and 40 those things definitely ranks higher as far as the controversial thing where you get pro 41 and con for either one. This is the one that's definitely going to generate the most 42 Draft Minutes 45 DRAFT discussion that really needs the most kind of feedback. I don't know if you want to go 1 with Daren's suggestion. I don't know if there's Commissioners here that want to discuss 2 that issue more. I see a lot of excited faces. 3 4 Mr. Anderson: If not, I'm glad to do the analysis just with staff and then bring it to you 5 and walk you through it. I'm glad to do that. 6 7 Mr. de Geus: I think it is controversial in terms of actually implementing it because the 8 local neighborhood of the park it definitely will be an issue. This is one where I think we 9 heard a lot of feedback from the community. They want to see more restrooms. 10 11 Commissioner Reckdahl: The Council too. 12 13 Mr. de Geus: The question for us really now is where and how and how many and a 14 policy that speaks to that. 15 16 Commissioner Hetterly: It's not cheap either. Sorry, Daren, I cannot help you with this. 17 I would throw in my two cents that I think it might be worth considering some kind of 18 usage metric for the park. Parks that get a lot of use by young kids might move higher on 19 a priority list for bathroom consideration. 20 21 Mr. Anderson: I have done that in my preliminary examination. For example, Esther 22 Clark is 22 acres, but there's no amenities at all at that site, very little use. It just didn't 23 make sense to put a restroom. My preliminary recommendation, that for example would 24 not have one based on the criteria you just mentioned. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we know how many people visit each park? 27 28 Mr. Anderson: No. The ones where we have data are Foothills Park and the Baylands. 29 We have trail counters, official entrances rather than porous parks where you can enter 30 every single way. It's not to say that we don't have fairly reasonable, anecdotal evidence. 31 We go to Magical Bridge; I can tell you that's our most popular playground. I think I can 32 get your agreement for that. 33 34 Mr. de Geus: Bathrooms are (inaudible). 35 36 Chair Lauing: (inaudible) this policy is going to be something like increase bathrooms in 37 Palo Alto parks according to the following criteria, with staff judgment on exceptions. 38 Something like that. 39 40 Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't think we want a blanket statement that thou shalt put in 41 ... I think thou shalt consider would be reasonable. 42 Draft Minutes 46 DRAFT 1 Mr. Anderson: That was my kickback as well to MIG. When we had this discussion, I 2 just thought that blanket statement, I can already think of several parks where that's not 3 appropriate. MIG and Lauren in particular had said the risk you do is you weaken it and 4 allow more flex when we come do to a restoration project at Monroe or wherever the 5 park is that fits this 1-acre size that would normally have one. You would open a window 6 to say, "I guess there's mitigating factors. Let's not do one there," was MIG's concern. I 7 thought it was a good one to consider at least. 8 9 Chair Lauing: There are mitigating factors. If you have a 22-acre park that you say we 10 don't need it because nobody's there. 11 12 Mr. Anderson: I agree. 13 14 Mr. Jensen: The last one we have to review tonight is (inaudible) service areas. The 15 definition of that is your access to a particular amenity. We talk about this map that I'm 16 showing you up on screen now which is the quarter and half-mile distances to access 17 each park. This tries to divvy out certain experiences and the distance that they are away 18 as a way of broadcasting those amenities across the system. This deals again with 19 distance, and it is adopting the following services areas as a desired maximum distance 20 between a resident's home and the nearest park or recreational facility in order of priority. 21 22 Commissioner Reckdahl: Can you switch back to the map for a second? 23 24 Mr. Jensen: Sure. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: A quarter mile is really short. 27 28 Mr. Jensen: A quarter mile, yes. I will preface it by saying that unlike the old school 29 maps before—we've talked about them before—this map is a lot more accurate because 30 it's actually showing how you would access the areas. Before they would just basically 31 draw a perfect quarter-mile circle around each park and that would represent the quarter 32 mile. We know from accessing it that that's not the real case. The brown is showing the 33 quarter mile; the orange is showing half mile. Of course, the items in the white are the 34 areas of the City that fall out of those areas. 35 36 Commissioner Moss: There was also brought up that if you put more bike paths and 37 pedestrian-friendly routes that you could expand that half mile because it would take you 38 less time to get there than walking the half mile or quarter mile. 39 40 Mr. de Geus: Other comments? 41 42 Draft Minutes 47 DRAFT Commissioner Hetterly: I'll make comments. 1 2 Vice Chair Knopper: I was going to ... 3 4 Commissioner Hetterly: Go ahead. 5 6 Vice Chair Knopper: I feel that we've had a lot of feedback with regard to dog parks and 7 one mile. When you're going to walk your dog, to walk roundtrip 2 miles to come to a 8 dog park without getting in a car, because we want to try to discourage that and you can't 9 put most dogs on a bike, it's too far. We know this, that there's a shortage of dog 10 facilities. We'll address it, but in this particular policy, I think that's too far. 11 12 Mr. Jensen: The one difficult thing about that is I think that when you start to get below 13 the 1 mile just by looking at the map there, that you start to state that every park needs a 14 dog park. That's then where ... 15 16 Vice Chair Knopper: I know. 17 18 Mr. Jensen: ... the idea of the 1 mile gives you a further distribution that's less, but at 19 least you have them around and it's not in every park. I think that's kind of the real thing 20 to look at here, that these distances from the mile below is these things will probably 21 appear at most parks, while the mile and above is more about distribution through the 22 system and not proximity. 23 24 Mr. de Geus: It's 1 mile or less, right? One mile is the standard ... 25 26 Commissioner Hetterly: The max. 27 28 Mr. de Geus: ... the max. Most people are below that. 29 30 Chair Lauing: This is the one where you're just going to have to spend 2 miles on gas. 31 It's just the usage for walking the dog. It is, if you want to go to a dog park. 32 33 Vice Chair Knopper: You can (crosstalk). 34 35 Chair Lauing: There's just not enough land to put that many dog parks in. It's just that 36 it's a non-starter. 37 38 Vice Chair Knopper: I know. I just thought I'd mention that. 39 40 Chair Lauing: I mean, one seemed short to me for that reason. 41 42 Draft Minutes 48 DRAFT Commissioner Reckdahl: How many dog parks do we need if we wanted 1-mile 1 coverage? Have we looked at that? 2 3 Mr. de Geus: Daren's done some heavy lifting on this that he's going to share with the 4 subcommittee tomorrow. 5 6 Mr. Anderson: I hadn't looked at that particular park yet. What I really looked at is 7 distribution north and south. It was very difficult finding those locations. Redrawing it 8 to make sure I—pulling a string with a pencil to try to hit the 1 mile for every spot, I'd be 9 glad to do it to see where it would shake out. 10 11 Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) we had something like 33 neighborhood parks, 12 somewhere around there. They don't serve everybody with the half-mile radius. If you 13 took half of those maybe or in a mile radius, you would need half as many to serve a mile 14 radius very roughly, then you're talking about 15 dog parks. 15 16 Commissioner Reckdahl: Actually it would be a square. 17 18 Commissioner Hetterly: They're a little bit apples and oranges on the distances. 19 20 Commissioner Reckdahl: Even 1 mile is going to be challenging. 21 22 Chair Lauing: We need to revisit this one too as opposed to just signing off on it right 23 now? 24 25 Commissioner Hetterly: I don't want to sign off on it. 26 27 Chair Lauing: That's what I'm saying. 28 29 Mr. de Geus: No, we're looking for feedback, where do you see the big issues. 30 Obviously the dog park one but other ... 31 32 Commissioner Reckdahl: The community garden is one that also 1 mile is going to be 33 challenging. 34 35 Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with that. I think the bottom three ... 36 37 Mr. de Geus: Do we even want a policy on this? 38 39 Commissioner Hetterly: ... I don't really want in there at all for a (inaudible) radius. 40 41 Draft Minutes 49 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: The consultants were saying the pure distance to a park is not sufficient. 1 We'd need more specificity about the experience that one is having in a park or can have 2 at a park coupled with distance is a more meaningful policy. 3 4 Commissioner Hetterly: I just think we're already struggling to not meet the half-mile 5 goal for any kind of public park experience. Adding in additional requirements that we 6 can't meet is (inaudible). 7 8 Chair Lauing: I think dropping those last three can make some sense, in answer to Rob's 9 question. Go ahead. 10 11 Commissioner Hetterly: Just to pile on. Dog parks, community gardens, picnickers are a 12 very small subset of the full resident population, or at least a subset. While you can 13 justify it for any kind of public park near your house, it's hard to justify specialized uses 14 that that (inaudible) house consistently. 15 16 Mr. de Geus: (inaudible) make sense. This isn't one ... We did have full ownership over 17 these. 18 19 Commissioner Reckdahl: What were we thinking of with play experiences? We were 20 thinking of parklets or something? 21 22 Mr. Jensen: That would be either playgrounds or like a natural play area. There's really 23 not like a specific, mostly playgrounds. The playgrounds, though, can take on different 24 types of things. I mean, you can have access to a creek, and that can be a natural play 25 area. The play experience is a broad definition of being able to be outside play. Most of 26 the issues are to your standard playground. 27 28 Commissioner Reckdahl: We're very close to a creek. 29 30 Commissioner Hetterly: I'd definitely not want a playground within a quarter mile of 31 every single house. 32 33 Vice Chair Knopper: If one of our policy points from 2 hours ago was acquisition, if we 34 are actively looking to buy a corner lot, whatever, land that comes available to the City, 35 then that helps us achieve the goal of whatever the acreage per resident policy that we 36 want to try to achieve. Maybe that fulfills instead of—I think this is a very tricky policy 37 point, the service area. 38 39 Mr. Jensen: I think too what the consultant is also trying to get at here is if you do add 40 land, then what amenities make that park usable. Is it a playground and a place to kick a 41 ball and a place to have a picnic and a place to sit outside on a bench to enjoy nature? 42 Draft Minutes 50 DRAFT 1 Commissioner Moss: A dog park. 2 3 Mr. Jensen: And a dog park. 4 5 Commissioner Moss: And a field for ... 6 7 Mr. Jensen: It starts to—once you acquire that space, what do you want to put in there? 8 It also starts to speak to the size of the space. Is it a little parklet? Do we want to spend 9 that amount if you're only going to get—you're not going to get all these things; you're 10 only going to get one of them to do. Is that really beneficial in the system just to add 11 space if it's not really providing an opportunity to do things even though it may just 12 provide the opportunity to be outside and be surrounded by nature? I think that's the 13 other thing that they're trying to ... 14 15 Commissioner Moss: This is my personal biggest frustration. I know going to that City 16 Council yesterday, knowing how desperate everybody is for land for housing and for all 17 kinds of services, and we're just one of those groups looking for land. You're not going 18 to get much land. If you're going to get land, you're going to get a tiny parcel. How do 19 you put a dog park in everyone one of those little parcels? It's not going to happen. If we 20 put it in here, are we setting an unrealistic expectation? That's my biggest fear. I want to 21 be fair. I want to be fair to all the stakeholders. There were 12, 15 stakeholders. I want 22 to be fair, but I don't want to set unrealistic expectations. We're not going to have 15 dog 23 parks. 24 25 Commissioner Hetterly: That being said, I think it's not enough to just say we want to 26 have more community gardens and more dog parks. I think we have to figure out a more 27 compelling way to include it in the Master Plan that maybe has some ... 28 29 Mr. Jensen: There is a step that is beyond this that is—the next step in this process is 30 actually creating the site-specific plans. The site-specific plans will start to call out areas 31 of—mostly they'll look at the park and maintain what's in the park, but then they'll start to 32 locate a dog park or a community garden or restroom or all those things that aren't there 33 now to distribute them across. On that specific level, we can start to review that at the 34 time when you have like specific parks to start looking at as far as the project goes. It's 35 like maybe there isn't a need to have a policy doing that. We set a distribution across the 36 system with doing those specific plans. There is another layer, I guess, of this that's 37 going to talk about specific sites of things. 38 39 Commissioner Hetterly: Can I just throw out one more issue around that first bullet, the 40 public park or preserve within a half mile or quarter mile preferred? That is my personal 41 preference, to retain that current policy that's in the Comp Plan. It has been suggested to 42 Draft Minutes 51 DRAFT me—I throw this out for other folks to think about how compelling it is—whether it 1 makes some sense to, instead of a geographic radius, consider somehow residential 2 density in a certain area. Instead of targeting your parks to where there's the gap in that 3 quarter-mile mark, you target your parks to where more of the people are. 4 5 Mr. de Geus: Like some of the maps (inaudible). 6 7 Mr. Jensen: I'll just bring up the map that you're talking about. This is the inverse of the 8 quarter and half-mile map. The blue areas are the areas that are lacking park space. The 9 little dialog boxes that have been put up there, now you can start to see that Section E has 10 the highest population density. Section D has the highest population. Area B has the 11 lowest population density. I think what this is starting to tell us is that if you were going 12 to go out to acquire parkland, these would be the places you would look. How we would 13 prioritize that is by looking at population density. You would say that "E" would be your 14 primary zone that you would start looking at first to acquire parkland in that area. This is 15 now starting to feed some information. You can see, though, like in Area B the purple 16 little building in there is signifying a school. Maybe the tactic is, instead of trying to buy 17 land there, to try to form some type of better agreement with the School District that 18 allows the use of their school grounds to be used on non-school times as a park. That 19 would start to fulfill some of what we want to have there. Maybe the City and the School 20 District work together, and the City starts to—maybe there's a playground that's built on 21 the playing field that's out there—give it more amenities. That's taken care of by the 22 City, but the community is allowed to use it as parkland. This starts to look at what 23 you're saying, where would be the most optimal place to really actually start looking for 24 based on population density and the lack of ... 25 26 Commissioner Hetterly: Council struggles a lot with this concept of having a minimum 27 required acreage, or several Council Members feel like that. How are we ever going to 28 achieve that? I think it might help them retain this kind of a service area radius if it was 29 coupled with a policy with a priority to the highest density areas or something to that 30 effect. 31 32 Commissioner Reckdahl: One of the things that bothers me, though, is if you're just 33 saying by radius, that may force people to put a bunch of tiny little parks everywhere. Is 34 a tiny park that's a quarter mile from a house better than a bigger park a half-mile away? 35 There's some critical mass that you need for a park. If it's too small, is it usable at all? 36 37 Mr. Jensen: I think that's what MIG would like to pinpoint. We talked about this, I 38 think, in the original matrix. They would like guidance from us of the amenities that we 39 think are vital to make a park useful. I think that is more important to us because of the 40 cost of land. If you're going to buy someone's corner lot, does that make a lot of sense to 41 do if we can't get amenities there and it just becomes a green lawn space that ... 42 Draft Minutes 52 DRAFT 1 Vice Chair Knopper: That costs millions. 2 3 Mr. Jensen: ... doesn't have a lot of use to it. I think that goes back to they start to talk 4 about these things because they want to incorporate that. If you're going to build a new 5 park, then you should have at least these minimum things in it to make it usable. If you 6 level the house and turf the whole area, it gives you a park there, but what is it actually 7 giving you as far as the amenity goes to use? 8 9 Chair Lauing: We can definitely take action on that through one of the items. 10 11 Commissioner Reckdahl: Over at Fayette Park in Mountain View, they knocked down 12 two houses and that is really used. It's very popular. 13 14 Mr. Jensen: If you start to look at that little park, they start to cram—there's a lot of stuff 15 in it. They've got a playground going in. They've got a lot of equipment. They've got a 16 turf area. They've got pathways. It is a tiny little thing, but it is highly used. One of the 17 main reasons why it's highly used is because it does offer the opportunity to do all these 18 other things. You draw in multiple user groups which makes it a successful space instead 19 of not having anything designated there. Like I said, mow the houses down and just plant 20 grass. That (inaudible) give us what we're looking for as far as usability goes. 21 22 Commissioner Moss: Are you talking about the one on Del Medio? 23 24 Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm sorry, Del Medio Park. 27 28 Commissioner Moss: That is incredible, how busy it is. They just knocked down two 29 little houses among huge apartment buildings with a lot of little kids. 30 31 Mr. Jensen: If we were having the conversation too about synthetic turf, that would 32 probably be a good place to use synthetic turf. Their little grass area is so small, it just is 33 beat to dirt. That's just about preferences of how to use synthetic turf and what it's used 34 for. Personally I feel that if you're going to have big open turf areas, I think they should 35 be turf because that's where you want to spend your money. If you have these little tiny 36 spaces where the grass never lives, then that usually is a good spot for synthetic turf. 37 38 Chair Lauing; Commissioner Hetterly, was that your last point? 39 40 Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. 41 42 Draft Minutes 53 DRAFT Chair Lauing: That concludes this section unless we want to go into other things. I'd like 1 to get the speakers to have their comments now that we've had this. The first speaker is 2 Shani Kleinhaus. 3 4 Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. That was a very interesting discussion. Thank you for 5 everything you've been talking about. I'm Shani Kleinhaus. I speak as a resident and for 6 some of the environmental organizations, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the 7 Sierra Club. I want to say something about little parks. There is a little empty lot next to 8 my house that had a house that burned out years ago. That place is so busy with children. 9 There's no grass, there's no nothing. They build teepees. They're creative. They do stuff. 10 I don't even know where they come from because we don't have that many children in our 11 neighborhood. A little empty lot with nothing, not plastic turf, no nothing are valuable. 12 This is an aside; I hope I get to the things I really wanted to talk about. In the policy 13 section on the first slide you looked at, there was nothing about protection of nature. 14 Commissioner Hetterly mentioned it later, but I think it needs to start from protection. 15 Somewhere resource conservation plans such as you guys mentioned for Foothill Park 16 and for the Baylands does need to find their place. They have to go all the way back to 17 plan framework and definitions. I found that that piece was missing just as 18 Commissioner Hetterly expressed. I think that the issue of efficiency is also somewhat of 19 a problem. I think it would be good to look at the Urban Forest Master Plan where they 20 look at diversity. Diversity cannot always be efficient to get to the lowest common 21 denominator when you save water on everything and you don't allow a few trees with a 22 little bit more water in some areas. It's good to look at it through ingenuity. It's good to 23 look at diversity and not always just try to get to the lower common denominator which 24 this is leading us into intentionally or unintentionally. Under Goal 4, integrate nature, 25 natural system and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto, I think that the discussions 26 that I've been through—I've been to every one of them, I think—people really wanted to 27 see frogs in the parks. They wanted to see nature in terms of animals. They did not talk 28 about sustainability so much. Not that it's not important, but it wasn't the focus. The 29 focus was preservation of nature in parks that are outside of the urban core and some of 30 the urban core and integration of nature into the urban parks. That was very, very clear in 31 all the different meetings. It was a high priority for people in every survey that Parks and 32 Recreation did. I think looking at that, from what I look at the four policies, first I would 33 separate preservation from integration and kind of define where is what. Then look at the 34 policies, and only one of them actually has to do with nature. The other ones are about 35 access to different programs. That's a great thing, but it doesn't belong in this. "4.A" 36 does not belong here. "4.C," "D" and "E" are also not part of this. They're part of 37 sustainability and other things. What should be here is really policies about integration of 38 the Urban Forest Master Plan, about resilient ecosystem which is a document. I just gave 39 one of them to Peter. Maybe that would help. I think the protection of nature and 40 looking at policies that actually have to do with nature is really, really important. Thank 41 you. 42 Draft Minutes 54 DRAFT 1 Chair Lauing: Thank you. The next speaker is Mad Huri [phonetic]. 2 3 Mad Huri: Good evening. I'm here again. I'm sure you guys are bored of seeing me at 4 this point. Again, I'm here to ask you for dog parks, particularly in north Palo Alto. 5 Some of the discussion was very encouraging. To even consider 15 dog parks, I never 6 thought I'd hear something like that. Even I don't expect you to come up with 15 dog 7 parks. If you can come up with five or three more, certainly in north Palo Alto which is 8 north of Oregon, we would be very, very grateful. There are larger parks here that are 9 quite underutilized at least by the local residents. Parks like Eleanor Pardee. Parks like 10 Rinconada. There is usage but maybe it's worthwhile to see who it is that's using it. Not 11 that I have any problems with anybody else, I just want a place to take my dog to play, I 12 and lots and lots of other people in Crescent Park. Heritage Park, while it's very used, 13 there is the area behind the museum, between the museum and the apartments, that 14 nobody uses. It's shaded; there's no sun there. It's just empty. All we need is a fence and 15 a gate and a trashcan. Please do something about this. We would really like you to make 16 some progress and put in a few dog parks this side of the town. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Lauing: Thank you. We'll do a status and process check. If people are motivated 19 to go on with more policy debates, we can pick a couple more, if they're hot buttons. Or 20 we can do what we had talked about of just kind of give feedback on all of these, and 21 then pick it up at the next meeting after you do the review. Any views? 22 23 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think I would prefer the feedback. Do we have time to go 24 through the slides on the survey results? 25 26 Mr. de Geus: We do. They are preliminary, so we don't want to spend a lot of time on 27 them. 28 29 Commissioner Reckdahl: Even if it's like 5 or 10 minutes, I think it'd be useful to at least 30 see a first peek at that. I think that might be more fruitful than going over more policies. 31 32 Chair Lauing: Have you got those slides? 33 34 Mr. Jensen: Yes. There was one last slide as far as next steps go. Next time we will 35 again focus on the policies and the minor revisions to the goals. We will also be looking 36 at a Master Plan outline next time. Those are more next meeting, but the general overall 37 that we are doing a City Council study session in May, review of the draft plan in the 38 summer, and then approval of the plan in the fall is the general schedule for the Master 39 Plan. We'll just quickly go through the three maps that were put together, these concept 40 maps. The first one we've already discussed which is the park service areas. The second 41 slide of that (inaudible) same slide, starts to talk about the density of the specific areas 42 Draft Minutes 55 DRAFT and the areas that we would want to concentrate on first as far as park acquisition goes. 1 That is the service area plan. The next two plans which do reflect each other, the purple 2 line in the plan is talking about the connections or pathways between parks to start to 3 create the linking to them. If you wanted to extend the park system by making the link or 4 access to them easier and more connective, then these would be the pathways that we 5 would look at to do that. The paths from west to east, from the Baylands to the ridge 6 trails, are those trails, basically the Bay to Ridge Trail system that is already currently 7 established by our transportation plan using the (inaudible) as the east-west access. The 8 north-south access are looking at our transportation plan and our bike plan and using 9 those connections there. I will say that in the meeting with the stakeholders that Pathway 10 Number 1 right now is following Cowper. The actual bike route is Bryant. They are 11 going to make a modification to the plan and move Pathway 1 over a couple of blocks to 12 align with the bike pathway there. The third plan is referred to as a pollinator trail. This 13 mostly talks about habitat and linking habitat and creating the links there. Again, it 14 follows the same pathways that are called out on the previous plan. These pathways do 15 connect the parks together in a more linear way and expands the system in that respect. If 16 you were going to enhance these pathways in the future, then this plan is also proposing 17 incorporating nature, whatever that would be, either patches of milkweed for butterflies 18 or you plant oak trees just along these to create a natural canopy habitat that would go 19 throughout the City. This is something that really has never been done as far as a Master 20 Plan goes, as far as making recommendations like this. It is kind of a cutting edge thing. 21 The other things that are interesting to look at on this plan is that the tan areas are the 22 areas in the Urban Forest Master Plan that designate where our urban forest, I guess, has 23 the least amount of coverage. It's just looking kind of at those environmental factors that 24 can be used to link the habitat corridors together. All of these are just kind of concept 25 plans. Further discussion can be had. You can also see that—Rob will probably cringe 26 that I'm bringing this up—there is a 3-foot rise of the waterline there in the City. For our 27 purposes, if you were going to build yourself a gymnasium or a pool or a community 28 center one day, then that line would probably mean something to you as far as building 29 an amenity like that that would cost a lot, that maybe wouldn't be in that area where it is 30 projected a 3-foot ocean rise. 31 32 Chair Lauing: Where's that one? 33 34 Mr. Jensen: That's like a pink dotted line. 35 36 Vice Chair Knopper: See the dotted? All that's going to be under water. 37 38 Commissioner Reckdahl: There's a lot of houses in that area, I see. 39 40 Mr. Jensen: I can't say the water is going to get to that point. Obviously we'll try our 41 hardest to make it stop doing that. Again, if you were going to invest millions of dollars 42 Draft Minutes 56 DRAFT in a building over a long period of time, maybe the other areas of town it would behoove 1 you to consider other than right there. 2 3 Chair Lauing: A lot of water hazards on that new golf course. 4 5 Vice Chair Knopper: You could be like the Netherlands and build a proper dike system. 6 7 Mr. Jensen: I think that is actually something being considered right now by the Joint 8 Powers actually. 9 10 Vice Chair Knopper: As long as they look at the Netherlands versus New Orleans. 11 12 Mr. Jensen: (crosstalk) build a levee all around it. 13 14 Chair Lauing: Survey. 15 16 Commissioner Reckdahl: The golf course has enough that even we had a 3-foot rise, the 17 golf course would not be under water? We put enough dirt on there? 18 19 Mr. de Geus: For what length of period? For the next 100 years? 20 21 Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the minimum elevation of any part of the golf course 22 after the renovation? 23 24 Mr. de Geus: I'd have to look at the maps. It's several feet. No, that's not actually true. 25 There is still some wet prone areas that will be very low actually. 26 27 Mr. Anderson: More critical is the levees adjacent to that stopping the water from the 28 creeks coming in, which are robust and high. More so once the JPA finishes their 29 project. 30 31 Commissioner Moss: Make sure on the bikeway thing that you add the San Francisco 32 Bay Trail and the Stanford Perimeter Path as well as (inaudible). 33 34 Mr. Jensen: That was brought up in the stakeholders meeting. MIG is working on 35 adding a few more paths that aren't designated on this. The Bay Trail is definitely one of 36 the main ones. The final thing that we have to look at tonight is just the preliminary 37 results of the online challenge. It did close a few Fridays ago. In association with that, 38 we did have the community meeting with that as well that provided the opportunity for 39 people to come out to do the survey if they did not want to do it online. As we alluded to 40 before, it seems that most people just did take it online and didn't really come to our 41 community meeting. Of the 731 respondents, it broke down in this way: 605 of those 42 Draft Minutes 57 DRAFT were from Palo Alto. It definitely, I think, captures the community at hand as far as the 1 responses go. Other results, of the 46 who live in nearby communities, 9 described 2 themselves as visitors, 48 own a business in Palo Alto, and 223 of those also work in Palo 3 Alto. That was kind of the breakdown of the demographics of those that did do the 4 survey. Of course, the survey was broken into the 12 areas of focus, divided into the 5 three elements of the plan which were the parks, trails, open space and recreation 6 facilities or recreational programs. In the survey, which you have all taken it and looked 7 at it, you were asked to divvy up dollars between each of those three and then do a final 8 one that brought the whole list together. In the bar graphs that I'm going to show you 9 next, it gives three pieces of information. The first line item is the average allotment of 10 dollars, who got the most dollars for which line item. The second one is what the 11 percentage was of people that did the survey that used $2 or more on a specific thing. 12 The final one is the tally of who of the people that allocated money, they didn't allocate 13 anything for that specific thing. You can see things like the dog park, number five there. 14 You can see that 16 percent of those put multiple allotment of money, $2 or more, on it, 15 but 66 percent of the people taking the survey didn't put any money on that. That starts to 16 tell you information that there is an organized, passionate group that will definitely spend 17 that on there. The general population doesn't think that's a big deal, so they didn't put any 18 money towards it at all. This one is the parks, trails and open space. It had the seven 19 areas of focus that were reviewed, and this is how it ranked. The first one was enhancing 20 comfort and making parks more welcoming. Integrating nature into parks was number 21 two. Number three was distributing park activities and experience across the City. Four 22 is expanding the system. Five, improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dog 23 parks. Six was increase the variety of things to do in existing parks, and seven was 24 improving accessibility with a full range of park and recreation opportunities. These are 25 ranked per the percentage of the first line. If they got the most money out of the full 26 group, then that's how they were ranked per this. It goes through the next two elements. 27 This one is the recreation facilities. Improving and (inaudible) community centers ranked 28 high. Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields was number two. Distributing park 29 and recreation activities and experience across the City is number three. Improving 30 spaces, increase options for off-leash dog parks and increase the variety of things to do in 31 existing parks, number five. Number six, increasing health and wellness opportunities in 32 parks. Number seven, improving the accessibility of a full range of art and recreation 33 opportunities. Of course, a few of the areas of focus came up in multiple ones of these. 34 The dog park one as well as the accessibility, there was further discussion in the 35 stakeholder meeting. Because the word accessibility gets applied or people have the 36 feeling of being inclusive or for allowing access to those that have disability or can't 37 access those, but in our sense it's talking about economics and being able to afford things, 38 actually being able to physically access the parks as well. It has a lot of meanings that go 39 along with it that I wanted to bring up because there wasn't a lot of focus on that in the 40 stakeholder meeting. It was felt it was just talking about ADA and accessibility for that 41 which this doesn't quite do. People were concerned that it was ranking last in these. 42 Draft Minutes 58 DRAFT Recreation program was the third area that came in the survey. To run through the six 1 there. The improving and enhance community centers and recreation, again, was one that 2 showed up in the facilities as well. That is seen by the community as being a high 3 priority. The interesting part to look at there is that the community does have a good 4 grasp on that. 37 percent allocated multiple dollars on it because they understand that 5 that's going to be an expensive endeavor. It's good to see that there's kind of that general 6 idea that thing is going to cost more, so people will put more money on it. They do care 7 about that and would like to see enhancement of community centers and the system itself. 8 Exploring new types of programs and events was number two. Offering more of existing 9 programs and classes, number three. Distribution of park and recreation activities and 10 experiences across the system, number four. Number five was increase health and 11 wellness opportunities in parks (inaudible) number six was improving the accessibility. 12 Again, very similar to how it ranked in the one before. Of course, the interesting part of 13 this is looking at the whole list together. The list is broken into these two slides. These 14 are the top six things of all 12 areas of focus that were given allocations of the money. 15 For the purpose of the whole list, integrating nature in Palo Alto parks was actually the 16 number one thing that got the most money allocated for it. Number two, improving and 17 enhancing community centers. Number three, improving spaces and increase 18 opportunities for off-leash dog parks. Number four is enhance comfort and make parks 19 more welcoming. Number five, distributing park activities and experience across the 20 City. Number six, expanding the system. MIG also felt that number seven kind of fits in 21 the top grouping. They described this as you have a top group and a lower group. They 22 felt that number seven was in the upper group as well, even though the slide is showing it 23 in the bottom group. You can see that there is—as far as the percentage goes, from 11 to 24 9 is pretty close. You have a definitive drop-off from 7 'til 5. That's how the community 25 ranked the priority of spending or allocating dollars to these areas of focus. Besides 26 breaking it down in the two ways that they have, they are also putting a full summary 27 together of the survey that we'll have the next meeting to talk about this list more and 28 how it breaks out. I don't know if there's any more conversations or questions about that. 29 30 Chair Lauing: Anybody just want to make any random comments? 31 32 Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm surprised how tight it is. Like this last 12, the worst is 5 33 and the best is 11. They're all pretty clustered. It's just not people spreading it evenly 34 among all the projects. On the right, there's a lot of people putting zeroes on these things. 35 36 Chair Lauing: I'm surprised at how high more capacity ranks, more parklands. I guess 37 it's easy if you're only voting with $2 as opposed to the $20 million a year it would take. 38 There was a lot of support for it. Let's get even more. 39 40 Mr. de Geus: I gave that $5. 41 42 Draft Minutes 59 DRAFT Commissioner Hetterly: I think the top six are in pretty good alignment with what we've 1 heard from every other source. 2 3 Mr. Jensen: I think from the preliminary summary is that it's ... 4 5 Commissioner Hetterly: They seem to mean what they say. 6 7 Chair Lauing: Fields didn't make the top six except for MIG's comment that it was kind 8 of tied for six. 9 10 Mr. Jensen: It's on the border of the lower group. 11 12 Chair Lauing: As we expected, there was a little bit of—I don't say this unfairly—a 13 stuffing of the ballot box by interest groups which was what we would expect, so there's 14 no problem with that. 15 16 Mr. Jensen: I think that's why they were trying to show like who put multiple dollars 17 towards one thing and who didn't put any so you can see that there was ... 18 19 Chair Lauing: That's very helpful stats. Very helpful. 20 21 Mr. Jensen: ... like a specific group that was more interested in that. Again, there will be 22 a full summary for the next meeting about this. We did want to show you or reveal what 23 kind of the early findings were. They are interesting just to look at too. Also what I 24 think we kind of rate these as. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Thank you, Peter and staff. 27 28 5. Other Ad Hoc committee and Liaison Updates. 29 30 [No discussion.] 31 32 V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 33 34 Chair Lauing: We'll go onto the next item which is Comments and Announcements. 35 36 Kristen O'Kane: I just wanted to hand out a flyer for Cubberley Day which is coming up 37 on March 19th at Cubberley Community Center. What this does is it brings all the 38 different groups that are behind the doors, working in their different rooms, out into the 39 open and the community can come and see what they do. They can show off their work 40 that they do. There will be performances. There will be artists there. I encourage 41 everyone to attend. There will also be a very short sort of activity that we'll be asking 42 Draft Minutes 60 DRAFT people who come what their vision is for, not necessarily their vision, but what does 1 Cubberley mean to them and what they think Cubberley could be and where do they 2 think it could be eventually be in the future. That will be part of it as well. 3 4 Commissioner Hetterly: What's the date? 5 6 Ms. O'Kane: March 19th. I'll hand these out. 7 8 Commissioner Moss: Can you send us an email? 9 10 Ms. O'Kane: I can, sure. 11 12 Commissioner Moss: I'd like to pass it around to all my (crosstalk). 13 14 Chair Lauing: Do you have others? 15 16 Ms. O'Kane: No, that's it. 17 18 Chair Lauing: Rob, a golf course update? 19 20 Rob de Geus: Kristen had an interesting meeting and Daren with the Fish and Wildlife 21 staff to look at—why don't you explain it? You were at the meeting. 22 23 Ms. O'Kane: Sure. City staff which included Community Services and Public Works 24 and our biological consultants met with Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of 25 Engineers at the golf course. The purpose of the meeting was for Fish and Wildlife 26 Service to look at the different wetland areas and try to make a decision if they feel salt 27 marsh harvest mouse could be present on the golf course. The reason they need to make 28 that decision is it will determine which route they go as far as permitting. One route, 29 which is an informal consultation, could take a few months. Another route, which is a 30 formal consultation, could take much longer. They didn't make a decision there. They're 31 going to go back and discuss it and talk with their supervisors. They need to provide 32 their biological opinion to the Army Corps of Engineers, and then the Corps will either 33 have to continue working with Fish and Wildlife Service or they could issue us the 34 permit. We're sort of still in limbo a little bit. We feel like the meeting went well, but we 35 really didn't get a read from them on where they were headed. We should know which 36 direction they're headed in a couple of weeks. 37 38 Chair Lauing: A couple weeks more of analysis and discussion? 39 40 Ms. O'Kane: Mm-hmm. 41 42 Draft Minutes 61 DRAFT Commissioner Reckdahl: Is this mouse endangered or is it ... 1 2 Ms. O'Kane: Yeah. 3 4 Chair Lauing: That mouse has never been sighted out there. Right? Rob, didn't you say 5 the mouse hasn't ever been sighted out there? 6 7 Mr. de Geus: That's what I've heard. Daren (crosstalk). 8 9 Ms. O'Kane: It's not just that there may not be a sighting there, but they do look at 10 dispersal distance, how far is the closest sighting from the golf course, and is it likely that 11 the mouse could travel from that location to the golf course, are there barriers. They look 12 at a lot of different things. 13 14 Commissioner Hetterly: Is this directly related to the golf course as opposed to the water 15 project? 16 17 Ms. O'Kane: Correct. 18 19 Mr. de Geus: They're at least looking at our project which is a big step. I did want to 20 mention we didn't talk about the ad hoc committees. I don't know if there is an update. I 21 think we jumped straight from (crosstalk). 22 23 Chair Lauing: We did, yes. We were going to talk about dog parks, but he kind of 24 handled that. If you guys have something else you want to add. 25 26 Commissioner Hetterly: No, that was it. We were just going to explain that new process. 27 28 Chair Lauing: Other announcements? 29 30 VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 22, 2016 MEETING 31 32 Chair Lauing: We want to take a look at the agenda for the March 22nd meeting. One is 33 more of these policies which we've discussed. Is the zoo going to be ready to come 34 back? 35 36 Rob de Geus: It might be. They've got a new design. I'm eager to see it; I haven't yet. 37 They're going to look at it with the Friends Board in the next couple of weeks. It might 38 be ready. I hope it is because I'd like to see it come back, particularly if it's something 39 different. We're pushing it along. If it's ready, we'll bring it. 40 41 Chair Lauing: Wasn't there also a project to come back to us with signage or Boardwalk? 42 Draft Minutes 62 DRAFT 1 Kristen O'Kane: The Baylands Boardwalk project will be coming back next month. 2 That'll be Public Works presenting it. 3 4 Mr. de Geus: Does the existing ad hoc committee with (inaudible) for the Parks Plan in 5 its purview and discuss the policies (inaudible)? I think it does. 6 7 Commissioner Hetterly: I think we left it open-ended. 8 9 Mr. de Geus: That's what I thought. That'd be good. We might want to get together 10 before the next meeting. 11 12 Chair Lauing: If we do that, we should do it well before the next meeting. It was kind of 13 a really short timeframe this last time. 14 15 Commissioner Hetterly: I'd like to have a Cubberley update next month or now or 16 whenever it's convenient for you. What's the status of conversations? 17 18 Mr. de Geus: I can tell you the Cubberley Day is a little bit of a milestone. What's going 19 to happen before that, actually there will be a press release. I believe it's currently 20 planned for March 9th with City Manager Jim Keene and Superintendant Max McGee 21 who have both written what they're calling a compact to make progress on the Master 22 Planning process here and move along. That's been drafted and being planned. We 23 really get much more serious about the process of Master Planning that site, what is that 24 going to be, what is that going to look like, how is the public going to be included, and 25 how are we going to build on the work of the CCAC. There will be some activity in 26 March, that compact and Cubberley Community Day. 27 28 Chair Lauing: Just for a moment back the policies, our assignment is now with the draft 29 that we have to give feedback to you, directly to you? 30 31 Ms. O'Kane: Yeah, Catherine and I. 32 33 Chair Lauing: Can you guys communicate with the two missing Commissioners this is 34 the assignment so we can get that? 35 36 Vice Chair Knopper: No, three. 37 38 Chair Lauing: Now three, yeah. 39 40 Commissioner Hetterly: Just go policy by policy and by item. 41 42 Draft Minutes 63 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 1 2 Commissioner Reckdahl: Some of them might not be policy; we could just say not a 3 policy or whatever. 4 5 Mr. de Geus: Right. You don't have to rewrite the thing. 6 7 Chair Lauing: Anything else? 8 9 VII. ADJOURNMENT 10 11 Chair Lauing: Motion for adjournment? 12 13 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Vice Chair 14 Knopper at 10:15 p.m. 15 Draft Minutes 64 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: MARCH 22, 2015 SUBJECT: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK FEASIBILITY STUDY RECOMMENDATION No action to be taken. Staff is providing the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) with an update on the status and next steps for the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study). BACKGROUND The Baylands Nature Center Boardwalk (Boardwalk) is one of the more popular trails within the City’s Baylands Nature Preserve. This ¼ mile long and four feet wide Boardwalk extends into the Baylands Nature Preserve and is connected to the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center. On March 10, 2014, the Boardwalk was closed because of safety concerns from structural damage. In May 2015, the City hired Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (Consultant) to perform structural inspections and assess the current condition of the Boardwalk; develop concepts for short-term temporary repairs, rehabilitation and replacement options; assess upgrading the structure to comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) code; and prepare draft and final Feasibility Study Reports. Staff and the Consultant presented the general findings and options for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement in a community meeting on September 30, 2015. There was general agreement of the following items: • The boardwalk should be repaired immediately to provide partial accessibility given the lengthy time necessary to complete the permitting process for major repairs or replacement; • Both rehabilitation and replacement options should consider sea level rise (SLR); • Raising the boardwalk elevation may detract from the Baylands experience. Part of the boardwalk experience is being close to and part of the marshland environment; • A balance between public desire, regulatory requirements, and structural feasibility will be sought in the design; and • Consider composite decking if possible (use of recycled materials). Staff and the Consultant subsequently met with the Commission on October 27, 2015 to present the general findings and options for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the boardwalk. The Commission agreed with the general findings and next steps decided in the September community meeting. It was also discussed that the replacement option has advantages over the rehabilitation option because although the rehabilitation option would retain the existing look of the boardwalk, it would not fully address ADA upgrades and having a shorter design life. DISCUSSION The Feasibility Study (Attachment A) includes: 1. A condition assessment of the boardwalk structure; 2. Life cycle, potential environmental impacts, costs and timeline (design, permitting, and project completion) for all options; 3. Concept level sketches of all alternatives identified for structural improvements (repair, rehabilitation, replacement); 4. Concept level cost estimates of probable construction costs and schedules for each option; 5. Key structural constraints, design criteria and structure types; 6. Constructability and staging; 7. Key geotechnical constraints and foundation type recommendations; 8. Key hydraulic constraints and mitigation recommendations; 9. Key access issues and ADA compliance requirements; and 10. Environmental permit considerations including a summary of necessary approvals required for repair/ rehabilitation/ replacement of the boardwalk. Findings The Feasibility Study general findings are: 1. Overall, the boardwalk is structurally unsound; however, the condition of the structure varies over its length. In general, the southernmost portion of the boardwalk adjacent to the Nature Center, including the first overlook platform, is in fair to satisfactory condition. Based on this finding and the Consultant’s recommendations, City staff completed minor repairs to the 200-foot segment of the boardwalk between the Nature Center and first overlook platform in 2015 and this portion of the boardwalk is now open to the public. The majority of the structure varied between poor and satisfactory condition. 2. The boardwalk is in an environmentally sensitive area for its entire length through the marsh land. The area is home to several endangered species including the salt marsh harvest mouse and the Ridgway’s rail (formerly California clapper rail). The potential environmental impacts, constraints and approval process will be a key driver in the design and construction of any planned rehabilitation and/or replacement of the boardwalk. The design and construction will be tailored to minimize direct impacts to the sensitive environment on the site such as damages to the marshes, mudflats, incidental take of salt marsh harvest mouse, and impacts on the California Ridgway’s rail and nesting birds. The construction will require permits from the agencies listed below: • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit 3. The Feasibility Study analyzed the effects of tides, storm surges, and sea level rise (SLR) in the boardwalk area. The average ground elevation at the site is approximately 7.8 feet, the average boardwalk elevation ranges from 9.2 to 9.9 feet, and both the Interpretive Center Building deck and observation deck elevations are approximately 13 feet1. The Bay tides in the Baylands roughly range from 4 feet above and 3½ feet below mean sea level. Based on (2012) National Resource Council Report under moderate climate change conditions, the SLR predictions are 2 to 12 inches by 2030, 5 to 24 inches by 2050 and 17 to 66 inches by 2100. The tidal effects and storm surges combined with the SLR indicate that the 10-year Still Water Level (SWL)2 for years 2050 and 2100 would be approximately 10.4 feet and 12.5 feet, respectively, and the 100-year SWL for years 2050 and 2100 would be approximately 10.9 feet and 13 feet, respectively3. Staff’s interpretation of the data indicate that the existing boardwalk structure would be flooded at the current 10-year SWL and the Interpretive Center would be flooded at the 100- year SWL in 2100. The proposed boardwalk will have a design life of 50 to 75 years. The tidal and SLR predictions indicate that there is 10% chance of flooding (10-year SWL) at approximate elevation of 11.5 feet at the end of the design life of the proposed boardwalk by year 2075, which is interpolated from the data available for years 2050 and 2100. Additionally, there is 1% chance of flooding (100-yr SWL) at approximate elevation of 12 feet at the end of the design life of the proposed boardwalk by year 2075. There could be more frequent flooding if SLR is more extreme or occurs faster than the current predictions. 4. The existing Boardwalk does not meet the current ADA requirements, including slopes, handrails, guardrails, cross slopes, walking surface, passing spaces and resting area. Improvements Options Based on the condition assessment and findings of the Feasibility Study, the Consultant developed two feasible rehabilitation and two feasible replacement options which are briefly described below. 1. Rehabilitation Options Rehabilitation Option 1 consists of longitudinal timber deck plank with timber beams support on timber piles/posts. Rehabilitation Option 2 consists of longitudinal timber deck plank with timber beams supported on steel screw anchors located outboard at the boardwalk decking to improve design life. In both options, improvements will be made along the entire length of the existing boardwalk. Boardwalk alignment and configuration will remain the same. Construction cost for both options is in the range of approximately $860,000 to $1,050,000 (includes construction contingency). The permitting process and design duration for both options is anticipated to be approximately 1-2 years and construction duration is anticipated to be 1-2 years. 1 Elevations based on USGS San Francisco Coastal LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data set (2010). All elevations are in National American Vertical Datum (NAVD). 2 10 –year SWL indicates that there is 10 percent chance of being equaled or exceeding the water surface elevation which includes tidal effects, storm surges, and long period seiches. 3 Data represent tidal inundation with sea level rise near Baylands Interpretive Center that are converted from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tide gage data at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. The design life for Option 1 is 25-50 years because the existing elements of the structure will remain in service. Although Option 2 will also utilize the existing structure elements, the design life for Option 2 is approximately 30-60 years because the vertical supports of the structure will be moved outboard of the existing boardwalk and away from the existing drainage channel that has formed below the boardwalk. 2. Replacement Options Replacement Option 1 consists of longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber beams and Replacement Option 2 consists of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber beams. For both replacement options, permanent steel screw anchors or timber piles with treated timber elements are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint of the structure. Both options are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and follow the same alignment as the existing boardwalk. The width of the proposed replacement structure is five feet. Replacement Option 2 utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct due to smaller deck elements which are easier to transport, handle and replace. In addition, Replacement Option 2 is slightly lower in cost than Replacement Option 1, which more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type. Both options will have a design life of 50-75 years and are anticipated to take approximately 1-2 years for design and permitting and approximately 1-2 years for construction. The construction cost of Option 1 would be approximately $900,000 to $1,140,000 and Option 2 would be approximately $900,000 to $1,110,000. Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions and recommendations of the Feasibility Study are as follows: 1. Given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and width, and lower design life than the replacement options, neither rehabilitation option is recommended over the replacement options. 2. Both replacement options are feasible for the project site and constraints, however, Replacement Option 2 is recommended due to the anticipated improved constructability and ease of maintenance as compared to Replacement Option 1. 3. Permanent steel screw anchors or timber piles with treated timber elements are proposed for foundation of the proposed boardwalk. The repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have a negative effect on the long term life cycle of the structure. Therefore, the foundation system will be further investigated during the design phase of the project. 4. The proposed boardwalk will have a design life of 50-75 years. A study of the tidal inundation and SLR indicates that the boardwalk structure would be flooded at the current 10-year SWL. Data also indicate that there is 10% chance of flooding at approximate elevation of 11.5 feet and 1 % chance of flooding at approximate elevation of 12 feet at the end of the design life of the proposed boardwalk by year 2075. The height of the boardwalk structure will be determined during the design phase by analyzing several factors such as climate change effects, soil type and settling characteristics, structural stability, etc. The Baylands design guidelines which strive for a balance between boardwalk height and the SLR, and input from the community and the Commission will also be considered while determining the design criteria and height of the proposed boardwalk during the design phase. 5. The project will include information from the Feasibility Study such as the evaluation of the potential environmental impacts that could occur should the proposed replacement option is implemented. Other considerations for further study are the design elevation of the boardwalk deck to account for sea level rise, materials, railings and interpretive signage locations with input from the public, boards and commissions and Council. Additionally, permitting will likely be necessary from the various agencies, including, but not limited to the USACE, BCDC, RWQCB, USFWS, and CDFW. PUBLIC OUTREACH The draft Feasibility Study is on the project website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3154&TargetID=145 for public comment. Comments may be submitted to pwecips@cityofpaloalto.org. The Final Feasibility Study and public comments will be included in the staff report to Council. The Council meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 4, 2016 as a consent item. RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for the Boardwalk Feasibility Study is available in CIP Project PE-14018. Staff will return to Council to seek funding and award of contract for the design of the boardwalk. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Feasibility Study does not represent a project with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upon Council approval of the next phase of the project, the design will be subject to environmental assessment and review in compliance with CEQA. NEXT STEPS Council approval of Feasibility Study and award of design contract April 2016 Consultant begins conceptual design April 2016 Community and Commission review of design concepts Summer 2016 35% Design Development Fall 2016 60% Design Document Spring 2017 100% Construction Document Summer 2017 Environmental Clearance and permitting Summer 2017 Construction start - Phase 1 Fall 2017 Construction start - Phase 2 if needed Fall 2018 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. The study and recommendations do not represent any change to existing City policies. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: __________________________________________________ Megha Bansal Engineer, Public Works Engineering BAYLANDS BOARDWALK FEASIBILITY STUDY Agenda •Overview •Structural Assessment •Site Constraints •Boardwalk Improvement Options •Recommendation •Schedule •Feedback Overview •Background •Boardwalk closed in 2014 •Feasibility Study •Repair •Rehabilitation •Replacement Structure Assessment •Poor Condition •Superstructure – Decking & Railing •Substructure – Foundation & Supports Site Constraints •Environmental Conditions •Subsurface Conditions •Hydraulic Conditions •Access and ADA Compliance Improvement Options Rehabilitation Option 1 •Replace damaged timber deck, braces and posts in-kind •Salvage materials •New railing •ADA compliance challenges •Design life 25-50 years and cost $1.4-$1.65 million Rehabilitation Option 2 •Replace damaged timber deck, braces •New anchors outside existing boardwalk footprint •Salvage materials •New railing •ADA compliance challenges •Design life 30-60 years and cost $1.4-$1.7 million Replacement Option 1 •New longitudinal timber decking support with beams on timber or screw anchors •Meets ADA requirements •Design life 50-75 years and cost $1.5-$1.8 million Replacement Option 2 •New transverse raised timber platform on timber or screw anchors •Meets ADA requirements •Design life 50-75 years and cost $1.4-1.8 million Recommendation •Replacement Option 2 •Improved constructability •Ease of maintenance •Foundation Type •Permanent steel screw anchors •Timber piles with treated timber elements •To be refined during the design phase •Deck elevation will be selected during the design phase •10% of flooding at elevation of 11.5 feet by 2075 •1% of flooding at elevation of 12 feet by 2075 Schedule •Council approval of Feasibility Study and April 2016 award of design contract •Consultant start conceptual design April 2016 •Community and Commission review Summer 2016 of design concepts •35% Design Development Fall 2016 •60% Design Document Spring 2017 •100% Construction Document Summer 2017 •Environmental Clearance and permitting Summer 2017 •Construction start - Phase 1 Fall 2017 •Construction start – Phase 2 if needed Fall 2018 Feedback •Comments on Proposed Boardwalk Options •Questions? City of Palo Alto Public Works Department BAYLANDS BOARDWALK Feasibility Study Report Final March 2016 BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 865 The Alameda (408) 296 5515 San Jose, CA 95126 3133 fax (408) 296 8114 City of Palo Alto Public Works Department BAYLANDS BOARDWALK Feasibility Study Report March 2016 ANTHONY P. NOTARO, PE TABLE OF CONTENTS Organization: The Feasibility Study is organized as follows: Chapter 1. Executive Summary Chapter 2. Introduction Chapter 3. Existing Structure and Constraints Chapter 4. Repair Options Chapter 5. Rehabilitation Options Chapter 6. Replacement Options Chapter 7. Recommendation/Conclusion Attachment A. Summary Plan of Structural Assessment Report Findings Attachment B. Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center Attachment C. Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation Attachment D. Baylands Boardwalk As)Built Structure Plans Attachment E. Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Cost 1 1 Chapter 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose: The Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Project has the following stated primary objectives: 1. Perform structural assessment of the existing boardwalk structure. 2. Determine how to best repair, rehabilitate and/or replace the existing boardwalk to meet functional, structural, environmental and code requirements for short'term and long'term improvements. 3. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near'term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long'term improvements. 4. Rehabilitation options will review the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long'term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. 5. Replacement options will review the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long'term use by the public. Structural Assessment: The existing boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. A detailed two'day structural inspection of the 850 foot long and 4 feet wide boardwalk was performed. Field notes, photographs and observations were collected and compiled into a summary report titled “Structural Evaluation of Baylands Boardwalk 2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303.” The overall condition of the boardwalk is structurally unsound. However, the condition of the structure varies over its length. In general, the southernmost portion of the boardwalk adjacent to the Nature Center, including the first overlook platform, is in fair to satisfactory condition. The majority of the more severe deterioration is concentrated in the segment of the boardwalk on either side of the PG&E lines and catwalk. The conditions of the remaining portions of the structure varied between poor and satisfactory condition. Feasibility Study: The Feasibility Study included a site inspection with City staff, review of available record documents, a public information meeting, a meeting with the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, and participation in an Interagency Coordination Meeting with various environmental/ regulatory agencies with jurisdiction on the project (USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, and BCDC). Chapter 3 – Existing Structure & Constraints of the report includes a detailed discussion of the structural assessment performed, existing environmental conditions, subsurface conditions, hydraulic conditions including sea level rise, and access and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) constraints of the project. Chapter 4 – Repair Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near'term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long'term improvements. Chapter 5 – Rehabilitation Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long'term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. Chapter 6 – Replacement Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long'term use by the public. The following table summarizes the structural feasibility of the Rehabilitation Options and Replacement Options. The Repair Option is not included in the table since City staff has completed minor repairs to the 200 feet segment between the Nature Center and first overlook platform of the boardwalk and reopened this portion of the boardwalk to the public based on the draft feasibility study recommendations. . 1 2 Criteria REHABILITATION OPTIONS REPLACEMENT OPTIONS Rehabilitation Option 1 Rehabilitation Option 2 Replacement Option 1 Replacement Option 2 Structure Typical Section Superstructure Type Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank (Match existing) Same as Rehabilitation Option 1 Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank Transverse Timber Decking on Longitudinal Timber stringers Substructure Type Timber beams bent caps supported on timber piles/posts (Match existing). Timber beams supported on steel screw anchors located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Timber beams supported on steel screw anchors or timber piles/posts located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Same as Replacement Option 1 Boardwalk Width and Length 4 feet wide x 850 feet long (match existing) Same as Rehabilitation Option 1 5 feet wide and 850 feet long assumed (subject to regulatory agency approval) Same as Replacement Option 1 Constructability Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Same as Rehabilitation Option 1 Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Slightly improved constructability over Replacement Option 1 due to smaller deck elements which are easier to transport, handle and replace. Environmental Compliance Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Same as Rehabilitation Option 1 Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Same as Replacement Option 1 Geotechnical Issues Matches existing structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement and corrosion issues. Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow steel helical anchor foundation systems located outboard of the existing boardwalk decking for vertical support and to improve design life. Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow pile/anchor foundation systems include: Alt 1: Steel Helical Screw Anchors Alt 2: Timber Piles/Posts Same as Replacement Option 1 Hydraulic Issues Matches existing structure type and configuration. Can only accommodate a small adjustment in deck elevation to accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. Matches existing structure type and configuration. Can accommodate a slightly higher adjustment than Rehabilitation Option 1 due to the outrigger supports Flexible structural system that can be raised or lowered as required to best accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. Same as Replacement Option 1 ADA Compliance Option will mitigate many, but not all, ADA Compliance Issues Same as Rehabilitation Option 1 Design will address all applicable ADA Compliance regulations Same as Replacement Option 1 Anticipated Design Life 25 to 50 Years (likely governed by existing elements to remain in service) 30 to 60 Years (likely governed by existing elements to remain in service). Slightly higher than Option 1 due to moving vertical supports outboard of the existing boardwalk and away from the existing drainage channel that has formed below the existing boardwalk. 50 to 75 Years Same as Replacement Option 1 Anticipated Duration 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) Same as Rehabilitation Option 1 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) Same as Replacement Option 1 Anticipated Construction Costs $860,000 to $1,030,000 $870,000 to $1,050,000 $910,000 to $1,140,000 $890,000 to $1,110,000 Anticipated Soft Costs $214,000 to $257,000 Design (~25% Construction) $129,000 to $154,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $171,000 to $205,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $218,000 to $261,000 Design (~25% Construction) $131,000 to $157,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $174,000 to $209,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $227,000 to $284,000 Design (~25% Construction) $137,000 to $171,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $182,000 to $227,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $223,000 to $279,000 Design (~25% Construction) $134,000 to $167,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $179,000 to $223,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) 1 3 Recommendation/Conclusion: In general, both rehabilitation options discussed in the table above, rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options presented in the table above and described in Chapter 6. In general, both replacement options discussed in the table above are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber beams utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct, maintain and lower in cost than Replacement Option 1. Replacement Option 1 more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported directly on timber beams). Based on the findings of the Feasibility Study, both replacement options are feasible for the project site and constraints, with Replacement Option 2 being the preferred option based on anticipated improved constructability, ease of future maintenance and slightly lower costs. Project costs (engineering and construction) for Replacement Option 2 ranges from $1.4 million to $1.8 million in 2016 based on design elements, site constraints and constructability. Upon completion of the next phase, design elements and project costs will be refined. Permanent steel screw anchors or timber piles with treated timber elements are proposed for foundation of the proposed boardwalk. However, the repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have a negative effect on the long term life cycle of the structure. Therefore, the foundation system will be further investigated during the design phase of the project. Based on current conditions, the existing boardwalk would be flooded by a 100'year storm event (1% annual chance of exceedance). Given projected sea level rise, by 2030 the entire existing boardwalk would be flooded by only a 10'year storm event. This is an indication that the City should consider raising the deck level of the replacement boardwalk to reduce future flooding occurrences. Determining an appropriate accommodation for sea level rise will be a focal point of the design development during the Final Design phase of the project and will be a combination of design engineering, public opinion, environmental considerations, acceptable risk, and anticipated closure frequency. The proposed boardwalk would have a design life of 50'75 years. 2 1 Chapter 2 – INTRODUCTION Purpose and Vicinity Map Purpose: The existing Baylands Boardwalk structure at the Lucy Evans Nature Center (2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303) is currently closed to the public due to deterioration of the existing structure. The City of Palo Alto is considering repair, rehabilitation and/or replacement of the boardwalk structure to reinstate public access into the popular Baylands marshlands. The Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Project has the following stated primary objectives: 1. Perform structural assessment of the existing boardwalk structure. 2. Determine how to best repair, rehabilitate and/or replace the existing boardwalk to meet functional, structural, environmental and code requirements for short5term and long5term improvements. 3. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near5term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long5term improvements. 4. Rehabilitation options will review the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long5term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. 5. Replacement options will review the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long5term use by the public. Vicinity Map 3 1 Chapter 3 – Existing Structure and Constraints Existing Structure General Description: The Baylands has become one of the most important natural environments in the Bay Area. It is particularly rich in bird life boasting a large resident bird population as well as being a way point for many varieties of migratory birds. Over 150 species have been seen within the park boundaries. The Baylands not only attracts large numbers of birds, it also has many excellent spots for viewing them. Up until its recent closure, the Baylands Boardwalk was a favorite viewing location. The existing timber boardwalk structure extends roughly 850 feet north across the Harriet Mundy Marsh towards the San Francisco Bay from the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center and the San Francisquito Creek Trail. The existing boardwalk structure was constructed in 1969 and consisted of a 2’30” wide timber walkway (comprised of two 3x12x 203foot timber planks) with 3’36” high timber railings spaced 2’38” apart. The timber walkway was supported on timber bents spaced roughly 10’30” on center and comprised of timber 4x4 posts driven at roughly a 2½:12 batter into the wetland soil (length unknown) and reinforced with 1x4 timber cross bracing. At the south end, there was a small triangular entry platform at the connection to the nature center and at the northern end of the boardwalk by the bay, the boardwalk transitioned to a raised 103 foot by 183foot observation platform. The existing boardwalk structure was rehabilitated and widened by the City in 1980. Structure improvements included the following: · The existing 850 foot boardwalk was widened to 4’30” wide by removing the existing timber railing and adding one additional 3x12x 203 foot timber plank on each side of the existing timber walkway supported by the existing timber substructure. New 3x10 fascia beams and 3’36” high timber railings with steel pickets at roughly 9” on center were also provided along the edge of the widened structure. 3 2 · Two small intermediate overlooks roughly 3’30” by 10’30” were added approximately 2003feet from each end of the structure. Each overlook required the installation of two new vertical 4x4 posts driven into the existing wetlands soil (length unknown). The new posts were connected to the existing boardwalk substructure with a pair of new 2x6x 7’30” timber bent caps (which replace the existing 2x6x 4’30” timber bent caps on each side of the existing timber posts). A 3x12x 6’30” bench was provided at each overlook. Each overlook was sized to allow a 5’30” clearance to facilitate the turnaround of a wheelchair. · At the north end, the existing observation platform was upgraded with new timber and steel railings similar to those installed along the length of the boardwalk. New 30’30” long steel pipe handrails were installed along the sloped boardwalk ramp leading up to the observation platform. · At the south end, the existing boardwalk ramp was raised and lengthened by roughly 10 feet to provide an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp slope of 1:12. New steel pipe handrails were added. 3 3 Structural Assessment: The existing boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. The driven timber posts and supports have gradually decayed over the years and broken due to the elements and impacts from the corrosive tidal saltwater. The once level boardwalk is now undulating along its surface and listing noticeably to the east in several locations due to failed substructure elements. Per discussions with City Parks and Recreation personnel, the staff has had to make numerous repairs over the years to maintain service including but not necessarily limited to installation of new timber posts and strong backs, replacement of damaged members, patching of damaged members and removal of uneven boards and other tripping hazards (record drawings of repairs were not available). A detailed two3day structural inspection of the boardwalk was performed on June 30, 2015 and July 1, 2015. The structural assessment of the existing boardwalk was performed utilizing a pre3prepared inspection checklist which included general conditions as well as specific concerns developed during review of the available project data. Field notes, photographs and observations were collected and compiled into a summary report titled “Structural Evaluation of Baylands Boardwalk 2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303.” The structure was assigned a condition rating in conformance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards. Preliminary field observations by the other design disciplines (Geotechnical, Hydraulic, Environmental and Biological) occurred concurrently with the structural assessment on June 30, 2015. Field investigations were visual in nature and did not include material sampling or testing. The general findings of the structural assessment report are as follows (refer to Attachment A for a summary plan of the general findings from the referenced structural assessment report): · Superstructure: Overall the members that make up the Superstructure (Deck) of the boardwalk are in SERIOUS CONDITION exhibiting heavy weathering. The timber member’s exhibit splits, missing sections and are disconnected in several locations from the substructure due to corrosion of nails and bolts. Steel members forming the railing exhibit corrosion. Existing timber ledger beams supporting the guardrailings were split for the length of the structure. In addition, the damage to the substructure members has led to settlement and rotation of large segments of the superstructure. · Substructure: Overall the Substructure of the boardwalk and its members are in SERIOUS CONDITION exhibiting heavy weathering. The posts and braces exhibit reduced sections and broken members along with splits throughout the timber members of the boardwalk. Steel plates, bolts and nails exhibit corrosion throughout. · Overall: The structure is overall in SERIOUS CONDITION with several posts and braces either broken or exhibiting reduced sections. The superstructure deck planks exhibit splits, missing sections and corroded or missing nails throughout the boardwalk. In addition, the steel plates and bolts that connect the structural members exhibit corrosion at several locations. Finally, the damage described above to posts and braces has led to large segments of the boardwalk to settle and rotate. More specifically, the condition of the structure varied over its length with some portions being in FAIR or SATISFACTORY condition while other portions were In CRITICAL or IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION. In general, the southernmost portion of the boardwalk adjacent to the Nature Center, including the first overlook platform, is in FAIR to SATISFACTORY condition (roughly Bents 60 to 87). The majority of the more severe deterioration, including broken and buckled posts, missing braces, severe section loss and significant warping and settlement of the boardwalk, is concentrated in the segment of the boardwalk on either side of the PG&E lines and catwalk (roughly Bents 33 to 59). The conditions of the remaining portions of the structure (roughly Bents 1 to 32) varied from bent to bent between POOR to SATISFACTORY CONDITION. Refer to Chapters 4, 5 & 6 respectively for a discussion of the various Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement options considered as part of this Feasibility Study Report. 3 4 Existing Site/Constraints EXISTING SITE: Palo Alto’s stewardship of the Baylands began in 1921 with the modest purchase of 40 acres. Today the Baylands encompasses 1,940 acres. The park includes some of the last remaining salt marsh/ mudflat habitats on the West Coast. Unlike other Bay Area marshes, the plants within the Baylands have a mixed plant distribution rather than distinct plant zones with pickleweed and cordgrass habitats interspersed with the mudflats. Bird watching is a favorite pastime within the park with a large migratory bird population in the spring and fall. The area immediately adjacent to the Baylands Boardwalk includes the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, the Harriet Mundy Marsh, the Duck Pond and San Francisco Bay. The Lucy Evans Nature Center hosts a variety of public and school education programs year round. The Nature Center will also undergo rehabilitation under a separate contract concurrently with the Baylands Boardwalk Project. A pair of PG&E overhead transmission lines runs roughly east to west across the marsh land. These lines are supported by a series of steel towers which dot the landscape. PG&E owns and maintains the lines and towers from a small dilapidated timber catwalk running below the lines to each tower. The catwalk intersects the Baylands Boardwalk roughly mid3length with access controlled by a pair of locked gates. The Baylands Boardwalk project will be required to maintain permanent access to the catwalk. Environmental Conditions: The project site represents an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) for its entire length through the marsh land. The area is known to be home to several endangered species including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and the Ridgeway’s Rail (formerly Clapper Rail). The environmental constraints and approval process will be a key driver in the feasibility design and ultimate construction of any planned repairs, rehabilitation and/or replacement of the boardwalk. It will be imperative that the structural design and environmental approval process be tightly integrated to avoid costly delays, constraints and mitigations to the project. Key biological drivers are summarized below: · Ridgeway’s Rail: Suitable tidal marsh habitat for the Ridgeway’s Rail begins at the toe3of3slope adjacent to the Baylands Interpretive Center and extends to the observation platform at the terminus of the boardwalk. Thus, the entire Boardwalk Project is within the habitat for the Ridgeway’s Rail. Suitable breeding habitat for Ridgeway’s Rail generally needs to be avoided during the Ridgeway’s Rail breeding season from February 1 through August 31. If breeding Ridgeway’s Rails are determined to be present during these surveys, activities will be prohibited within 700 feet. This buffer requirement during the prolonged breeding season will pose a serious constraint to the available construction window. · Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse: Suitable tidal marsh habitat for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse extends from the Baylands Interpretive Center to the observation platform at the terminus of the boardwalk. The harvest mouse is listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a “fully protected” species. Avoidance and minimization measures will be required to avoid killing or harming a harvest mouse during construction activities conducted in the pickleweed marsh. · Nesting Swallows: The Baylands Interpretive Center supports a fairly large population of nesting swallows. The nesting season for these birds is generally March 15 to August 30, and CDFW requests a 300 foot setback during this period. 3 5 Based on the environmental and biological sensitivity of the site, regulatory permits will be required from multiple agencies, with the exact number dependent on the extent of the proposed rehabilitation or replacement construction activities. While the structural designs can be tailored to minimize direct impacts to the sensitive environment on the site, the construction operations for these two alternatives will still be environmentally significant enough to require permits from the agencies listed below: · US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit · Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification · California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement · US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 consultation · San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit For the Repair Option, work could potentially be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures, provided the work is limited in nature and that the work can be performed without the need to have equipment or personnel physically in contact with the sensitive tidal marsh habitat (i.e. boots on ground). Therefore, any repair work would need to be designed to be constructed from the existing boardwalk structure with minimal noise, vibration or other impacts to the site biology. Refer to Chapters 4, 5 & 6 for additional discussion of the environmental coordination required for each alternative. Subsurface Conditions: The project site consists of marsh land overlaying medium stiff, highly compressible, highly plastic clays typically referred to as Bay Mud. The high compressibility of the Bay Muds results in a subsurface that is settling slowly under its own weight. This settlement is anticipated to continue for hundreds of years before equilibrium is reached. Ground water within the Baylands is typically present at shallow depths. Given the close proximity to the Bay, the surrounding water and soils are anticipated to be corrosive. The underlying Bay Muds have little capacity for supporting heavy loads. Therefore boardwalk foundations will either need to be designed as deep foundations that penetrate through the low strength Bay Muds or as shallow foundations supporting a flexible structure that can accommodate the anticipated long term and differential settlements at the site. Deep foundations are generally expensive to construct and require heavy equipment that is not compatible with the surrounding sensitive wetlands environment. Therefore, shallow foundations supporting a flexible structural system will be preferred to accommodate the long term settlement of the site. Lightweight materials should be considered for the boardwalk. Two primary foundation options have been proposed: · Timber Piles: Shallow timber piles consisting of treated timber members (similar to existing configuration) that would be pushed and3or tapped into the soft bay soils utilizing relatively small motorized equipment (such as a Bobcat) that can be staged on the existing boardwalk. Over a period of time, the pushed/tapped timbers will “set” within the soils and gain additional strength suitable for supporting the anticipated loading over the life of the structure. · Helical Screw Anchors: Helical steel anchors consist of steel shafts with helices, similar to a large screw that provides a foundation support for various types of structures. Helical screw anchors are often used when challenging soil conditions prohibit a traditional foundation system. Helical screw anchors can be installed with hand operated equipment (consisting primarily of a hand carried motor with a torque bar that can be braced against the existing foundations) that can be staged from the existing boardwalk. Helical anchors are “screwed” into the soil and do not generate spoils. They are also commonly used to correct and support existing foundations that have settled or failed. 3 6 One key driver in the selection of the foundation system is the corrosivity of the site. The repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have a negative effect on the long term life cycle of the structure. One key reason the existing boardwalk was closed to the public was the failure of the existing timber support system due to slow deterioration from the constant wetting/drying cycle prevalent in the salt water tidal marsh environment. Likewise, the tidal marsh environment has been harsh on the steel components of the boardwalk with existing steel brackets and railing showing signs of deterioration. Therefore, proper treatment and coating of the foundation elements will be a critical component in the final structure Type Selection. Biggs Cardosa Associates recommends that a Corrosion Specialist be included in the Design Team for the Final Design phase of the project. Hydraulic Conditions: The generally low and flat Baylands landscape is exposed to the regular ebb and flow of the Bay tides. Based on review of the Bay tide records at the Dumbarton Bridge and Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, the mean tides (long3term average of the astronomical tides) in general have a high of roughly 43feet above mean sea level and a low of roughly 3½ 3feet below mean sea level. The highest few tides in any year are also known as “king tides.” The water surface is also subject to the effects of storm surges and riverine discharges into San Francisco Bay and coupled with high tides can result in unusually high water. Per the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor tide data these storm events can be as high as 5.9 to 6.4 feet above mean sea level (El 9.50 NAVD for 10% annual chance of exceedance and 10.00 NAVD for 1% annual chance of exceedance respectively). In general, the existing mudflats at the site have established themselves just above the mean higher high tide and generally protect the structure from the most frequent tidal effects. However, due to shadowing effects of the boardwalk structure, vegetation doesn’t grow below the structure and a drainage channel has formed that channels tidal flows back and forth below the structure during the regular ebb and flow of the tides. This regular flow of water has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Per discussions with City of Palo Alto staff, the height of the water extends above the top of the deck of the structure (typically at sag points where the foundation system has failed in the past) during some high tide events. This is evident based on the level of water damage to the structure noted during the structural field evaluation. Additionally, the mean sea levels have been slowly rising due to greenhouse gas emissions, accelerated land ice melt patterns and other climate effect. Projected sea level rise affecting the Baylands Boardwalk project has been interpolated from the 2012 National Research Council Report, “Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past Present and Future” as adopted by the City and County of San Francisco for infrastructure planning. Anticipated sea level rise is on the order of 63inches (±2 inches) by 2030, 113inches (±4 inches) by 2050 and 363 inches (±10 inches) by 2100. Year Mean Sea Level (NAVD) 10.Year Storm SWL (NAVD) 100.Year Storm SWL (NAVD) 2000 3.58 9.50 10.00 2030 4.08 10.00 10.50 2050 4.50 10.42 10.92 2100 6.58 12.50 13.00 3 7 Based on an existing average boardwalk deck elevation ranging between 9.2 and 9.9 (NAVD) and an Interpretive Center Deck elevation of 13.0 (NAVD), the existing boardwalk would be flooded by a 1003 year storm event (1% annual chance of exceedance). Given projected sea level rise, by 2030 the entire existing boardwalk would be flooded by only a 103year storm event. This is an indication that the City should consider raising the deck level of the rehabilitated/replaced boardwalk to reduce future flooding occurrences. Determining an appropriate accommodation for sea level rise will be a focal point of the design development during the Final Design phase of the project and will be a combination of design engineering, public opinion, environmental considerations, acceptable risk, and anticipated closure frequency. Refer to Attachment B for “Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center” Access and ADA Constraints: The existing Baylands Boardwalk contains a variety of access compliance issues, several of them as a result of the original and widening designs, and a number of them stem from the structural issues described previously. The key access issues evaluated for the boardwalk include the following: · Slopes: All slopes parallel with the path of travel shall either be flatter than 5% (Section 11B3403.3 of California Building Code (CBC), 2014) if no handrail is provided or flatter than 8.33% where handrails are provided (Section 1010.3 of CBC, 2014). Per the original design and widening plans the boardwalk was designed to be level for the majority of its length with a planned rise at the observation platform at the north end and a planned rise at the connection to the Nature Center at the southern end. At the north end, the roughly 1:10 existing slope exceeds the allowable ADA ramp slope of 1:12 and vertical ramp rises without an intermediate landing. At the south end, the roughly 3’38” vertical rise exceeds the allowable ramp rise without an intermediate landing. Additionally, with in the structurally failed portions of the boardwalk near the PG&E catwalk, the boardwalk slopes spike to as high as 21% which exceeds the code allowable slopes. · Handrails: Handrails are required at all ramps (CBC Section 11B3505). The ramps at either end each contain an existing handrail, which are non3compliant. Although the existing handrails are continuous and unobstructed on their tops and sides (CBC 11B3505.5/6) and the circular cross section appears to meet code per CBC 11B3505.7.1, the rails are only roughly 26 inches above the ramp grade. Tops of handrails are required to be between 34 and 38 inches above grade (CBC 11B3 505.4). Additionally, each handrail must extend 1’30” minimum beyond the top and bottom of the ramp (CBC 505.10.1). The existing handrails do not extend beyond the top and bottom of the ramps. · Guardrails: Guardrails are required wherever there is a vertical change of more than 30 inches between a walking surface and an adjacent surface (Section 1013.2). The boardwalk is elevated above the adjacent grade and is also located within a sensitive wetland habitat so a continuous guardrail is required. The existing guardrails are roughly 35 inches with roughly 9 inch wide openings between pickets. The code requires guardrails to be 42 inches (Section 1013.3) high and clear openings in the guardrails should not allow the passage of a 4 inch diameter sphere. · Cross Slopes: The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not exceed a 1:48 (2%) gradient (Section 11B403.3). The cross slopes of the existing boardwalk where designed to be flat, however due to the structural issues, the structure has sagged and settled appreciably at locations producing existing cross slopes as high as 21%. · Walking Surface: The walking surface of a pathway should be consistent and even. There should not be openings that allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch (Section 11B3302.3) and vertical changes in elevation should not exceed 1/4 inch (without an edge treatment) or 1/2 inch (with a bevel). Due to wear and tear and structural settlement and shifting of the structure, the existing deck planks often exceed the code minimums. 3 8 · Passing Spaces: The existing 48 inch boardwalk width meets the code required minimum accessible width of 36 inches (Section 11B3403.5.1). However, an accessible route with a clear width of less than 60 inches requires passing spaces at intervals of not greater than 200 feet (Section 11B3403.5.3). Although there are two such passing spaces provided at the overlook platforms, the passing spaces are located at intervals too far apart to meet code. · Resting Areas: The boardwalk is required to have resting areas at least 60 inches in length, with a width at least as wide as the walk, at intervals no more than 400’ apart (Section 11B3403.7). The existing boardwalk does contain these required resting areas. Refer to Attachment C for “Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation” ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT: “The Baylands Nature Preserve is a distinctive landscape notable for openness and subtlety. Because of the shallow soils, brackish water, and persistent winds, the landscape is flat and treeless, defined by the expansive horizon— a big sky, flat water, and waving grasses. The natural color palette is a study in muted tones. This simple, serene landscape is a dramatic contrast, and a welcome respite, from the more complicated landscapes found in the Peninsula: bustling cities, rolling hills, and restless beaches.” 3 SITE ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The project will endeavor to maintain a low unobtrusive profile while accommodating for the high tides and providing for projected sea level rise. Project aesthetics will be guided by the principles found in the Design Guidelines including the use of “muted, natural colors” and “materials and finishes that will weather without degrading.” 4 1 Chapter 4 – REPAIR OPTIONS Repair Option Descriptions General: It is our understanding that there is strong public desire to reopen the structure as soon as practical. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near term reopening of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long term improvements. Repair Option 1: General: Repair work could potentially be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures, provided the work is limited in nature and that the work can be performed without the need to have equipment or personnel physically in contact with the sensitive tidal marsh habitat (i.e. boots on ground). Therefore, any repair work would need to be designed to be constructed from the existing boardwalk structure with minimal noise, vibration or other impacts to the site’s biological resources. Therefore, the amount of work that can be accomplished to restore temporary limited use of the boardwalk while final designs (Rehabilitation or Replacement) are completed is very limited. Structure Repair: For Repair Option 1, we have limited the proposed repairs to occur only within the segment between the Nature Center and the first overlook platform (Bents 69 to 87) where the existing damage/deterioration is manageable. The existing damage beyond this point is too extensive to reasonably construct without environmental permits. The proposed repairs will be limited to the following: · Repair Damaged Posts: Existing damaged timber posts with the potential to fail prior to ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the boardwalk will be strengthened. “Sister” members or strong backs will be provided to strengthen existing deteriorated areas. Effected bents include Bent 69, 70, 71 and 72. · Replace Missing Braces: Missing timber cross braces will be replaced. Effected bents include Bent 75, 77, and 84. · Replace Damaged Braces: Existing damaged timber cross braces with the potential to fail prior to ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the boardwalk will be replaced in kind. Effected bents include Bent 69, 70, 71 and 86. · Replace Damaged Deck Planks: Existing damaged and misaligned timber deck planks will be replaced as needed to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. The affected planks will be swapped with better quality existing planks from the portion of the structure to remain closed to the public. 4 2 · Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements requiring repair. Once repairs are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced as noted above. Site Constraints: The repair of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic and ADA compliance issues and constraints as follows: · Constructability: With a little creativity, the work between Bents 69 and 87 described above, can be performed by the Contractor from the existing boardwalk structure only. This option presumes that the ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the structure will occur within 1 to 2 years of the completed repair work such that anticipated additional deterioration of structural elements not proposed for repair will not significantly degrade the integrity of the structure. The proposed repairs are limited in nature and scope and the size of the tools, equipment and materials required can all be hand carried. Access for the repair work will occur along the outside decking of the existing Nature Interpretive Center. Access inside the nature Interpretive Center will not be required. · Environmental Compliance: Since the work is proposed to be performed from the existing boardwalk structure without the need for Contractor staff or equipment to be physically staged on the marshland surface, the limited repairs recommended for Repair Option 1 could be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures without the need for new permits. · Geotechnical Issues: There will be no change to the existing conditions. · Hydraulic Issues: There will be no change to the existing conditions. The repaired structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions. The repaired structure will experience the same frequency of overtopping of the low lying portions of the boardwalk; since these areas are not typically open to the public, the impacts are expected to be negligible. The repairs will not address sea level rise, however, since the repairs are anticipated to be a short term solution to allow public access during the design of the rehabilitation or replacement structure, the potential impacts are negligible. · ADA Compliance: This option does not address the majority of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 2, and simply restores the existing structure to safe temporary public use (in its current configuration). The one noted upgrade would be that during the removal and resetting of the existing timber deck planks, the timber planks can be adjusted and realigned such that the walking surface is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 2. The existing slopes, handrail, guardrail, cross slope, passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 2 would not be addressed until the ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the structure. · Design Life: Design life of the repair is limited to only 3 to 5 years and is intended to extend the life of the existing structure sufficiently to complete the design and construction of either the full rehabilitation or replacement options. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $30,000 to $40,000 or roughly $40 to $51 per square foot of repaired structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 20% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 30% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: materials selection, finishes, construction work windows, construction access, supplemental repairs, small size of project, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the repaired boardwalk structure only. Other non structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. 4 3 Repair Option 2: General: The alternative to Repair Option 1 is to do nothing and keep the boardwalk closed until it can be fully rehabilitated (see Chapter 4) or replaced (see Chapter 5). Given the significant anticipated cost and environmental clearance and permitting efforts to perform boardwalk repairs beyond what was outlined in Repair Option 1, the leading alternative to Option 1 is to stay the course and leave the boardwalk closed until the rehabilitation or replacement design can be completed and approved by the various environmental agencies. 5 1 Chapter 5 – REHABILITATION OPTIONS Rehabilitation Option Descriptions General: As noted in Chapter 3, the existing structure is in overall SERIOUS CONDITION with a variety of structural damage and deterioration throughout which requires correction. The rehabilitation work is anticipated to be labor intensive and have a design life less than that of the replacement option. Additionally, the existing boardwalk does not meet current Access and ADA requirements throughout its length. Depending on the desires of the City, the rehabilitation option can address all, some or none of the existing ADA issues with their associated risks/liabilities to the City. At a minimum, new railings are anticipated to be provided. Boardwalk walkway width will remain 4’,0”. Correcting the structural and ADA issues will represent the lion’s share of the rehabilitation costs and complexity. The Rehabilitation Options are also likely to have greater maintenance requirements than the Replacement Option. Also, the City may elect to raise the walking surface of the existing boardwalk to accommodate for King Tides and projected sea level rise further complicating the structure rehabilitation design and increasing project costs. Lastly, all proposed rehabilitations will need to be acceptable to the various regulatory agencies involved. Rehabilitation Option 1: General: This option essentially reconstructs the existing boardwalk in its existing configuration and alignment. Rehabilitation Option 1 utilizes temporary screw anchors to temporarily support the structure while failed timber posts are replaced. The structure will be leveled and plumbed during this process to provide a consistent and even walkway within the parameters described in Chapter 3. Structure Rehabilitation: The proposed structure rehabilitations will include the following: · Temporary Supports: Temporary screw anchors, coupled with a temporary jacking beam, will be installed near the center of the existing structure at each bent to provide a jacking platform to temporarily support the existing structure while the substructure is reinforced and rehabilitated. The temporary screw anchors will also be used to level and plumb each bent to provide a consistent and even walkway surface. · Install New Posts: A large percentage of the existing posts are either broken, buckled or have severe section loss. These posts will be reinforced with a new “sister” post that is pushed/driven into place adjacent to the existing post. The new and existing posts will be connected to act in unison to support the rehabilitated structure. · Repair Existing Posts: Roughly 25% of the Bents have at least one post that is either split or notched. These posts will be rehabilitated with either a stich plate or strong back as applicable. · Replace Missing and Damaged Braces: Missing timber cross braces will be replaced. Additionally, both existing braces at locations where new posts are installed will be replaced to improve the lateral support of the rehabilitated substructure. Existing damaged timber cross braces will be replaced in kind. 5 2 · Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements being rehabilitated. Once the substructure rehabilitations are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced. · Remove and Replace Guardrailing: In order to meet ADA safety requirements, the existing guardrailing and edger beams will be replaced with taller railings with tighter pickets which meet the requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Raising the structure using this system is feasible but will be labor intensive and expensive. If the structure is to be raised beyond the few inches required to level and align the structure, then every bent will need to be retrofitted. For a minor increase in structure elevation, a new deeper timber cap beam could be installed to provide a few additional inches in structure height. For more significant changes in elevation, new posts would need to be installed at all bents (not just at select bents) along with new timber cap beams and cross bracing as required. Site Constraints: The rehabilitation of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: · Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk rehabilitation. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. · Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. · Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the timber posts and temporary screw anchors. Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program. · Hydraulic Issues: There will be no significant change to the existing conditions. The rehabilitated structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions. The rehabilitated structure will restore the existing low lying portions of the boardwalk such that the frequency of overtopping the boardwalk deck should be reduced considerably. The rehabilitated structure does not address sea level rise, therefore there is a potential for the frequency of overtopping to increase in the future with the change in sea level elevation. With significant effort and cost, the existing structure could also be raised as part of the structure rehabilitation to address future sea level rise. 5 3 · ADA Compliance: This option addresses some, but not all, of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. Jacking and realigning of the structure with the temporary supports will eliminate the slope and cross slope issues caused by the previous structural failures. It will also accommodate adjustment and realignment of the walking surface such that it is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 3. The existing guardrails and handrails will be replaced to meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 3. The existing passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 3 would not be addressed in the baseline rehabilitation option. Suitable passing spaces and rest areas could be retrofitted into the rehabilitated structure for additional cost if desired by the City. · Design Life: Design life of the rehabilitated structure is anticipated to be on the order of 25 to 50 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. Maintenance requirements for the rehabilitated structure are anticipated to be roughly equivalent to that of the existing structure since many of the existing components will remain as part of the rehabilitated structure. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $860,000 to $1,030,000 or roughly $210 to $252 per square foot of rehabilitated structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 20% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, inclusion of passing zones, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the rehabilitated boardwalk structure only. Other non,structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $214,000 to $257,000 Design (~25%) $129,000 to $154,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $171,000 to $205,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Rehabilitation Option 2: General: This option reconstructs the existing boardwalk in its existing configuration and alignment and provides a new vertical support system outboard of the existing walkway. New permanent screw anchors are used to provide the permanent structural support while the existing timber posts and rehabilitated cross bracing provide lateral restraint. The structure will be leveled and plumbed during this process to provide a consistent and even walkway within the parameters described in Chapter 3. 5 4 Structure Rehabilitation: The proposed structure rehabilitations will include the following: · Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. The permanent screw anchors will also be used to level and plumb each bent to provide a consistent and even walkway surface. · Install New Cap Beam: Remove the existing timber cap beam and install a new timber cap beam. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. · Repair Existing Bents: The existing timber bents will provide lateral resistance for the rehabilitated structure. Timber posts and braces will be rehabilitated or replaced. Roughly 25% of the Bents have at least one timber post that is either split or notched. These posts will be rehabilitated with either a stich plate or strong back as applicable. Roughly 50% of the Bents have at least one timber post that is either broken, buckled or has severe section loss. At these bents the existing timber bent will be abandoned and a new inclined steel screw anchor brace will be installed to provide the necessary lateral resistance. The existing timber braces will be removed and replaced in kind with new braces at each of the timber bents to remain (roughly 50%). · Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements being rehabilitated. Once the substructure rehabilitations are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced. · Remove and Replace Guardrailing: In order to meet ADA safety requirements, the existing guardrailing and edger beams will be replaced with taller railings with tighter pickets which meet the requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Raising the structure using this system is feasible but will be labor intensive and expensive. If the structure is to be raised beyond the few inches required to level and align the structure then the existing timber substructure system will be abandoned at each bent. An inclined screw anchor will be required at each bent to provide lateral stability (formerly provided by the timber substructure). Site Constraints: The rehabilitation of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: · Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing 5 5 structure to minimize environmental impacts and aid in the permitting process. Timber piles could be installed in lieu of the screw anchors if desired for aesthetic reasons. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk rehabilitation. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. · Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. · Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the timber posts and temporary screw anchors. Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program. · Hydraulic Issues: While the rehabilitated structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The rehabilitated structure does not address sea level rise, therefore there is a potential for the frequency of overtopping to increase in the future with the change in sea level elevation. With additional effort and cost, the existing structure could also be raised as part of the structure rehabilitation to address future sea level rise. · ADA Compliance: This option address some, but not all, of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. Leveling and realigning of the structure with the outboard screw anchors will eliminate the slope and cross slope issues caused by the previous structural failures. It will also accommodate adjustment and realignment of the walking surface such that it is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 3. The existing guardrails and handrails will be replaced to meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 3. The existing passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 3 would not be addressed in the baseline rehabilitation option. Suitable passing spaces and rest areas could be retrofitted into the rehabilitated structure for additional cost if desired by the City. · Design Life: Design life of the rehabilitated structure is anticipated to be on the order of 30 to 60 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. Maintenance requirements for the rehabilitated structure are anticipated to be slightly less than that of the existing structure since the vertical supports have been shifted outboard of the existing drainage channel located below the structure, thereby reducing the frequency of wetting and drying and anticipated erosion. 5 6 Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $870,000 to $1,050,000 or roughly $214 to $256 per square foot of rehabilitated structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 20% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, inclusion of passing zones, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the rehabilitated boardwalk structure only. Other non,structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Based on Caltrans estimating guidelines and practices, soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $218,000 to $261,000 Design (~25%) $131,000 to $157,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $174,000 to $209,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Summary: In general, both rehabilitation concepts discussed above rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation to minimize flooding and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options noted in Chapter 6. Criteria Rehabilitation Option 1 Rehabilitation Option 2 Superstructure Type Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank (Match existing) Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank (Match Existing) Substructure Type Timber bent caps supported on timber piles/posts (Match existing). Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Boardwalk Width 4’,0” (match existing) 4’,0” (match existing) Constructability Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Environmental Compliance Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Geotechnical Issues Matches existing structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement and corrosion issues. Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow steel helical anchor foundation systems 5 7 located outboard of the existing boardwalk decking for vertical support and to improve design life. Hydraulic Issues Matches existing structure type and configuration. Can only accommodate a small adjustment in deck elevation to accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. Matches existing structure type and configuration. Can only accommodate a modest adjustment in deck elevation to accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. ADA Compliance Option will mitigate many, but not all, ADA Compliance Issues Option will mitigate many, but not all, ADA Compliance Issues Anticipated Design Life 25 to 50 Years (likely governed by existing elements to remain in service) 30 to 60 Years (likely governed by existing elements to remain in service). Slightly higher than Option 1 due to moving vertical supports outboard of the existing boardwalk and away from the existing drainage channel that has formed below the existing boardwalk. Anticipated Duration 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) Anticipated Construction Costs $860,000 to $1,030,000 $870,000 to $1,050,000 Anticipated Soft Costs $214,000 to $257,000 Design (~25% Construction) $129,000 to $154,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $171,000 to $205,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $218,000 to $261,000 Design (~25% Construction) $131,000 to $157,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $174,000 to $209,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) 6 1 Chapter 6 – REPLACEMENT OPTIONS Replacement Option Descriptions General: As noted in Chapter 3, the existing structure is in overall SERIOUS CONDITION with a variety of structural damage and deterioration throughout which requires correction. The replacement work is anticipated to provide the following benefits to the City: · Most flexible structural system. While the structure will be limited to being replaced along the same alignment as the existing structure, the replacement structure will not be constrained to the existing span lengths, width or structural system as the existing structure. · Corrects ADA compliance issues. The replacement structure can be readily designed to address all existing access and ADA compliance issues. · Accommodates sea level rise. The profile of the replacement structure can be set to accommodate king tides and projected sea level rise. · Minimize environmental impacts. The replacement structure can be designed to utilize the existing structure as a working platform for the boardwalk replacement minimizing impacts to the marshland. · Increased design life and reduced maintenance costs. Utilizing all new components and thoughtful selection of materials and finishes will lead to a longer design life and reduced maintenance costs over the duration of that design life. Replacement Option 1: General: This option replaces the existing boardwalk along its existing alignment. The structure is proposed to be widened by 1’00” to provide a total clear walkway width of 5’00”. Permanent steel screw anchors are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint of the structure. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. The decking is proposed to consist of longitudinal timber planks similar to the existing system. Structure Replacement: The proposed structure replacement will include the following: · Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Inclined steel screw anchor braces will be installed to provide the necessary lateral stiffness to the system. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. Ultimately the final selection of the substructure system will depend on the corrosivity of the soils, the ability to effectively protect the steel or timber elements and the acceptability of the corrosion protection measures by the regulatory agencies. 6 2 · Install New Cap Beam: Install a new timber cap beam to span between the new supports. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. · Install Deck Planks: Install new longitudinal timber deck planks to span between the adjacent bents. Transverse ribbing/stiffeners will be provided in each span to tie the deck planks together so that the system deflects uniformly to maintain a consistent and even walking surface. · Install Guardrailing: Install new timber and steel guardrailing that meets the ADA safety requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Site Constraints: The replacement of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: · Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk replacement. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. · Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. · Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the screw anchors (or timber posts). Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program to ensure appropriate corrosion protection is provided. · Hydraulic Issues: While the replacement structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The replacement structure profile will be set to accommodate sea level rise. · ADA Compliance: This option will address all of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. The new structure will be constructed so that the slope, cross slope and walking surface requirements are met. The widening of the structure to 5’00” will eliminate the need to provide passing spaces at 200 foot intervals. Resting areas will be provided at intervals of less than 400 feet. ADA appropriate guardrails and handrails will be provided. 6 3 · Design Life: Design life of the replacement structure is anticipated to be on the order of 50 to 75 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. The maintenance requirements for the replacement structure are anticipated to be reduced from that of the existing structure (and Rehabilitation Options) since all the boardwalk elements will consist of new materials constructed to current standards. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $910,000 to $1,140,000 or roughly $183 to $229 per square foot of replacement structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 25% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, final boardwalk width, inclusion of passing zones, final observation platform/overlook size, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include removal of the existing boardwalk and structural items of work for the new boardwalk structure only. Other non0structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $227,000 to $284,000 Design (~25%) $137,000 to $171,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $182,000 to $227,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Replacement Option 2: General: This option replaces the existing boardwalk along its existing alignment. The structure is proposed to be widened by 1’00” to provide a total clear walkway width of 5’00”. Permanent steel screw anchors are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint of the structure. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. The superstructure is proposed to consist of longitudinal stringers between bents with transverse timber decking. Structure Replacement: The proposed structure replacement will include the following: · Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The 6 4 outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Inclined steel screw anchor braces will be installed to provide the necessary lateral stiffness to the system. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. Ultimately the final selection of the substructure system will depend on the corrosivity of the soils, the ability to effectively protect the steel or timber elements and the acceptability of the corrosion protection measures by the regulatory agencies. · Install New Cap Beam: Install a new timber cap beam to span between the new supports. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. · Install Timber Superstructure: Install new longitudinal timber stringers to span between the adjacent bents. The stringers will be capped with transverse timber decking to provide the walking surface. Since the timber decking has a much shorter span length, thinner members can be used. Also since the members are smaller than that required for longitudinal planks, a variety of timber species are available for use including engineered plastic lumber alternatives. · Install Guardrailing: Install new timber and steel guardrailing that meets the ADA safety requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Site Constraints: The replacement of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: · Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk replacement. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. · Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. · Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the screw anchors (or timber posts). Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program to ensure appropriate corrosion protection is provided. · Hydraulic Issues: While the replacement structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the 6 5 existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The replacement structure profile will be set to accommodate sea level rise. · ADA Compliance: This option will address all of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. The new structure will be constructed so that the slope, cross slope and walking surface requirements are met. The widening of the structure to 5’00” will eliminate the need to provide passing spaces at 200 foot intervals. Resting areas will be provided at intervals of less than 400 feet. ADA appropriate guardrails and handrails will be provided. · Design Life: Design life of the replacement structure is anticipated to be on the order of 50 to 75 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. The maintenance requirements for the replacement structure are anticipated to be reduced from that of the existing structure (and Rehabilitation Options) since all the boardwalk elements will consist of new materials constructed to current standards. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $890,000 to $1,110,000 or roughly $180 to $224 per square foot of replacement structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 25% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, final boardwalk width, inclusion of passing zones, final observation platform/overlook size, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include removal of the existing boardwalk and structural items of work for the new boardwalk structure only. Other non0structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $223,000 to $279,000 Design (~25%) $134,000 to $167,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $179,000 to $223,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Replacement Option 3: General: A third replacement concept was reviewed based on interest from the public during the public meeting held for the project at the Lucy Evans Nature Center on September 30, 2015. This option proposed to replace the existing boardwalk structure with a floating boardwalk that could rise and fall with the ebb and flow of the tide during high tide events. The primary benefits would be the ability to keep the structure open during all but the worst storm events. However, ultimately this concept was abandoned due to significant ADA compliance challenges associated with a segmented, flexible, moving structure as well as potentially significant objections from the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction on the project. 6 6 Summary: In general, both Replacement Options 1 and 2 are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber bent caps, utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct and slightly lower in cost than Replacement Option 1, which more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber bent caps). Based on the findings of the Feasibility Study both options are feasible for the project site and constraints with Replacement Option 2 being the preferred option based on anticipated improved constructability and slightly lower costs. Criteria Replacement Option 1 Replacement Option 2 Superstructure Type Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank Transverse Timber Decking on Longitudinal Timber stringers Substructure Type Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors or timber piles/posts located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors or timber piles/posts located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Boardwalk Width 5’00” assumed (subject to regulatory agency approval) 5’00” assumed (subject to regulatory agency approval) Constructability Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Environmental Compliance Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Geotechnical Issues Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow pile/anchor foundation systems include: Alt 1: Steel Helical Screw Anchors Alt 2: Timber Piles/Posts Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow pile/anchor foundation systems include: Alt 1: Steel Helical Screw Anchors Alt 2: Timber Piles/Posts Hydraulic Issues Flexible structural system that can be raised or lowered as required to best accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. Flexible structural system that can be raised or lowered as required to best accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. ADA Compliance Design will address all applicable ADA Compliance regulations Design will address all applicable ADA Compliance regulations Anticipated Design Life 50 to 75 Years 50 to 75 Years Anticipated Duration 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) Anticipated Construction Costs $910,000 to $1,140,000 $890,000 to $1,110,000 Anticipated Soft Costs $227,000 to $284,000 Design (~25% Construction) $137,000 to $171,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $182,000 to $227,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $223,000 to $279,000 Design (~25% Construction) $134,000 to $167,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $179,000 to $223,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) 7 1 Chapter 7 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Short Term Repair: Prior to completion of the final Feasibility Study, the City completed maintenance repairs sufficient to reopen a portion of the structure (roughly 200 feet between the existing Nature center and the first overlook platform) based on the recommendations contained in the draft Feasibility Study Report. Long Term Rehabilitation/ Replacement: In general, both rehabilitation concepts discussed in Chapter 5 rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and width and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options noted in Chapter 6. In general, both replacement concepts discussed are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Both replacement options have flexible structural systems which can be refined during final design to accommodate adjustments to the boardwalk, elevation, width, and anticipated long term settlement of the site. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber bent caps, utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct, maintain, and will be lower in cost than Replacement Option 1, which more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber bent caps). Based on the findings of the Feasibility Study both options are feasible for the project site and constraints with Replacement Option 2 being the preferred option based on anticipated improved constructability, ease of future maintenance and slightly lower costs. Attachment A. Summary Plan of Structural Assessment Report Findings (2”x1’-8”)(7”x5’-0”)(2”x6”)(3”x1’-8”)(settlement along East side of boardwalk) (settlement along East side of boardwalk)(6”x4’-0”) (3”x1’-8”) (3”x2’-0”) (1’-1”x1’-6”)E LEGEND: I) SUBSTRUCTURE DAMAGE GIRDERS: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES POSTS: BROKEN/BUCKLED POSTS: REDUCED CROSS-SECTION (SECTION LOSS) POSTS: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES BRACES: MISSING/BROKEN BRACES: REDUCED CROSS-SECTION (SECTION LOSS)/DISCONNECTED BRACES: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES HARDWARE CONNECTIONS:CORROSION OF STEEL CONNECTION PLATES/BOLTS/NAILS II) SUPERSTRUCTURE (DECK) DAMAGE DAMAGE OBSERVED THROUGHOUT SUPERSTRUCTURE: GAPS BETWEEN DECK PLANKS EXCEEDING 1” UNEVEN DECK PLANKS CREATING TRIPPING HAZARDS NAILS CONNECTING DECK PLANKS TO BOARDWALK SUBSTRUCTURE EXHIBITING CORROSION STEEL RAILING PICKETS EXHIBITING CORROSION BROKEN 3X10 FASCIA BEAMS AT BASE OF RAILING DUE TO CORRODED STEEL RAILING PICKETS DECK PLANKS EXHIBIT DISCOLORATION AND SURFACE CRACKS DUE TO WATER DAMAGE TOP OF RAILING OUT OF ALIGNMENT VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALY THROUGHOUT LENGTH OF STRUCTURE LOCALIZED DAMAGE: SETTLEMENT AND WARPING OF BOARDWALK STRUCTURE SETTLEMENT OF BOARDWALK STRUCTURE SECTIONS OF DECK PLANKS MISSING LOOSE DECK PLANKS DUE TO CORRODED NAILS GAPS BETWEEN EDGE DECK PLANKS AND RAILING EXCEEDING 3” SPLITS THROUGHOUT LENGTH OF DECK PLANKS VEGETATION PARTIALLY COVERING BOARDWALK C B A1 F E D TYPICAL BOARDWALK CROSS-SECTION (E) BOLTS (E) 1X4 BRACE 4’-0” +/- 3’ - 6 ” + / - VA R I E S (E) 3X6 (E) 2” O PIPE (E) 3X12 PLANKS (E) 3X10 FASCIA (E) PLATE CONNECTION PL’s (E) 2-2X6 GIRDER (E) 4X4 POST (E) NAILS TOP OF GRADE (VARIES) E B B C C F E C E C C C C C CE E E E E EDBBBBBB A2 A2A1A1 11 Attachment B. Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center Schaaf & Wheeler Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Notaro, P.E. Biggs Cardosa DATE: July 7, 2015 FROM: Charles D. Anderson, P.E. JOB#: BCAX.35.15 SUBJECT: Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center This memorandum documents our research into tidal hydrology at the City of Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center. The City plans to repair, rehabilitate and/or replace a boardwalk and observation platform at the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. Site Location and Exposure to Tides The Baylands Nature Interpretive Center is located at the end of Embarcadero Road off the San Francisquito Creek Trail, as depicted in Figure 1. This area is part of the San Francisco Bay’s marsh land and as such, is directly exposed to inundation from Bay tides. Based on calculations for the relative celestial positions of the sun, moon and earth, it is possible to predict tides for any day of the year at any time of day. Astronomic tides, created by the gravitational forces of the moon and sun acting on earth’s oceans, are provided in tide prediction calendars. The mean tide cycle is simply the long-term average of astronomic tides. Observed tides, on the other hand, are the actual recorded tidal elevations and include the effects of tides, storm surges and riverine discharges into San Francisco Bay. The highest few tides in any year are also known as “king tides,” but there is no scientific basis for these. 1171 Homestead Road., Suite 255 Santa Clara, CA 95050-5485 t. 408-246-4848 f. 408-246-5624 s&w@swsv.com Figure 1. Site Location Relative to Open San Francisco Bay Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 2 Tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Fortunately the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a tide gage at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, immediately adjacent to the Baylands Interpretive Center. Tides of interest at the Yacht Harbor are indicated in Table 1 and Figure 2 for consideration in the challenges faced when planning and designing improvements in the Baylands Center. (Note that tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor are slightly higher than commensurate tides at Dumbarton Bridge, when adjusted for local datums.) Table 1. Tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Tide1 Elevation (feet MLLW) Elevation (feet NAVD) One-percent chance2 (100-year) TWL 12.19 12.00 One-percent chance2 (100-year) SWL 10.19 10.00 Ten-percent chance3 (10-year) SWL 9.69 9.50 Mean Higher High (MHHW) 7.61 7.42 Mean High (MHW) 6.99 6.80 Mean Sea Level (MSL) 3.77 3.58 Mean Low (MLW) 0.77 0.58 Mean Lower Low (MLLW) 0.00 -0.19 1. Tide levels described subsequently. Epoch data collected from NOAA website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/diagram.jsp?PID=HT1274&EPOCH=1983-2001 2. Preliminary FEMA Coastal Hazard Map for Santa Clara County (2015) 3. USACE San Francisco Bay Tidal Stage vs. Frequency Study (1984); adjusted per reference (2) Figure 2. Tidal Datum at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 3 Depth of Tidal Inundation The elevations of mean tides and extreme event tides listed in Table 2 can be related to the site as depths, by subtracting ground elevations. Based on the USGS San Francisco Coastal LiDAR data set (2010), average ground elevations at the site are roughly 7.8 feet NAVD, the average boardwalk elevation ranges from 9.2 feet NAVD to 9.9 feet NAVD and both the interpretive center building deck and observation deck elevations are roughly 13 feet NAVD. Figure 3 shows a raster image of the LiDAR data for the mud flats in the vicinity of the Baylands boardwalk. Figure 3. Rastor Image of LiDAR Data near Baylands Interpretive Center Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 4 Tide elevations from Table 1 are converted to depths above the mudflat in Table 2, using the data processed from Figure 3. Once the difference in elevation between the boardwalk in its existing condition and the mudflat are known from the recent field reconnaissance, the potential for inundation under various tides can be calculated at locations of interest. For the most part, the tidal mudflat has established itself just above the mean higher high tide (given the accuracy of the LiDAR data), which makes geomorphologic sense. The different tides are defined below. Table 2. Tidal Inundation of Mudflat near Baylands Interpretive Center Tide Elevation (feet NAVD) Depth (feet) One-percent chance (100-year) SWL 10.00 2.2 Ten-percent chance (10-year) SWL 9.50 1.7 Mean Higher High (MHHW) 7.42 no inundation Mean High (MHW) 6.80 no inundation Mean Sea Level (MSL) 3.58 no inundation Mean Low (MLW) 0.58 no inundation Mean Lower Low (MLLW) -0.19 no inundation Definition of Tides The following definitions of tides are frequently used: 100-year One percent annual chance of being equaled or exceeded. 10-year Ten percent annual chance of being equaled or exceeded. Total Water Level (TWL) Water surface elevation at any instant including local variation due to waves and wave set-up and including the effects of tides, storm surges and long period seiches. Stillwater Level (SWL) Water surface elevation at any instant, excluding local variation due to waves and wave set-up, but including the effects of tides, storm surges and long period seiches. Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) The arithmetic average of the elevations of the highest daily tide over a specific 19-year period. Mean High Water (MHW) The average elevation of all high tides over the 19-year period. Mean Sea Level (MSL) The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over the 19-year period, determined from hourly readings. Mean Low Water (MLW) The average height of all low waters over the 19-year period. Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) The arithmetic average of the elevations of the lowest daily tide over a specific 19-year period. Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 5 Inundation of Boardwalk Based on record drawings from 1969, the elevation of the boardwalk was originally 7.9 feet NGVD (presumed datum). This converts to 10.6 feet NAVD. Based on the LiDAR data it appears the boardwalk has settled by about a foot for most of its length. As evidenced by Figure 4, the boardwalk has not uniformly settled, however. According to the same record drawings, the observation platform was originally established at elevation 10.9 feet NGVD, or 12.6 feet NAVD, which is above the 100-year tide level. Unfortunately there is no record elevation for the interpretive center deck. Future Sea Level Rise Table 3 presents sea level rise projections from the 2012 National Research Council Report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future as adopted by the City and County of San Francisco for infrastructure planning. The projections (for example, 36 ± 10 inches in 2100) represent the likely sea level rise values based on a moderate level of greenhouse gas emissions and extrapolation of continued accelerating land ice melt patterns, plus or minus one standard deviation. The extreme limits of the ranges (for example, 17 and 66 inches for 2100) represent unlikely but possible levels of sea level rise using both very low and very high emissions scenarios and, at the high end, including significant land ice melt that is currently not anticipated but could occur. Figure 4. Baylands Interpretive Center Boardwalk Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 6 Table 3. Sea Level Rise Estimates from SFPUC Time Period Projection (inches) Range (inches) 2000 – 2030 6±2 2 to 12 2000 – 2050 11±4 5 to 24 2000 – 2100 36±10 17 to 66 Table 4 reprises Table 2, but compiles possible increases in tidal inundation on the mudflat due to sea level rise. Sea level rise is generally treated as a change in datum; that is, as the mean sea level rises so do all other tidal elevations arithmetically; there is no accepted means to otherwise adjust tide elevations. This analysis also ignores any changes in elevation to the mudflat itself that might result from future sea level rise, for example due to changes in San Francisco Bay sediment accumulation. Table 4. Tidal Inundation of Mudflat near Baylands Interpretive Center with Sea Level Rise 2000 2030 2050 2100 Tide Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) 100-year SWL 10.00 2.2 10.50 2.7 10.92 3.1 13.00 5.2 10-year SWL 9.50 1.7 10.00 2.2 10.42 2.6 12.50 4.7 Mean Higher High 7.42 n/a 7.92 0.1 8.36 0.6 10.42 2.6 Mean High 6.80 n/a 7.30 n/a 7.72 n/a 9.80 2.0 Mean Sea Level 3.58 n/a 4.08 n/a 4.50 n/a 5.58 n/a Mean Low 0.58 n/a 1.08 n/a 1.50 n/a 0.58 n/a Mean Lower Low -0.19 n/a 0.31 n/a 0.73 n/a -0.19 n/a .6 Attachment C. Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only August 11, 2015 (408) 296-5515 x1150 anotaro@biggscardosa.com MEMO TO: Anthony Notaro, Associate, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. FROM: Matt Gruber, Project Manager, Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/ACCESS COMPLIANCE EVALUATION The City of Palo Alto is evaluating options to repair or replace the popular Baylands Boardwalk at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. The evaluation includes the examination of three separate repair options from a low cost repair to total replacement. Below is the access compliance evaluation and the impact analysis for each option. Overall Access Evaluation This section addresses boardwalk components that would require repair or replacement so the boardwalk complies with California and Federal regulations. These regulations address all important areas of accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. California's Building Standards Codes are found in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and are designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State statutes. This evaluation is based on CCR and ADA requirements. The code references in this document refer to the California Building Code (CBC). The Baylands Boardwalk contains a variety of access compliance issues. A number of them stem from structural issues. Repair of those structural issues are addressed under a separate section. The key access issues evaluated for the boardwalk include the following: 1. Slopes: All slopes parallel with the path of travel shall either be greater than 5% (Section 11B-403.3) if no handrail is provided and less than 8.33% where handrails are provided (Section 1010.3). The existing boardwalk has one location where the slope is as much as 21% and there is no handrail (see figure A1). Another section of the boardwalk has a ramp with a slope of 10.3%. Both these sections exceed the allowable slope per code. The height, width and length of the existing ramps do meet code, per Section 11B-405. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 2 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 2. Handrails: Handrails are required at all ramps (CBC Section 11B-505). There are three locations where the existing boardwalk has a ramp (slope greater than 5%), but only two of the locations have a handrail and the handrails are non-compliant. Although the existing handrails are continuous and unobstructed on their tops and sides (CBC 11B-505.5/6) and the circular cross section appears to meet code per CBC 11B-505.7.1, the rails are only approximately 26 inches above the ramp grade. Tops of handrails are required to be between 34 and 38 inches above grade (CBC 11B-505.4). Additionally, handrails must extend 1’-0” beyond the top and bottom of the ramp (CBC 505.10.1) and the existing handrails do not extend beyond the top and bottom of the ramps. 3. Guardrails: Guardrails are required wherever there is a vertical change of more than 30 inches between a walking surface and an adjacent surface (Section 1013.2). The boardwalk is elevated above the adjacent grade and is also located within a sensitive wetland habitat so the guardrail is necessary. The existing guardrails are 35 inches high when code requires them to be 42 inches (Section 1013.3). Guardrails should not allow the passage of a sphere of 4 inches (Section 1013.4). The existing openings between the rebar pickets vary in width with openings a much as 10-11 inches (see figure A2). 4. Cross slopes: The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not exceed a 1:48 (2%) gradient (Section 11B- 403.3). The cross slopes of the existing boardwalk in general exceed the minimum cross slope of 2% and can be as much as 21%. 5. Ground surface: The walking surface of a pathway should be consistent and even. There should not be openings that allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch (Section 11B-302.3) and vertical changes in elevation should not exceed 1/4 inch (without an edge treatment) or 1/2 inch (with a bevel). The existing planks on the boardwalk often are spaced further apart than 1/4 inch (see figure A3), there are rotted out or missing pieces of planks where holes are created, and the planks have shifted so that there is larger than a 1/2 inch vertical grade change between planks. 6. Passing spaces: The width of the boardwalk is compliant as it is 48 inches and the minimum accessible width is 36 inches (Section 11B-403.5.1). The issue with the boardwalk design is that an accessible route with a clear width of less than 60 inches requires passing spaces at intervals of 200 feet (Section 11B-403.5.3). Although there are two such passing spaces (see figure A4), the passing spaces are located at intervals too far apart to meet code. The first one is at a compliant length (approx. 180’), but the second (approx. 410’), and the third (approx. 230’) do not meet code. In addition, the passing lanes that do exist do not meet code. The requirement is either a 60 inch square passing lane or a T-shaped space that is 48 inches square. The existing passing lanes include benches that prevent the minimum clear width. 7. Resting areas: The boardwalk is required to have resting areas at least 60 inches in length, with a width at least as wide as the walk, at intervals no more than 400’ apart (Section 11B-403.7). The existing boardwalk does contain these resting areas (see figure A4), but they do not have the required width. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 3 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Access Repair/Replacement Options Repair: Repair consists of minor improvements to make the boardwalk structurally sound and generally safe. From an access compliance perspective, repairing the boardwalk is very difficult because of the variety of access compliance issues that require significant attention and repair work. So many boardwalk components would require replacement to make the boardwalk code compliant it would not be logical from a cost benefit analysis. The non-compliant slopes would need to be adjusted and all the handrails and guardrails would need to be replaced. Significant work to, and replacement of, the planks to eliminate non-compliant cross slopes and eliminate the vertical and horizontal gaps in the walking surface would be required. More passing spaces and code compliant resting spaces would need to be added. Repair is not recommended. Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation consists of keeping the majority of the structural components that are not damaged intact. This would consist of all the repair items listed in the repair option With new guardrails, handrails and planks, replacement of the damaged structural posts and the addition of new passing spaces and resting areas rehabilitation is a sensible option that would add another 20+ years to the life of the boardwalk (at least from an access compliance standpoint). Replacement: Replacement consists of replacing the boardwalk in entirety. From an access compliance perspective this is the best option and allows for the greatest compliance to code and ability to accommodate users that have access challenges that are not strictly required by code. It would allow for more passing spaces, more comfortable boardwalk width, more resting areas (this is a long boardwalk for people with access issues), deck materials could be used that have a greater longevity, the deck at the end of the boardwalk could be designed to support a class of school children, and sea level rise issues could be addressed. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 4 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Figure A1 Figure A2 Figure A3 Figure A4 Attachment D Baylands Boardwalk As%Built Structure Plans Attachment E. Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Cost X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPAIR OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:180'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=720 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 610 $7.50 $4,575.00 2 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 140 $25.00 $3,500.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 11 $400.00 $4,400.00 4 REPAIR DAMAGED POSTS EA 8 $750.00 $6,000.00 SUBTOTAL $18,475 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$1,848 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $20,323 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $3,048 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $5,081 supplemental repairs, small size, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $28,452 material selection, etc.BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$28,452 ESCALATION FACTOR (@30%)(See Comment 3) $8,535 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$36,987 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $30,000 $40,000 X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REHABILITATION OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=4,073 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 TEMPORARY SUPPORTS LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 2 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 2,940 $7.50 $22,050.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 700 $25.00 $17,500.00 4 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 76 $400.00 $30,400.00 5 REPAIR DAMAGED POST EA 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 6 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,759 $50.00 $87,950.00 7 REMOVE AND REPLACE GUARDRAILING FT 1,759 $45.00 $79,155.00 8 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER POST EA 76 $2,250.00 $171,000.00 9 LEVEL EXIST WALKWAY LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL $554,555 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$55,456 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $610,011 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $91,502 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $152,503 structure height, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $854,015 material selection, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$854,015 ESCALATION FACTOR (@20%)(See Comment 3) $170,803 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,024,818 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $860,000 $1,030,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 214,000 257,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 129,000 154,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 171,000 205,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 880,000 1,056,000 2 YEAR 907,000 1,088,000 3 YEAR 934,000 1,120,000 4 YEAR 962,000 1,154,000 5 YEAR 991,000 1,189,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REHABILITATION OPTION 2 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=4,073 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BENT CAP LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 2,940 $7.50 $22,050.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 700 $25.00 $17,500.00 4 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 76 $400.00 $30,400.00 5 REPAIR DAMAGED POST EA 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 6 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,759 $50.00 $87,950.00 7 REMOVE AND REPLACE GUARDRAILING FT 1,759 $45.00 $79,155.00 8 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM FT 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 9 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 220 $850.00 $187,000.00 10 LEVEL EXIST WALKWAY LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL $564,755 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$56,476 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $621,231 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $93,185 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $155,308 structure height, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $869,723 material selection, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$869,723 ESCALATION FACTOR (@20%)(See Comment 3) $173,945 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,043,667 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $870,000 $1,050,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 218,000 261,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 131,000 157,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 174,000 209,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 896,000 1,075,000 2 YEAR 923,000 1,108,000 3 YEAR 951,000 1,141,000 4 YEAR 979,000 1,175,000 5 YEAR 1,009,000 1,210,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPLACEMENT OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:5' 6"AREA (SF)=4,958 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BOARDWALK SQFT 4,013 $20.00 $80,260.00 2 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 230 $850.00 $195,500.00 3 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM EA 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 4 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 4,625 $20.00 $92,500.00 5 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 6 FURNISH AND INSTALL GUARD RAILING FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 SUBTOTAL $589,540 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$58,954 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $648,494 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $97,274 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $162,124 structure width, depth, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $907,892 overlook/observation platform size, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$907,892 ESCALATION FACTOR (@25%)(See Comment 3) $226,973 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,134,865 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $910,000 $1,140,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 227,000 284,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 137,000 171,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 182,000 227,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 936,000 1,169,000 2 YEAR 964,000 1,204,000 3 YEAR 993,000 1,241,000 4 YEAR 1,022,000 1,278,000 5 YEAR 1,053,000 1,316,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPLACEMENT OPTION 2 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:5' 6"AREA (SF)=4,958 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BOARDWALK SQFT 4,013 $20.00 $80,260.00 2 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 230 $850.00 $195,500.00 3 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM EA 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 4 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER STRINGERS SQFT 4,625 $10.00 $46,250.00 5 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER DECKING SQFT 4,625 $7.50 $34,687.50 6 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 7 FURNISH AND INSTALL GUARD RAILING FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 SUBTOTAL $577,978 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$57,798 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $635,775 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $95,366 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $158,944 structure width, depth, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $890,085 overlook/observation platform size, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$890,085 ESCALATION FACTOR (@25%)(See Comment 3) $222,521 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,112,607 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $890,000 $1,110,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 223,000 279,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 134,000 167,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 179,000 223,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 917,000 1,146,000 2 YEAR 945,000 1,181,000 3 YEAR 973,000 1,216,000 4 YEAR 1,002,000 1,253,000 5 YEAR 1,032,000 1,290,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS DATE: MARCH 22, 2016 SUBJECT: PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL 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 Master Plan. The 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. The Master Plan process consists of three phases: Phase 1) Analysis and community input; Phase 2) Recommendations and prioritization; and Phase 3) Master Plan drafting and adoption. The planning process is currently focused on the second phase of the Master Plan developing and prioritizing recommendations for the overall parks and recreation system as well as drafting revised and new policies that will support the recommendations. DISCUSSION This report is a continuation of the discussion from the February 23, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting regarding Master Plan policy development. An updated draft policy list is being brought back to the commission for further review and discussion. The Master Plan Ad Hoc committee has completed an initial review of the revised policies. To assist with the development of the policies, the Ad Hoc committee and staff have further refined the definition of a policy for the purpose of the Master Plan. The proposed revised definition is: A values-based framework that provides clear direction and guides an action or actions toward achieving a goal. The draft policies include comments provided by the commissioners (Attachment A), which have been incorporated into the revised policy document (Attachment B & C). Several policies have been identified that need additional discussion and resolution with the commission. Policies that require further commission discussion include the following: 1.B - Retain the standard of five acres of park land per 1,000 residents for developed parks and follow best practices for measuring service levels. This standard does not include developed or undeveloped open spaces. Proposed Recommendation: The purpose of this policy is to increase parkland as population growth increases. Due to the lack of available land and the high cost of property values, this policy will be difficult to realize. The recommendation is to revise the policy to one that is more realistic and attainable, while still increasing parkland over time. 1.C was 1.D – Ensure the maximum distance between residents’ homes and the nearest public park or preserve is ½-mile, ¼-mile preferred, that is evaluated using a walkshed methodology based on how people travel. Proposed Recommendation: The policy has been revised to only call out having a park within a ½ mile service area. Specific park amenities: play experiences, picnic areas, community gardens, and dog parks have been removed from this policy. The project team will develop proposed site plans for each park that will locate these specific amenities per factors within the parks themselves, which will be reviewed by the PRC. Additional policies are proposed for dog parks and restrooms that are further discussed in the separate reports presented at the meeting. 2.C – Design and maintain high quality turf fields with adequate time for resting to support maximum use in parks by multiple organized sports and casual users with areas large enough for practice or play. Invest in tournament-quality high-wear sports field turf (see Natural vs. Synthetic Turf Analysis) at designated sports fields used full time for sports where lighting is possible. Policy Direction Needed: Should the policy be written to encourage more synthetic turf, to retain existing synthetic turf and replace it, to exclude synthetic turf, or to consider it on a case-by-case basis? Synthetic Turf The synthetic turf industry is rapidly evolving. New and improved products are continually being developed with a movement towards improved play conditions, improved player safety, cooler temperatures, and more environmentally friendly materials. Proposed Recommendation: ● Continue to monitor and track industry developments and the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic turf in order to: 1. understand the environmental and human safety impacts of our existing synthetic turf fields; 2. determine if the City should continue to use synthetic turf where we currently have synthetic turf fields, and whether the City should consider expanding its use of synthetic turf; 3. determine which type of synthetic turf product to use when it comes time to replace an existing synthetic turf field. ● Sustain the existing synthetic turf fields, and, as they need to be replaced, use the information learned from industry developments, scientific studies, and best practices from leaders in the field to select the most appropriate products (Re- evaluate this policy based on the analysis from reputable scientific studies). ● Whenever possible, synthetic turf playing fields should have lights in order to maximize use of the field. ● Synthetic turf fields should be striped for multiple sports to maximize use. Natural grass playing fields The City should invest in its natural grass playing fields in an effort to provide a safe and high quality playing experience. Proposed Recommendation: ● The City should hire a sports turf consultant to complete an athletic fields master plan, in an effort to improve the condition and sustainability of the City’s natural grass fields. The report should include analysis and recommendations regarding the soil profile, agronomy, irrigation systems, field slope, drainage, field-use demand, and maintenance. ● The City should review the various improvement options recommended in the athletic field master plan, and fund the appropriate improvements. 2.E was 2.D – Policy Direction Needed: Should the Master Plan retain existing policy (requiring dogs to be on-leash) and strongly push for building more off-leash areas OR should it change the policy to allow dogs off-leash during specified hours in some parks. In either case, the policy should continue to exclude off-leash dogs from open space preserves. Proposed Recommendation: Refer to Draft Dog Park Policy Report ATTACHMENTS A. Revised Draft Policies (Clean version) B. Revised Draft Policies (Red line) C. Commissioner Policy Comments Summary Spreadsheet NEXT STEPS A City Council Study Session tentatively scheduled in May 16 will review the master planning process activities completed to date and obtain feedback on the goal and policies. 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. PREPARED BY Peter Jensen Landscape Architect City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT ‘A’ DRAFT POLICIES Overview The project team has also been working on developing policies that will give overarching direction to City staff and the PRC, and will also provide a foundation for the projects and programs that will be included in the Master Plan. A cross-departmental work session was convened on January 25, 2015 to review and provide feedback on the draft policies. This document provides each of the six goals, accompanied by the relevant areas of focus and policies. The goals are numbered 1 through 6. Under each goal, the policies are numbered for reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, etc). The definition of a policy is a course or principle of action that provides clear guidance regarding recreation program provision, park maintenance and operations or future renovations and capital improvement needs for parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities. Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. Areas of Focus Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities Policies 1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision of programs and services and the facilitation of partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that: o Advance skills, build community and improve the quality of life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth and teens; and o Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased number of locations that are well distributed throughout the city. 1.B Retain the standard of five acres of park land per 1,000 residents for developed parks and follow best practices for measuring service levels. This standard does not include developed or undeveloped open spaces. Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 2 o Ensure the maximum distance between residents’ homes and the nearest public park or preserve is ½-mile, ¼-mile preferred, that is evaluated using a walkshed methodology based on how people travel. 1.C Adopt the wayfinding signage used at Rinconada Park as the standard for Palo Alto parks and provide standardized directory signs for all large parks, preserves and athletic field complexes. 1.D Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. 1.E Continue to apply the Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy as well as the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well as any subsequent updates) to guide the allocation of these recreation facilities with a preference for youth and Palo Alto residents. 1.F Encourage walking and biking as a way of getting to and from parks, supporting implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. 1.G Incorporate diversity in projects and programs to encourage and enhance citizen participation. 1.H Increase volunteerism by creating and promoting opportunities for youth and adults to participate in parks, recreation, open space events, projects and programs.. 1.I Periodically collect and evaluate data on the changing needs of the community and adjust programs and plans accordingly. 1.J Explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for non-residents. Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. Areas of Focus Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs Policies 2.A Sustain the community’s investment in recreation facilities. . 2.B Provide opportunities for creative expression in park and recreation facilities and programs. 2.C Design and maintain high quality turf fields with adequate time for resting to support maximum use in parks by multiple organized sports and casual users with areas large enough for practice or play. Invest in tournament-quality high-wear sports field turf (see Natural vs. Synthetic Turf Analysis) at designated sports fields used full time for sports where lighting is possible. Policy Direction Needed: Should the policy be written to encourage more synthetic turf, to retain existing synthetic turf and replace it, to exclude synthetic turf, or to consider it on a case-by-case basis? Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 3 2.D Policy Direction Needed: Should the Master Plan retain existing policy (requiring dogs to be on-leash) and strongly push for building more off-leash areas OR should it change the policy to allow dogs off-leash during specified hours in some parks. In either case, the policy should continue to exclude off-leash dogs from open space preserves. Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. Areas of Focus Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs Policies 3.A I Implement the City’s Healthy City Healthy Community resolution with the community’s involvement. (reword to be a policy and have specific programs for implementation 3.B Incorporate artistic expression into park design and recreation programming (consistent with the Art Master Plan). 3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are provided in lieu of park fees meet Palo Alto design guidelines and standards for publicly owned parks, allow public access, and are designed to support self-directed exercise and fitness. Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. Areas of Focus Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks Policies 4.A Incorporate nature into recreation programs to connect youth and adults to the outdoors and introduce outdoor skills. 4.B Connect natural areas, open spaces and contiguous vegetated areas in parks and on public land as wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with species that support pollinators or provide habitat values. 4.C Prioritize development of comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation, and environmental education. 4.D Support regional efforts to control the spread of invasive species and plant pathogens. 4.E Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks. Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 4 Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. Areas of Focus Expanding the system Offering more of the existing programs, classes, events Policies 5.A Identify and pursue strategies to activate underused parks and Recreation facilities 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and park features and amenities. 5.C Expand the overall parks system through repurposing public land, partnering with other organizations for shared land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops and other creative means to help address shortages of available land. 5.D Explore and experiment with parklets and other temporary park spaces for both long and short-term uses. 5.E Encourage new parks and identified neighborhood needs as part of the Development Agreement process for new residential and commercial developments. 5.F Enhance partnerships and collaborations with Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University to support access and joint use of facilities where appropriate for effective delivery of services and programs. 5.G Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation programming, capital improvement projects and facility maintenance. 5.H Partner with Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District and other land conservation groups to expand access to open space through new acquisitions and improved connections. 5.I Encourage new parks and identified neighborhood needs as part of the development agreement process. Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Policies 6.A Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for recreation programs, refining the cost figures and expectations using the most current information available. 6.B Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an entire park site) for events by outside organizations that are closed to the general public. 6.C Periodically review and update existing guidance for development, operations, and maintenance of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces, and Recreation system based on the best practices in the industry and this Master Plan, including: o Park Rules and Regulations; o Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook; o City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards; and o Tree Technical Manual. Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 5 6.D Incorporate sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management, and development of open spaces, parks, and recreation facilities where consistent with ecological best practices. 6.E Continue with the Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) policy as written. While some parks may be managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded in the Best Available Science on pest prevention and management. 6.F Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality standards. 6.G Continue to coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans, including: o Urban Forest Master Plan; o Urban Water Master Plan; o Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP); o Water Reclamation Master Plan; o Recycled Water Project; o Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan o Comprehensive Plan; and o Others adopted in the future. 6.H Continue to involve other relevant City departments and divisions in planning, design and programming, drawing on the unique and specialized skills and perspectives of: o The Palo Alto Art Center; o Library, including Children’s Library; o Junior Museum and Zoo; o Children’s Theatre; o Public Art; o Transportation; o Urban Forestry; o Planning; and o Public Works. 6.I Participate in and support implementation of regional plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space and trails, such as: o 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision; o Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and o Land Use Near Streams in Santa Clara County. ATTACHMENT ‘B’ DRAFT POLICIES Overview The project team has also been working on developing policies that will give overarching direction to City staff and the PRC, and will also provide a foundation for the projects and programs that will be included in the Master Plan. A cross-departmental work session was convened on January 25, 2015 to review and provide feedback on the draft policies. This document provides each of the six goals, accompanied by the relevant areas of focus and policies. The goals are numbered 1 through 6. Under each goal, the policies are numbered for reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, etc). The definition of a policy is a course or principle of action that provides clear guidance regarding recreation program provision, park maintenance and operations or future renovations and capital improvement needs for parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities. Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto. Areas of Focus Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities Policies 1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision of programs and services and the facilitation of partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that: o Advance skills, build community and improve the quality of life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth and teens; and o Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased number of locations and that are well distributed evenly throughout the city. 1.B Retain the standard of five acres of park land per 1,000 residents for developed parks and follow best practices for measuring service levels. This standard does not include developed or undeveloped open spaces. Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 2 1.C1.A Evaluate park service areas to maintain accessibility by applying a walkshed methodology that evaluates how people travel to parks and recreation facilities on the street and trail system. 1.D1.A Adopt the following service areasEnsure the maximum distance between residents’ homes and the nearest public park or preserve is ½-mile, ¼-mile preferred, that is evaluated using a walkshed methodology based on how people travel. as the desired maximum distance between residents’ homes and the nearest park or recreation facility, in order of priority: o Public park or preserve: ½-mile, ¼-mile preferred; o Play experiences: ¼-mile; o Picnic shelter, picnic area or amphitheater: ½-mile; o Community garden: one mile; and o Dog park: one mile. 1.E1.C Adopt the wayfinding signage used at Rinconada Park as the standard for Palo Alto parks and provide standardized directory signs for all large parks, preserves and athletic field complexes. 1.F1.D Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. 1.G1.E Continue to apply the Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy as well as the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well as any subsequent updates) to guide the allocation of these recreation facilities with a preference for youth and Palo Alto residents. 1.H1.F Encourage walking and biking as the preferred method of as a way of getting to and from parks, supporting implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. 1.I1.G Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and programs to encourage and enhance citizen participation. 1.J1.H Increase volunteerism by Ccreatinge and promotinge opportunities for youth and adults to participate in parks, recreation, open space events, projects and programs. through volunteerism. 1.K1.A Affirm the Child’s Right to Play adopted by the International Play Association alongside the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child in a play policy recognizing: o Play is a part of education; o Play is an essential part of family and community life; o Children need opportunities to play at leisure; and o The needs of the child must have priority in the planning of human settlements. 1.L1.A Explore and support the City’s potential designation as an AARP Age-Friendly Community. 1.I Periodically collect and evaluate data on the changing needs of the community and adjust programs and plans accordingly. 1.J Explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for non-residents. Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services. Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 3 Areas of Focus Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs Policies 2.A Sustain the community’s investment in recreation facilities. by completing all “Catch Up” projects identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations and continuing to budget adequate funding for “Keep Up” projects. 2.A2.B Provide opportunities for creative expression in park and recreation facilities and programs. 2.B2.A Strive to provide the following features in every public park, appropriately scaled for the size and intended character of each site: o Provide restrooms except where alternatives (adjacent businesses or public facilities) exist or site is under 1 acre in size; o Provide a looped walking path or hiking trail within the site or around its perimeter; o Provide an open lawn area suited for flexible play and uses; and o Provide an active recreation facility (e.g., bocce, pickleball, basketball, tennis, skate park, athletic field, climbing wall, playground structure). 2.C Design and maintain high quality turf fields with adequate time for resting to support maximum use in parks by multiple organized sports and casual users with areas large enough for practice or play. Invest in tournament-quality high-wear sports field turf (see Natural vs. Synthetic Turf Analysis) at designated sports fields used full time for sports where lighting is possible. Policy Direction Needed: Should the policy be written to encourage more synthetic turf, to retain existing synthetic turf and replace it, to exclude synthetic turf, or to consider it on a case-by-case basis? 2.D Policy Direction Needed: Should the Master Plan retain existing policy (requiring dogs to be on-leash) and strongly push for building more off-leash areas OR should it change the policy to allow dogs off-leash during specified hours in some parks. In either case, the policy should continue to exclude off-leash dogs from open space preserves. Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections. Areas of Focus Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 4 Policies 3.A With the community iI Implement the City’s Healthy City Healthy Community resolution with the community’s involvement. (reword to be a policy and have specific programs for implementation 3.B Incorporate artistic expression into park design and recreation programming (consistent with the Art Master Plan). 3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are provided in lieu of park fees meet Palo Alto design guidelines and standards for publicly owned parks, allow public access, including Master Plan policies 1.C, 1.D and 2.B and are designed to support self-directed exercise and fitness. Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and iIntegrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto. Areas of Focus Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks Policies 4.A Incorporate nature into recreation programs to connect youth and adults to the outdoors and introduce outdoor skills. 4.B Connect natural areas, open spaces and contiguous vegetated areas in parks and on public land as wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with species that support pollinators or provide habitat values. 4.C Prioritize development of comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive recreation, and environmental education. 4.D Support regional efforts to control the spread of invasive species and plant pathogens. 4.B4.E Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks. 4.C4.A Reduce the urban heat island effect in Palo Alto by using asphalt and concrete only where necessary, using pervious surfaces where feasible and expanding tree canopy in parks in accordance with the Urban Forestry Master Plan. 4.D4.A Explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for non-residents. 4.E4.A Update the City’s ecosystem management and planning to account for the ongoing hotter and drier climate by applying ambient rainwater standards (currently used in open spaces) to urban parks. Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. Areas of Focus Expanding the system Offering more of the existing programs, classes, events Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 5 Policies 5.A Refine Special Event programming within Community ServicesIdentify and pursue strategies to activate underused parks and Recreation facilities . on a more regular basis. This includes developing a series of smaller scale events held at more locations, more frequently. 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and park features and amenities. by: o Creating an exception to cost recovery and performance requirements for the first full year of a new program; o Reviewing program data based on clearly communicated objectives for reach, impact, attendance and financial performance; o Retiring, ending or refreshing programs that require staff, facility and financial resources but do not achieve program objectives, thereby freeing up resources for new programs; and o Actively developing a small number of pilot programs each year to test new ideas, locations and target audiences. 5.C5.A Designate park-like spaces at public facilities (such as the King Plaza at City Hall, the Secret Garden at the Children’s Theatre, outdoor spaces at the Art Center and libraries) as Public Spaces to recognize their role in providing space for recreation programming, informal park activities and enhancements to public health. 5.D5.C Expand the overall parks system through repurposing public land, partnering with other organizations for shared land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops and other creative means to help address shortages of available land. 5.E5.D Allow and encourageExplore and experiment with parklets and other temporary park spaces for both long and short-term uses. 5.F5.E Encourage new parks and identified neighborhood needs as part of the Development Agreement process for new residential and commercial developments. 5.G5.A Explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for non-residents. 5.F Continue Enhance partnerships and collaborations with Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University to support access and joint use of facilities where appropriate for effective delivery of services and programs. 5.G Facilitate partnerships and sponsorships with corporate entities for funding and to support recreation programming and capital projects. Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation programming, capital improvement projects and facility maintenance. 5.H Partner with Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District and other land conservation groups to expand access to open space through new acquisitions and improved connections. 5.I Encourage new parks and identified neighborhood needs as part of the development agreement process. Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures. Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 6 Policies 6.A Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for recreation programs, refining the cost figures and expectations using the most current information available. 6.B Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an entire park site) for events by outside organizations that are closed to the general public. 6.C6.A Facilitate partnerships and sponsorships with corporate entities for funding and to support recreation programming and capital projects. 6.D6.A Expand the memorial program to include additional options for donations to support low-maintenance park features in memory of a person or event. All memorial fees should include a fully loaded endowment and clear expectations for maintenance following the model of the memorial bench program. 6.E6.C Periodically review and uUpdate existing guidance for development, operations, and maintenance of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces, and Recreation system based on the best practices in the industry and this Master Plan, including: o Park Rules and Regulations; o Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook; o City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards; and o Tree Technical Manual. 6.D Incorporate sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management, and development of open spaces, parks, and recreation facilities where consistent with ecological best practices. 6.F6.A Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including allocating funding to retrofit facilities for energy efficiency with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and low-emissive window glass where applicable and sustainable. 6.G6.E Continue with the Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) policy as written. While some parks may be managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded in the Best Available Science on pest prevention and management. 6.H6.A Reduce the amount of waste produced at park facilities and by park operations. 6.I6.A Reduce GHG emissions produced by Department equipment and fleet. 6.J6.F Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality standards. 6.K6.A Provide leadership in water conservation. 6.L6.G Continue to coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans, including: o Urban Forest Master Plan; o Urban Water Master Plan; o Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP); o Water Reclamation Master Plan; o Recycled Water Project; o Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan o Comprehensive Plan; and o Others adopted in the future. 6.M6.H Continue to involve other relevant City departments and divisions in planning, design and programming, drawing on the unique and specialized skills and perspectives of: o The Palo Alto Art Center; Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 7 o Library, including Children’s Library; o Junior Museum and Zoo; o Children’s Theatre; o Public Art; o Transportation; o Urban Forestry; and o Planning; and. o Public Works. 6.N6.I Participate in and support implementation of regional plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space and trails, such as: o 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision; o Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and o Land Use Near Streams in Santa Clara County. ATTACHMENT 'C' No change or minor change Deleted or moved to program Policy kept with significant changes Need further PRC discussion Policy Summary of comment(s)Best Practice Program Staff changes 1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision of programs and services and the facilitation of partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that: o Advance skills, build community and improve the quality of life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth; and o Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased number of locations and distributed evenly throughout the city.Not a policy as written. Applie pie statement. Needs something measurable. Made commissioner recommended edits to language. Keep as policy. 1.B Retain the standard of five acres of park land per 1,000 residents for developed parks and follow best practices for measuring service levels. This standard does not include developed or undeveloped open spaces. Needs further PRC discussion. If it is not attainable or unrealistic then consider alernatives including focusing on high density areas that currently lack public park and rec spaces. Needs PRC discussion. Should align with Comp plan. 1.C Evaluate park service areas to maintain accessibility by applying a walkshed methodology that evaluates how people travel to parks and recreation facilities on the street and trail system.What is the meaning of this? Delete. Combined with 1.D then deleted. 1.D Adopt the following service areas as the desired maximum distance between residents’ homes and the nearest park or recreation facility, in order of priority: o Public park or preserve: ½‐mile, ¼‐mile preferred; o Play experiences: ¼‐mile; o Picnic shelter, picnic area or amphitheater: ½‐mile; o Community garden: one mile; and o Dog park: one mile. Needs further PRC discussion. 1 mile is too far for a dog park. Added language from 1.C. Needs PRC discussion. 1.E Adopt the wayfinding signage used at Rinconada Park as the standard for Palo Alto parks and provide standardized directory signs for all large parks, preserves and athletic field complexes.Keep as policy (EL) X (KH) X (JH) None 1.F Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Keep as policy X None 1.G Continue to apply the Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy as well as the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well as any subsequent updates) to guide the allocation of these recreation facilities with a preference for youth and Palo Alto residents. Keep as policy None 1.H Encourage walking and biking as the preferred method of getting to and from parks, supporting implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Suggest deleting. Not needed. Excludes those who can't walk or bike. Deleted "as the preferred method". Added Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan to Policy 6.L. 1.I Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and programs to encourage citizen participation. Keep as policy X Kept policy. Made PRC suggested language revisions. 1.J Create and promote opportunities for youth and adults to participate in parks, recreation, open space events, projects and programs through volunteerism. Not helpful, apple pie. Needs measures. Kept policy. Made PRC suggested language revisions. 1.K Affirm the Child’s Right to Play adopted by the International Play Association alongside the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child in a play policy recognizing: o Play is a part of education; o Play is an essential part of family and community life; o Children need opportunities to play at leisure; and o The needs of the child must have priority in the planning of human settlements. Suggest deleting. Unclear. What does it mean? What would be done? Deleted 1.L Explore and support the City’s potential designation as an AARP Age‐Friendly Community. Wants more information as to what this means. Not a policy, staff project. Suggest deleting. Deleted 2.A Sustain the community’s investment in recreation facilities by completing all “Catch Up” projects identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations and continuing to budget adequate funding for “Keep Up” projects. Make this a program under another policy; e.g., "Sustain the community’s investment in recreation facilities." Using the IBRC report as a foundation, evaluate “Catch up” and “Keep Up” projects for relevancy to the current and future needs of Palo Alto residents. Could also add program about developing an Asset Management Program. X (JH) Policy revised to state, "Sustain the community’s investment in recreation facilities." Add IBRC recommendations as a program. Add development of an asset management program as a program. 2.B Strive to provide the following features in every public park, appropriately scaled for the size and intended character of each site: o Provide restrooms except where alternatives (adjacent businesses or public facilities) exist or site is under 1 acre in size; o Provide a looped walking path or hiking trail within the site or around its perimeter; o Provide an open lawn area suited for flexible play and uses; and o Provide an active recreation facility (e.g., bocce, pickleball, basketball, tennis, skate park, athletic field, climbing wall). Needs further evaluation/PRC discussion. Add playground structures to last bullet. X Needs PRC discussion. 2.C Design and maintain high quality turf fields with adequate time for resting to support maximum use in parks by multiple organized sports and casual users with areas large enough for practice or play. Invest in tournament‐quality high‐wear sports field turf (see Natural vs. Synthetic Turf Analysis) at designated sports fields used full time for sports where lighting is possible. Policy Direction Needed: Should the policy be written to encourage more synthetic turf, to retain existing synthetic turf and replace it, to exclude synthetic turf, or to consider it on a case‐by‐case basis? Needs further evaluation/PRC discussion. Consider on a case‐by‐case basis due to improving technology on synthetic turf and improvement of natural turf varieties. Need to know cost to city (initial and ongoing maintenance), water usage, environmental impacts. Needs PRC discussion. 2.D Policy Direction Needed: Should the Master Plan retain existing policy (requiring dogs to be on‐leash) and strongly push for building more off‐leash areas OR should it change the policy to allow dogs off‐leash during specified hours in some parks. In either case, the policy should continue to exclude off‐leash dogs from open space preserves. Needs further evaluation/PRC discussion. Retain existing policy. Push for more off‐leash areas with proper amenities distributed evenly across city. Needs PRC discussion. 3.A With the community implement the City’s Healthy City Healthy Community resolution Does this need to be a policy since it is already a resolution? What does "community implement" mean? X (JH) Kept, but with language change. Create programs to collaborate with the stakeholder group and complete resolution objectives. 3.B Incorporate artistic expression into park design and recreation programming (consistent with the Art Master Plan). Keep as policy. Add "including climbable art".X None 3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are provided in lieu of park fees meet Palo Alto design guidelines and standards for publicly owned parks, including Master Plan policies 1.C, 1.D and 2.B and are designed to support self‐directed exercise and fitness. Keep as policy, but needs further PRC discussion. Ensure continued public access. Provide a mandatory directive to all future development projects that any outdoor spaces include recreation and conservation component. Kept, but with language changes. Deleted reference to other Master Plan policies. Generally supported, but needs PRC discussion. 4.A Incorporate nature into recreation programs to connect youth and adults to the outdoors and introduce outdoor skills. Keep as policy. What is meant by outdoor skills?X None 4.B Connect natural areas, open spaces and contiguous vegetated areas in parks and on public land as wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with species that support pollinators or provide habitat values. Needs measures/specific actions. Add regional trails. X None 4.C Reduce the urban heat island effect in Palo Alto by using asphalt and concrete only where necessary, using pervious surfaces where feasible and expanding tree canopy in parks in accordance with the Urban Forestry Master Plan. XXMove as a program under new sustainability policy in Goal 6. 4.D Explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for non‐residents. Needs further PRC discussion. Moved to Goal 1. Needs PRC discussion. 4.E Update the City’s ecosystem management and planning to account for the ongoing hotter and drier climate by applying ambient rainwater standards (currently used in open spaces) to urban parks. Part best practice and part program. Needs specific actions. What are ambient rainwater standards? XX (JH) Deleted as a policy. Move as a program under new sustainability policy in Goal 6. Changed language to be clear on what this is (drought tolerant plants) 5.A Refine Special Event programming within Community Services to activate parks on a more regular basis. This includes developing a series of smaller scale events held at more locations, more frequently. Program. Policy would be more like: Pursue strategies to activate underused parks. XX (JH)Revised policy per PRC comment. Move example to a program. 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming by: o Creating an exception to cost recovery and performance requirements for the first full year of a new program; o Reviewing program data based on clearly communicated objectives for reach, impact, attendance and financial performance; o Retiring, ending or refreshing programs that require staff, facility and financial resources but do not achieve program objectives, thereby freeing up resources for new programs; and o Actively developing a small number of pilot programs each year to test new ideas, locations and target audiences. Keep "support innovation in recreation programming" as policy. Make bullets programs. Program advocates should estimate impact. XX (JH) Revised policy per PRC comment. Move bullets to programs. 5.C Designate park‐like spaces at public facilities (such as the King Plaza at City Hall, the Secret Garden at the Children’s Theatre, outdoor spaces at the Art Center and libraries) as Public Spaces to recognize their role in providing space for recreation programming, informal park activities and enhancements to public health. Some concern. What does it mean to designate as a "public space?" Staff project not policy. Needs PRC discussion. 5.D Expand the overall parks system through repurposing public land, incorporating public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops and other creative means to help address shortages of available land. Needs specific actions. None 5.E Allow and encourage parklets and other temporary park spaces for both long and short‐ term uses. Delete "and encourage." Does this city not allow this now? If not, why? Kept, but with language changes. 5.F Encourage new parks and identified neighborhood needs as part of the Development Agreement process. Keep as policy, but needs clarification on what this means. Kept, but with language changes. Staff added "for new residential and commercial developments." 5.G Explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for non‐residents. Delete. Already mentioned and not an expansion. Included twice so deleted here. Moved to goal 1 for futher PRC discussion. 5.H Continue partnerships and collaborations with Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University to support access and joint use of facilities where appropriate for effective delivery of services and programs. Replace continue with enhance. Maybe not a policy. Kept, but with language changes. Replaced continue with enhance. 6.A Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for recreation programs, refining the cost figures and expectations using the most current information available. Keep as policy. None 6.B Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an entire park site) for events by outside organizations that are closed to the general public. Suggest deleting. Can be case by case. Does it generate revenue? How often does this happen? Why a policy? Director approves permits anyway. Kept, but staff to continue discussions on whether this is needed. 6.C Facilitate partnerships and sponsorships with corporate entities for funding and to support recreation programming and capital projects. These could be programs under a policy to pursue additional/private funding sources for programming, capital projects and maintenance. Other programs could include more frequent updates to the in‐lieu fee formula to reflect real estate values, or a “% for parks” applied to commercial development. Could move to Goal 5. Moved to Goal 5 and revised policy to "Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation programming, capital improvement projects and facility maintenance". Add specifics to a program(s). 6.D Expand the memorial program to include additional options for donations to support low‐ maintenance park features in memory of a person or event. All memorial fees should include a fully loaded endowment and clear expectations for maintenance following the model of the memorial bench program. These could be programs under a policy to pursue additional/private funding sources for programming, capital projects and maintenance. Other programs could include more frequent updates to the in‐lieu fee formula to reflect real estate values, or a “% for parks” applied to commercial development. Could move to Goal 5. Have limitations. Deleted as a policy, but add as a program under revised 6.C (now 5.I) 6.E Update existing guidance for development, operations, and maintenance of Palo Alto’s PTNOSR system based on the best practices in the industry and this Master Plan, including: o Park Rules and Regulations; o Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook; o City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards; and o Tree Technical Manual. PRC hasn't reviewed the information in the bullets. Add "Periodically review and…" to beginning of policy. X Kept with language changes per commissioner comments. 6.F Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including allocating funding to retrofit facilities for energy efficiency with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and low‐ emissive window glass where applicable and sustainable. X Deleted as a policy. Move as a program under new sustainability policy. 6.G Continue with the Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) policy as written. While some parks may be managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded in the Best Available Science on pest prevention and management.What are the issues? X None 6.H Reduce the amount of waste produced at park facilities and by park operations. Programs. Could go under a more general policy about sustainability.XX (JH)Deleted as a policy. Move as a program under new sustainability policy. 6.I Reduce GHG emissions produced by Department equipment and fleet. Programs. Could go under a more general policy about sustainability.XX (JH)Deleted as a policy. Move as a program under new sustainability policy. 6.J Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality standards. X None 6.K Provide leadership in water conservation. X Deleted as a policy. Revise language and move as a program under new sustainability policy. 6.L Continue to coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans, including: o Urban Forest Master Plan; o Urban Water Master Plan; o Long‐term electric acquisition plan (LEAP); o Water Reclamation Master Plan; o Recycled Water Project; o Comprehensive Plan; and o Others adopted in the future. Not necessary. Not a policy. X Needs staff discussion. 6.M Continue to involve other relevant City departments and divisions in planning, design and programming, drawing on the unique and specialized skills and perspectives of: o The Palo Alto Art Center; o Library, including Children’s Library; o Junior Museum and Zoo; o Children’s Theatre; o Public Art; o Transportation; o Urban Forestry; and o Planning. Not necessary. Not a policy. X Needs staff discussion. 6.N Participate in and support implementation of regional plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space and trails, such as: o 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision; o Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and o Land Use Near Streams in Santa Clara County. Not a policy. Add regional trails such as SFB Trail, Bay Ridge Trail, Bay to the Sea Trail and regional bike routes. Needs staff discussion. NEW PROPOSED POLICIES 1.L Add policy about keeping abreast of changing needs of the community? Programs could include periodically reviewing barriers to participation or changes in usage patterns or demographics? JH EL Defintely not a policy! Added to Goal 1. 1.M Add policy about optimizing participation by teens and/or seniors? JH EL NO. We have to optmize for MANY groups Added to Goal 1. 4. a. Add policy supporting/prioritizing comprehensive conservation plans for Foothills and Arastradero. JH EL It feels like a program to me. Added to Goal 4. Support regional efforts to control and eradicate invasive species and plant pathogens. (DM) EL IF it is a regional effort we support it is a best practice Added to Goal 4. Partner with Mid‐peninsula Regional Open Space District and other land conservation groups to expand access to open space through new acquisitions and improved connections. EL Would need lots of discussion. How does this benefits PA Parks?? Added to Goal 5. TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: MARCH 22, 2016 SUBJECT: PARK RESTROOM POLICY FOR THE PARKS MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) recommend the following policy regarding park restrooms be included in the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan: Policy: The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms in parks that are approximately two acres or larger, have amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the park, have high level of use, and where there aren’t nearby public restrooms available. The following program will support the park restroom policy: Program: The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the following potential locations: 1.Bol Park 2.Bowden Park 3.Eleanor Pardee Park4.Johnson Park 5.Ramos Park 6.Robles Park 7.Terman Park DISCUSSION On February, 23, 2016, Parks and Recreation Commission briefly discussed the proposed park restroom policy, drafted by the consultant (MIG), during a discussion on the Parks Master Plan. The MIG policy proposed in the draft Parks Master Plan states, “Strive to provide the following features in every public park, appropriately scaled for the size and intended character of each site: o Provide restrooms except where alternatives (adjacent businesses or public facilities) exist or site is under 1 acre in size” Some Commissioners explained that they need more information to make a policy recommendation concerning park restrooms. In response, staff created a spreadsheet that shows size of each park, if the park has an existing restroom, if the park would require a restroom per the proposed policy, and if staff recommends a restroom at a park (Attachment A). Our park system has 14 parks that have existing restrooms. MIG’s policy would result in adding restrooms to 13 parks that currently don’t have restrooms. Staff recommends adding restrooms to the following seven parks: - Draft 1.Bol Park (13.8 acres)2.Bowden Park (2 acres) 3.Eleanor Pardee Park (9.6 acres) 4.Johnson Park (2.5 acres) 5.Ramos Park (4.4 acres) 6.Robles Park (4.7 acres) 7.Terman Park (7.7 acres) These seven parks are large enough, have enough amenities and use to warrant restrooms. Staff feels the following six parks, recommended by MIG to have restrooms, are not appropriate locations for restrooms: 1.Boulware Park: The park is small (1.5 acres), relatively low-use, and has limited street side parking. 2.Cameron Park: The park is small (1.1 acres), relatively low-use, few amenities, and has limited street side parking. 3.Esther Clark Park: It is a low-use park, with few park amenities, and has limited street side parking. 4.Hopkins Park: The park is located along San Francisquito Creek. The creek setback requirements would limit the possible placement of a restroom. It is a low-use park, there are few park amenities, and limited street side parking. The developed sections of the park, where a restroom might fit, are .67 acres. 5.Weisshaar Park: The park is small (1.1 acres), there are few park amenities, and has limited street side parking. 6.Werry Park: The park is small (1.1 acres), relatively low-use, few amenities, and has limited street side parking. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Park Restroom Analysis PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________ DAREN ANDERSON Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community Services Department Palo Alto Parks Existing Restroom Requires a Restroom under Proposed Policy Staff Recommended Sites for Restrooms Number Park Name Neighborh ood Parks Open Space Preserves 1 Baylands Athletic Center 6 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 2 Baylands Preserve 1940 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 3 Bol Park 13.8 No Yes Yes 4 Boulware Park 1.5 No Yes No (The park is small, relatively low-use, and has limited street side parking.5 Bowden Park 2 No Yes Yes 6 Cameron Park 1.1 No Yes No. (The park is small, relatively low-use, few amenities, and has limited street side parking) 7 Cogswell Plaza 0.5 No No No 8 El Camino Park 12.19 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 9 El Palo Alto Park 0.5 No No No10Eleanor Pardee Park 9.6 No Yes Yes 11 Esther Clark Nature Preserve 22 No Yes No (It is a low-use park, with few park amenities, and has limited street side parking) 12 Foothills Park 1407.7 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 13 Greer Park 22 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 14 Heritage Park 2.01 No No. (Roth building remodel will have public RR) No (Roth building remodel will have public RR) 15 Hoover Park 4.2 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 16 Hopkins Creekside Park 12.4 No Yes No (The park is located along San Francisquito Creek. The creek setback requirements would limit the possible placement of a restroom. It is a low-use park, there are few park amenities, and limited street side parking. The developed sections of the park, where a restroom might fit, are .67 acres) 17 Johnson Park 2.5 No Yes Yes 18 Juana Briones Park 4.1 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 19 Kellogg Park 0.245 No No No 20 Lawn Bowling Green 1.9 Yes (inside club house) Already Has RR Already Has RR. 21 Lytton Plaza Park 0.2 No No No 22 Mayfield Park 1.1 No No (adjacent to Library with a RR) No (adjacent Library has a RR) 23 Mitchell Park 21.4 Yes Already Has RR No (Although added use due to Magical Bridge Playground may require additional RR or expand existing RR capacity) 24 Monroe Park 0.55 No No No 25 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve 622 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 26 Peers Park 4.7 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 27 Ramos Park 4.4 No Yes Yes 28 Rinconada Park 19 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 29 Robles Park 4.7 No Yes Yes 30 Sarah Wallis Park 0.3 No No No 31 Scott Park 0.4 No No No 32 Seale Park 4.3 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 33 Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields 5.9 Yes Already Has RR Already Has RR 34 Terman Park 7.7 No Yes Yes (Consider requesting PAUSD to partner) 35 Weisshaar Park 1.1 No Yes No (The park is small, there are few park amenities, and has limited street side parking) 36 Werry Park 1.1 No Yes No (The park is small, there are few park amenities, and has limited street side parking) Number of Restrooms 14 13 7 Acres 173.40 3991.7 4165.10 Draft policy called for adding restrooms at 13 parks that currently do not have restrooms. Staff recommends adding restrooms at 7 parks (identified above in bold font). Fourteen of the 36 parks/preserves have existing restrooms. Acres Park Restroom Analysis ATTACHMENT A